Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Slashback: Vaidhyanathan, Oregon, Opteron

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the miss-parker-and-the-vicious-circle dept.

Slashback this evening with a few more notes on AMD's upcoming Opteron processor, Siva Vaidhyanathan (three times quickly), Oregon's open source bill, and more. Read on below for this round of updates and amplifications. That Charlie's no dummy. softwareJoe writes "Tim Bray has come right out saying that if IP chancer Charlie Northrup manages to enforce his most recent claim, the consequences would be 'disastrous.'

'It would become impossible to have Open Source implementations of key pieces of the infrastructure. This would be harmful, perhaps fatal, to the grand plans of those who want to deploy Web services everywhere,' Bray is reported as saying, in XML Industry Newsletter ."

Waiting for the low-power version. Jethro writes "Ace's hardware Opteron review was a very interesting read which shows some real Java webserver benchmarks on SUSE and Debian Linux, and real world database performance in MySQL and MS SQL server 2000. A lot better than those synthetic mysql benchmarks that Tom's hardware served up."

And Distinguished Hero writes "[H]ardocp.com ([H]ardNews 1oth Edition) is reporting that the Opteron processor does not actually have an integrated dual channel controller. This explains why all the Opteron reviews only used a single channel configuration. While the integrated memory controlled is not dual channel, it can be bypassed by an external (Northbridge) memory controller connected to the processor via the HyperTransport bus."

One more: EconolineCrush writes "Yesterday's Opteron launch gave us all glimpse at AMD's new 64-bit platform, but the Opteron is a server and workstation chip that will be out of reach for the majority of consumers. AMD's upcoming Athlon 64, however, will bring 64-bit computing to the desktop. Drawing heavily from what we've seen of the Opteron's performance thus far, Tech-Report has posted its thoughts on what it will take for the Athlon 64 to succeed. It's an interesting read for anyone salivating at the thought of an affordable 64-bit desktop platform."

Ma'am, can you please ask those anarchists in the carrels to pipe down a bit? BrianWCarver writes "Readers may recall a Slashdot interview with Siva Vaidhyanathan, Professor at NYU, and author of Copyrights and Copywrongs. Vaidhyanathan is working on a new book, The Anarchist in the Library, and was interviewed on the blog, Eyeteeth. This is a brilliant and amazing interview where Vaidhyanathan discusses how creative communities share, the DMCA, the American industrial production of culture, the USA Patriot Act, the importance of libraries and librarians, and the policies of the FCC. It is a must-read for those who care about the future of creative and democratic culture."

Technically, Oregon is not Washington. Daniel Phillips is among the many folks who have been following the progress of a bill in Oregon (HB 2892) to encourage open source software, and he points out this Register story (picked up from NewsForge, actually), writing "Apparently, moving Oregon's open source bill forward comes down to convincing the house speaker."

Reader PotatoHead fleshes that out just a bit: " Despite reports detailing the demise of HB 2982, this bill continues to be a topic at the Oregon Legislature. We have broad support for HB 2892, but need everyone to continue showing support in the form of your phone calls, e-mails, faxes and snail-mail to your Oregon Representatives. We have the attention of the Oregon Legislature in a pretty big way and need to keep up the good work if HB 2892 is to move forward against the constant efforts of the usual industry lobbyists. If you don't already know, here is how you contact your representative. Please take a moment --right now-- and show your support for HB 2982. Every contact matters as we continue to move forward with HB 2892!"

Sir, can you direct me to the nearest buggy whip store so I can beat this dead horse? If $98 billion seems to you a bit much for the music cartel to charge students for even the most indiscriminant file swapping, you may be interested in following the chilling effects that it generates, too: PL_2003 writes "A follow up on a previous slashdot article. It really seems like the recording industry is determined to continue its fight.Check this NYTimes article (free reg. required). My Take: Couldn't they use their brains for a better business model?"

OK, here are the rules ... Grub (mentioned previously) is apparently causing consternation among many webmasters. Though they claim the client honors robots.txt , it seems that only the central servers check it (and don't honor it properly) and that grub clients don't don't check it at all. Ooops.

Time to round up and segregate the arrogant. jtheory writes "There's an AP story today here on Yahoo news) that the Justice department has dropped its probe into the recommendation policy of a Texas Tech bio professor. It's encouraging that all he had to do to stop the investigation was make some very minor changes in his policy, but it's still horrifying to me that he got into trouble in the first place. Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors? Would they ignore animal research results, etc?"

517 comments

  1. Opteron memory controller details by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The announced Opteron parts do not have dual DDR memory channels. They would need even more pins on the package, and it already has 940! But I imagine the source for the confusion in the early reports is that the single channel does support the optional use of 128-bit wide memory (144 bits including ECC). This would most commonly be implemented using pairs of 64-bit (or 72-bit with ECC) DDR DIMMs. It can support up to four pairs of DIMMs at up to DDR266 speed (PC-2100) or two pairs of DIMMs at DDR333 (PC-2700).

    The various motherboard photos seem to indicate that their are DIMM sockets to accomodate 128-bit memory. I would hope that the various benchmarks have been done with this configuration, since it obviously increases the memory bandwidth considerably.

    Reference: page 15 of the AMD Opteron Processor data sheet, AMD document 23932 rev 3.00 dated April 2003.

    1. Re:Opteron memory controller details by Xzisted · · Score: 3, Informative

      The announced Opteron parts do not have dual DDR memory channels. They would need even more pins on the package, and it already has 940!

      Thats not really true. For one...not all pins on the die are in use. Some of the dead ones could be relocated over to pick up the slack. And if I remember reading correctly Opteron is initially being released this way but in late 2003 or early 2004 they are completely switching memory to DDR2, but since DDR2 is as hard to come by as Jesus in a Bottle, it kinda doesn't make sense to release the chip supporting that standard.

      --

      Honesty may be the best policy, but apparently by elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
    2. Re:Opteron memory controller details by cheezedawg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The integrated memory controller has some obvious advantages, but I think its going to cause a lot of problems for AMD. Judging by AMD's recent performace with deadlines, the constant product refreshes that will be needed to keep up with new memory technologies will be difficult for them. And think of the confusion after a few product refreshes- are they going to assign a new model number to each new chip with different memory capabilities?

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    3. Re:Opteron memory controller details by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative
      By my count, there are 44 unused pins on the 940-pin package. Some of those may in fact be undocumented test pins, or be intended for other uses on future parts. But even assuming that all 44 pins could be used for another memory controller, that wouldn't be sufficient for another DDR controller, which requires 201 pins (129 if you'd settle for only 72 bit data with ECC, or 121 if you'd settle for only 64 bit data). Reference pages 45-46 of the data sheet.

      So a useful additional memory controller will NOT fit the same package.

    4. Re:Opteron memory controller details by turm · · Score: 5, Informative

      The announced Opteron parts do not have dual DDR memory channels

      I don't know where this crap is coming from. Certainly not from the document referenced in the parent post.

      A DIMM is 64-bits wide. The Opteron has a 128-bit wide memory bus, which means you need to use pairs of DIMMS much like the older P4's with Rambus memory.

      There are plenty of pins for this in the 940 package. The block diagram on page 11 of the the data sheet even shows the 128 MEMDATA pins.

      The memory controller is configurable to support a 64-bit memory bus (probably for desktop or mobile versions of the part), but in all the systems I've used you can't even boot with an odd number of DIMMS.

      Now you can decide for yourself if a 128-bit wide DDR bus is "dual channel" or not. I'm not going to argue semantics. I am, however, going to do the math and tell you that the Opteron paired with DDR333 provides 128*333/8 = 5328 MB/s of some seriously low-latency bandwidth. Oh yea and it scales with the number of processors too.

      DISCLAIMER: I work at AMD but I am not speaking on behalf of the company.

    5. Re:Opteron memory controller details by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative
      The block diagram on page 11 of the the data sheet even shows the 128 MEMDATA pins.
      And it just as clearly shows only one set of address lines. Which is fairly definitive evidence that there's only one memory channel. It just happens to support 128-bit wide memory.

      Yes, that does give you a lot of memory bandwidth. No, that doesn't make it "dual channel".

    6. Re:Opteron memory controller details by Boone^ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dual-width can be nicer than dual channel due to the latter's ability to return data seriously out of order. A good processor design can account for it, but not fix it. Dual width gives you nice bandwidth at a decent latency (don't kid yourself, SDRAM has never been synonymous with "seriously low-latency") and shouldn't break the logic cell bank since there's still only 1 logic controller. The only down side I see to this is that you're locked into one type of memory technology, basically guaranteeing the fixed lifespan of the product. What happens if Yellowstone takes off? What about DDR2 at speeds of 533 667 Mbit?

    7. Re:Opteron memory controller details by ashpool7 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since the AMD guy went out of his way to *NOT* claim the Opteron's method was, in fact, "Dual DDR", what is your problem?

      Considering that you can only grab one hunk of memory to use at one time in an operation, Dual DDR and Opteron 128 whatever do the exact same thing: grab twice as much data as needed.

      Difference is thus:

      Dual DDR grabs the *next requested memory address* AFTER the current operation completes. (the way the nForce chipset works)

      Opteron grabs the next contiguous memory address *at the same time.* I would guess the rest gets shoved into the L1. (based on the fact that AMD guy is asserting that the extra bits on the bus actually transfer data from memory)

      So, in instances where the memory you want comes in monster contiguous hunks (paging, multimedia, whatever) Opteron guarantees a 100% hit rate on the L1 cache. Even if there are only a couple bunched together, this helps.

      In instances where single pieces of data are accessed in a scattered fashon in memory, Dual DDR eliminates a couple wait states. This doesn't seem as fast as the former.

      Does anybody have any statistics about memory accesses that indicate a majority of them request the next contiguous piece of memory?

    8. Re:Opteron memory controller details by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't have the specifics in front of me to quote from, and if I did, I'd probably be NDA'd but - a certain recent PA-RISC cpu underwent a respin that enhanced its pre-fetch logic to automagically prefetch the first cache-line of the following page on access of the last cache-line of the current page. I was told that this simple algorithm was mostly responsible for a ~10% increase in SpecFP (don't remember which revision) from one version to the next.

      Not a direct answer, but perhaps a lantern on the path.

      So, does an Operton have 64-bit or 128-bit cacheline size?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    9. Re:Opteron memory controller details by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't have any problem with any AMD guys. I have a problem with magazines and web sites that claim that there are two DDR channels, a claim which AMD does not (AFAIK) make themselves. There's only one channel, which happens to have twice the data width. Yes, it has higher bandwidth (duh!).

      But claiming that it has two channels is like claiming that a Ferarri is two cars, because it's twice as fast as a Honda. If it were two cars, it could go to two different places at once.

    10. Re:Opteron memory controller details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were they referring to the fact that each processor has its own memory controller, so two processors means dual channels?

    11. Re:Opteron memory controller details by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure its L1D, L1I and L2 all have 64 byte cachelines (512 bits), which mean that a linefill will require a 4-transfer burst over a 128-bit bus.

      Unfortunately the datasheet doesn't say. This page seems to corroborate with me on the linesize.

      --Joe
      --
      Program Intellivision!
    12. Re:Opteron memory controller details by turm · · Score: 1

      There's only one channel, which happens to have twice the data width.

      OK finally I think we've gotten to the bottom of this. Hardware purists may want to refer to Opteron's memory controller as "a single 128-bit wide DDR channel" rather than "dual channel DDR" because technically it's not.

      I'm not well-informed as to the performance differences between 2x64b and 1x128b DDR busses. In theory they have the same peak bandwidth.

      Thanks for the spirited debate, Eric.

    13. Re:Opteron memory controller details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The processor only transfers data in cacheline increments typically 64 bytes(512 bits). This would translate into 4 clock edges on a 128bit wide DDR bus. nVidia claims that the true dual channel will hide latencies. I really don't know how this is a benefit since any well designed DDR chipset from Intel or ServerWorks will seamlessly integrate reads and writes over a single 128bit wide DDR channel without any additional latencies.

      I would speculate that a 128bit single channel will perform better than a dual channel.

    14. Re:Opteron memory controller details by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1

      Good point, I hadn't thought of that. Maybe that's what the various articles meant, though it would have been nice if it had been more clearly explained.

  2. Where do they come up with these names? by TaraByte · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Siva Vaidhyanathan? Is that even pronounceable?

    --
    Security is inversely proportional to the commitment of one desiring to circumvent it.
    1. Re:Where do they come up with these names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      India, you insensitive clod. :)

    2. Re:Where do they come up with these names? by The+Bungi · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's pronounced 'Smith'.

    3. Re:Where do they come up with these names? by mad.frog · · Score: 1

      And here I thought it was pronounced "luxury yacht"...

    4. Re:Where do they come up with these names? by stevejsmith · · Score: 1, Insightful

      However much of a troll that was, I think I need to intervene: how can you call an Indian a "sand nigger"? There is little to no sand in India. You could call an Arab a "sand nigger" (not condoning it, just saying that iwould make sense), but certainly not an Indian. They are very different. Maybe a Pakistani, but that name is certainly Hindi/Sanskrit and he's from India and certainly not near any sand. If you're going to do racial slurs, at least do them right.

    5. Re:Where do they come up with these names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are deserts in India, you racist cunt.

    6. Re:Where do they come up with these names? by stevejsmith · · Score: 1

      But unlike the Arab world, there are very small concentrations of people living in the deserts because there is so much fertile land to live on. Lord, why the hell am I wasting my karma on this?

    7. Re:Where do they come up with these names? by etcpasswd · · Score: 2, Informative
      Most of the Indian languages are phonetic, unlike English. It is difficult to explain the correct pronounciation of an Indian word in English alphabet. This name is pronounced as: si-va vai-dya-naa-than.

      si = shift (approximate)
      va = vulnerable
      vai = why
      dya = the + yummy
      naa = banana
      than = thumb + noun

    8. Re:Where do they come up with these names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      looks like somebody was laid off from a company with indians. If you can't get a job, atleast get a life.

    9. Re:Where do they come up with these names? by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      Of course it is. A mere five characters for the surname in my mother tongue, Telugu.

      As to where do they come with the names, I'm guessing he's a Tamilian, which means his surname is his dad's first name. If I remember my Sanskrit correctly, it literally means 'master of health', or a doctor.

      --
      More than mere navel gazing.
    10. Re:Where do they come up with these names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what exactly do you mean? I only see people like you and the stupid maries calling arabian people that stupid name, and this is a recent invention. You people should be hanged from the higest trees.. There is no justification for racism in a modern technocrates life. I pity you and I pity your attempts at feeding these trolls.

    11. Re:Where do they come up with these names? by ddimas · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have no problems with that name.

      Sincerely,
      Constantinos Dimopoulos

    12. Re:Where do they come up with these names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're spot on.

      The only state that has any desert in India is in what is now called Rajasthan (== "land of kings"). It's a pretty popular tourist destination and hosts India's nuclear test sites as well (ook).

      Most of India is in fact pretty fertile because of the monsoon and several perennial rivers.

      And oh, screw the trolls.

    13. Re:Where do they come up with these names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure it's not "throat wobbler mangrove"?

    14. Re:Where do they come up with these names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sand? Sounds like someone has sand in their vagina.

    15. Re:Where do they come up with these names? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you fucking dumbass. he never said that we should call them niggers he just said that it didnt make any fucking sense

  3. 64-bit computing to the desktop by snuffdiddy23 · · Score: 1

    AMD's upcoming Athlon 64, however, will bring 64-bit computing to the desktop. so we can give a full 64-bits to one backdoor network or the next.

    1. Re:64-bit computing to the desktop by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for 128-bit computing so that my IP address can fit snugly in a single register. Performance web serving! Or something.

      --ZS

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    2. Re:64-bit computing to the desktop by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      Ooops. I meant "IPv6" address. I use the preview before posting! Really!

      --ZS

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
  4. The RIAA better win... by ZenShadow · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...against those college students. They'll make nothing from it, but the results of them losing could be pretty ugly.

    Could you imagine the counter-suit? I'd call a $98 BILLION lawsuit against "poor" college students "malicious prosecution."

    --ZS

    --
    -- sigs cause cancer.
    1. Re:The RIAA better win... by Dylan+Zimmerman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly. If the students fight, then they would win a battle for EVERYONE and they would be able to counter-sue the RIAA for quite a sum of money.

      Let's see if we can list all of the cries that the RIAA has committed against them.

      Libel, for one. Calling them criminals and pirates when they've done nothing wrong is most certainly defamation.

      Malicious prosecution would most certainly apply. The RIAA has instigated just about the most unjustifiable and unreasonable civil litigation in this case that I've ever heard about.

  5. Unprecedented levels of confusion... by xcomputer_man · · Score: 4, Funny

    HB 2892 ... HB 2982 ... HB 2892 ... HB 2892 ... HB 2982

    Perhaps we might actually get this bill through if we managed to figure out what the correct number is for once.

    --
    Am I a hipster-doofus?
    1. Re:Unprecedented levels of confusion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't we just get them all through?
      Especially any which delete laws.

    2. Re:Unprecedented levels of confusion... by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      You know what would be funny? Being the clerk that assigns numbers to these bills. Then you could make:
      HB 2892 = Open Source Promotion
      HB 2982 = UCITA.

      And watch people changing sides without even realizing it >:)

  6. Opteron by exhilaration · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hey, anybody know of a source for Opteron systems? What about pricing? Specifically, I'd like to get my hands on a top of the line dual-CPU box. I think a lot of people would be willing to splurge $2k on a decent Opteron-based workstation.

    1. Re:Opteron by Xzisted · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.newisys.com http://www.racksavers.com http://www.pssclabs.com

      --

      Honesty may be the best policy, but apparently by elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
    2. Re:Opteron by XBL · · Score: 1

      ASUS nForce Pro 3 motherboards will be available in June. This chipset doesn't support dual processors, however. All other motherboards for the Opteron in the near future are likely to be for servers only, and therefore pricy (and not ATX).

    3. Re:Opteron by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      Didn't you see the price points they were giving? the CPUs alone for that would be almost $20000, the board would probably be at least $300, with no AGP slot (Opteron boards aren't supposed to have them since they're servers), and then you have to think about memory, video network, hard drives, etc, etc. I'd imagine it would be hard to outfit a multi-proc Opteron for much les than $5000.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    4. Re:Opteron by mgblst · · Score: 2, Funny

      To keep the price down, just get 128Mb of memory.

    5. Re:Opteron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      modded 2?

      is this automatic?

      this guy says "get only 123mb of memory"

      automatic 2?

      wtf

      slashdot blows.

    6. Re:Opteron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      http://www.newisys.com http://www.racksavers.com http://www.pssclabs.com

      Be careful of PSSC Labs. They're nice people, they have good prices and use good quality parts in general, but they don't stand behind the products they sell. If you have intermittent hardware problems that they can't reproduce with their crappy testing procedure, they won't fix it or replace it.

    7. Re:Opteron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Didn't you see the price points they were giving? the CPUs alone for that would be almost $20000

      No, must have missed that!

    8. Re:Opteron by afidel · · Score: 1

      Why not ATX, almost all dual processor servers outside of the big OEM's are based on ATX boards.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    9. Re:Opteron by Dynastar454 · · Score: 1

      Dude, where's the mod points when you need them. +5 funny.

      --


      Laugh at stupidity: mod idiots +1 Funny.
    10. Re:Opteron by Glock27 · · Score: 2, Informative
      ASUS nForce Pro 3 motherboards will be available in June. This chipset doesn't support dual processors, however. All other motherboards for the Opteron in the near future are likely to be for servers only, and therefore pricy (and not ATX).

      Via is also doing an Opteron workstation chipset (including AGP), and it will support dual CPUs. Sorry, I don't have a link handy.

      Opteron will be a very popular workstation CPU, IMO.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  7. Three Times Quickly... by philovivero · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hell, saying Siva Vaidhyanathan three times quickly is trivial.

    It's saying it one time correctly that's the challenge.

    --
    fifth sigma, inc.
    1. Re:Three Times Quickly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think timothy is just being racist

    2. Re:Three Times Quickly... by Wakkow · · Score: 2, Funny

      Siva Vaidhyanathan? Yeah, well, at least you're name isn't Michael Bolton.

    3. Re:Three Times Quickly... by philovivero · · Score: 1

      "There WAS nothing wrong with [the name Michael Bolton] until I was about 12 years old and that no-talent ass clown became famous and started winning Grammies."

      -- Office Space

      --
      fifth sigma, inc.
    4. Re:Three Times Quickly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      racist? ignorant.

    5. Re:Three Times Quickly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... How many of us are now trying to say "philovivero" correctly?

    6. Re:Three Times Quickly... by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Come on Slashdot, you can do better than this.

      How is Siva Vaidyanathan any more difficult than Norman Schwarzkopf, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Condaleeza Rice?

      I expect disparaging condescension from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Not here.

      Magnus.

    7. Re:Three Times Quickly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we are, for the most part, from the western hemisphere and have been exposed to a very limited subset of languages, and the names of Schwarzopf et al. fall within that subset. Whereas, the majority of westerners have never really been exposed to the Indian culture nearly as much.

      You go to far when you suggest that this is a matter of "disparaging condescension." You could not be further from the truth. The poster did not read the article and think, "He is Indian and so he is worthless. I shall belittle him and his funny name." He likely thought, "I can't pronounce his name. Let's post anyways."

    8. Re:Three Times Quickly... by rhekman · · Score: 1

      > I expect disparaging condescension from Fox News
      > or Rush Limbaugh. Not here.

      I've never regarded Rush Limbaugh or the more conservative personalities on Fox News as rude and condescending. However, I am politically conservative, so at this point I should expect liberals to start vilifying my person, morals, and intentions.

      Ultimately, your snide remark was more off topic and inappropriate than the original comment. Such an act, I, unlike you, would expect from a low-modded post on /.

      --
      I like teamwork. It's easier to assign blame that way.
  8. Alienating their customers by MrCaseyB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When these college kids graduate, go onto careers of their own they will be in the position to BUY music rather then spend time searching and downloading it off the current hot p2p app. But will they be interested anymore?

    Why would the record industry want to constantly go after their own best customers and future customers? Im no longer in college myself, don't buy much music anymore cause I prefer 80s music. I do buy a ton of DVDs though. The reaso nbeing there is great value in DVDs. I get superior picture quality and sound, a nice keep case, art work, special features, comentaries, interactive content, all for $14-$21.

    If the record industry could offer such great content at a reasonable price, sales would skyrocket.

    Instead they charge far too much for far too little, and on top of it, they constantly attack their own customers with threats and lawsuits and bullshit like CDs that wont play on their computer. Then they lobby for laws that punish not just music pirates but all people who wish to use the internet without restrictions. It's really quite amazing how a group of billionaires can be so ass backwards.

    Im hoping their is a major backlash from the millions of students in this country.

    1. Re:Alienating their customers by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      Im hoping their is a major backlash from the millions of students in this country.

      Is it just me, or did your mind flip through "backslash/slashback" while parsing that word, too?

      *smirk*

      --ZS

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    2. Re:Alienating their customers by abhisarda · · Score: 3, Informative
      There's a protest planned against the RIAA at MTU

      Lode

      and Tompkins(MTU President) and Texas Congressman spar over copyrights

      Lode

      The RIAA is just kicking itself in the butt. So sad..
    3. Re:Alienating their customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The major labels pretty much missed their opportunity to hold me. I got a lot ticked when they hit Napster (which was my primary means of figuring out what musicians would interest me), so I started looking for alternatives. One of my co-workers listens to a lot of local artists (seeing them at various local venues), and he introduced me to several of them. So, I've been keeping my eye out for smaller groups with an interesting sound, and I've been picking up their CDs as I run into them. Almost all are either self-produced or produced through a very small label. It's worked out rather nicely so far, and this way I'm getting energetic, fresh music, rather than the latest mass-produced pablum.

      Quite nice, try it some time.

    4. Re:Alienating their customers by Dylan+Zimmerman · · Score: 1

      I must say, I've been pretty satisfied with my latest CD purchases.

      I got Busted Stuff from the Dave Matthews Band and it came with a pretty cool DVD with all sorts of extras.

      Then, I got The Best of 1990-2000 from U2. It was two CDs and a DVD. It didn't cost too much, either.

      However, the RIAA member companies still charge way too much for most CDs.

    5. Re:Alienating their customers by MrCaseyB · · Score: 1

      >Then, I got The Best of 1990-2000 from U2. It was two CDs and a DVD. It didn't cost too much, either

      I love U2. Thats one of the few mainstream releases I've bought this past year. I already own all the songs and B-sides on CD, but I bought that because it was a particularly good value. I download a lot of music, much of it out of print, much of it hard to find because its not popular or not good. I do not download music that I can just as easily buy.

      When I can find a good CD for a fair price, I will buy it everytime. But that hasn't been happening lately. I do not wish to support the damn RIAA companies, My interests has been leaning towards DVDs and the music today isnt my style. So I have purchased much less music this year then in years past. Is that because im pirating it? No. Dwindeling record sales are caused by many things, it can not be blamed solely on pesky college kids downloading music and those evil P2P technologies.

    6. Re:Alienating their customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, is this one college student who is very aware of the RIAA member list. I probably never made much difference considering I've always gravitated to underground and independant labels.

      However, now I make it a point to avoid purchases from any RIAA member labels. I used to buy some music from the majors, they have had a few great acts IMO, but all things considered I can definitely do without when I imagine how they are spending the profits from their sales to me. It definitely won't happen anymore.

      My solution is to study music and purchase materials to make my own music. They can do whatever they want to discourage and prevent me from illigitimately being entertained by their products. It doesn't matter any more. I'm though trying. Instead I'll make my own damn music for myself to enjoy. I don't mind sharing either.

      Even if they could take so far as to lock down the internet etc. Doesn't matter to me anymore. I can still kick out tunes in my basement and have a great time. I don't need them and my life is way to short spend it mired in all their bullshit. They can keep their fucking cake, and when nobody buys it and they have millions of copies in surplus they can fucking eat it or shove in their asses for all I care.

      Piss on them, and piss on their plans. I'm doing it my way.

    7. Re:Alienating their customers by awol · · Score: 1

      I do buy a ton of DVDs though. The reaso nbeing there is great value in DVDs. I get superior picture quality and sound, a nice keep case, art work, special features, comentaries, interactive content, all for $14-$21.

      I do not mean to preach, and I am certainly not criticising, but I too used to buy many DVD and then I had a revelation that if I was going to gripe about the actions of the MPAA et al I really ought not to fund them through the taxes inherent in my DVD purchases (by taxes I mean non cost based elements of price) [I don't buy non artist produced CD's either for the same reason]. So I stopped and despite the occasional pain, I haven't bought a DVD in about 18 months, maybe longer. Now I am not throwing out my old ones, and I believe in the DVD standard, but I just can't justify funding the studios whilst they proceed to try and eliminate my rights. I still go to the cinema, perhaps I should stop that as well, but at least there I am paying for the other aspects of the cinema experience and funding an industry in which I believe (the cinema industry)

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    8. Re:Alienating their customers by dildofire · · Score: 1

      When these college kids graduate, go onto careers of their own they will be in the position to BUY music rather then spend time searching and downloading it off the current hot p2p app. i don't know how true that is. i was in college when napster was big, and graduated right about the time it went bust. just because i had some money then didn't mean i went back to buying cds. i think the RIAA has come to realize that once you're a pirate, you're a pirate for good. as long as there's free music out there, no one who is halfway computer literate is going to buy their CDs. the whole situation is the RIAAs own fault. if they would have stepped up and partenered with napster at the beginning, we'd all be paying our $10 a month napster bill for authorized content from the record companies.

  9. I see... by Sheetrock · · Score: 3, Insightful
    So segregating people intolerant of Creationistic views is a bad thing, which I understand, but segregating people with Creationistic views would be a good thing?

    I don't think it's right to exclude someone from medical practice just because they don't ascribe to the theory of evolution. They're still capable of observation and understanding the scientific process, perhaps even more so than those who blindly adhere to a theory because they keep their minds open to the possibility that it is wrong. Science isn't about religious prejudice.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But religion is.

    2. Re:I see... by KnightStalker · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      They're still capable of observation and understanding the scientific process, perhaps even more so than those who blindly adhere to a theory because they keep their minds open to the possibility that it is wrong.

      Don't know many creationists, do you?

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    3. Re:I see... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Well, I know quite a few intelligent creationists. Just because some set of a group are stupid/evil doesn't mean that they all are. Same as vegetarians, free software advocates, Windows users, Arabs, and politicians.

      Well, maybe politicians are a bad example.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    4. Re:I see... by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      I never said creationists were stupid or evil. What they are is ignorant. Deliberately so. They absolutely do not admit the possibility that the ideas they blindly adhere to might be wrong.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    5. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What they are is ignorant. Deliberately so. They absolutely do not admit the possibility that the ideas they blindly adhere to might be wrong."

      And this differs from those who believe in evolution, how?

    6. Re:I see... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you are saying is patently false. Creationism may not be a scientific point of view, but the idea that science is the only way to validate knowledge is a very narrowminded view -- and you're hearing this from someone who believes in evolution. Just because someone disagrees with you about some point (which doesn't make any practical difference to most people's lives anyway) doesn't make them ignorant. It makes you intolerant.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    7. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't know many creationists, do you?


      I am! Most of my friends are.

      Haven't seen many fossils of transitional forms, have you?
    8. Re:I see... by foofboy · · Score: 1

      I'll bite...

      Can you give me an example of another way to 'validate knowledge' besides the scientific method?

    9. Re:I see... by haystor · · Score: 1

      Creationists take a scientific view.

      You just have to take "faith" as your first axiom.

      --
      t
    10. Re:I see... by rco3 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Can you give me an example of another way to 'validate knowledge' besides the scientific method?

      Well, reading it on Slashdot comes to mind...

      Oops, forgot the sarcasm tags.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    11. Re:I see... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Yes. Religious beliefs are a perfectly good way to "validate knowledge." It happens to be unscientific, and is thus labeled ignorant by people who don't know the difference.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    12. Re:I see... by Dreamweaver · · Score: 1

      Then, technically, wouldn't people who believe that that thing on their computer is a drink holder or that wearing a tinfoil hat will protect them from the alien/government mind-control satellites have 'validated' their 'knowledge'? I'm sure that they have just as much conviction about their beliefs as your average creationist (or evolutionist, for that matter). And since the scientific method does not have to apply, what difference does it make that the drink holder says CD-ROM on it?

      --


      "If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.
    13. Re:I see... by Total_Wimp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think he was being especially intolerant. The first two conditions for writing a letter of recommendation were:

      1- a demonstration of excellence (you had to get an "A" in one of his classes) and
      2- he had to know you personally.

      Obviously he believes that a recommendation is something more than a simple statement that the person knows the subject matter. He obviously feels it's a personal endorsement that reflects on him.

      I don't think it's too much of stretch for him to say you also have conform to beliefs that he personally holds as extremely important to the subject he teaches to get that personal endorsement. I don't think it shows intolerance of any belief, but rather says that he can't personally endorse you if you haven't really absorbed his teaching in the manner in which he intended it.

      Put another way, would you require a Black Studies professor to write a letter of recommendation to a KKK member just because he was capable of explaining what racism is? Would that be "intolerant" of the professor? I think you could require him to give the "A" in the class, but the letter.... I don't think so.

      TW

    14. Re:I see... by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      Science is not a way to validate knowledge. The process of science is a method of gaining and explaining facts. You can confirm data. You can invalidate a theory. But if you have some knowledge, I think it is going about things the wrong way to try to use science to validate your preexisting knowledge. Maybe someone with a better understanding of the theory of science can clarify this.

      I am certainly intolerant of creationists, and other people who make no attempt to educate themselves and prefer to just believe whatever they're told. This stems directly from the period of time in which I was a creationist. :-)

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    15. Re:I see... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      If someone has a belief system that causes no harm and describes how they see the world ... what's the problem with that?

      For a more concrete, easier to digest example: political views are virtually always unscientific. You can't add up a bunch of numbers and get "Vote Nader" out. And yet we, (excluding the few zealots who everyone ignores), recognize that multiple political outlooks can be used to inform your decisions, and that holding one political view over another doesn't make you ignorant.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    16. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is a transitional form???

      Organisms are always in transitional form.

    17. Re:I see... by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      The key word there is "believe". The theory of evolution is based on evidence, and therefore is not blindly adhered to. Well, some people certainly do adhere to it blindly, but the evidence is there for anyone to study. This is in direct contrast to creationism, which presents little to no evidence and consists mostly of attacking evolution.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    18. Re:I see... by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      I'll take you up on this flamewar. Every fossil is a transitional form. Hah!

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    19. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...No, science is the only way to validate knowledge. "Validate" indicates some degree of reproducability, or if not directly reproducable, a series of otherwise reproducable steps that can indicate an inductive or deductive process that supports the observation.

      I could just as easily say that modern electronic theory is complete bunk. Anyone with commonsense about electronics equipment knows that when the blue or black cans, or the little brown beads with color stripes, or the pretty golden lines on the green boards, when something in that equipment releases its blue smoke, then the equipment does not work.

      The electrical distribution is not about electricity, it is about blue smoke delivery.

      You can wave all your mathematical theories of Maxwell (they are just theories), Clark, Ampere, Ohm, Volta, etc. in my face, but what can you say about the observation at hand, that when something releases its blue smoke, the device stops working?

      And there is the difference between a reproducable body of knowledge (science) and a coincidental body of knowledge (creationism).

      I personally do not doubt "creationism", but do doubt that it is guided by some intelligent force, as well as those who claim that the literal text of Genesis is supportable and should be given equal treatment as science, especially the 7-day stuff.

      Might as well buy my wife and two girls burkas now.

    20. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science is a way of validating knowledge. Until it has been validated (or, at least not invalidated), it really is no more than a belief.

      Validation of fact implies that it is reproducable by other people.

      An easy example of invalid knowledge, Cold Fusion comes to mind easily. It could not be reproduced, and thus not validated.

      When you work in an industry where validation has serious meaning (Pharmaceuticals or the Space Shuttle program), you begin to understand...

    21. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Creationism merely means that in an explanation you accept "and then a miracle occurs".

      I wish the bank accepted that for my balance.

    22. Re:I see... by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree. To say, without the context in your post, that "science is a way of validating knowledge" implies that the knowledge came from some nonscientific source (i.e., the Bible, your imagination, overheard on the bus, whatever), and you use science to prove that you're right, and that's what I was disagreeing with. In my understanding, you can use science to investigate these sources of knowlege, but using science to validate them seems to be wrong.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    23. Re:I see... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      "Validate: tr.v. ... 3. To establish the soundness of; corroborate." I see no reason in the definition why religious beliefs cannot validate something. If you're going to argue that "validate" means "scientifically prove," then you're rewriting the dictionary.

      As far as "giving creationism equal treatment" goes: Should we teach it as fact in schools? No. School science classrooms are places for science, not religion. However, should the teachers tell the students that if they believe in creationism, that makes them ignorant? That's what Knightstalker is saying, and that's what I take issue with. The people who dismiss anyone else's beliefs as stupid, ignorant or otherwise worthless are the ones who really annoy me. A blanket statement of that nature is not part of any intelligent debate; it's just a cheap attempt to cut down those you see as your "opponents."

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    24. Re:I see... by nathanh · · Score: 1
      ... but the idea that science is the only way to validate knowledge is a very narrowminded view

      Yeah, it's not the only way, it's just the only way that works.

    25. Re:I see... by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

      Can you prove that observing something doesn't alter the results? If it does alter the results; to what degree?

      (No, I am not a creationist.)

    26. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ummm... actually, the bulk of scientific evidence says absolutely nothing about the truth of the theory of evolution one way or the other. In fact, viewed with a proper "scientist's" discerning eye, much of the documented evidence would seem to suggest that the theory of evolution is not valid.
      Take, for instance, the actual fossil record. According to the theory, there should be a definite, traceable record of evolutionary change continuing more or less unbroken all the way back to the beginning, recorded in stone, especially in areas that were formerly lake/ocean beds, where sedimentation is a rapid process, and much more likely to result in the entombment and fossilization of a wide variety of organisms. However, study of such geological formations reveals a definite lack of such a definitive record. To quote Niles Eldredge, a leading expert on invertebrate fossils--

      " No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff facces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change-- over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution."

      In light of such a dearth of hard physical evidence, and also in light of such "anomalies" as the Precambrian Explosion, what are we to believe about the theory of evolution in general, and the claims of arrogant professors who ignorantly claim that the evidence is sufficient to claim human evolution as "fact"?
      Not only is evidence lacking in the fossil record, but the theory breaks down on the level of microbiology as well. Pick up any scientific text attempting to detail the possible evolutionary sequence of, say, basic vision and eyesight, and you will be subjected to a great number of "supposes" and "possiblies" and blatant glossing over of a lot of very tricky problems. Even the most basic of vision systems-- the simple ability to differentiate light from dark-- involves a large number of highly specialized proteins acting in extremely complex ways. None of those texts can give any valid precursors for most of the chemicals and proteins involved, or any explanation as to how dozens of highly specialized proteins could suddenly appear between one evolutionary "step" and the next. Remove one chemical or protein from the chain, and the entire system breaks down. And since no valid precursors can be found, or even hypothesized, for many of the involved substances, they all must have "evolved" or come about in one single step, or they must necessarily have been culled from the genetic record as useless wastes of substance and energy that do not contribute to the survival of the organism.
      And eyesight is simply one of hundreds of such "irreducibly complex" systems for which microbiologists struggle, vainly, to find an evolutionary explanation.
      Of course, this doesn't in and of itself completely invalidate the theory of evolution. It is mathematically possible (if astronomically improbable) that such a complex system could evolve in one step as a result of a wildly coincidental set of wide-ranging genetic mutations. (The tired old infinite number of monkeys given an infinite number of typewriters analogy). Further complicate the math by adding hundreds of other complex systems that must evolve against the odds, and you are talking about an occurrence of such extreme mathematical improbability as to verge upon the impossible, especially given the relatively short time period it must have occurred within (only a few billion years, not much time next to the sheer number of mathematical permutations), and the vast number of separate evolutiona

    27. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Keep learning. The entire sequence of eye development is present in nature. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html Your first point, that development of light-sensitive material is a problem -- all that is needed is for a mutation (any mutation) to make a neuron sensitive to light in a primitive translucent creature (by looking at present eyes we can see the current protein which does that, and there probably was a simpler protein). Not that such a poor construction as the vertebrate eye is something to give as an example of "design".

      You're also confusing "probability" with "fact". No matter how unlikely it is that you even exist to read this, you did do it. Drop a bunch of coins, and no matter how unlikely that this combination of heads and tails occurs, it did happen.

    28. Re:I see... by j3110 · · Score: 1

      I think the point I see trying to be made is that validating any belief with another belief that hasn't been validated, or rather in the case can't be validated, is meaningless.

      Unless religion is an axiom, it will require justification. Religion is "faith" based. Faith is a belief without justification. Basically, the very definition of religion, as in faith-based organization, is an unfounded belief.

      You can't use one unfounded belief to justify another.

      If I could use one unfounded belief to justify another, I could say that there are no gods. I could use this as justification for putting people in homes for believing that there is a god. If I could justify my belief that there is no god, then I would be right to do so.

      Just to relate this back to the original topic:

      Christians, among other religions, often have been guilty of believing that disease comes from God. The Bible even says this plainly. It would be against their beliefs, and thus a conflict of interest, for them to treat a disease that God sent intentionally. Are they christian first or are they doctors first???

      I've met several christians that think AIDS and Cancer was sent by God to take out the evil people (gay, promiscious people, etc.).

      I don't know about you, but if I get sick, I don't want a doctor that thinks God is punishing me for being naughty trying to help me.

      I'm biased though, because I think religion has been the worst thing to happen to man-kind. People use religion to "validate" a lot of their crazy killing. If anyone believes that religion actually validates anything, you're off your rocker in my mind :)

      --
      Karma Clown
    29. Re:I see... by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      Wow, that took a while to read and recover from.

      At first I thought it must be cut and pasted from somewhere on the web, but searching on key phrases doesn't reveal anything.

      Note that this anonymous message embodies everything I've said about creationists: It offers no evidence in support of creationism, and even predicts (accurately, no doubt) that there will be none, because God presumably says so, although there is not even any evidence given of that. It consists almost entirely of challenges to evolution. It includes a section attacking the legitimacy of the scientific method and declaring that science is done by peer pressure. (Not a conspiracy theory, but close.)

      Note, again, that no evidence, at all, is given in support of creationism.

      I especially like the smokescreens... "centuries" compared to "a meager few billions of years".

      I will not try to answer each of those points. Instead, I will refer you to the actual evidence for evolution.

      There are several facts that have convinced me that evolution has occurred:

      The most important, to me, is the fact that all life can be organized into coherent groups based on many different criteria such as body chemistry and anatomy, and changing the criteria doesn't change the groups. All insects have six legs. All mammals have hair. All animals have eyes, a mouth, a digestive system, blood, a heart, bilateral symmetry, breathe oxygen, et cetera. All flowering plants are vascular. All citrus trees are flowering plants. All conifers are *not* flowering plants, but are also vascular. For a better example here (part of the previous link).

      Also, there is the geographical distribution of these groups of animals and plants. They are different everywhere in the world, and in fact, many places that have been isolated for a long time have entire groups of animals and plants that only exist there.

      The fossil record consists of fossils which only exist in certain strata, and more developed forms typically are not found before less developed forms. Humans, for example, are not found more than a couple of million years ago. Dinosaurs are not found more recently than 65 million years ago.

      The age of the earth can be calculated by many independent methods. They agree, within a certain margin of error. This is not evidence for evolution per se, but a very old earth is a requirement of evolution.

      Do the research for yourself. But if you persist in refusing to accept science as a valid source of knowledge, to bring this back on topic, I won't support your right to get a recommendation from a professor toward a license to practice medicine. I'll bet you're terrified. :-)

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    30. Re:I see... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Creationism probably isn't a scientific explanation.
      But it might be provable. That is the argument of
      design theorists. They avoid the artificial limitations
      of the Popperian model of science by resort to
      deductive proof.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    31. Re:I see... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Just because someone disagrees with you about some point (which doesn't make any practical difference to most people's lives anyway) doesn't make them ignorant.

      It does make a large practical difference to the understanding of biology, medicine, disease, immunity, etc... all rather vital for a doctor, especially one who wants to go into research, which was what the original story was about.

    32. Re:I see... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Do you happen to have any links to some good stuff on that? I admit, I don't tend to think to well of those who attempt to put religion into a provable scientific framework -- but that's mostly because I haven't heard much of anyone but the nuts.

      Since everyone seems to be pissed off about my attacking the scientific establishment, I will say: Science types are no better or worse about attacking different viewpoints than religious people. Religious fanatics will often claim that they are enlightened, and those who believe in science are blind. Those participating in this debate have taken exactly the opposite view.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    33. Re:I see... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Science and religion are not incompatible, even if they contradict each other. Coming from a scientific background, they should know about the theory of evolution, and understand its application to medicine, and still believe that God created the earth. Indeed, it's interesting to note that the proportion of scientists that hold particular religious beliefs is generally not much different than that of the rest of the population.

      As a side not, I'm not particularly convinced that knowledge of evolution is very important to the work of a doctor. Granted, I'm not one, but I don't see how the treatment of disease today depends on whether or not we came from sea slugs, the Garden of Eden, or the vital organs of a Greek god.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    34. Re:I see... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Certainly not all design work has been religiously
      based or motivated, but some of the best editorial
      work has been done in a religious milieux:

      The proceedings of this
      1996 conference cover presentations of work done
      from a wide variety of viewpoints. I found it
      fascinating.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    35. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they admit the possibility that they may be wrong. But they also admit the possibility that YOU may be wrong. And for them, their answer is the better one.

      Generally speaking, there is no evidence either supporting or refuting the creationist hypothesis. Everything we observe can be attributed to the actions of a divine creator. Therefore, rejecting the creationist hypothesis out of hand is foolish. No evidence supporting, none contradicting. The rational position is to either hold no definitive opinion about creation, or to follow one's own conscience.

    36. Re:I see... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      As far as "giving creationism equal treatment" goes: Should we teach it as fact in schools? No. School science classrooms are places for science, not religion. However, should the teachers tell the students that if they believe in creationism, that makes them ignorant? That's what Knightstalker is saying, and that's what I take issue with. The people who dismiss anyone else's beliefs as stupid, ignorant or otherwise worthless are the ones who really annoy me. A blanket statement of that nature is not part of any intelligent debate; it's just a cheap attempt to cut down those you see as your "opponents."

      The point is that people who advocate Creationism do not belong in a biology program - they reject the basic tenets of Biology. They are ignorant. Furthermore, beliefs have no place in science; they are dismisssed because they are not theories, facts, or reliable methodologies, and therefore useless from a scientific standpoint. You can believe whatever you like, just keep the religion in church.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    37. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There are several facts that have convinced me that evolution has occurred:

      Okay. So?

      Everything you said could be adequately explained by saying that "God did it."

      There is no evidence either supporting or refuting the hypothesis of divine creation.

      Look at it this way. On the table you have a fig newton, a jelly donut, and an apple pie. You look at all the evidence and conclude that it looks like the three objects represent different stages of evolution. The fig newton is simplest, the jelly donut is more complex, and the apple pie is the most complex of all. Ergo, the pie evolved from the fig newton.

      That's a perfectly valid hypothesis. In the absence of any other facts, there's nothing wrong with that hypothesis.

      Along comes the creationist, who said that the newton, the donut, and the pie were all made by the Divine Baker. You scoff. "Clearly the pie represents a more evolved form of the newton!" you say. The creationist calmly responds, "Yes. Because the Divine Baker made them that way."

      Bottom line: we don't know which of you is right and which is wrong. Because we've never seen evolution in action-- in fact, it cannot be observed, due to its inordinately long baseline-- we can't draw any definitive conclusions about whether or not it happens. Obviously offspring differ from their parents; this is implicit in sexual reproduction. But we have never observed one order of life evolving into an entirely different order of life, so the question is still very much open.

      Those who say that evolution is absolutely wrong are fools. Those who say that creationism is absolutely wrong are ALSO fools.

      Here endeth the lesson.

    38. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science is not a way of validating knowledge. It is only a way of invalidating knowledge.

      Scientists accept as axiomatic that is impossible to prove anything above the level of observable fact, and even then things get fuzzy. If you drop an apple one thousand times, the only thing you have proven is that it has fallen one thousand times. You have not proven that it will not shoot upward on the one thousand and first time, although based on your observations you can predict that it won't with a degree of certainty that varies depending on what you've seen thus far.

      It could not be reproduced, and thus not validated.

      There is room in science for the notion of the unreproduceable result. Consider basic chaos theory. Chaos theory (apart from being somewhat trendy) describes systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Let's say you want to conduct the classic experiment of measuring the acceleration of gravity by rolling balls down an inclined plane. Let's imagine, for sake of argument, that you can measure the elapsed time with an impossibly high degree of precision. Repeat the experiment ten times. You will get ten different results! Air currents affect the speed of the rolling ball. Seismic vibrations caused by trucks driving by on the highway across town affect the speed of the rolling ball. Thermal expansion of the inclined plane affects the speed of the ball. How much? Not much at all. But enough to make a measureable difference, if you accept as a condition of the thought experiment that we can measure intervals of time with great precision.

      Results, therefore, are inherently unreproduceable. We get around this by rounding off. We repeat an experiment a thousand times and toss the results through a series of statistical hoops. In the end, we come up with numbers that allow us to make reasonably good, but not perfect, predictions about our world.

      The very most important thing to know about science is what its limitations are. They're closer and much more severe than many people seem to think.

    39. Re:I see... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Why should those who disagree with part of a class be thrown out? It doesn't sound like they want to change the school curriculum -- they simply want to be able to hold a personal belief that differs from that of the professor's. Only those who are unable to defend their beliefs have reason to be frightened of the beliefs of others.

      Much more reasonable would have been for the teacher to ask them to explain the theory of evolution. If students can understand and apply it, what's the big deal if they don't necessarily believe it?

      I can see it now ... people getting tossed out of school because of nonconformist thoughts. Somehow, I find the prospect a little bit frightening.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    40. Re:I see... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Why should those who disagree with part of a class be thrown out? It doesn't sound like they want to change the school curriculum -- they simply want to be able to hold a personal belief that differs from that of the professor's.

      My reading is that the prof refuses to recommend students who hold beliefs incompatible with Medicine. What's the big deal about that?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    41. Re:I see... by t · · Score: 1

      If it stayed in the church then I'm sure no one would have a problem with it. The problem originates when they try to get it taught in science classes. If they ever try to teach politics in science class then I'll bitch about that too.

    42. Re:I see... by vertical_98 · · Score: 1

      So if some believes in a god, and believes that that god created life, that person is ignorant? What if you are wrong? What if God did make the world in 6 days? Can you prove it? No, you can not. No more than I can prove we are the evolutionary descendents of another species.
      You seem quick to point a finger at something you can not disprove. You know as well as I do that for every arguement that you have for the pro, I can have for the con.
      I don't want to start a fight on Slashdot over whether God exists or not. I'll never prove to you that he does, and vice-versa.
      Personally, I think that you are displaying the same narrow-mindedness that you heap upon Creationists.

      Let the modding and Name calling begin...a sure sign of intelligent thought.
      Vertical

      --
      72 CD D7 52 D0 7E D8 47 44 91 D5 84 D1 59 F1 A9-This is my 128bit integer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    43. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the theory, there should be a definite, traceable record of evolutionary change

      You assume that we know everything there is to know about fossil creation, and that we have searched every possible fossil location and discovered every possible fossil. None of which is the case.

      Whatever. I believe in evolution just as much as you believe in creationism. Neither of us can "prove" it one way or another, but the evidence for me points to no God and evolution being more likely. So I believe it with as much faith (If not more) than is required by someone who believes in God and creationism.

    44. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that people who advocate Creationism do not belong in a biology program - they reject the basic tenets of Biology.

      Actually my brother in law is Mormon and currently working towards his Phd in Micro Biology.

      For the record, I am firmly Atheist & I believe evolution. My wife is Mormon and believes strongly in creationism (Even the young earth theory). She doesn't complain when I watch Discovery and BBC natural history programs and I don't belittle her ideas. Go figure.

    45. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. What do you people expect to see? What the hell is a "transitional" lifeform?

      See that seems to be the problem with many creationists. They misunderstand the basic theories of evolution and then because of their own failure to understand it, claim it is rubbish.

      Evolution is a very slow, gradual process. A chimp didn't squat in the bush one day and drop a little human baby; the changes were gradual! Just because one chimp family had these changes, doesn't mean they all did. Thats why there are still chimps!

      I really don't get it. Its like holding a paper upside down and claiming that the editor must be an idiot because you can't read the headlines.

    46. Re:I see... by JASegler · · Score: 1

      Actually, I wouldn't say that you can't observe evolution.

      When I was growing up, My dad and I hunted rabbits. You could kick a rabbit up, the dogs would chase it and it would come back to where it started in a fairly short run (1/4 mile usually).

      The a few years later we had a large coyote problem come into the area which wiped out most of the rabbits. When they came back their behavior was much different. The rabbits would run for a mile or longer before coming back to where they started.

      Evolution in action. The rabbits that could run longer/faster survived being found by coyotes and lived to breed.

      You can find examples of small steps of evolution if your paying attention. If small steps occur, those steps over large periods of time would become large.

      But it does boggle the mind that in the end we came from something the size of the common cold.

      Personally, I think it'd be funny if when these ppl got to heaven God said, yes I created evolution. I didn't want to spend all my time tinkering with all the animals on that little blue spec.

      -Jerry

    47. Re:I see... by thogard · · Score: 1

      Its quite possible that its happens very quickly. For example a generic mutant that becomes the next species may be have several different properties. For example if a mutation chances the size of a creatures' offspring, they may also have different organs. Some changes are very rapid. This may explain why cats come in fixed sizes and there aren't any in the middle sizes. For some reason cats come in the same volume ratios as violins like instruments. Just like a something between the size of a violin and a viola won't work right, some size cats just don't work.

    48. Re:I see... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Well, AFAICT, nobody was trying to teach religion in a science class here. The problem was that people were claiming that nobody should hold particular religious beliefs, because they are "ignorant." I agree with you on the not-in-science-class bit; it was just the general intolerance that offended me.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    49. Re:I see... by foobar104 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Evolution in action.

      No, it's not. That's natural selection, which is a subtly but distinctly different thing.

      If you'd said that you came back the next summer and suddenly the rabbits in your field had been unable to successfully breed with other rabbits, that would have been something like evolution. (Speciation, anyway.) And if you'd said that all the rabbits had become leopards or something, that would have been evolution in action.

      The point is that it's silly to deny that natural selection happens. Look at human beings and CCR5-(delta)32. That mutation makes a person resistant or immune to bubonic plague, and also incidentally to AIDS. Because the plague wiped out so many Europeans in the 14th century, the occurrance of CCR5-(delta)32 in people of European extraction is much, much higher than it is in people of other ethnicities. This explains why AIDS is much more devastating in Africa and Asia than it is in Europe and America. Natural selection happened in the European population 600 years ago. The people without resistance to plague and AIDS died in the late 1300's, so now their descendants are less susceptable to the disease.

      But it's not the evolution that everybody gets up in arms about. We have seen organisms change over generations, through natural selection. We have even observed speciation, indirectly. But we have never seen an entire class or order of organisms evolve into a different class or order. We've never seen a rabbit evolve into a leopard. Not even through the fossil record have we seen this happen.

      For obvious reasons: that sort of change happens, if it happens at all, over a timeline that's far too long for humans to observe.

      Personally I think evolution is as good a theory as any. But it's not a fact. Not yet, anyway. And there's still plenty of room for belief in divine creation as opposed to evolution for explaining how we got here.

    50. Re:I see... by KnightStalker · · Score: 1
      So if some believes in a god, and believes that that god created life, that person is ignorant?

      No, I didn't say that. That is not the definition of creationism. It is quite possible to believe in God and at the same time also be informed about scientific facts. If someone refuses to investigate the vast body of evidence for evolution and prefers instead to take comfort in a myth with no evidence at all, *that* person is ignorant. You should investigate the actual evidence before assuming that I'm just talking out of my ass. I didn't make this stuff up. :-)

      What if God did make the world in 6 days?

      If so, then he has deliberately planted evidence to make it look like he didn't.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    51. Re:I see... by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      Okay, so?

      So, you should research it for yourself, which apparently you have not done. Please read the document I linked to in the post you responded to. We have seen evolution in action; and it can be inferred from the fossil record, which consists of more than three data points.

      Everything you said could be adequately explained by saying that "God did it."

      What does that explain? After that statement is made, I have no better understanding of the phenomena. On the contrary, the theory of evolution explains *why* those phenomena are the way they are.

      Ergo, the pie evolved from the fig newton. . . . That's a perfectly valid hypothesis.

      No, it isn't. That's similar to assuming dolphins evolved from sharks, based on their similar body structure. This is not, however, the case, because dolphins and sharks are also very different.

      For one thing, pies and Fig Newtons don't reproduce. That makes it rather difficult for them to evolve. If they did reproduce, and there were no evidence of bakers, I would say that it's plausible that the pie evolved from the newton. Or perhaps the newton evolved from the pie. The jelly donut would seem to be a completely different species. I'd want to know that there were more than two confectionary fossils before coming to that conclusion, though.

      But we have never observed one order of life evolving into an entirely different order of life,

      If my understanding is correct, this is not believed to ever have happened the way I assume you imagine it. Instead, through speciation, and over a huge amount of time, the descendants of some primitive species have become different orders of life.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    52. Re:I see... by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      That's a perfectly valid hypothesis. In the absence of any other facts, there's nothing wrong with that hypothesis.

      That's true. However, in the absence of any evidence, it's garbage as a theory.

    53. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have seen evolution in action

      No. We haven't. We have seen natural selection in action. We have observed that different species in an order share common characteristics. We have observed that different orders of species share common characteristics. We have never observed one species evolving into an entirely different order. That happens over a timeline that is far too long for humans to observe, and even the fossil record is no help on that account.

      I'm not denying that it happens. I'm just saying that we don't know one way or the other. It's a good theory to explain what we've observed, but it's not inherently better or more valid than the creation theory.

      After that statement is made, I have no better understanding of the phenomena.

      The idea is that there is no phenomenon happening here. The idea is that the diversity of life exists because it was created that way. If you want to look for another explanation, that's fine. But to reject the creation hypothesis out of hand is just as foolish as rejecting evolution out of hand.

      For one thing, pies and Fig Newtons don't reproduce.

      Wow. Did YOU ever miss the point. Holy cow. I don't think I've ever seen a point missed so dramatically as that.

      Instead, through speciation, and over a huge amount of time, the descendants of some primitive species have become different orders of life.

      Yes, that is exactly what the theory says. But it's not something we've observed. It's something we've inferred from our woefully incomplete observations of other things. Which means it's possible that it's not true. Which means it's possible that the creation hypothesis is true.

      Which means we, as rational people, have no choice but to admit that the jury is still out, and to keep an open mind.

    54. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not exactly sure where the actual validation comes in. Just because co-members of your religion agree does not qualify as validation because they all got their knowledge from the same place to begin with.

    55. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you read the linked policy, the professor gives one extremely good example. The current crisis in antibiotics. Antibiotics which, at one point seemed on the verge of eliminating many classes of diseases, are now useless in many cases. This is happening in large part because these antiobiotics have been overused and natural selection has brought us resistant strains against which the antibiotics do not work. According to the theory of evolution this is probably nearly inevitable in any case, however more careful use of antibiotics, in accordance with the theory of evolution, probably could have held this phenomenon back for many more years.

    56. Re:I see... by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      So, AC, have you at least skimmed the document I linked to earlier? Have you read at least the section I specifically linked to? Or have you read some equivalent statement of the evidence for evolution? I see no indication that you have. If you have, please say so. If not, I am forced to conclude that you are arguing out of ignorance.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    57. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conclude whatever you like. I've made my case, and your linked articles have nothing whatsoever to say about it.

      You are suffering from the same affliction you accuse others of having: willful ignorance.

    58. Re:I see... by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      You should really read it, or something like it. There's a lot you don't know.

      Here's the link again: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

      No one has to know. :-)

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    59. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I repeat myself: there is nothing in there that's even remotely compelling evidence of large-scale evolution. Sorry, but it's still just a hypothesis.

      You are free to adopt the "I know more than you" condescending attitude, of course, but you should probably be aware that it may not be the truth.

    60. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your argument is seriously flawed. For starters, you seem to be confusing the size of the apple pie with complexity. Your typical Apple pie is surely less complex than a fig newton or a jelly donut. My argument for that is that the crust of an apple pie and fig newton are roughly equivalent, but the filling of the fig Newton requires more processing and is therefore more complex. Also, the Fig Newton may require a more complex baking process and requires a special machine to make. You can argue that there are many different recipes for apple pies and only one fig newton recipe and that some apple pies are more complex than fig newtons and some are less complex. That is your own fault however. You sought to compare apple pies, an entire family of baked goods, with fig newtons which is one, single distinct product made by one company. As for the jelly donut. How complex a creation it is depends a lot on whether or not you consider the creation of the jelly to be part of the process of creating the donut. That is a very important question...

      Anyway, to get to my point. Doing a little research (a very important early step in the scientific method) into the subject, I would say that the order of evolution of the products is apple pie first, then jelly donut, then fig newton. The fig newton was invented in 1891. Round fried dough cakes without holes in the center called Olykoek were made in the fifteen hundreds and generally contained a filling because otherwise the dough on the inside would not be fully cooked. I am sure that people used all sorts of preserves and jellies for that well before the advent of the fig newton. As for pies, human beings have been making pies since at least the middle ages and probably quite a lot earlier. Apple is just one of many fillings that have been used.

      So, while you may be correct that it is a valid hypothesis that apple pies evolved by fig Newtons, the scientific method generally recommends researching that hypothesis before coming up with experiments. Research gives a concrete date for the invention of the fig newton and there are concrete historical examples of apple pies before the fig newton. Unless you come up with another hypothesis that all of the past is lies or is imagined or is faked somehow(also a "valid" hypothesis, but invoking it renders all discussion pointless, more on that below) then we know that it is an incorrect hypothesis that the apple pie evolved from the jelly doughnut.

      Now, you said "you scoff 'Clearly the pie represents a more evolved form of the newton!' you say". I am going to assume that the you here is not just the poster you were responding to, but the stereotypical scientific thinker. Its a charming little ad hominem attack on the scientific thinkers supposed ego and a straw man argument at the same time. Of course you also said that this was in the absence of any other facts. Clearly this invalidates my research above, because we are dealing with a hypothetical world where there are no facts. While that may be a paradise for creationists, it creates a huge problem with the words you were putting in the scientific thinkers mouth. Unless the hypothetical individual who you refer to as "you" in this example is only a scientific thinker under a hypothetical definition of science that exists in this hypothetical universe, s/he would not say any such thing. In the absence of facts, the scientific thinker would not reach any conclusions. If there are facts in this hypothetical universe and they are anything like the ones in our universe, then the scientific thinker still does not say that, because the scientific thinker is capable of looking at the facts and thinking. In either universe however, the creationist, with his faith that the divine baker created all food stuffs just as they are in the time of mans infancy, might very well respond the way you have had him respond (interesting that you make the scientific thinker smug and the creationist calm by the way). Personally, I think the creationist you ment

  10. To pronounce it by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Vaidhyanathan? Is that even pronounceable

    I'm guessing it's approximately "See-vuh Vye-Jonathan"

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:To pronounce it by bheer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, from the correct Indian pronunciation:

      Shiv-uh (Siv-uh is fine too)
      VYE-Duh-NAT-hun

      Vaidya means 'physician' in Sanskrit, FWIW.

      --
      Go somewhere random
    2. Re:To pronounce it by bheer · · Score: 1

      Slightly offtopic, but interesting: The Trouble with Indian Names.

      --
      Go somewhere random
    3. Re:To pronounce it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      laid off ?
      you know just because indians are better than you are and alot more economic does not mean you should go on insulting them...
      get a life motherfuckerrrrrrrr...and while you are at it get a job

  11. grrrr by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "A biology student may need to understand the theory of evolution and be able to explain it. But a state-run university has no business telling students what they should or should not believe in," Ralph Boyd Jr., assistant attorney general for civil rights, said in a statement.


    Right. For example, it would be completely beyond the pail were a state-run university to require that medical students believe in... medicine.
    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    1. Re:grrrr by sholden · · Score: 1

      Why should they?

      If I qualify for the course and can pay the fees then why should I be denied a place in the course just because I personally think medicince is a load of crock?

      Maybe I'll learn that it isn't? Maybe I'll prove it is once I have the required learning, and we can all go back to praying for the sick?

      If I believe, say, blood transfusions are evil, and hence will not allow myself to have one, but don't mind others having them, why shouldn't I be a doctor?

      If my belief means I refuse my patients blood transfusions, or fail to mention they are a possible treatment for some condition, then I obviously shouldn't be a practising doctor. Not because of my beliefs, but because of the actions (or inactions) those beliefs result in. If another doctor did the same, because they were embaressed by their inability to pronouce 'transfusion' the results are identical and so should be the ban on practicing.

      And what about those who want to study medicine but don't want to become doctors? I guess a socialist might ban them taking up a valuable slot - but a free market capitalist type couldn't do without being hypocritical. (We'll ignore those that study medicine in order to be scientists and never actually practice).

    2. Re:grrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...every doctor has beliefs. When you see your doctor next, bring up something that is pretty controversial in the medical field, like fibromyalgia.

      There are doctors that believe that it is psychosomatic, and thus not a physical problem.

      There are those who believe that it is a physical condition, albeit not one of any particular cause.

      There is at least one urologist I've heard of that does not use a scalpel to make an incision for performing a vasectomy, but pulled the scrotum apart with stats. Naturally, my wife made sure I did not get scheduled for this doctor. (No, I cannot say where I got "fixed" at.)

      My wife also worked with a psychiatrist who was convinced that many mentally ill patients had magnesium deficiencies, and needed more magnesium in their diet, not Prozac.

      Doctors' beliefs DO guide their actions, just like anyone else.

    3. Re:grrrr by sholden · · Score: 1
      Doctors' beliefs DO guide their actions, just like anyone else.
      Obviously, but the beliefs themselves don't matter to judging whether the doctor is compotent or not.

      The actions determine that.

      For example, it doesn't matter what reason the doctor had for prefering stats to a scalpel - what matters is the choice itself, not the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind it.
      .
    4. Re:grrrr by afidel · · Score: 1

      Because they have limited resources with which to teach a future generation of doctors which will be doing more for this society then 90+% of people? This is not s socialist's viewpoint but a capitalists viewpoint, it is ineffecient to waste resources when they could be applied to productive outputs. The cost of a medical education is just a downpayment on a future ROI.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:grrrr by sholden · · Score: 1

      If the student can afford the fees then the capitalistic university should accept them. The university doesn't make more profit from those who become practising doctors than from those who graduate and go to the beach.

      A state funded university is different, since the state benefits from more doctors. But state funded education is socialism.

    6. Re:grrrr by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      If I qualify for the course and can pay the fees then why should I be denied a place in the course just because I personally think medicince is a load of crock?

      If you don't believe in medicine (after taking the course), what the hell are you doing trying to get into med school? Seems like an excessive effort to test your precious beliefs.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    7. Re:grrrr by sholden · · Score: 1

      So what?

      Why shouldn't I be allowed to put excessive effort into something?

    8. Re:grrrr by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't I be allowed to put excessive effort into something?

      Go right ahead. Just don't expect any help on your fool's errand.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    9. Re:grrrr by t · · Score: 1

      Alumni are by definition a source of future income. To maximize your profitability you want only people who will graduate and then become very rich, and thus feel generous when they give back to their alma mater.

    10. Re:grrrr by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      If my belief means I refuse my patients blood transfusions, or fail to mention they are a possible treatment for some condition, then I obviously shouldn't be a practising doctor.

      That is, I assume, exactly what this professor is implying. If someone does not believe in evolution, then they will be likely to make poor judgments as a doctor. They have already made an error in decision making in a scientific matter due to religious fanaticism. That's a pretty clear indication, isn't it?

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    11. Re:grrrr by sholden · · Score: 1

      I don't think so.

      People will always make illogical decisions in some areas, it does not necessarily mean they are incompotent.

      Practicing medicine as a doctor doesn't involve much scientific work (depending on the type of doctor) anyway.

      Do you really think a creationist will be inherintly worse at prescribing pills than an athiest? Or at interpreting xrays? Or at performing heart surgery?

      Anyway a creationist who has actually thought about evolution and decided they think it is unlikely will quite possibly make a better scientist than someone who just believes everything they were told by their high school teacher who probably graduated in the bottom half of his/her high school...

      Now I admit dismissing evolution is a pretty damn big conclusion to reach - but maybe they are actually thinking about it and are still forming their opinion, just at that very moment they are leaning towards creationism.

    12. Re:grrrr by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Someone who doesn't believe in evolution, for example, might not be as vigilant about making their patients finish antibiotics. The reason for always finishing your antibiotics is so that you will be less likely to allow bacteria with a slight resistance the ability to propagate. Were there no such thing as evolution, this would not be an issue whatsoever.

      This example popped into mind after thinking about the problem for about five seconds. I'm sure there are other items that might only occur to me if I were a doctor. Perhaps "prescribing pills" was just a poor example for you to pick, iduno.

      Dismissing evolution is more than just a big damn conclusion to reach. It's on the same order as insisting that the Earth is flat. If you've honestly looked at the evidence, and decided that the Earth was flat, and your religious beliefs also happen to insist that the earth is flat, I would submit that you are a religious fanatic with a poor grasp on reality. I wouldn't want flat-earthers in NASA either.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    13. Re:grrrr by sholden · · Score: 1

      Creationists tend not to deny the existance of what they call 'micro-evolution' (I think that's the name) which bacteria evolution counts as. That micro and macro evolution are actually exactly the bloody same doesn't matter.

      Even if they do, then all that matters is whether they follow the required practiced (and hopefully best practice). If they don't then they'll get booted, not because of their beliefs but because of their actions.

      Dismissing evolution is not the same a insisting on a flat Earth. The latter is obviously false through every day experiences, and even measureable by a 'normal' person - unless you have an exotic flat earth theory (where say light is affected by the Earth's gravity more than it should be and hence curves a lot creating the horizon effect, and I guess magical teleporters beam you from one end to the other). After all any one who can go to med school can travel around the world on transport ships...

      Even so a flat earther could make a compotent doctor too...

      Creationists have choosen to believe their religion over their science. I don't think that makes them morons in other areas. It just means they have choosen to believe the interpretation which is not favoured by evidence in order to not face a challenge to their belief system. People do that all the time. A pro-iraq-war person might state that war with Iraq has *nothing* to do with oil - they are clearly are letting their beliefs get in the way of their logic. An anti-iraq-war person might state that war with Iraq is *all* about all - they are doing the same. It doesn't make them bad doctors.

      If they always do that they won't make a good scientist. Since the belief causes actions that conflict with performing the job of a scientist correctly.

      However, they might make a good doctor. As long as they don't have beliefs such as "prayer should be used *instead* of surgery", their beliefs shouldn't affect their performance in their job.

    14. Re:grrrr by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      As an AC pointed out elsewhere:

      "If you don't beleive in evolution you don't beleive in conventional medicine and it would be unethical for you to make recommendations to patients based on something you beleived to be untrue."

      I'd say that the distinction between micro and macro evolution is just as exotic as your flat-earth example, no matter how oft repeated it is. I didn't say that they were morons; I just said they were religious fanatics with a poor grasp on reality. If I were a professor giving out recommendations to medical school, that is not the type of person I could recommend.

      I understand your general point. Treat the candidate as a black box. If the black box does good things (actions), recommend it. If it does bad things (actions), do not. Don't descriminate based on what is in the box(beliefs).

      However, based on my personal experience (and perhaps that of the professor in question), an espoused belief in creationism is very firm evidence that they will perform poorly as doctors. Witness GW's recent FDA appointments.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    15. Re:grrrr by sholden · · Score: 1

      "If you don't beleive in evolution you don't beleive in conventional medicine and it would be unethical for you to make recommendations to patients based on something you beleived to be untrue."
      I disagree with that statement on two counts.

      People exist who do not believe in evolution and who do believe in conventional medicine. The two beliefs may be inconsistant and contradict each other, but people hold conflicting beliefs all the time. Our brains cope just fine believing things which contradict.

      Secondly, I don't think it is unethical to make recommendations that I don't believe to be true. If those recommendations are the required or best practice of a role I have. I consider it the same as doing something that I don't believe is the correct action because a role I have requires it. If I was a soldier who thought that the US should not have invaded Iraq without a UN backed coalition, it wouldn't be unethical for me to do my job as a soldier in Iraq - I should follow orders even if I disagree with them (unless they are illegal).
  12. creationists by exhilaration · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors? Would they ignore animal research results, etc?

    That's a slippery slope you're suggesting.

    Should we exclude people from becoming doctors because they believe that Jesus came back from the dead - a belief which is both unscientific and contrary to our understanding of medical science?

    1. Re:creationists by tstoneman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I completely agree. I'm not a creationist, but I fully support their right to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they don't shove it down my throat.

      I work with plenty of devout Hindus, and their beliefs are complete foreign to me (don't eat cows because they are sacred animals, they believe in not just one god, but many different gods, etc). Personally, I don't subscribe to any of it, but that's just my own personal belief, they are completely free to believe whatever they want, and who knows, they could be right and I could be wrong!

      Why is it that creationists are so looked down upon, but other religions that, for example, believe that the world is sitting on an elephant that is sitting on a turtle are okay? Is it because it is expected that white people in North America should know better, but non-whites are free to believe whatever they want?!? That to me seems at the very least bigotted.

    2. Re:creationists by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Very slippery.

      I would have to say that I don't care what my doctor's beliefs are... As long as his/her beliefs do not affect the job. Someone can freely believe that the world was created 5000 years ago, that dinosaurs never existed, and that there is no such thing as evolution; yet still believe enough of modern biological thinking to believe in germs, virii, and assorted other medical beliefs.

      But, the moment that a persons beliefs interfere with scientific thinking (such as denying the existence of germs,) then I have a problem.

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
    3. Re:creationists by J.+J.+Ramsey · · Score: 1

      "Should we exclude people from becoming doctors because they believe that Jesus came back from the dead"

      No, because as a miracle, the resurrection is supposed to defy what medical science would predict.

    4. Re:creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are more average people who believe that jesus came back from the dead. total average sheep, lemmings.

      harmless.

      but the creationist.....they are overrepresented when it comes to loons.

      sorry to say, but it's true.

      i'd let an average christian, hindu, or islamic doctor check me out.

      but a creationist?

      hell no.

      slippery slope my ass.

      slippery slope argument is not real, it's a technique to instill fear into a person and make them change their mind.

    5. Re:creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now in that case, why don't you tell most of the people working around the world in the Salvation Army, Red cross, Red Crescent and thousands of Christian-based hospitals to quit their jobs and get a life because of their principles and beliefs?

    6. Re:creationists by Dylan+Zimmerman · · Score: 1

      Well, you see, the HIV is constantly evolving. Any doctor who does not believe that evolution is a fact should not be working with HIV.

      I agree that people should be able to believe what they want to, but there are far reaching consequences to some of these beliefs. It isn't easy to see how a knowledge of evolution could help fight infection, but it can.

      Similarly, it isn't easy to tell when a closed minded doctor wouldn't see something vital because it doesn't coincide with what he believes.

      Of course, I'm talking mostly about researchers here, but the idea can be applied to many areas of medicine.

    7. Re:creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may have something to do with the fact that the Hindus never marched on nations to spread their "gospel", killing thousands and pillaging/raping/enslaving others in the process.

      It's quite simple, really. Christianity took its strongest roots in Europe, and thus with the white man. As history shows, Christianity brought with it the Conquests^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCrusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and many other exploitative acts. The white man also did this...Trail of Tears, the Louisiana Purchase, Indian Reservation Camps. The two go together very often, and both separately and together share a history of bloodletting.

    8. Re:creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well if I was seeking medical attention and a doctor told me "your in gods hands now" that would lead me to belive one thing, that the person I am speaking to is an incompentent fool.

    9. Re:creationists by dmaxwell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it that creationists are so looked down upon, but other religions that, for example, believe that the world is sitting on an elephant that is sitting on a turtle are okay? Is it because it is expected that white people in North America should know better, but non-whites are free to believe whatever they want?!? That to me seems at the very least bigotted.

      Or maybe because those who believe the world is sitting on an elephant on a turtle aren't making nuisances of themselves. I haven't heard turtle believers arguing loudly and often in front of legislatures that we need to throw out all of the astronomy and geology books. Incidentally, biology isn't the only science on the creationists' shit list; even physics would have to be...ah....modified to not state inconvienient facts.

      This isn't Western bigotry. If large numbers of turtle believers in our midsts were doing their damndest to drag us back to the 14th century, they'd be looked down on too. Every culture on this planet has problems with religious luddites. The creationists just happen to be ours.

    10. Re:creationists by TheKey · · Score: 1
      Uh? Actually, the professor guy didn't say he didn't like creationists. I quote from the site:
      If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation.
      He goes on to explain further:
      Why do I ask this question? Let's consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology prominent among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. Someone who ignores the most important theory in biology cannot expect to properly practice in a field that is now so heavily based on biology. It is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make poor clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance may partly be the result of such decisions. For others, please read the citations below.

      Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known; just as one can refer to the "fact" of gravity, even if all of the details of gravitational theory are not yet known. One can ignore this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one's understanding of science and the scientific method. Scientists do not ignore logical conclusions based on abundant scientific evidence and experimentation because these conclusions do not conform to expectations or beliefs. Modern medicine relies heavily on the method of science. In my opinion, modern physicians do best when their practice is scientifically based.

      The designated criteria for a letter of recommendation should not be misconstrued as discriminatory against anyone's personal beliefs. Rather, the goals of these requirements are to help insure that a student who wishes my recommendation uses scientific thinking to answer scientific questions.
      And it's not like he's not graduating them or anything. He just isn't going to recommend anyone who doesn't believe in evolution and other basic scientific principles.
      --
      My Journal - 1,337 fans and countin
    11. Re:creationists by t · · Score: 1
      Should we exclude people from becoming doctors because they believe that Jesus came back from the dead - a belief which is both unscientific and contrary to our understanding of medical science?
      First you would need to prove that jesus was indeed medically dead. If you cannot prove that then the rest of the argument is pointless as the question has no scientific basis to begin with. Also people have come back to life from apparently dead-like states.
    12. Re:creationists by lobotomy · · Score: 1

      Creationists are looked down upon because they want their mythology taught as science.

      Teach creationism as part of theology -- great.
      Teach creationism as part of biology -- ludicrous.

      I don't believe in the theory of gravity. Does that mean you won't recommend me for that physics position? I hope you wouldn't.

    13. Re:creationists by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      "as long as they don't shove it down my throat."

      That's exactly what they do. They lobby school boards to teach creationism and not evolution. I don't see Hindus or anyone else lobbying to teach their religion in a public school science class. Even among Christians, the creationists are a fringe group. Ask a theologian and most would say that Genesis is meant to be interpreted symbolically and not literally.

    14. Re:creationists by mbvgp · · Score: 0

      Hinduism does not believe in many gods but in god as the infinite. That means god is everywhere,around us and within us. This also means that you can use any image/idol whatever to represent God and worship god.
      So you can worship Jesus for all you want but you still can be a hindu if you believe in the philosophies ( i.e. infinite god instead of a single person).

    15. Re:creationists by damiam · · Score: 1

      Evolution is obviously a fact, and very few people will argue against that. What creationists oppose is macro-evolution, which states that evolution on a large scale is the sole cause of the diverse species of life on Earth.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    16. Re:creationists by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      Creationists *do not* believe that dinosaurs never existed.

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    17. Re:creationists by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      So now lobbying for equality constitutes shoving beliefs down someone's throat? The evolutionists are the ones shoving stuff down student's throuts.

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    18. Re:creationists by IamLarryboy · · Score: 1

      Discalaimer: I've posted this before but am posting it again because I think it is an important point. Oh and because I am a karma whore.

      ----

      It has been my experience that creationists such as Guillermo Gonzalez can be divided into 3 catagories.

      1) Those that do not know any better. These people believe that God created the earth and everything on it in 6 days because that is what they have always been taught. They are largely ignorant and have no real interest in looking into the facts. These people can be found in almost any church.

      2) Those that believe that God created the earth in 6 days because that is what the bible says and that is good enough for them. These people are completely unwilling to even consider even the consider the possibility that they are wrong. Often they ignore sound science and instead rely on sudo science to try and convince otherse and themselves that they are right and everyone else is wrong. They ignore all contradictory evidence and are as unscientific as can be. Thse people do both thier faith and their theories a disservice. These people can also be found in most any church and are very vocal. Often people beleive that this group are the only proponants of Intelegent design or creationism. An example of this group can be found at www.icr.org

      3) Those that beleive that God created the earth and all life on earth but not neccisarily in 6 days(as we would know them). These people "assume" (they do not really assume rather these they rely on these "assumptions" based on other evidence and experiences) that both the scientific record and the bible are 100% correct. Therefore, there should be complete agreement between the two. If there is an aparent disagrement either the scientific record has been interpreted wrong OR the bible has been misinterpreted or mis translated. This group is generally willing to examine its theories for weakness and to modify its theories to better fit the available facts. This group is as scientific as any evolutionist group and if more creationists were like them perhaps they would not be seen in such a bad light. Unfortunalty, this group is rather small but growing. An example of this group can be found at reasons.org

      Likewise, evolutionists generally fall into one of three parallel groups.

      1) Those that do not know any better. These people believe that man evolved by natural processes because that is what they have always been taught. They are largely ignorant and have no real interest in looking into the facts. These people can be found almost anywhere.

      2) Those that belieleve in evolution because they are unwilling to consider even looking at any evidence that perhaps there is a god. They would rather blindly believe a theory with known problems than consider an alternative. They have evolution taught in schools as fact even though it is only a theory. They do not want children to be taught that some people do not agree with evolution. These people do both their "religion" (atheism/naturalism) and their theory a disservice. These people are very vocal and are just as unsientific as a creationist in group 2. They also can be found most anywhere.

      3) Those that believe in evolution (or some other naturalist theory) because they genuinly believe that it fits the facts. They are willing to look at alternative theories. They are also examine their theories for weekness and are willing to modify their theories to better fit the known facts. These people can be found inside the bona fide scientific community.

      It is a shame that there are so many group 1 & 2 people in this world.

      In conclusion, no theory is pseudoscientific. It only becomes sudoscience once it is conclusivly disproven yet is still passed off as scientific fact.

    19. Re:creationists by ddimas · · Score: 1

      Reality check, Hindus are white people. They're Aryans actually (tell that to a white supremecist and watch him choke).

    20. Re:creationists by Oopsz · · Score: 1

      If you get equality to teach creationism, I demand the right to teach children about the cyclic nature of the infinite; about brahma, vishnu, and shiva, which represent the aspects of the divine that embody themselves in biological science; creation, mitosis, meiosis, fertilization and propogation; sustenance, respiration, and synthesis; destruction, phagocytosis, apoptosis, and the like.

      It's obvious to anyone who shares my belief system that the gods can be seen in everything. That is what I believe. But you can bet your sweet ass that I'm not going to write about Shiva on my biochem final tomorrow.

      Like it or not, science is the way society chooses to describe the world. If your faith excludes science, then you have no place in society, except as a parasite; living off other people.

      As darwin might say-- evolve or prepare to meet natural selection firsthand.

      As a student of the biological and social sciences, I think that people who truly believe in creationism are lucky that there are scientists around who hold their country aloft.

    21. Re:creationists by Oopsz · · Score: 1

      Indo-aryan or dravidian, depending on origin. over the last few thousand years, aryan and dravidian culture have formed a wonderful cultural mosaic in india. nothing like it.

    22. Re:creationists by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      I'm all for fairness and open mindedness but one shouldn't be so open-minded that your brains fall out. I'm sure there are people who fervently believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and that everything we see in the sky revolves about us. Even though almost everybody believed it 800 years ago, most reasonable people would see no need whatsoever to even consider geo-centrism. Its antiquated to the point that even most Bible literalists won't trot it out (at least not in public).

      Evolution has figured in biology for a little over 100 years. Taking the above paragraph into account, let creationism have another century's worth of being taken seriously. We're pretty much stuck with it for now anyway.

      I guess the 2100s will be spent arguing over whatever GUT comes along that knocks down Einstein's work in the process. ;-) The implications of that should ruffle religious feathers too.

    23. Re:creationists by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      Can you provide any evidence for your gods??

      You are right in saying non-scientific beliefs have no place in society. You are wrong in saying creation is not a scientific belief.

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    24. Re:creationists by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right about tolerance, but the question here is not that. I think the issue at hand is where do we separate religious beliefs from scientific ones. Or more precisely, can we let our religious beliefs affect our scientific practices? An interesting question, methinks, one that needs some thought.

      --
      More than mere navel gazing.
    25. Re:creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "3) Those that beleive that God created the earth and all life on earth but not neccisarily in 6 days(as we would know them). [...] Unfortunalty, this group is rather small but growing."

      Why is this "Unfortunate"? Do you have some inspired scientific evidence to prove these people wrong? Even the most die-hard evolutionist will readily admit that the odds of random mutations in proteins evolving into bacteria, and then organisms, and then self-aware macrobiotic beings (us) is pretty astronomical. So either we were extraordinarily lucky to come about on the planet we did, in the manner in which we did, or the mutative forces were guided by something as yet unknown to us.

      Don't be so disdainful of the open-minded, adaptive creationists until you have some good, tangible evidence as to why they're wrong.

    26. Re:creationists by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

      I don't see Hindus or anyone else lobbying to teach their religion in a public school science class.

      Haven't been to India recently, have you? Hindu Fascism is a growing phenomena in India. Astrology is taught as a serious subject in some Indian universities.

      --
      FreeSpeech.org
    27. Re:creationists by astro-g · · Score: 1

      You say "Only a theory" like its a bad thing?? care to suggest something better than a theory? theories are great, certainly better than the alternatives. A good theory takes existing data, allows you to see a pattern in the data, and then make predictions based on that pattern, the theory remains a good theory until it fails to match observed reality, at wich point you create a new theory around the (now larger) body of data. A theory may still be usefull, even if it is wrong, newtonian mechanics for example. Personally I find it unnecesary to "believe" in evolution, or creation, I hold that evolution is a good explanation, and that a god may or may not have created the universe, at the time of the so called big bang. I dont think that, if there was/is a creator, he/she/it does much, post creation event.

    28. Re:creationists by aminorex · · Score: 1

      > Or maybe because those who believe the world is
      > sitting on an elephant on a turtle aren't making
      > nuisances of themselves. I haven't heard turtle
      > believers arguing loudly and often in front of
      > legislatures that we need to throw out all of the
      > astronomy and geology books.

      Damn darkies, always making trouble. They should
      know their place!

      Actually, the only reason you haven't heard of this
      is that you don't live in India, where Hindu
      fundamentalists have seized control of the government,
      which tolerates the mass murder of Muslims,
      Christians, Sikhs and atheists, by roving
      vigilante mobs.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    29. Re:creationists by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      Should we exclude people from becoming doctors...
      He's not excluding anyone from becoming a doctor. He's just saying who he will and won't write a letter of recommendation for.

      --
      Find free books.
    30. Re:creationists by JanneM · · Score: 1

      Should we exclude people from becoming doctors because they believe that Jesus came back from the dead

      Well, I know I would be very wary about being treated by a deeply religious physician without knowing exactly how those beliefs are going to impact his work. Anybody that puts their religious beliefs as more important (and more right) than their vocational body of knowledge is potentially putting me as a patient at risk. I would not want to chance getting a diagnosis or course of treatment that omits or changes some part of it due to his/her religious dogma.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    31. Re:creationists by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Can you provide any evidence for your gods??

      Oh, this is rich - a guy trying to advance Creationism as a reasonable alternative to Evolution demanding proof of someone else's gods. Like you can do the same.

      You are right in saying non-scientific beliefs have no place in society.

      They have a place. It's called religion.

      You are wrong in saying creation is not a scientific belief.

      Creationism is a belief system, not a theory.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    32. Re:creationists by tommten · · Score: 1

      Now you're being unscientific :p
      people are being brought back to life in almost a daily basis.. I know.. I saw a dude doing it on C.S.I.. and that must be true.. it was on TV! :)

      well of course.. I dont think anybody knew how to inject adrenalin into somebodys heart and give them electroshocks back then... :)

      but saying something can't be like this or can't be like that without proof showing either doesn't add up to expanding oneselves knowledge..

      --
      - I choked on the red pill and now I'm stuck in limbo
    33. Re:creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I may be wrong, but I read the "unfortunate bit" as being in reference to their numbers being small, as opposed to the fact that they're growing. I must admit I did find it ambiguous though and had to read it a couple of times first.

    34. Re:creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you provide any evidence for your gods?

      Can you prove yours? Did you not pay attention in Bible Studies or something; Proof denies Faith!

      Its idiots like you who start wars over this crap. Stop it!

    35. Re:creationists by Cally · · Score: 1

      Should we exclude people from becoming doctors because they believe that Jesus came back from the dead - a belief which is both unscientific and contrary to our understanding of medical science?


      Sure, why not? I don't like the thought of a superstitious fool taking a sharp knife to *my* innner workings, thank-you-very-much.

      Tell you what - in the UK, the current craze is for metrics for everything. Let's see some hard statistics on recovery/survival rates for mumbo-jumbo adepts vs. those with a grounding in reality. Then let people make their own choices. If you choose to believe in a 2000 yearold fairy story, and are happy being chopped about by a fellow nutter, good luck to you. Remind me not to sell you life insurance.

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    36. Re:creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did you move from the original poster asking if it's "safe to encourage" to "exclude"?

      Did God create the Straw Man, or did it evolve?

    37. Re:creationists by jmccay · · Score: 1

      Why is it that creationists are so looked down upon, but other religions that, for example, believe that the world is sitting on an elephant that is sitting on a turtle are okay? Is it because it is expected that white people in North America should know better, but non-whites are free to believe whatever they want?!? That to me seems at the very least bigotted.

      You are so true. It might be that creationists may be looked down upon by evolutionist because the evolutionist resent the fact that what they think is true and fact really isn't really any more true and fact than creationism when truly held under the microscope of scientific theory--that is why evolution is still called the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution.

      Another possibility would be the general persecution of Christians in general (most creationist are Christians). You can display any other religion in public places and buildings except anything Christian. If something Christian is displayed, then the ACLU steps in and sues the city, state, etc. You can get away with displaying Satanist items (from the church of satan) and just about any other religion, but you can't display anything Christian.
      The same goes for schools. You can teach just about anything, but if you answer a direct question about Christianity, you get sued. Next time your watching to the news, pay attention to who gets sued over displaying of religous items or ideas--it's only Christians.
      I think the dislike of creationists stems from the greater dislike of Christians in todays world society-especially in America. I also think scientists get a little mad when their ideas which they consider to be fact (even though it may not be) are lumped together with ideas such as creationism.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    38. Re:creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't like the thought of a superstitious fool taking a sharp knife to *my* innner workings, thank-you-very-much."

      Those "superstitious fool[s]" created this country (America), and the belief in God is at the basis of all American Government.
      You've probably be operated on by a Christian, but you probably didn't know it. It's people like you who want to discriminate against someone because of their religion.
      You are assuming that those who belief in Chrisitanity can't make annalitical choices simply because they have the faith in God who created the Universe. The Bible has held true over the years while scientists in all their knowledge have had to change what they said on a regular basis as more information becomes available.
      I find people like you dispicable. You are lost in a world of close-minded blind fools leading the blind.

    39. Re:creationists by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
      I haven't heard turtle believers arguing loudly and often in front of legislatures that we need to throw out all of the astronomy and geology books.

      Well, they did argue once... (true story, but no resource to back it up, atm)

      Senator: So you say the earth is standing on a turtle?

      Turtle Lady: Yes

      Senator: Then what is the turtle standing on?

      Turtle Lady: Another turtle.

      Senator: Ok, then what is that turtle standing on?

      Turtle Lady: (pauses) Another turtle.

      Senator: Then what is that turtle standing on?

      Turtle Lady: (a bit flustered) Another turtle!

      Senator: Pray tell, madam, and what is that turtle standing on?

      Turtle Lady: (completely irate) IT'S JUST TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN!!

    40. Re:creationists by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
      I'm not a creationist, but I fully support their right to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they don't shove it down my throat.

      Last I heard it's the other way around. It seems if you believe in creation you are attacked in this country, hardly the other way around...

      Every evidence (every one) supporting evolution has been debunked time and time again.

      The supposed "cave man" tooth found in Kanasas: a pig tooth.

      The supposed "baby cave man" found in Alaska: A pigmy monkey. (all bones found spread over 2 acres of area, not all together like reported, a common deceptive techique in evolution propaganda.)

      The drawings of the fetuses of fish, chicken and human looking similar at a certain stage: All forgeries and hallucinations of a scientist that really wanted there to be evidence of evolution when there just isn't any..

      Just ask a mathmetician what the chances are of life happening by accident. I think the number is 10 to the 23rd power, and from a mathimatical standpoint (not crocery here, but true math and science) that anything past 10 to the 6th, is impossible, and will never ever happen...

      Also, try and show how DNA, millions of chemical strands, a literal set of computer style machine code that describes how to make a human, is accidental.

      PROOF OF EVOLUTION TEST

      Take a random text generator, make one in whatever language you want. And have it spit out random text solid for an entire month.

      If you can get it to even make a "hello world" in ANY programming language under the sun, I will hand you 10 dollars.

      The problem is that even if one got in there some where, it would still be surrounded by garbage and would never work...

      So, now mondern computers could no way ever even in a million years accidentally make the most basic of computer code examples, how do you explain evolution as even a remotely sane reason for life?

      -v

    41. Re:creationists by M-G · · Score: 1

      Another possibility would be the general persecution of Christians in general (most creationist are Christians).

      At the great risk that this is a troll, I'm going to reply.

      Could someone please explain how 'Christians' suddenly became so persecuted in the U.S.? Thinking about history, I see plenty of examples of Christians persecuting others: the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch trials, etc. Christians have forced 'In God We Trust' onto our money, inserted 'under God' into the Pledge of Allegiance.

      Last I checked, any Christian was free to express their beliefs in any way they choose, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Forcing prayer in school, the teaching of creationism (which has as much scientific credibility as the average infomercial), etc. are all things that infringe on my rights.

      You can build your churches, have your TV and radio stations, your bumper stickers, etc. But quit trying to claim persecution as you attempt to shove your beliefs down the throats of others through government institutions.

      Next time your watching to the news

      Seems like what I see on the news are 'Christians' trying to prevent sex education, override good science, and ban Harry Potter. In the meantime, we're shown fluff stories about statues that people claim cause miracles, images of Mary, etc.

    42. Re:creationists by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      Exactly! This is rooted in the Vedas. Common man/Man on the street usually doesn't understand this and the various stories and god characters are there merely to illustrate a point. Just as the fables/parables in Christian lore. The major problem in Hindu religion is that people dwell too much on the physical characteristics and less on the spiritual ones. Chalk that up to human frailities that we all have.

      sri

    43. Re:creationists by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      I find any kind of hindu fundamentalism absolutely abhorrent. It's completely against what Hinduism teaches. The BJP party needs a serious ass kicking.

      sri

    44. Re:creationists by M-G · · Score: 1

      Well, you see, the HIV is constantly evolving. Any doctor who does not believe that evolution is a fact should not be working with HIV.

      Of course, said doctor probably wouldn't be doing HIV research, since he'd also believe that it was a punishment from God.

    45. Re:creationists by M-G · · Score: 1

      Creationists *do not* believe that dinosaurs never existed.

      Depends on the creationist in question. Many creationists also are strict adherents to the Earth being only a few thousand years old, as determined from the Bible. Therefore, they claim that all the fossil records were created by God when the Earth was created, and that those particular beasts never lived.

    46. Re:creationists by M-G · · Score: 1

      The Bible has held true over the years while scientists in all their knowledge have had to change what they said on a regular basis as more information becomes available.

      So the Earth is still at the center, with the Universe revolving around it?

    47. Re:creationists by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Every evidence (every one) supporting evolution has been debunked time and time again.

      Incorrect. Start here.

      Just ask a mathmetician what the chances are of life happening by accident.

      I'd rather ask a biologist. But it doesn't matter. Life didn't have to start by accident. The laws of chemistry likely had something to do with it. Either way it doesn't matter, evolution doesn't care how life got started; evolution merely takes over once it has.

      and from a mathimatical standpoint (not crocery here, but true math and science) that anything past 10 to the 6th, is impossible, and will never ever happen...

      Indeed? Take a deck of cards (I'll let you take out the Jokers). Shuffle it. The chances against the cards being in the order you produced is the factorial of 52, or about 8 x 10 to the 67th. I guess it didn't happen?

      Take a random text generator, make one in whatever language you want. And have it spit out random text solid for an entire month. If you can get it to even make a "hello world" in ANY programming language under the sun, I will hand you 10 dollars.

      Strawman. Evolution doesn't work that way. Evolution works by saving up what works for the next generation. Will you allow my text generator to save something that looks slightly like a hello world program and use that for the next round?

    48. Re:creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the last time you heard a FM radio station that wasn't on the fringes of the FM range? Most communities won't allow a Christian Radio station on say 98.5 FM. Christians can't even wear a cross to school, wear anything with expressing Christianity on it, and more often than not Christian students can't even get funding for a club of people who want to meet and study the bible. In the last case, school districts have been taken to court in order to provide space and resources that they provide to other clubs. When the school districts lose the fight in court, some have closed down ALL clubs to avoid having to fund a Christian club.
      Universities have prohibited Christian groups from meeting on their campuses if they believe that homosexuality as a sin. Christians constantly have the arms tied, and their freedom of speech removed while idiots get to teach kids liberal ideals to hate Christians.
      You are blind to the obvious. It's time someone woke you up.
      Try these links:
      http://www.afa.net/journal/february/religi one.asp
      http://www.afa.net/journal/february/2003/ journal_a rticle_Feb.asp

      I doubt you will read these, but they are just two examples. You're closed-minded and blind!

    49. Re:creationists by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      The scientifically sound creationists that I'm aware of do beleive that dinosaurs existed. The fossil record is easily explained by the global flood (which I suppose you'll want to debate next).

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    50. Re:creationists by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      Like you can do the same.
      Um, the creation is the proof on intelligent design. Once we agree there's an intelligent designer, we can go into more details (ie the identity of the designer).
      Creationism is a belief system, not a theory.
      Creations is a theory, belief system, and religion to the same extent as evolution is.

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    51. Re:creationists by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
      Life didn't have to start by accident.

      The theory of evolution's core of existence is based on the premis that it was accidental, otherwise you have to admit God exists in some form. Then you are not talking about evolution, but intelligent design.

      The laws of chemistry likely had something to do with it. Either way it doesn't matter, evolution doesn't care how life got started; evolution merely takes over once it has.

      What does evolution "care" about? How does a "theory" have feelings? Starting to sound a bit insane and ridiculous yet? These are even your own words... What's wrong with saying God made it? So maybe it did take him a long time to create things, what's wrong with saying it wasn't an accident?

      Evolution doesn't work that way.

      Really? How does evolution "work" then? I've just been told that it was mutations surviving, but that hardly accounts for the first instance of life, cause a mutation of chemicals no matter how elaborate will never create life in any experiment...

      Evolution works by saving up what works for the next generation.

      Now wait a second, now you are saying there is some kind of logic involved with evolution? You are saying that the _theory_ of evolution (theory meaning _unproven_ )has some kind of methodology which then implies intelligence, which then implies a being, therefore a creator...

      It's funny how the story of evolution has changed so much since it's "creation" when the ubsurdity of it is pointed out... Darwin did not even know how a basic cell funtioned, much less DNA, if he had, he most likely would not have even dreamed up his "theory"...

      Will you allow my text generator to save something that looks slightly like a hello world program and use that for the next round?

      Evolution by it's very nature had no ability to "decide" anything, so no, that would not be allowed. See how stupid this is? It would never happen...

      As far as your link goes to some general evolution site, just put in some specific links to real data, not more theory from other people...

      Philosophy prooves nothing, hard facts do.

    52. Re:creationists by M-G · · Score: 1

      The scientifically sound creationists

      How anyone can say that with a straight face is beyond me.

      The fossil record is easily explained by the global flood (which I suppose you'll want to debate next).

      It can only be easily explained if you throw in a few 'miracles' and ignore the geological evidence. If there had been a global flood, the geology of the world would be much different.

    53. Re:creationists by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Um, the creation is the proof on intelligent design.

      No, Intelligent design is a restatement of Creation.

      Creations is a theory, belief system, and religion to the same extent as evolution is.

      Creationism is not a theory because it is not falsifiable, nor does it make predictions. Evolution is falsifiable, and it does make predictions.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    54. Re:creationists by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      Like what kind of "miracles"? Even evolutionists will agree there have been periods of lardge amounts of water covering the earth (ie the ice age) and that there have been global cliamte shifts.

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    55. Re:creationists by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      ID and creation are different. One simple claims that life was originated with intelligence, the other tries to explain the who and why of intelligent design. You can beleive in ID without beleiving in creation.
      Creation is falsifiable by: proof of earth's old age, explaination of the origin of matter, proof that genetic information can increase over time.
      What kind of predictions would you like?

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    56. Re:creationists by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      The theory of evolution's core of existence is based on the premis that it was accidental,

      Not true at all. Mutations are "accidental", but evolution is directed by natural (or artificial) selection.

      What does evolution "care" about? How does a "theory" have feelings? Starting to sound a bit insane and ridiculous yet?

      No, but you are. All I meant was that how life actually got started has no bearing on theory of evolution. The origins of life fall under the category of "abiogenesis".

      Now wait a second, now you are saying there is some kind of logic involved with evolution?

      Logic? Not really. But it isn't 'random'.

      You are saying that the _theory_ of evolution (theory meaning _unproven_ )

      Yes, unproven. Like the general theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, and every other theory.

      has some kind of methodology which then implies intelligence, which then implies a being, therefore a creator...

      Nope. I'm saying it's directed. For instance, if some members of a species develop a mutation to grow thicker fur, and the climate gets colder, then the ones with thicker fur will survive, and the ones with thin fur will freeze. The ones with thick fur didn't survive by accident; they were selected by the environment. You, of course, are free to suppose that God caused the climate to grow colder.

      It's funny how the story of evolution has changed so much since it's "creation" when the ubsurdity of it is pointed out...

      That's science, my friend. The story of gravity has changed from it being a classical force, the a curvature of spacetime, to an exchange of spin-2 particles.

      Also, you misspelled "absurdity".

      Evolution by it's very nature had no ability to "decide" anything,

      You are wrong. See above about natural selection.

      See how stupid this is? It would never happen...

      It's already been observed to happen.

      As far as your link goes to some general evolution site, just put in some specific links to real data, not more theory from other people...

      Did you even read the site? Didn't think so. Bye.

    57. Re:creationists by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
      Mutations are "accidental", but evolution is directed by natural (or artificial) selection

      This is the funny part, everyone talks about evolution in terms of modern day animals, and skips the part about the initial cells.

      There has to be one point in which a single cell became alive, of which evolution has no explanation.

      The idea of "natural selection" is that the strongest survive. But natural selection does not explain anything in how the first DNA came into being to allow the first cell to divide. So it's a non-issue entirely.

      In regards to abiogenisis:

      "What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?" Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.

      But it isn't 'random'

      If something is 'not random' then it is controlled. Period.

      Definition of random: Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck.

      Therefore basic logic determines that if something is "not random" then there is a method or design or control involved, and therefore evolution has to be random for the theory to remotely hold water. And if it is indeed random, then it would never happen.

      It's already been observed to happen.

      Only in controlled experiments where the scientist is setting up any environment he wants, not in nature. And even then the data is dubious and tainted by convinced preconceptions, and ultimately, even if the scientist did create life, he "created" it, it didn't happen with evolution.

      The "science" of evolution has been filled with fraud for years. Here's one example:

      http://evolution-facts.org/a22.htm

      The blatantly fraudlent drawings Ernst Haeckel made were even printed in my grade school science books, even though they are completely manufactured and are inaccurate.

      Since seeing how data is consistently manipulated to fit evolution, I am highly sceptical unless the whole process for discovery is well documented and open...

      Did you even read the site?

      Yes, it's a usenet group site with people debating, no solid facts worth noting were found in a cursory visit. If you have a direct link, then I'd consider reading it, but I'm not about spend more than 15 minutes reading other peoples ideas searching and hoping for facts. As I am sure you wouldn't do this either.

    58. Re:creationists by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      There has to be one point in which a single cell became alive, of which evolution has no explanation.

      Look, troll, I just told you that the origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution.

      Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions

      Citation?

      Therefore basic logic determines that if something is "not random" then there is a method or design or control involved,

      Design? No. Control? Sort of. It's called natural selection.

      Only in controlled experiments where the scientist is setting up any environment he wants, not in nature.

      Incorrect. Evolution has been observed to happen in nature. You'd know that if you'd bother to read talk.origins.

      Yes, it's a usenet group site with people debating, no solid facts worth noting were found in a cursory visit.

      No, it's filled with articles written by people who know what they are talking about. And if you'd bother to read to the end of the articles, you'd find plenty of references to articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals where you could go for more in-depth information.

      but I'm not about spend more than 15 minutes reading other peoples ideas searching and hoping for facts

      In other words, you want to be spoon-fed.

      As I am sure you wouldn't do this either.

      You'd be wrong. Again.

  13. Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 55 by Luxviaest · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Well, this turns out to be the work of a troll. I've checked both the AP wire as well as King's own homepage and no mention of his untimely demise. What kind of dick posts this kind of thing?

  14. Faulty reasoning? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors? Would they ignore animal research results, etc?"

    How exactly do you make that connection between Creationism and ignoring animal research? I hate to break it to you, but the people who typically believe that animals should not be researched upon are the ones who believe they evolved (and thus, are no differnt from humans and deserve the same treatment). Creationism by its very nature puts humans above and beyond other animals, and thus animals are to be utilized by humans.

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    1. Re:Faulty reasoning? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is perhaps the most misunderstood commandment. The implication of the original (ie, non simplified) translation is "Thou shalt not murder." There is a difference between murder and killing. A man was run over nearby my house and killed. Also near my house, an elderly woman was murdered by a burglar. See the difference?

      Besides, vegetarians kill plants.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    2. Re:Faulty reasoning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this insightful?? NeoDragonBallZ, you're missing the point. Animal research is done under the presumption that the results can be (at least in part) extrapolated to humans. If humans and monkeys didn't have any common ancestry, there'd be no point in experimenting on monkeys (except curiosity, I guess) because you wouldn't learn anything about humans in the process. Though you're right, probably, that Creationists are unlikely to be moral vegetarians, since the animals are put here to be our furry little smorgasbord.

    3. Re:Faulty reasoning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biological relationship between animals and people is not scientific theory, its fact. Macroevolution, however, is theory. So theres no reason Creationists should not recognize the biological (even psychological and sociological) relationship between animals and people.

    4. Re:Faulty reasoning? by primus_sucks · · Score: 1

      I don't think your analogy is accurate. A man being run over would be accidental. Murduring would be purposeful. Eating meat obviously isn't accidental. The only difference between murduring a person and eating meat is the fact that it's a human, not an animal. Also, in the case of animal experimentation on monkeys, they are 98% like humans anyway.

      Besides, vegetarians kill plants.

      Give me a break. Plants don't have nervous systems like animals. Therefore don't feel pain or suffer like when you pour chemicals in their eyes or cut their throat.

    5. Re:Faulty reasoning? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Murduring would be purposeful.

      More to my point, murdering is malicious, and unprovoked.

      Give me a break. Plants don't have nervous systems like animals. Therefore don't feel pain or suffer like when you pour chemicals in their eyes or cut their throat.

      Yeah, you got me on that one, but i coudlnt resist ;)

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    6. Re:Faulty reasoning? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      The fact that humans and primates have similar bodily systems cannot at ALL be debated. It has been observed and confirmed through much experimentation.

      HOW and WHY they are like that, is where Creation vs. evolution comes into play.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    7. Re:Faulty reasoning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plants don't have nervous systems like animals. Therefore don't feel pain or suffer like when you pour chemicals in their eyes or cut their throat.

      Interesting. Before it was "animals don't feel pain because they don't have nervous systems like humans". Oops, guess we screwed that one up.

      Now it is "plants don't feel pain because they don't have nervous systems like animals". By that criterion, I can give an animal anesthetic, cut its legs off and sewn them onto its head - and that's okay! It can't feel it!

    8. Re:Faulty reasoning? by primus_sucks · · Score: 1

      "animals don't feel pain because they don't have nervous systems like humans"

      What are you talking about??? Who said this?

    9. Re:Faulty reasoning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a break. Plants don't have nervous systems like animals. Therefore don't feel pain or suffer like when you pour chemicals in their eyes or cut their throat.

      So how about if the animals are killed instantaneously and painlessly? How about killing humans humanely for food?

    10. Re:Faulty reasoning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, but what ever happened the fifth commandment (thou shall not kill).

      "Don't Murder", not "Don't Kill". Murder can only be done to humans. Humans have one more layer over the primate brain which makes us unique. Running down to more primitive animals strips off various parts of brain capabilities.

      • Other primates have minor rationality abilities.
      • Other mammals have trivial logic abilities, and are basically emotions and memory.
      • Creatures more primitive than mammals, with the "reptilian brain", are instinct with a little memory and no emotions.
      • Creatures even more primitive than reptiles are instinctive with some conditioning abilities.
      • Even lower are creatures which are all reflex. Something hits their mouth, they bite. Go toward light. Swim around a certain pressure range.

      Most animal research usually ends with some painful death.

      Most animal research ends with some quick and painless death. Researchers have no preference for torture, and if they're being paid for this they also don't have company time for torture.

    11. Re:Faulty reasoning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More to my point, murdering is malicious, and unprovoked.

      Kinda like braining a cow for it's tasty insides?

    12. Re:Faulty reasoning? by primus_sucks · · Score: 1

      So how about if the animals are killed instantaneously and painlessly?

      If it going to be done anyway, then instantanious and painless would be good. I don't think this is always the case especially in places where they don't have modern equipment.

      How about killing humans humanely for food?

      IMO, not much different than killing animals, except that a human could tell you how much it sucked living in a cage your whole life then being killed. Personally I don't have as much of a problem with the actual killing (everybody dies), but more with the poor conditions on farms, and the downright torture with animal testing.

    13. Re:Faulty reasoning? by primus_sucks · · Score: 1

      Humans have one more layer over the primate brain which makes us unique.

      Obviously humans are smarter than primates, but they still feel pain and have emotions. What gives us the right to keep them in a cage and perform painful tests on them? How would you like it if some gorillas came to your house at night and took your kids for testing or eating?

      Researchers have no preference for torture

      I think putting harmful chemicals in eyes, or feeding animals dangerous stuff to see if they get cancer would be considered torture. Maybe torture isn't their main goal, but thats what's going on.

    14. Re:Faulty reasoning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, vegetarians kill animals too---at least those who depend on modern mass agricultural techniques to harvest their vegetables. Rodents, rabbits, and other small animals get chewed up in combines all the time. Tons of them.

      So really the only way a vegan can avoid being a hypocrite is if he basically insures that all of his food is hand-harvested.

    15. Re:Faulty reasoning? by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Plants do, in fact, react to harm in much the same way animals do. The levels of various chemicals is increased. If they are repeatedly harmed, so those chemical levels are kept high, they start to express stress symptoms.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    16. Re:Faulty reasoning? by Afty0r · · Score: 1
      How about killing humans humanely for food?

      IMO, not much different than killing animals, except that a human could tell you how much it sucked living in a cage your whole life then being killed.

      Animals can already tell us how much it sucks and they do, it's just that we choose to ignore the signs.

      Further, I doubt a human could tell you how much it sucked to be killed.
    17. Re:Faulty reasoning? by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      A man was run over nearby my house and killed. Also near my house, an elderly woman was murdered by a burglar

      One word. Move.

  15. No kidding by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Many people I know who don't believe in biological macro-evolution still believe in an old earth, and they don't deny that the fossil record shows an increase in complexity in life over time. However, they simply don't believe random genetic mutation combined with natural selection is enough to drive the evolution of life to what we have today. How is that being unscientific? How is that person going to be a "dangerous" doctor?

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
    1. Re:No kidding by KnightStalker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The reason is, if someone deliberately ignores data about the real world in favor of a story they believe their religion demands, they may apply that "methodology" to medicine as well. Would you want someone who believes disease is caused by bad humours or demons to be your doctor? Creationists generally do accept the germ theory of disease, but it's the same idea. If their religion contradicts what is actually wrong with a patient, they'll be a dangerous doctor.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    2. Re:No kidding by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

      The reason is, if someone deliberately ignores data about the real world in favor of a story they believe their religion demands, they may apply that "methodology" to medicine as well.

      You didn't actually read my post, did you? Oh well...

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    3. Re:No kidding by t · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      It is unscientific because they give no scientifically valid reasons why they think evolution is not adequate. Nor do they give any valid counter theories. They simply say that evolution is not the origin of humans. If you press them for a reason they claim that the real origin is unknown, when in reality what they want to say is God. But they don't because that is not a scientifically supportable theory.

      The way that makes them a dangerous doctor is that they may discard any other piece of valid scientific theory if it doesn't fit in with their religion. Personally I'd rather have a doctor who treats me rather than prays for me.

    4. Re:No kidding by RestiffBard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The issue I believe is that strict creationists (emphasis on strict) refuse in many instances to believe the very tenets that make modern medicine and other sciences possible.

      Here's an idea. you want to be a programmer but, you don't believe in Arabic numerals. I leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    5. Re:No kidding by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is unscientific because they give no scientifically valid reasons why they think evolution is not adequate.

      That's simply not true. There are scientists out there, who are not "creationists" who don't believe in biological macroevolution. They don't disbelieve it because of religious dogma. Here's one example: there are many biological constructs that are complex to the point that intermediate steps would not be beneficial to the organism. Now I realize there is effort underway to explain such constructs, but that is one example of the type of scientific thinking that one can use to argue against biological macroevolution. You may want to look into the theory of "intelligent design".

      Personally I'd rather have a doctor who treats me rather than prays for me.

      Pure flamebait, but I'll respond anyway. I've had plenty of doctor's that I know were Christians. Now, I don't know if they believed in evolution or not, but they were extremely caring and knowledgable doctors who took care of me and my family. And as for prayer, I know there has been at least one recent study that was showing that prayer does have affect on health. I believe it was in Wired. I unfortunately don't have the link, nor the time right now to look it up.

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    6. Re:No kidding by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1
      The issue I believe is that strict creationists (emphasis on strict) refuse in many instances to believe the very tenets that make modern medicine and other sciences possible.

      That is true to a point and I would agree. Most people I know who don't believe in evolution simply refuse to believe in a lot of scientific proof that the earth is very old, for instance.

      However, if the person has a good knowledge and understanding of how current biological processes work in human beings and how viruses, bacteria, etc. work and how to treat those symptoms, they would probably make an ok doctor, don't you think?

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    7. Re:No kidding by KnightStalker · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There are scientists out there, who are not "creationists" who don't believe in biological macroevolution

      Can you name one?

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    8. Re:No kidding by Fyndo · · Score: 1
      However, if the person has a good knowledge and understanding of how current biological processes work in human beings and how viruses, bacteria, etc. work and how to treat those symptoms, they would probably make an ok doctor, don't you think?
      Can we include the reasons for the rise and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria? (Of course, they arise through evolution, but hey :)
    9. Re:No kidding by KnightStalker · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I did. And it's your post that misses the point. If someone accepts, based on the evidence, that evolution has occurred, but does not believe that the modern synthesis is sufficient to explain it, I believe that is still a scientific (if unusual) point of view and certainly shouldn't disqualify anyone from being a doctor. But those people aren't the ones under discussion.

      The people under discussion get their ideas on cosmology and the origins and history of the earth from their church, or the ICR, or their parents, and rarely directly from the Bible although they'll claim this is the case. They refuse to accept that science is a valid source of knowledge, and they feel threatened by it, because they don't believe their religion could be true if it's possible to gain knowledge directly from nature, rather than from God. They often confuse astronomy with evolution. They are rarely informed about the evidence for any scientific theory, least of all evolution. They have no business practicing medicine.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    10. Re:No kidding by t · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Uh, creationists and intelligent design are one and the same piece of quackery. As for you attempt at using irreducible complexity, all such claims are bunk. There are quite valid steps for blood clotting, the bombadier beetle, the eye, etc.

      And btw, there are many many instances where evolution results in something that is not only not useful but quite deadly, think dwarfism, progeria, etc... and other genetic mutations. It is not relevant whether or not any particular biological construct is immediately useful or detrimental, only whether the organism as a whole manages to survive. Evolution is not a neat, quick, or orderly process.

      Prayer, like placebos, are all in the mind so your study is irrelevant to the discussion if it does not detail the type of people which these prayers are helpful for. Never mind the fact that you cannot do a proper scientific experiment without a control group. What are you going to do, tell the religious people in the control group that they cannot pray for themselves?

    11. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as for prayer, I know there has been at least one recent study that was showing that prayer does have affect on health.

      Just an idea, but including that part basically ruined the effectiveness of your point to most of the people you're trying to convince.

    12. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know there has been at least one recent study that was showing that prayer does have affect on health.

      It had an effect all right, a strong negative effect.

      Be careful when you pray - you never know what might hear you...

      -- {*}

    13. Re:No kidding by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know there has been at least one recent study that was showing that prayer does have affect on health.

      The placebo effect. Psych 101, boy. And it doesn't work if someone else prays for you, only if *you* pray for you. God has nothing to do with it.

      Of course, if you can produce a empirical, scientific study published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal supporting the idea that prayer affects the health of others, please do so.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    14. Re:No kidding by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      This is possibly what he was referring to: http://www.jreprodmed.com/abs/jrm1137.htm

      I believe there are some flaws in this study, but I don't think it's due to the placebo effect. I frankly don't know how to respond to it, except that if God were intervening in this situation I don't think he'd do it this way. That of course is not a scientific objection. :-)

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    15. Re:No kidding by Hungus · · Score: 1

      No actually they arise through selective breeding and gene migration not evolution. Admitedly that is a common mistake though. Best example I can give involves a moth group during England's industrial revolution: As soot began to settle on trees white boths became rarer because birds who ate tehm could see them more clearly. On the otherhand black moths of the same species became more predominant. After the soot became less prominent things reversed again .. but it was held as an argument for evolution for years. Evolution on the otherhand would have generated a new species rather than a gene shift among the same. Mutations occur all the time but they are rarely benificial and often times not transmitted to its offspring.

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    16. Re:No kidding by bdesham · · Score: 1
      Admitedly that is a common mistake though.
      We just learned this in HS Biology, and I could swear that they said this was evolution. Argh.
      No actually they arise through selective breeding and gene migration not evolution.
      But still, wouldn't that be natural selection instead of selective breeding?
      --
      Alcohol and Calculus don't mix. Don't drink and derive.
    17. Re:No kidding by joshsteadmon · · Score: 1

      Since antibiotic resistant bacteria come mainly from people who don't finish their medication, you might consider it an act of selective breeding, because it is the result of a human action, not random chance.

    18. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No actually they arise through selective breeding and gene migration not evolution.

      But that is the very definition of evoluion. Any change in the allele frequency of a population over time is evolution. "Species" is a useful concept for taxonomy but has little meaning at the genetic level. In addition, your claim "evolution on the otherhand would have generated a new species" gets it backward, evolution needn't necessarily do any such thing: evolution does not imply speciation. Rather, speciation implies evolution.

      An additional quibble, as you seem to be reading straight from the Creationist playbook: the moth example is not an argument for evolution, but an example often cited (because it's much easier for laymen to visualize than the active-site kinetics of CPSase III in X. laevis, say). Selecting this or that oft-cited example and pounding on it makes for good rhetoric but as scientific discussion goes it's like using "Macgruder the Friendly Computer" to debate cryptographic algorithms.
    19. Re:No kidding by afidel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, because anyone who puts dogma before logic is not going to be very good at using deductive reasoning in a critical situation if their dogma gets in the way (say a mother is dying due to rejection problems with a fetus and the only way to save her is removal of the fetus and it is too young to survive outside the mother, what does the person do? logic dictates that you remove the fetus because it will die anyways if the mother dies but I have been told stories by a doctor friend of mine of colleagues refusing based on personal beliefs that reject abortion in any case and saying things like "if the lord want her to survive she will and it will save the unborn life"). I don't think that religious people in general would make bad doctors, quite the opposite, but those who are so embroiled in their faith as to reject logic are.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    20. Re:No kidding by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      Your post is pure flamebait, but I won't respond in kind. As to irreducible complexity, you claim its bunk, then provide no evidence that it is so.
      Dwarfs and such are all still human, not different creatures.
      Prayer is a moot point per creation. Decide what you want to debate.

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    21. Re:No kidding by elmegil · · Score: 1

      You know, I have little to no sympathy for Creationism as espoused by fundamentalist Christians, but labelling things you don't like and don't agree with as "quackery" is the fastest way I know of to prove that you're just as damned dogmatic about your own point of view as the fundies. You & James Randi are some of the most dogmatic, closed minded sons-of-bitches on the planet.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    22. Re:No kidding by aminorex · · Score: 4, Interesting

      James Valentine, Stanley Awramil, Philip Signor,
      Peter Sadler, Simon Conway Morris, Derek Biggs, Harry
      Whittington, Jeffrey Schwarz, Douglas Erwin, David
      Jablonski, James Lake, Ravi Jain, Maria Rivera,
      Carl Woese, W. Ford Doolittle, Malcom Gordon...

      When a Chinese paleontologist lecturing on problems
      with macroevolution in the U.S. was advised that
      criticizing Darwinism was politically incorrect
      in the U.S., he laughed, saying "In China, we can
      critize Darwin, but not the government; in
      America, you can criticize the government, but
      not Darwin."

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    23. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think the "micro-evolution makes sense macro-evolution is wrong" idea is more akin to "I believe in postive integers but negative integers are wrong and don't get me started on 0".

    24. Re:No kidding by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Byrd, RC, 1988.
      Southern Medical Journal 81(7): 826-829.

      Krucoff, Mitchell, W., Suzanne W. Crater, et al, 2001.
      American Heart Journal 142:760-767.

      Kwang Y. Cha, Daniel P. Wirth, et al, 2001.
      Journal of Reproductive Medicine 46:781-787.

      Sicher, F.E., D. Targ, et al, 1998.
      Western Journal of Medicine 169:356-363.

      Check out this link for some convenient online references.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    25. Re:No kidding by t · · Score: 1
      The evidence is the blood clotting, eye, etc... speaking of evidence, there is no evidence for creationism.

      Different creatures? Where did that come from? Dwarfs can result from many different genetic screwups.

      I take it that the only way "you folk" can win any kind of argument is by labeling posts flamebait?

    26. Re:No kidding by t · · Score: 1

      No, I'm labeling it quackery because that's what it is. Not because I don't like it or don't agree with it. Creationism was barred from school because of its obviously religious bent. Thus they come up with intelligent design, which is basically the same thing minus the obviously religious aspects. Science is not the art of rewording things until people can't ban you for obvious non-science reasons.

    27. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More on the topic.

    28. Re:No kidding by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I'll buy that for a dollar. Mod parent up for kicking "micro-evolution" balonigsts in the ass.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    29. Re:No kidding by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      Ah, very good. I did actually realize that there are scientists who think there is more to evolution than the modern synthesis includes. There are plenty. There are few if any who believe in a young earth.

      James Valentine is apparently one of the discoverers of HOX genes. He seems to have an idea called the "Cell-Type Hypothesis" which I can't find any information about. Not a creationist.

      Google could find nothing about Stanley Awamril. But Stanley Awamrik is a researcher on the early history of life on earth. Not a creationist.

      Philip Signor I found less about, but judging by this book he's not a creationist.

      Peter Sadler published a paper with this incomprehensible abstract. References here and here (PDF) indicate that he is (drum roll) not a creationist.

      I didn't research further. Really, is this the best you can come up with?

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    30. Re:No kidding by jgardn · · Score: 1

      I am a strict creationist. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, exactly as described in the scriptures. I don't believe that one species can evolve into another. It has not yet been demonstrated, nor will it ever. No one can explain the evolution of the woodpecker. No one can explain the evolution of man. Why? Because there is always a step or two that just doesn't make sense. Why did a bird start banging its head against wood? Why did man suddenly lose his fur and walk upright? No one can sufficiently explain this, because there is no explanation. I mean, there has been over a century of countless scientists, all very intelligent, and none of them can describe how the evolution of any creature has occured. Not even the simplest of microbes!

      And the burden of proof is on them, not me. I say this because if you discovered a watch in the desert, you would assume it was created by someone, not that it was made from random motions of particles in the desert. Aren't even the simplest organisms far more complex than even the most complicated machines we can build? If the motion of sand cannot create a watch, how can any random motion create a living organism, let alone the hosts of living organisms that inhabit and have inhabited this world? How can you deny the intelligence of the creations? If you cannot deny the intelligence, then you cannot deny that they were created by an intelligent being. And seeing as how the intelligence exhibited in these organisms far surpass our own, this being must be the God described in scripture.

      That doesn't affect my ability to study or understand how the living creations of God behave on this earth. In fact, it actually extends my understanding, because I am really looking at a machine built with far greater technology than I can even imagine, with far greater precision than I can ever master, with far greater intelligence than I can surmise.

      See, it used to be that biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and all scientists, were all exploring the beauty, simplicity, and intelligence of this beautiful world built by God himself. It used to be that mathematicians would delve deep into the mind of God, seeking to pierce the veil of His great understanding. It used to be that physicists would study each intricacy of nature, trying to discover the rules that God uses to govern the entire universe. It used to be that biologists were reverse-engineering the most marvelous feats of engineering in existence.

      Every small discover was like a small image of the face of God. Perhaps together, they could piece together God Himself, drawing closer to His level by understanding Him more.

      But now we are just studying bags of sand and water, and patterns that lead us nowhere, and rules that mean nothing.

      We used to be miniature gods, no, Gods in training, seeking to become like the great God himself by mastering our minds and understanding our univserse. We used to believe that we were literally offspring of God. Now we are lost souls, studying science to erase those panging doubts that creep into our minds, that tell us nothing is worth anything, and all is in vain. We believe that we are nothing, never were anything, and never can become anything more than we are.

      Which doctor would you rather have?

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    31. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, the challenge was to name people who are not creationists but reject biological macro-evolution.

    32. Re:No kidding by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      Right. None of those people (the ones I googled for, anyway) reject biological macroevolution.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    33. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't believe that one species can evolve into another. It has not yet been demonstrated, nor will it ever.

      Actually, it has.

      It has not been demonstrated, nor will it ever be, that this is how a given species in the world today came about. (unless time machines are invented) This may or may not be relevant.

      Creationism is hard to argue for around here, and it's great that you've chosen to do so, but arguing with false statements does not help.

    34. Re:No kidding by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Since antibiotic resistant bacteria come mainly from people who don't finish their medication, you might consider it an act of selective breeding, because it is the result of a human action, not random chance.

      No, it is not "selective breeding", as when you take two domestic animals and mate them to accentuate their desirable characteristics. The bacteria which breed are those that survive the antibiotic. The environment has been manipulated, but the response is "natural selection" leading to evolution of new strains.

    35. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you want to be a programmer but, you don't believe in Arabic numerals.

      So? It's not like the computer believes in Arabic numerals, it just uses them as a convention for dealing with humans.

      Say you want to be a programmer and you think that Ada Lovelace wrote the source code to Windows 3.1 on a napkin after a few too many beers. So what? As long as you understand how the system works, does it matter where you think it came from?

      (now that I've written that, I see your point (say you refused to believe in boolean logic...), but this was just too good to leave unposted)

    36. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Criticizing Darwinism is hardly more politically incorrect in the US than criticizing the government...

      But advocating creationism and intelligent criticism of Darwinism are two entirely different issues.

      Stephen Wolfram presents some very compelling arguments against common assumptions (although not ones actually stipulated by Darwin) regarding natural selection in his book A New Kind Of Science. While the worth of his work is debatable (IMO he draws some wrong conclusions), his points about biological evolution are almost undoubtedly correct.

      In fact, it is true that there are a lot of people who treat evolution religiously - especially "evolutionary psychologists". However, they don't invalidate the (more restrained) concept of evolution, even if they misapply it.

    37. Re:No kidding by Ian+Lance+Taylor · · Score: 4, Informative

      All else being equal, I would rather have the doctor that understood that the argument from design is an logical fallacy, and that the human body includes inefficiencies and complications due to its historical evolution. Or, in other words, how do you explain bad backs and appendicitis, without resorting to non-explanatory statements like "God works in mysterious ways?"

      If you think the argument from design is some sort of proof, you need to read Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and Daniel Dennett. I don't expect them to convince you that you are wrong, but they should convince you that the argument from design doesn't stand by itself.

    38. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm starting to get the feeling that you don't actually know anything about medicine.

      Medicine is a very empirical discipline. The best example I can think of is lithium. We treat certain personality disorders with lithium. Why? Because it's worked satisfactorily in the past. No other reason exists. We don't have the foggiest idea why lithium works, or in those cases when it doesn't, why it doesn't. But we know, from the well-documented experiences of those who came before us, that it worked, so we keep doing it.

      Most of medicine is like this. We do X because X worked well enough last time. Sometimes nothing in the past has worked, so we try Y. Other times X worked okay, but we need something better, so we try Y. But it's all strictly empirical.

      There is science in medicine, of course. But not as much as you might think.

      The best doctor I know is a Hassidic Jew. He's a surgeon, an ear-nose-and-throat surgeon. The man's a genius. But he won't operate on the Sabbath (unless it's an emergency, and there aren't too many head-and-neck emergencies), and he patently rejects the idea of evolution as the sole explanation for the diversity of life in the world.

    39. Re:No kidding by t · · Score: 5, Insightful
      First the word "species" is artificial, somewhere some scientist decided that these two groups of animals were different enough to be categorized differntly. If humans were animals I'm sure that Africans and the Swiss would be classified as two different species. Every animal is different from every other animal, the only question is by how much.

      Banging on a tree is a good method to get the insect inhabitants out. It works marvelously for termites and ants. Don't believe me? Try it sometime on a bees nest.

      I'm sure you've seen videos of monkeys hanging out, they are nearly always doing one thing in particular, picking fleas/ticks off of each other. Humans don't have the same difficulty becuase fleas have a hard time hanging onto hairless beasts.

      Why does a giraffe have a long neck? Because thats where the leaves are. There are many reasons for walking upright, most notably it frees your hands up. I've seen videos of monkeys walking around holding something in one hand. It's rather awkward looking. Carry any more and you have to walk upright.

      I am not listing this as proof of anything, the fact is that there are many possible reasons for your questions. It doesn't seem like you've looked very hard for answers.

      When you say that no one can describe how the evolution of any creature has occured (which is false), I'm sure you really meant to say that no one can describe how even the simplest microbe was created from non-living material. That is a much more difficult question and the theory of evolution does not hinge on this question.

      Evolution is not equivalent to random motion. I've also heard this as "tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747". Evolution has a selection process and you do not start from scratch, you always build on what came before you. If evolution was only random, then it would be like browinian motion, it would never make any progress in any particular direction.

      Also the burden of proof probably would not matter to you. If I told you which book to read that would prove evolution to you, would you read it? Have you ever read anything about evolution that was not written by a religous person?

      I think it does affect your ability to study or understand because you do not look for "why" since you assume the answer to "why" is because god made it that way. Have you ever honestly tried to research why a woodpecker would begin banging its head on things? You have already assumed that certain aspects of this world are beyond your grasp as a non-god being. That type of attitude clearly shows that you will never have the level of understanding of other people who are going to try, even if it takes them their whole lives to understand the world around them.

      See, it used to be that biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and all scientists, were all exploring the beauty, simplicity, and intelligence of this beautiful world built by God himself. It used to be that mathematicians would delve deep into the mind of God, seeking to pierce the veil of His great understanding. It used to be that physicists would study each intricacy of nature, trying to discover the rules that God uses to govern the entire universe. It used to be that biologists were reverse-engineering the most marvelous feats of engineering in existence.
      This is still the case, except you have to remove the references to God. People are still exploring the beauty of the world with all its intricacies.

      We used to be miniature gods, no, Gods in training, seeking to become like the great God himself by mastering our minds and understanding our univserse. We used to believe that we were literally offspring of God. Now we are lost souls, studying science to erase those panging doubts that creep into our minds, that tell us nothing is worth anything, and all is in vain. We believe that we are nothing, never were anything, and never can become anything more than we are.
      Speak for yourself, I do not think I am nothing, I will continue to try to create something that will last forever. If the only people who are affected by what I have done in this world are my future children, then that will have been enough to make it all worthwhile
    40. Re:No kidding by aminorex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You asked the poster to supply just one scientist
      who was not a creationist, but did not believe in
      classical macroevolution. I provided numerous
      examples, but now you criticise my reply because
      they were not creationists?

      I don't think I'll bother to reply to you in future.
      It seems you are so blinded by ideology that you can't
      think coherently! Sorry to be so frank, but I'm
      not one to beat around the bush.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    41. Re:No kidding by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Why did a bird start banging its head against wood?

      Because it was a genetic mutant, and this mutant's new behavior gave it a slight survival advantage in its niche that got passed on to present day woodpeckers.

      Why did man suddenly lose his fur and walk upright?

      Man 'suddenly' lost his fur because a hairless body was advantageous. It's easier to clean, and it's much easier to keep cool when sweat evaporates off skin. And walking upright freed our hands for tool use.

      ...if you discovered a watch in the desert, you would assume it was created by someone, not that it was made from random motions of particles in the desert.

      Can this watch reproduce?

      God isn't necessary for order to emerge from chaos.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    42. Re:No kidding by mike3411 · · Score: 1

      The definition of species is not artificial, if two individuals cannot produce viable offspring, then they are different species. It's generally just that simple, but there are some complicating factors that do add some subjectivity. Some birds, for example, are probably capable of producing offspring, but their mating rituals vary so greatly that they will never attempt to breed (sometimes it's hard to get animals to fsck).

      Also, your comment that "Africans and the Swiss would be classified as two different species" is absolutely absurd and somewhat insulting. People of different nationalities are certainly not off different species; some suggest a comparison with breeds (as in breeds of horses, dogs, etc.) but even this is probably a stretch. Recent genetic work (human genome) has shown that there is _no_ genetic basis for race.

      This is a really long post so excuse me if I haven't RTFP, but your first point is incorrect.

      --
      Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    43. Re:No kidding by Troed · · Score: 1
      You scare me.

      I can't even begin to understand how someone can be that blind.

      --
      it's in my head
    44. Re:No kidding by t · · Score: 1
      There have been rare situations where a goat and a sheep have interbreed. The resultant offspring may or may not be able to breed. Horses and donkeys can breed, maybe one day a genetic mutatant will be fertile. Shit happens. And if you are going to argue that my statement that some scientist agreed where to draw the line, you should use words like "generally" nor say "there are some complicating factors that do add some subjectivity" which is bascially equivalent to what I said.

      Also the definition of species that many people use, especially creationist, has little to do with scientific definitions. Hence the disregard for a strict and formal scientific definition.

      If you had bothered to read, and I mean really read, you would realize that I used Africans and Swiss specifically because it is ludicrous. Every comment involving nationalites does not imply racism.

      Thank you for your complete lack of contribution to the discussion.

    45. Re:No kidding by LarsWestergren · · Score: 2, Insightful

      in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin

      Right, so that is why the Dixie Chicks have recieved death threats?

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    46. Re:No kidding by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I'm talking out of my ass here, but I believe that it has been decided that there were actually TWO subspecies of moth before the event occurred, and what was actually happening was varying numbers of the sub-species changing. IANAC, but there is a real difference between showing some genetic migration and maro evolution. Remeber the domain that you're working in!

      --
      Put identity in the browser.
    47. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of the best counter arguments against the irreducible complexity argument I have read. It is clear, detailed without being complex, and cites sources throughout.

      Ten seconds with Google could have found it and many others like it (Including more Creationist pages which use the exact same incorrect "evidence" which is clearly shown to be incorrect or outdated in the article I link to, by the way).

      Tum te tum.

    48. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soot began to settle on trees white boths became rarer because birds who ate tehm could see them more clearly. On the otherhand black moths of the same species became more predominant. After the soot became less prominent things reversed again

      That is evolution among moths, though. I cannot possibly fathom how you think that a new species would have spontantiuously arose.

      See, the mutation had already occured; we had light moths, and dark moths. At some point, the genes which make a moth dark became advantagous, and thus the number of dark moths increased. Moths had evolved and dark moths won through natural selection.

      If that is not evolution then I cannot imagine what you think it is.

    49. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did man suddenly lose his fur...

      Uh, we didn't. We're still in the process of losing it. Unless you're a very odd looking person, you still have light body hair over most of your torso and legs. What do you think that is?

      You also still have a small tail. That bone which people painfully break doesn't actually do anything other than make Dr's money.

      If you can't even take the time to see that you're labelling things "Impossible" when they're happening right in front of your nose, how can I take the rest of your post seriously?

    50. Re:No kidding by thogard · · Score: 1

      Which creation story do you follow? The 1st one in Genesis or the second one? After all there are two in the 1st two chapters alone. It seems to take nearly 26 verses before the story starts to conflict slightly. Maybe thats from the differences between the legend of the south Black Sea to the regions of Babylon.

    51. Re:No kidding by hymie3 · · Score: 1

      Placebo effect would be if *any* appeal to any divine power resulted in an increase in patient health. Arguments of the divine aside, this study shed light on the benefit of perceived patient self-efficacy. Patients who feel that whatever it is that they are doing matters (whether that be taking medication, doing exercises, or praying), get better sooner than patients who don't see the point.

      More interestingly, a care-givers perceived efficacy affects patient care as well. Doctors and nurses who "believe" in the power of medication, prayer, physical therapy have better responses from their patients than care-givers who believe that the treatment is useless, that the patient isn't going to get better *EVEN IF* the exact same treatment is perscribed.

      Call it (wrongly) placebo effect if you will, but patients, nurses and doctors who believe in the treatment given, believe that the patient will get better have better rates of success than those who do not.

    52. Re:No kidding by Zirnike · · Score: 1

      Correction: Not "if two individuals cannot produce viable offspring", but "if two individuals cannot produce fertile offspring" is the more proper definition. Horses and donkeys produce mules, a viable offspring. They are different species, though, as the mule isn't fertile.

      --
      I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
    53. Re:No kidding by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      Well, you are probably right. But I still wouldn't want a creationist, shamanist, or Christian Scientist doctor, even if [sh]e's perfectly competent. Call it prejudice if you like, but these people let their dogma interfere with their observation of reality.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    54. Re:No kidding by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      True, using the word "creationist" there was a mistake on my part.

      But the four scientists I researched did in fact believe in macroevolution. I didn't find any record of the nitty gritty details of their beliefs. But if someone is a researcher into the early history of life on earth, does that mean they believe that evolution has not occurred?

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    55. Re:No kidding by darkstar101 · · Score: 1

      >> The definition of species is not artificial, if two individuals cannot produce viable offspring, then they are different species.

      That doesn't fit all circumstances. It makes it possible for members of a species that cannot mate with itself. If A and B can produce viable offspring they are the same species. If B and C can produce viable offspring they are the same species. Thus it follows that A and C are the same species. But what if A and C *cannot* produce viable offspring?

    56. Re:No kidding by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1
      Any change in the allele frequency of a population over time is evolution.

      That's the point I am trying to make. When I say "biological macro-evolution", I'm talking about a completely new species being evolved into something different. Simply pointing out two existing variations within a species and showing how natural conditions can lead one to become more predominent over the other is not what I would call macro-evolution. It is simply a change in population levels. This is not something most people would deny. What I am talking about is the formation of new traits because of genetic mutation.

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    57. Re:No kidding by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1
      If someone accepts, based on the evidence, that evolution has occurred, but does not believe that the modern synthesis is sufficient to explain it, I believe that is still a scientific (if unusual) point of view and certainly shouldn't disqualify anyone from being a doctor.

      How do you define evolution then? And what exactly do you define as the "modern synthesis" that explains it? If I said "I believe that the fossil record shows an increasingly complexity in life, but I believe that rather that coming about because of some completely natural laws that exist at random, I believe there is a supernatural force that guided and created the various levels of life either at will or through the specific creation of those physical laws" does that mean I "have no business practicing medicine"?

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    58. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call it prejudice if you like, but these people let their dogma interfere with their observation of reality.

      No, it's not prejudice as much as it is JUST PLAIN WRONG. I'm telling you that the fact that a person belives God created the world does NOT mean he lets his "dogma" interfere with his observations of reality. You're painting with a broad brush, and what's worse is that it's completely the wrong color!

      I would be more concerned about having a doctor who believes that evolution is the be-all, end-all answer. A person who believes in God understands the limits of human knowledge and endeavor. A person who rejects the possibility of God or divine creation is likely to be too arrogant for his own good.

    59. Re:No kidding by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1
      Prayer, like placebos, are all in the mind so your study is irrelevant to the discussion if it does not detail the type of people which these prayers are helpful for. Never mind the fact that you cannot do a proper scientific experiment without a control group. What are you going to do, tell the religious people in the control group that they cannot pray for themselves?

      No, the article in Wired was speaking of a scientist who actually had a control group and the study was not people praying for themselves, but other people praying for them. And if I remember correctly, the two grouops did not know whether people were praying for them or not. I'll try to look it up if I can.

      And as for the irreducible complexity, I happen to disagree with you. Any explanation I've heard of intermediate steps, especially for the eye, sound like pure conjecture and don't stand the test of common sense.

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    60. Re:No kidding by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1
      Just an idea, but including that part basically ruined the effectiveness of your point to most of the people you're trying to convince.

      First off, I'm not going to convince the people that respond to me. Second, I didn't say that I believe the study, I was only reporting what I remember reading in Wired. Third, if there was such a study and it was scientifically conducted, shouldn't the armchair "scientists" here at Slashdot be happy to see more knowledge gained by science? Or does this show that they are just as dogmatic as the people they claim are idiots?

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    61. Re:No kidding by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

      It might have been. I really should get out of the habit of referencing studies that I read about months or years before without finding the original article or paper I was reading back then. :-)

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    62. Re:No kidding by KnightStalker · · Score: 1
      How do you define evolution then? And what exactly do you define as the "modern synthesis" that explains it?

      I am not a trained scientist, so I may be describing this inaccurately. Here is a better definition.

      Evolution as I understand the term means that life began on Earth four billion or so years ago, and has branched out through descent with modifications up to its present form, with most of the changes happening in the last half a billion years. Or so.

      The Modern Synthesis, again in my own probably wrong words, is the integration of the ideas in Darwin's Origin of Species with modern genetics, and includes evolutionary forces such as natural selection, genetic drift, and many kinds of mutations. Here is (again) a better definition. You may get tired of all these links to talkorigins.org. But there is an immense amount of information there.

      ...does that mean I "have no business practicing medicine"?

      I believe this is a valid point of view, and, like I said, shouldn't disqualify you from anything. Holding this opinion means that you are not wilfully ignorant; you do not ignore the evidence, you merely find the usual explanation to be insufficient, and you have an alternative (or additional) explanation.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    63. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is one small problem. Evolution is only a Theory. It's not called the law of evolution. It's still a theory, and has just as much chance of being right as the creationist view, or the guided evolution theory. Since very few evidence of "weird" life that was a complete disaster haven't been found, evolution has a lot of flaws. The idea of unguided evolution, or the idea that a higher being wasn't involved in the creation of animals, is completely idiot and flawed. Evolutionist will someday realise they were wrong.

    64. Re:No kidding by V.+Mole · · Score: 1

      No, you tried to imply that since Africans and Swiss are not different species, the general idea of species is bogus. Look up the term "strawman argument" for why such an argument isn't correct, or useful.

      After that blunder, there's no point in reading the rest of your long rambling post.

    65. Re:No kidding by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      "Creationist" as I am using the term does not mean "a person who believes God created the world." It means a person who refuses to accept the evidence that evolution has occurred, and believes firmly in a literal interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 (but not Chapter 2). It's practically a tautology to say that they let dogma interfere with reality.

      If a person believes God created the world, but also realizes that there is a huge amount of evidence for evolution and an old universe which cannot simply be ignored, that person is not ignorant, nor are they considered a creationist in the usual meaning of the word, and my comments do not apply to them.

      Well, if they recognize the evidence but believe God or Satan has planted it there to tempt the faithful, they probably need medication. And believe it or not, there are a sizable number of people who believe this.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    66. Re:No kidding by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

      Ok, the definition of evolution that you presented is rather all encompassing. There are definately parts of that I would say I agree with, but other parts that I wouldn't (yet). Ultimately, the disagreement stems over how much change can result from random genetic mutation combined with natural selection. Like here:

      it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions

      When the defintion is so broad, it makes it difficult to have real conversations about the subject. A change of alleles within a population is not something anyone should doubt at all as it is something we can observe and test. However, the small successive changes that result in new species and the life we have today are something that some don't agree with. Yes, we do see a progression in life from simple to complex in the record, but it is not gradular in the sense that we see every intermediate life form that could have existed if evolution happened the way I've always heard it described (minus punctual equilibriam - excuse my spelling, it sucks). So just to say that we see a progressive increase in complexity doesn't mean one has to come to the conclusion that each generation stemmed from the previous.

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    67. Re:No kidding by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that one species can evolve into another. It has not yet been demonstrated, nor will it ever.

      Oh. Really?

      Why did man suddenly lose his fur and walk upright?

      Well, it wasn't "sudden" for one thing.

      I mean, there has been over a century of countless scientists, all very intelligent, and none of them can describe how the evolution of any creature has occured.

      Flat out wrong. Stop reading Chick tracts.

      Aren't even the simplest organisms far more complex than even the most complicated machines we can build?

      What does "complex" mean?

      If the motion of sand cannot create a watch, how can any random motion create a living organism, let alone the hosts of living organisms that inhabit and have inhabited this world?

      A) Watches do not half offspring, and B) evolution is not random.

      We used to believe that we were literally offspring of God. Now we are lost souls, studying science to erase those panging doubts that creep into our minds, that tell us nothing is worth anything, and all is in vain.

      What doubts? Maybe you have doubts, but that's your problem. Myself, I'd rather live in the real world, rather than fill my head with fantasies.

      We believe that we are nothing, never were anything, and never can become anything more than we are.

      Again, that sounds like your problem. What *I* believe is that we are finally, gradually coming to understand that we have our detiny in our own hands; that no magic being in the sky is going to save us; and that we're better off trying to fix our problems than praying for help.

      Which doctor would you rather have?

      I'd rather have one who would use the best possibly scientifically-determined treatment to help me, rather than one who's stuck in the 18th century with a head full of notions that have long since been disproved. YMMV.

    68. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's practically a tautology to say that they let dogma interfere with reality.

      If you define your terms that way, sure.

      Look: evolution is NOT reality. It is a hypothesis. It's a sound hypothesis; it seems to fit all the facts that we have observed thus far. But it's still just a hypothesis.

      The thing is, the creation hypothesis-- no matter whether it includes a literal interpretation of Genesis or not-- ALSO seems to fit all the facts that we have observed thus far. There's no evidence out there that contradicts the creation hypothesis. Some people would say that it's impossible for the world to have been created in six days. Then somebody else says that "day" has a different meaning when you're talking about the time before the sun and the Earth existed. And around and around we go. The hypothesis DOES appear to fit the facts, which means it's just as valid as the evolution hypothesis.

      Now, you can apply Occam's Razor and say that creation is the less likely hypothesis because it appears on its face to require more unproveable assumptions, and you'd be right to do so. But that doesn't mean creation is false. It just means that when viewed through Occam's Razor it appears to be less likely.

      Remember: be humble. You (and by "you" I mean people in general) don't know as much about the world as you think you know. Recognize the possibility that everything you know might be wrong.

      Well, if they recognize the evidence but believe God or Satan has planted it there to tempt the faithful, they probably need medication.

      That's a completely inappropriate sentiment. Somebody who looks at the sky and says "green" probably has a problem. (Or at the very least an incomplete mastery of English.) But somebody looks at the sky and says, "It's blue because blue is God's favorite color" isn't automatically wrong, or sick, or mentally defective. They just interpret the world differently from the way you do. If a person says that fossils exist in the rocks under our feet because God put them there to instill doubt in the minds of men and therefore grant us the gift of free will, then that person is not automatically wrong, or sick, or defective. He just sees the world differently from the way you see it.

      And for you to say things like, "they probably need medication" says more about YOUR OWN IGNORANCE than it does about theirs.

    69. Re:No kidding by t · · Score: 1
      Thanks, I was trying to explain this but did not succeed. Typically what happens is that group A and group C get separated for some reason and eventually diverge from each other to the point that they can still mate with group B but not each other. If group B is wipped out, A and C are suddenly different species. Pretty silly definition.

      It is clearly artifical when compared to other scientific categorizations like the elemental chart which has very clear rules. It's obnoxious that some people just like to jump on /. and say people are morons while adding little.

    70. Re:No kidding by t · · Score: 1
      No I was trying to point out that classifications of some of the difficult cases is subjective. It is not as cut and dried as the elemental chart.

      Did I say that the general idea is bogus? Why don't you look up the rather weak technique of rewording another persons argument to make it seem like they said something they did not.

      And what is with you people, the post is a reply to another post, thus it is long because it was answering the points in the parent post which is, suprise, long. Do you people have such simple minds that any post that is longer than three sentences is rambling?

    71. Re:No kidding by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit LarsWestergren:

      In America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin

      Right, so that is why the Dixie Chicks have recieved death threats [bbc.co.uk]?

      I think people from outside the States (and many here) have difficulty grokking the fact that rural Texas and Berkeley, California, are both the U.S. Among Manhattan élites you will get yourself ostracized quickly by making racist jokes or gay bashing, but in Alabama being a gay black man could be dangerous to your health.

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    72. Re:No kidding by jgardn · · Score: 1
      Or, in other words, how do you explain bad backs and appendicitis, without resorting to non-explanatory statements like "God works in mysterious ways?"


      Because we are designed to die, and we are designed to suffer in this world. That is the way life works. We are born, we live, and then we die.

      The machine of our body does exactly what it is supposed to do.

      You might imagine a God who created everything in a perfect state; so do I. That happened several thousand years ago and we call it the paradise of the Garden of Eden. But you might imagine a God that prohibits any evil, because of his goodness. I am not so naive. I know that this life is a special time in our immortal existence. This is the time when we are tried and tested, when we live by faith in God alone, and when we should prove our ability to live with God forever. How can we be tested in a perfect world? How can we be tempted to do evil unless there is evil in the world?

      Reading through the first pages of Richard Dawkins book I found his perspective close-minded and insulting. He concludes that finding a watch on the road cannot mean it had a creator and a designer, because it cannot mean that. His evidence of proving Darwinism is Darwinism itself.

      I read another post and refernce about speciation. It is interesting that the best they can do is demonstrate that some children are infertile, and some grandchildren are infertile. They rely on cross-breeding and polyploids. If these mechanisms were used to evolve into the current world, then that would mean there were a greater number of species before than after, and the number of genomes in our bodies would certainly be much larger. There are a few mentions of some cases of speciation potentially beginning, but no mentions of speciation occuring. In short, my original claim. All the scientists, despite their intelligence and effort, have yet to uncover even one case of speciation, despite the millions of species on this planet, and the hundred years time to study it. They merely have to demonstrate speciation to prove that evolution is possible. Proving that it actually occured is another story altogether.
      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    73. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch in desert heh ?
      Obviously somwe made the watch.. but whats more...intricate...complex(etc).... the watch or god ?
      If u believe watches cant make themselves, humans cant evolve independantly, on what basis do u beilive that god made himself ?

      What if some higher god made him and your god dosent know about it ? And this higher god in turn made by another.. and so on...

      How long do u want this recursion to go on ?

    74. Re:No kidding by jgardn · · Score: 1

      Banging on a tree is a good method to get the insect inhabitants out. It works marvelously for termites and ants. Don't believe me? Try it sometime on a bees nest.

      The problem is that banging on a tree with your head results in concussion and death. It is a horrible way to make a living, unless you are a woodpecker with the appropriate structure to do this day in and day out for their entire lives.

      And how does the bird grip the tree? The woodpecker has special claws that allow it to grasp the tree vertically.

      There are many more traits of the woodpecker that had to develop simultaneously for it to be able to eat insects in the tree. I guess if you are willing to believe that life can be created from nothing, then you are willing to believe all the traits could be developed in one generation.

      I admit, I don't, I can't, know everything. No one can. Life is just too short, and the universe is just too big.

      However, knowing what I know, evolution makes no sense. Knowing what I know about woodpeckers -- just one species among millions -- means that evolution was statistically impossible.

      Knowing what I know about humanity and the human mind -- how can something so powerful and so wonderful have evolved in a natural world based on savage laws? Why didn't we evolve into cold-hearted, blood-thirsty, fanged and clawed armored monsters? I could admit that maybe a race like the Klingons have evolved, but definitely not humans.

      Also the burden of proof probably would not matter to you. If I told you which book to read that would prove evolution to you, would you read it? Have you ever read anything about evolution that was not written by a religous person?

      <sarcasm>You caught me! I am really an ignorant fool. I have never studied the issue of evolution, nor have I read any part of any book on the subject! Yes, I only read the Bible all day long, and that is my source for all of my knowledge.</sarcasm>

      Have you ever read anything written by a religious person at all? Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, Moses really did part the sea, that Christ really was resurrected, and that this whole God thing is real?

      Speak for yourself, I do not think I am nothing, I will continue to try to create something that will last forever.

      You misunderstand the consequences of your own beliefs. You cannot create something that lasts forever -- the big crunch, remember? You can certainly try though, but you are wasting your time.

      If you believe you evolved from nothing, and if you believe that evolution is ongoing, then you are nothing and can never be anything. At most, you are a microbe compared to what is going to happen in a few more million years in our human evolution. The memory of you after a million years will be the same as the memory of that microbe that died several million years ago. Nothing. From nothing, to nothing. Everything you do, even if you are Bill Gates or George Bush, means nothing.

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    75. Re:No kidding by Ian+Lance+Taylor · · Score: 1

      Because we are designed to die, and we are designed to suffer in this world. That is the way life works. We are born, we live, and then we die.

      That, and the rest of your post, isn't an explanation of specific facts. It's generalities. When it comes to specific facts, you are effectively saying "God works in mysterious ways." Evolutionary theory can provide a more complete answer, one which addresses specific facts and details.

      That's not a logical proof, of course. It's merely an explanation of why, all else being equal, I would prefer a doctor who believes in evolutionary theory.

      Reading through the first pages of Richard Dawkins book I found his perspective close-minded and insulting. He concludes that finding a watch on the road cannot mean it had a creator and a designer, because it cannot mean that. His evidence of proving Darwinism is Darwinism itself.

      His point, and mine, is not that finding a watch cannot mean that it had a creator. The point is that alternative explanations are possible. The watch may indicate a creator. But it does not prove that there is a creator.

      Believing that the existence of an apparently designed object proves the existence of a designer is the fallacy of the argument from design. Alternative explanations are possible. I suggested the books I did because they help explain the alternative explanation provided by evolutionary theory. Those books don't prove that evolution is real. They prove that evolution is a possible explanation for apparently designed objects. If you reject that possibility, then I have to conclude that you're simply being close-minded.

    76. Re:No kidding by t · · Score: 1
      There are many more traits of the woodpecker that had to develop simultaneously for it to be able to eat insects in the tree. I guess if you are willing to believe that life can be created from nothing, then you are willing to believe all the traits could be developed in one generation.
      This is one of the biggest misunderstanding of evolution. There is no way that all these traits could develop in one generation. That would be quite ridiculous, and has never been observed. Evolution is about thousands and thousands of generations, we're talking millions of years.

      A woodpecker can start out like any other bird. Many birds grab onto the sides of trees, it is quite common. Many birds also peck at things, that's practically the nature of birds. But really, it would be pointless to explain this, there are many reasonable explanations, and lots and lots of time for it to happen.

      Next you're going to tell me that Rams can't possibly bang their heads together without killing themselves. Well I have news for you, sometimes they do kill themselves.

      Why aren't we klingons? Well that has actually been answered, the reason is society. Society makes it possible to do many things which would be impossible if we were constantly trying to kill each other. I'm not talking about building bridges, I'm talking about things that increase your odds of surviving the winter.

      You can claim sarcasm all you like, but by stating that evolutionary traits like what a woodpecker has would need to all develop simultaneously in one generation clearly show that you have absolutely zero understanding of what the theory of evolution is.

      It's funny that you use the big crunch as an example, that is after all a theory with even less evidence than evolution.

    77. Re:No kidding by RestiffBard · · Score: 1
      Most people I know who don't believe in evolution simply refuse to believe in a lot of scientific proof that the earth is very old, for instance.


      I worked as a clerk for the 2000 census with just such a person. She homeschooled her kids and was a strict creationist. Lovely person. I enjoyed talking to her more than anyone. (Census clerks tend to be very bright people) The only issue was once we were discussing astronomy and the things about astronomy I find the most fascinating she simply could not accept. Case in point, light-years. If the Earth really was created only a few thousand years ago then the horsehead nebula must be a fake because the light could not have traveled here from there. We shouldn't be able to see it if you accept that its at the distance that it is. She'll accept the distance but not the timeframe. Needless to say many of our conversations ended with my head just imploding.

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    78. Re:No kidding by RestiffBard · · Score: 1

      I won't do a point by point rebuttal to your comment, many others already have.

      I just want to say that I admire your having posted something in the first place knowing the flaming you would surely get in return.

      I do have two things I want to say. regarding wanting to know the face of god. for me, science is not an attempt to prove the randomness of existence but is an attempt to prove god. god loved thomas too you know.

      As for being gods in training, two things. 1 perhaps evolution will eventually lead us to godhood. if god created everything isn't it possible he created evolution as well? perhaps he's interested to see what we do on our own. 2 aspiring to godhood might also sound a bit like sacrilege.

      just a thought. my fantastical idea is that god started the whole shebang. Lets say god doesn't know where he came from. he only knows that he always was. So, he starts off existence. he allows evolution. tries to make the world he's created as capable of sustaining and replicating itself on its own. perhaps he's hoping we will evolve to godhood. maybe then he'll have half an idea for where he might have come from. being god must be lonely you know.

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    79. Re:No kidding by KnightStalker · · Score: 1
      I'm not speaking out of ignorance here. About five years ago, I argued just as vehemently in favor of creationism. (Once a fundie, always a fundie, I guess, even if you change your mind.) I don't know where I learned that evolution is an evil, Satanic attack on Christian truth, possibly from my parents, possibly from the ICR. I was, naturally, completely ignorant of the actual facts, as were all my creationist buddies. Actually, I didn't abandon my creationism until well after I abandoned my religion, to show you the extent of the hold that the "evolution is unproven/impossible" idea had on me. But it was the facts that changed my mind. And I have kept following the debate. So I know what I am talking about, and I well recognize that everything I know might be wrong.

      That's why I try to base my beliefs, now, on observable evidence rather than simply what I've been told is true. True, I have not studied biology in any depth. I have not studied paleontology. I don't know what all the evidence is that underlies my beliefs. But I know enough to know that there is enough evidence in favor of evolution that it is extremely unlikely to be wrong. The details of how it works will be argued for the rest of time, probably. That doesn't mean didn't happen. It's still happening.

      I also know that there is no evidence in support of creationism. If you have some, or if you have a creationist theory that explains the observed facts, feel free to present it. I'd love to see it.

      He just sees the world differently from the way you see it.

      That he does. In fact, he sees it in a way that implies a rather high amount of paranoia and self-loathing.

      The logic is:

      • I know God created the world pretty much the way it is now, 6000 years ago, because I was brought up to believe that or told that by someone.
      • This contradicts pretty much everything about the earth that is measurable.
      • Therefore, God must be lying to us in nature! I'm right, no matter what the scientists say, and I can trust what God says [i.e. what I've been told by persons other than God] rather than what I can find out for myself, because God is on my side and the scientists are all deceived by Satan.

      This was not exactly my logic, but it is close. Frankly, I was never entirely comfortable with believing that hundreds of thousands of people who have studied the evidence are all deceived, or are all conspiring to hide the truth, when they have no reason to do so.

      Please avail yourself of the many resources on the Internet (talkorigins.org is the best) and in print to learn about the evidence for the historical fact of evolution.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    80. Re:No kidding by V.+Mole · · Score: 1

      Here's your exact words:

      If humans were animals I'm sure that Africans and the Swiss would be classified as two different species. Every animal is different from every other animal, the only question is by how much.

      But humans *are* animals, and yet we don't classify different races as different species. So your proposition is flawed, either through ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead. In either case, I don't want to take the time read and comment on the rest of your post. (That I've taken time to comment at all seems rather pointless, now, so this will be last. If you feel like it, you can post again and "win".)

    81. Re:No kidding by melee · · Score: 1

      While your attention to detail is appreciated, you missed the most important one:

      it was a joke.

      Admittedly not a good one, but still.

    82. Re:No kidding by KnightStalker · · Score: 1
      So just to say that we see a progressive increase in complexity doesn't mean one has to come to the conclusion that each generation stemmed from the previous.

      This is true, but there is more evidence than that. To me, the most convincing evidence is the fact that all life can be described by a hierarchy that does not change if you use different criteria to build the tree. There is a very good description of this here. There is much more evidence than that, such as the distribution of categories of life in isolated areas of the planet, vestigial structures like hip bones in snakes and whales, and of course the fossil record, but to me, this is the core evidence.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    83. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... what? This is all because you have a problem with religion? I don't get it.

      But I know enough to know that there is enough evidence in favor of evolution that it is extremely unlikely to be wrong.

      See, that's where you're screwing up. You're running up against the limits of the scientific method.

      No matter how much evidence you accumulate, it's never okay to say "X is extremely unlikely to be wrong." Instead, all you can do is make predictions about future events. "X happened 1000 times in a row, so I'm confident that X will happen again." But to jump to the conclusion that "it is extremely unlikely that Y is wrong" is to go too far. Particularly in cases like this one, where X and Y aren't mutually exclusive.

      If you have some, or if you have a creationist theory that explains the observed facts, feel free to present it.

      Uh. What? The creationist hypothesis says that the world, including the fossil record, is the way it is because God made it that way. The creationist hypothesis fits the observed facts perfectly, by definition.

      In fact, he sees it in a way that implies a rather high amount of paranoia and self-loathing.

      See? This is a personal thing with you. You have some kind of a personal problem with people who have faith. First it was "they need medication" and now it's "they're paranoid." Hardly a scientific way to look at the world, dude.

      It seems to me that you're far more prejudiced against people of faith than the average person of faith would be against you.

      I know God created the world pretty much the way it is now, 6000 years ago

      The fact that you're invoking Bishop Usher tells me that you're woefully underinformed about the creationist hypothesis. Nobody with any sense has put a date to the act of creation. That sort of Biblical "begat" accounting fell out of favor a hundred years ago.

      This contradicts pretty much everything about the earth that is measurable.

      Again, you're ignoring the limits of science. Let's say I show you a 1,000 year old rock. Can you prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that that rock is 1,000 years old? Can you prove that it wasn't actually created by God a week ago with all the properties of a 1,000 year old rock?

      The creationist hypothesis contradicts nothing. It says that the world is as it is because God made it so. ...evidence for the historical fact of evolution.

      See? You don't even understand what it is that you're supposedly advocating! Evolution has never been posed by ANYONE as a "historical fact." It is a hypothesis, nothing more. It's conjecture. It's what some people imagine happened. It may be true, or it may not be. We just don't know.

    84. Re:No kidding by t · · Score: 1
      But humans *are* animals, ...
      Yeah no shit. But they are not thought of as animals like squirrels or monkeys.

      If you only have the mental stamina to read the first couple of sentences then don't bother replying to me. I notice that you did not comment on whether the species lines are as crystal clear as they are for elements. (Don't bother, I already know the answer.)

      Look at the red wolf, it is listed as an endangered species, yet the article talks about how they interbreed with coyotes. This is the typical use of the word species and it obviously shows that the ability to breed is not a constraint. And why do I bring this up? Because the main observable difference is the color of the fur.

      Also note I could really give a fuck that you think that the last post is the winner. Intelligent people will read the posts because it is substance that matters, not first nor last post.

    85. Re:No kidding by melee · · Score: 1

      I suppose that my Theory of Life Being Randomly Built Every Time Atom By Atom By Equally Tiny Gnomes With Grey Beards And Pointy Hats has just as much chance of being right?

      Completely ignoring your mis-use of the idea of the theory in science, hasn't anyone ever told you that semantic arguments are facile?

    86. Re:No kidding by KnightStalker · · Score: 1
      Like the other AC I was conversing with, you would benefit greatly from a little education.

      The creationist hypothesis says that the world, including the fossil record, is the way it is because God made it that way. The creationist hypothesis fits the observed facts perfectly, by definition.

      That's not a hypothesis. It predicts nothing. It explains nothing. It also ignores that fact that the creationists I'm talking about, far from being theistic evolutionists -- a position I have no quarrel with -- believe Genesis 1 to be literal truth, despite the fact that they have no evidence for it. (They also, for reasons I don't fully understand, despite having been one, believe Genesis 2 to be figurative. Only because it's contradictory...)

      It seems to me that you're far more prejudiced against people of faith than the average person of faith would be against you.

      That's entirely possible. I don't deny it. It doesn't change the facts.

      Evolution has never been posed by ANYONE as a "historical fact."

      Well, I just did. But I know what you meant. If you really believe that, it shows that you haven't done the slighted bit of research into what evolution is.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    87. Re:No kidding by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

      Here was that article I was talking about.

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    88. Re:No kidding by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

      After skimming it again, I'm wondering if I didn't read the whole thing. Looks like there may have been some problems with the methodoligy. Again, not enough time to read in detail, but that article was what was sitting in the back of my head.

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    89. Re:No kidding by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      The evidence is the blood clotting, eye, etc is for intelligence. As is any complex natural structure.

      I take it that the only way "you folk" can win any kind of argument is by labeling posts flamebait?
      Is that a troll? ;)

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    90. Re:No kidding by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      it was a joke.

      Ha ha.
      Considering the lunacy that this topic attracts, I think I can be excused for thinking you were serious. See many other posts on this topic for examples.

    91. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are one arrogant son of a bitch.

      If I hear one more "I'm smarter than you" remark come out of your mouth (keyboard?) I'm gonna puke.

  16. Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 55 by subzerohen · · Score: 2, Funny

    You must be new here...

  17. I Know an Astronomer Who's a Creationist by szyzyg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This guy has written many high quality scientific papers, he does a lot of work on Cosmology, and yet he was a devout 7th Day Adventist - and therefore believed in creation.

    Didn't seem to interfere with his work.

    1. Re:I Know an Astronomer Who's a Creationist by J.+J.+Ramsey · · Score: 1

      But what flavor of creationist? There are those who, while devout, either interpret the creation stories metaphorically, or subscribe to some flavor of old-age creationism, which has its problems but doesn't try to squeeze the geological and astronomical records into a few thousand years.

    2. Re:I Know an Astronomer Who's a Creationist by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You might be interested in the book In Six Days, edited by John Ashton - it's a collection of 50 essays by scientists in many different fields, each with (at least) a PhD, explaining why they believe in Creation from a scientific perspective.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    3. Re:I Know an Astronomer Who's a Creationist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curious, as an astronomer, that he would believe the universe was only 6,000 years old.
      Perhaps he felt the 16 billion or so years prior were before the creation of Earth.

      That being said, while it is highly likely that as an SDA he was a creationist, several professors at a local SDA college have told me they are not creationists, and they do not see their religion as being in conflict with the science, that religion can adapt to evidence.

    4. Re:I Know an Astronomer Who's a Creationist by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      The question is not whether you believe in God, or whether you believe in creation. The question is whether you are educated about the facts your practice is based on and whether you believe the scientific method to be valid. Most young-earth "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" creationists do not, or else they believe in a giant conspiracy among scientists to cover up the truth.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    5. Re:I Know an Astronomer Who's a Creationist by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      Those who have a "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" are under informed. That *does not* mean that creationists are ill-informed. On the contrary, many scientists have switched from evolution to creationism did so because their field of study led them to that conclusion. Their is plenty of evidence for creation outside of the Bible.

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    6. Re:I Know an Astronomer Who's a Creationist by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      Such as this you mean?

      No, seriously, who are these scientists and what is this evidence? Kent Hovind doesn't count.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    7. Re:I Know an Astronomer Who's a Creationist by nathanh · · Score: 1
      On the contrary, many scientists have switched from evolution to creationism did so because their field of study led them to that conclusion.

      And significantly many more scientists disagree with their conclusions. For every creationist with "evidence" there are literally dozens of scientists disputing that "evidence". You claim that "many scientists" are creationists. How many creation scientists are named Steve? I can think of 2. There are at least 200 Steves with PhDs who say creationism is wrong. Extrapolate and you can estimate that less than 1% of doctorates agree with creationism.

      Now I'd say that 1% is definitely not "many scientists". In fact, it's a pathetically small number. If these creationists can't even convince a significant majority of other scientists with their "evidence" then what does that say about the quality of their work? Is your immediate thought that 99% of scientists are ignorant? Perhaps there's a conspiracy at work to hide the biblical truth?! Think a little harder. What is the more logical explanation?

    8. Re:I Know an Astronomer Who's a Creationist by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      I mean well educated ones like this. Not someone who wants attention.

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    9. Re:I Know an Astronomer Who's a Creationist by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      Think of it this way: if there was God who created thw world, that would have a lot more ramification on scientist's lives then if they "do their science" in a lab and go home. Would it make a difference in your life if you believed in ID? Face it: it's a lot simpler to believe that everythin "just happened" than that's there is a force bigger than any of us to be reckoned with.

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    10. Re:I Know an Astronomer Who's a Creationist by nathanh · · Score: 1

      Huh? Was that a case study in typing under the influence?

    11. Re:I Know an Astronomer Who's a Creationist by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      Now I know I'm being trolled. :-)

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  18. Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 55 by stevejsmith · · Score: 1

    Please don't feed the trolls.

    Get used to it...people say people are dead. Don't worry, they're not.

  19. Sad news ... Jonathan Goffan dead at 20 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Sales manager Jonathan Goffan was found dead in his New Jersey home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his posts, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

  20. Get real. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've you listened to any rap, you've heard the word "nigger" about 20 million times. Personally, I find the nonsensical use of racial epithets to be pretty funny.

    1. Re:Get real. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You dummy. In rap music, it's used as 'nigga', which is not the same as the word you use. Black people use it to greet each other, talk about people, etc. For example:

      description of someone else: "Dat nigga be trippin!"
      greeting: "Yo what up, nigga?"

      Perfectly fine if black people use it. White people, no way. It is not the same thing as the word you describe.

    2. Re:Get real. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarious

  21. Oregon Legislation Listens by aSiTiC · · Score: 4, Informative

    My experience in contacting my local representative. I'm impressed doesn't appear to be a form letter!

    ---

    I am fully supportive of the bill, and as a member of the committee
    (General Government) assigned the bill, I am working with the proponents
    and a few other legislators to move this bill.

    We had a very successful hearing on it that attracted a great deal of
    opposition from some of the big high-tech lobbyists. They turned out in
    force and are now trying to prevent those of us on the committee who
    support it from bringing it up for a work session. Unfortunately on
    their side, the lobbyists have the committee chair, most committee
    members of the majority party (Republicans), and a few influential
    members of the House leadership. The fact that the bill has so much
    muscle against it means we are giving them a fight they did not expect
    to face!

    Thanks for contacting me about this. If you have not already, please
    feel free to send your email to other legislators as well.

    Sincerely,

    Kelley Wirth
    State Representative
    District 16

    Melissa P. White
    Legislative Assistant
    Representative Kelley Wirth
    District 16
    900 Court Street NE
    Salem, Oregon 97301
    503-986-1416

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Adam XXXXX [mailto:XXXXXXXX@attbi.com]
    Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 10:47 PM
    To: REP Wirth
    Subject: Internet email for Legislative Member, TO: Kelley Wirth

    Dear Representative Kelley Wirth:

    I'm very disappointed to hear that House Bill 2892 is being stalled
    because large corporations fear it's implications. Open Source software
    should be consider equally along with other costly software! If the
    Open Source software is more cost effective and achieves the same
    purpose it should be used in Oregon government applications. This would
    be a perfect oppurtunity for Oregon lawmakers to show their commitment
    to maximize taxpayers money! Thanks and please consider my thoughts.

    Sincerely,
    Adam XXXXXX
    XXX NW 5th #XXX
    Corvallis, Oregon 97330
    XXXXXXXX@attbi.com

    --

    Where the Music Matters

  22. Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 55 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that coming from a guy who just fed a racist troll? with enough racisim and added bias.

  23. HB2892 Alive? Dead? by SatanicLoveMonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My Oregon House Representative, Mitch Greenlick (Democrat-033), wrote back to me:

    John, I wasn't at that hearing so I don't know what happened. But I read the same news reports you did and I also heard that Microsoft and Intel, et al really brought full fire on the proposal. And it is definitely dead.

    Mitch

    Now, I don't mean to be a naysayer, and I'd hate to quit too early, but when the man says it's dead...

    Doomed feelings aside, I'm off to write the speaker of the house, Ms. Minnis... As I said to Rep. Greenlick, I'd rather not have my taxes raised when the alternative could be to use open-source software providing Oregonians with jobs (installation, design, maintenance) and saving money by eliminating the need to pay economic rent to Washingtonians (Microsoft Licensing Fees).

    SLM

    --
    If you think you can hurt me again, you're wrong. I left my heart in my other pants.
    1. Re:HB2892 Alive? Dead? by eniu!uine · · Score: 1

      I wrote to Lenn Hannon and Rob Patridge so far with no reply. I hope others are doing the same.

      --
      My Blog
  24. Grub Fools and Slashdot Editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just want to take a moment to comment on Grub. In the original story we heard,

    "People who choose to download and run the client will assist in building the Web's largest, most accurate database of URLs."

    Already I find myself rolling my eyes.

    Then I click through to the site. Aha. I will volunteer my machine on a non-profit basis for a for-profit company. This is just like distributed.net and SETI? Give me a break, these guys were bought out by Looksmart, a paid for placement ad company.

    Google didn't succeed by getting slashdot editors to post stories saying they are building the most useful search engine out there, they succeeded by actually building it.

    I just hope grub keeps the fools who want to regulate google away. Google succeeded because they didn't have to listen to self-important analysts.

    1. Re:Grub Fools and Slashdot Editors by bug-eyed+monster · · Score: 1

      "Google didn't succeed by getting slashdot editors to post stories saying they are building the most useful search engine out there, they succeeded by actually building it."

      Actually slashdot editors did post stories, quite a few of them. Whether Slashdot played any part in Google's success is a different story.

      But seriously, the part I don't get about Grub, why ask one computer to spider the sites on another computer, why not just ask each web server out there to run the Grub client on their own server and send the result back. All they have to do is put the word out to the webmasters (but not through spam please), "we'll soon be the search engine, if you want to be on it, run our client on your server and send us back the results."

  25. MOD UP +5 FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  26. Grub are morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    I'm thinking the Grub people PLANNED to have it search sites in blatant ignorance of the robots.txt. That way they could index "more" of the internet than places that correctly ignore it.

    And then this, from that forum thread:

    bear in mind it is a new product, and under (intense) development by the looks of it
    Give me a break, a web spider has only one requirement: OBEY ROBOTS.TXT . It's clear they didn't even consider this when coding it, let alone other niceties like "Don't DoS the site by spidering it too fast".
  27. Re: Newegg.com has them for $300 by benzapp · · Score: 2, Informative

    Check it out.

    --
    I don't read or respond to AC posts
  28. Wrong by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

    Starts at $2600

    Or so they say.

    1. Re:Wrong by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      My point was that he said "top of the line" which I took to mean the best processors. Which would add to the cost to the tune of about $1200-1400 or so (the link you had doesn't even give the best processor, just the 242). That's still only $3800-4000, about $1000 shy of what I said. I still don't think anyone would buy that for anything less than a server, though.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
  29. Opteron's ECC supports scrubbing! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Informative
    Most if not all prior x86 chipsets that supported ECC did a fairly half-assed job of it. They didn't report the location of a detected error (whether correctable or not), but instead only the base address of a block of memory which contained the error.

    It appears that the Opteron can report the actual address of any detected errors. Plus, it can report details of ECC errors in its caches.

    But the coolest feature is that it supports memory scrubbing, a feature I'd previously not seen in a microprocessor or chipset since the iAPX 432 memory controller back in 1983.

    When a SEU causes a single-bit error in a word of memory, the ECC is capable of correcting it when the word is read. But if that word doesn't get read again for a long time, it's possible that a second SEU might happen in the same word, which would then be an uncorrectable error. With memory scrubbing, the memory controller uses a small portion of the memory bandwidth to scan the entire memory, correcting any single-bit errors that are found, so that the probability of a two-bit (or more) uncorrectable error is greatly reduced.

    My last several computers (including a dual Athlon using the 760MPX chip set, and a DEC Alpha) had ECC, but not scrubbing. I considered writing a Linux program to scrub the memory by direct access to /dev/mem, but this has the disadvantage of thrashing the processor's caches. By implementing scrubbing in hardware, the Opteron avoids that problem.

    The Opteron has a Scrub Control Register that is used to enable or disable scrubbing and control the rate. There are independent scrubbing controls for the L1 data cache, L2 cache, and main memory.

    Those of us that want high reliability really welcome this feature. Well done, AMD!

    By the way, it should be noted that it is typical for a PC with 128 megabytes of memory to get a single bit error several times a week. On my Alpha, I routinely saw corrected error log messages in the syslog, which gave me much more confidence in the system than the way that most PCs simply fail to even detect memory errors, let alone correct them. The log messages are also useful in that you can determine whether you have some memory that is getting marginal. For instance, at one point I started getting a much higher rate of corrected errors on one particular SIMM. There may have been a slight amount of oxidation or corrosion on the contacts, or they may have just worked themselves loose a bit. Cleaning the contacts and reseating the SIMM solved the problem with only a few minutes of down time, instead of what probably would have been hours of down time had the errors gone unnoticed.

    The results of an undetected error vary considerably; it may be in memory that is not in use at the time, or it could be in the midst of the operating system, an application, or user data.

    1. Re:Opteron's ECC supports scrubbing! by NerveGas · · Score: 3, Informative


      The AMD MPX (dual Athlon) chipset also supports memory scrubbing.

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    2. Re:Opteron's ECC supports scrubbing! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1
      The AMD MPX (dual Athlon) chipset also supports memory scrubbing.
      Wow, you're right! I checked the AMD 762 data sheet, and was ready to reply to correct you, when I saw the reference to the AMD 762 System Controller Software/BIOS Design Guide (AMD document 24462 rev D dated March 2002). I downloaded it, and sure enough, scrubbing is documented starting on page 178. Thanks for correcting me!

      Now I'll have to see whether my BIOS is actually enabling it.

    3. Re:Opteron's ECC supports scrubbing! by NerveGas · · Score: 1


      Of course I'm right. : )

      Both my Asus and Tyan MPX-based boards have the option available in the BIOS. I'll tell you, stuff a couple of gigs of RAM into the boards, turn on ECC, and the boot time sure seems excessive. Of course, it's actually doing valuable work, clearing out the memory so it can actually do the ECC, but still - waiting that long for the POST beep is a bit uncomfortable if you're not used to it.

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    4. Re:Opteron's ECC supports scrubbing! by illumin8 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Sparc architecture has supported memory scrubbing for quite some time. Single bit errors are logged properly to /var/adm/messages and the exact DIMM location is presented.

      It's good to see the AMD Opteron finally adding this level of reliability to IA-32/64 hardware.

      On another note... I think you're mistaken when you say it's normal for a PC to get single bit errors several times a week. On all the Sun boxes I work on if I'm getting single bit errors on any DIMM I replace it right away. A DIMM that begins to report single bit errors is most likely just hours away from a double bit error and that will definitely panic your box. I think you might have some bad memory.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    5. Re:Opteron's ECC supports scrubbing! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1
      The Sparc architecture has supported memory scrubbing for quite some time.
      That's good to know. I was referring to scrubbing being relatively new to PC class machines. Real computers have had such things for many years.
      I think you're mistaken when you say it's normal for a PC to get single bit errors several times a week. On all the Sun boxes I work on if I'm getting single bit errors on any DIMM I replace it right away.
      At the time I observed this behavior on the Alpha, I was initially concerned. But I got some statistics from several DRAM vendors and found that the error rate was well within spec. I have no idea whether the expected SEU rates for DRAM have changed for more recent parts.
      A DIMM that begins to report single bit errors is most likely just hours away from a double bit error and that will definitely panic your box.
      Not so. As long as there aren't an extremely high level of single-bit errors, the probability that a second error will occur in the same word is very small even for an extended period of time. The memory system can tolerate as much as a single bit error in every word, as long as two or more bits in the same word don't have errors.
    6. Re:Opteron's ECC supports scrubbing! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1
      Both my Asus and Tyan MPX-based boards have the option available in the BIOS.
      Strange. My Asus has a BIOS setting for ECC, but no option for scrubbing. I've read the control register, and if I'm interpreting it correctly, scrubbing is NOT being turned on, even though I have ECC enabled. What BIOS version are you running on your Asus?
    7. Re:Opteron's ECC supports scrubbing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I considered writing a Linux program to scrub the memory by direct access to /dev/mem, but this has the disadvantage of thrashing the processor's caches.

      Couldn't you lock the cache before you begin? I guess that would mean you'd have to put it in the kernel then tho :/

    8. Re:Opteron's ECC supports scrubbing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Motorola MTX boards have had scrubbing since they came out 6 years ago.

      Granted they are slow now (and expensive!) but they were some serious workhorses in 1997 with a 200MHz (and perhaps even higher later, can't remember) PPC604E and 128 bit memory busses.

      The chipset is perfectly documented, it always does scrubbing; there is no way to disable it, but you can select to get an interrupt or not on a scrubbing error.

    9. Re:Opteron's ECC supports scrubbing! by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      It looks like I was wrong this time. I know for a fact that my Tyan MPX boards have the option, but I double-checked, and my Asus A7M266-D does *not* have the scrubbing option. I may head over to their web site and see if there's a newer BIOS than the 1005A, and see if it supports it or not.

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  30. Because they're thought of as heathens? by Wee · · Score: 1
    Why is it that creationists are so looked down upon, but other religions that, for example, believe that the world is sitting on an elephant that is sitting on a turtle are okay? Is it because it is expected that white people in North America should know better, but non-whites are free to believe whatever they want?!? That to me seems at the very least bigotted.

    Damn. If I had any mod points, you'd have gotten one. I'd have liked to have given you two or three, actually.

    I was always apalled at the double standard most people in N. Am have for those of us that don't believe in the version of Jesus as some white dude who spoke like King James. I mean, I should be as free to say that I'm an apatheist as a dark-looking guy should be to say that he believes in the Mystical Turtle of Life, right? Not a chance. The swarthy fellow gets a "Wow, you have a really interesting belief system... tell me more about your culture" kind of reaction and I get one like "You're going to hell... you know that, right?"

    As a white American male, I'm expected to espouse the traditional Christian myths. If I had an accent or something I could say whatever I wanted. But since I sound like a typical Californian, I have to say "Jesus saves! Praise be!" or I either get shit on or an attempt to save my soul. My wife gave me a bumper sticker that says "Jesus is coming. Look busy." You wouldn't believe the amount of grief I get for that. I think it's funny as all get-out, yet most people (Americans) don't seem to have a very open sense of humor when it comes to a white guy calling bullshit on the whole Bible story. The Turkish guy can have a "Praise Allah" sticker -- basically discounting Christianity out of hand -- and gets nothing. Is it because deep down your average Baptist or Episcopalian or whatever automatically discounts the foreign guy as a heathen? It's an "us vs. them" thing? I don't know.

    I'm fine with any religion, as long as you don't try to convince me yours is the one I should believe in. You ever had a Taoist tell you that you're going to hell unless you fessed up with the sins and got with their program? When's the last time a Hindu tried to convert you? When's the last time a pair of Muslims came to your door and tried to foist their nonsensical tracts on you?

    As much as people in the U.S. preach tolerance, I don't see a lot of it...

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    1. Re:Because they're thought of as heathens? by makohund · · Score: 1

      "Jesus is coming. Look busy." You wouldn't believe the amount of grief I get for that.

      You're right... it is unbelievable that people would get uptight over that. (I've seen people like that, though. Sad.)

      Speaking as a Christian myself, I am constantly amazed at how dull-headed, humorless, uptight, nosy, and pain-in-the asses many so-called Christians can be. (Not to mention "right wing" so-called "conservatives" that seem to be more worried about how other people live their lives than how they live their own. If they actually read that Bible they keep preaching about, they might notice that Jesus guy ranting over and over again about stupid behaviour like that.) Sorry you have to put up with that crap... we're not all like that. :)

      Anyway, I think that sticker is funny as hell too. Heck, the priest at my church (Episcopalian) has that same sticker on the door of his office. He even mentioned that fact in his Easter sermon. He's always cracking jokes. Sometimes they're even funny. :P

      (FWIW I'm not a big Sunday church go-er either, but if my wife's bell choir is playing I usually can't get out of it. :)

  31. OT but... by MoThugz · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else see two topic icons on this article? The slashback icon as well as the AMD one.

    And it's not some browser specific bug... It's displayed in both Mozilla and IE.

    --
    Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
  32. geek spelling, was Re:grrrr by mark_space2001 · · Score: 1
    It's "beyond the pale", not pail. The expression has nothing to do with a bucket...

    You're one of those people who never reads the manual, right? And make people like me posts to email lists saying "RTFM noob"?

  33. Say "Ah" - Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm deliberately ignorant.
    I deny any possibilities other than the ones I blindly adhere to.

    Now lay back and relax. Nurse, retractors... :)

  34. Re:Are you an intolerant bigot? by t · · Score: 1

    Your ignorance of evolutionist is truly astounding.

  35. racial slurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Forgive my ignorance of racist epithets; there is a fellow from Norway whom I'd like to insult. I'm wondering if what you say here means that I should be calling my friend a fjord-nigger?

    1. Re:racial slurs by stevejsmith · · Score: 1

      I was simply stating that his racial slur is completely and totally unfounded. I'm not saying that he should call Arabs or Indians "sand niggers," I'm just saying that if he's going to call an Indian a sand nigger, he should realize that that doesn't even make any sense.

  36. They're everywhere by BSDevil · · Score: 2, Informative

    I noticed it too - and if you look at several other stories posted today, many of them have it. The one about the PPC970 has an AMD logo on top of an IBM logo. The PC/104 one has hardware on top of links. "Video Game Movies in Development" has the 'Games' joystick on top of the 'Movies' clapboard.

    The winner, hovever, seems to be this one about the GPL vs. the XP licence: it has Tux on top of Bill of Borg, both above the Justice lady. Hrm...

    --
    Cue The Sun...
    1. Re:They're everywhere by jdkincad · · Score: 1

      It's now possible for a story to be posted under multiple topics; see ComdrTaco's journal for moer info.

      --
      The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.
  37. Why are Opteron's out of reach? vs Athlon64? by Thagg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The prices for the Opteron chips seem reasonable, and the nforce3 and new VIA chipsets should make it possible to build reasonably priced motherboards -- so why would the Opteron be out of reach for power-hungry computer users?

    Just because it says 'server' on the box the chip comes in?

    thad

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    1. Re:Why are Opteron's out of reach? vs Athlon64? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mainly because AMD customers are used to buying $50 CPUs and anything more expensive than that seems very exotic.

    2. Re:Why are Opteron's out of reach? vs Athlon64? by csnydermvpsoft · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've been wondering this as well. You can already get Opterons on NewEgg in stock for $300, which is pricy, but the chip has only been on the market for a couple of days.

      Maybe the Athlon 64 will be more like the Duron, appealing to the bottom-of-the-line systems. Or maybe the Opteron will take the place of the Athlon MP, which is priced higher than the Athlon XP (which is the exact same chip with a jumper connection changed) just because the market they're targetting is willing to pay for it.

    3. Re:Why are Opteron's out of reach? vs Athlon64? by pr0ntab · · Score: 1

      1) You're helping them pay off their development costs because you absolutely need the 64-bit stuff RIGHT NOW. I for one am involved in getting a few such systems, and its like pulling teeth from the vendors getting them out the door (the demand is pretty high, so I guess AMD sized up their market about right).

      2) The difference between the Athlon MP and the XP is also that the MP has been tested to run MP without screwing up (cache timings, etc.). AFAIK you get a better warranty too.

      --
      Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
    4. Re:Why are Opteron's out of reach? vs Athlon64? by captaineo · · Score: 1

      Probably because the first thing a consumer is going to do is try to load Windows on it, and AMD64 Windows won't be available for a couple months yet... I bet AMD just doesn't want to see waves of clueless people returning Opterons because it "doesn't run Windows"... :)

    5. Re:Why are Opteron's out of reach? vs Athlon64? by RexRuther · · Score: 1

      An opteron will run Windows just fine. Thats one of the big advantages of the Hammer chip.

      --
      -"The early bird catches the worm, but the late bird sleeps the most"
  38. fossils by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't seen many fossils of transitional forms, have you?

    I am! Most of my friends are.

    What? You mean that's not a good thing?

  39. "what it will take for the Athlon 64 to succeed" by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The return of chipset-free SMP. This was my primary motivation to go with Athlon 64, and I was planning to buy two of them. Then AMD announced that they were dropping a HT link from clawhammer. Now SMP must be done at the chipset level once more, which is a serious liability compared to the ease and low cost of hypertransport. Sure, the socket costs more, but I think it's worth it to not need any special chipset.

    This would also solve the memory controller bandwidth problem. People who need the additional bandwidth can use two clawhammers; they'll want SMP anyway. This was my plan all along, my understanding was that sledgehammner had a superior (dual channel) memory controller and an additional HT link (three total) and that clawhammer had only a single channel memory controller but still had two HT links, so you could get dual processor SMP out of it for "free" (only the cost of supporting the pins and bus connections on the motherboard.) I don't see why you wouldn't be able to build linear-connected SMP machines with it either, up to 32 nodes or whatever HT supports, though I'm not sure how useful a machine set up with those kind of interconnects would be, or what kind of OS it would take to do anything meaningful with it.

    Anyway, AMD really did promise those things in their marketing literature -- 1-2 way clawhammer and 2-8 way sledgehammer (that always looked funny to me, like they were implying you had to run at least two chips) and the processors in the sledgehammer would be cross-connected, with two of them each employing a dual channel memory controller at once. Then they changed their minds. Doubtless they felt that they had to remove it to bring the chips down to some magical price point, and maybe they're right, but I was expecting a really classy CPU and what we're getting is cool and all, but they missed the geek factor pretty much entirely.

    Now it's not like itanic is there mind you, the new PowerPC is pretty geeky but that can't make it a leading processor just because of the weight behind x86 (which if you think about it, AMD is helping to preserve. we laud them for their backwards compatibility, and we hope their new extensions are better-implemented than, say, the i386's. :) They certainly look better, it looks like a great chip in every way, but it really does appear to need another hypertransport link. Come on, AMD.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  40. Re:"what it will take for the Athlon 64 to succeed by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Even though the Athlon 64 (nee Clawhammer) only has a single Hypertransport link, in principle it may be possible to use it in a dual processor SMP configuration without a "special" chipset. For instance, a motherboard could use two Athlon 64s with a single AMD-8131 Hypertransport PCI-X tunnel (or any other Hypertransport tunnel), and attach the two processors to the opposite ends of the HT tunnel.

    Of course, such a configuration using the Athlon 64 will not be supported by AMD, since the Athlon 64 will not be rated for SMP use, but in practice it is likely to work, unless AMD actually disables the ccHT capability of the processor.

  41. Are creationists safe doctors? by hbmartin · · Score: 0, Troll

    Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors?
    What is that supposed to mean? Please don't make slurs unless you understand what you are talking about. Creationism is a valid scientific view point and those who choose between creation and evolution are very well informed and educated. =
    Would they ignore animal research results, etc?
    I can't speak for others, but I would certainly use such results were I a doctor. I don't even understand what that has to do with creationism. Like I said, creationism is a valid scientific view point, not some weird cult or sect.

    --
    Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    1. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by sceptre1067 · · Score: 1
      quote: "Creationism is a valid scientific view point"

      No... it is not... as I mention in another post. Creationist do not follow scientific method. They do not play by the same rules, and rely on a supernatural explanation, which is not science.

      Methodological Naturalism, ya can only talk about what you observe, create a hypthesis for, and then test, is the way of science. This has been done for micro-evolution and can be applied to macro evolution. It is not possible to apply to Creationism as creationism (and Intiligent Design) rely on a supernatural, unobservable, untestable explanation.

      In short not science...

    2. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      I must disagree. What about cosmological scientists who rely on "dark energy" and "dark matter" to explain the way the universe is reacting and expanding?

      Scientist's observations pointing to something we can't yet explain does not mean that that it is not science, it simply means science is leading us down a path where we haven't been before.

      What do I observe? Remarkably complex creatures and phenomenen (many documented here on slashdot and other evolutionist magazines). An analogy: when I see software I don't assume some random bit generator over time created it. Nor do I assume that the hard drive spurted bits that created a program that happened to work. I (and you may differ) assume that it was created by something intelligent (i.e. a programmer).

      Evolution is the only field of study where random chance over time is an acceptable method of creating complex structures.

      Your next point was testing: evolution has soundly failed here. Provide me with *one* example of time creating increasing genetic complexity.

      Evolution's chance + time formula is no more observable in and of itself that intelligent design is.

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    3. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by jdkincad · · Score: 1

      Creationism is a valid scientific view point

      When you can explain how Creationism can be proved false (a requirment for any scientific theory) your statement will be correct.

      --
      The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.
    4. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by sceptre1067 · · Score: 1
      sigh...

      "dark matter" (haven't heard about the "dark energy") is being tested... current theories (I believer) include the idea of various particles (from simple neutrinos to other more exotic ideas) and developing a way to detect and mesure amounts to determine if this is a viable explanation...
      in other words, observe, develop a hypothesis, and then test. Also for scientists that specialize in cosmology, this isn't a new thing... missing matter has been a question for over 20 years now...

      On the software analogy... existance of complex software does not equal intellignece (... considering some of the code I've seen over the years, quite the opposite!)

      As for complex structures in nature... evolution technically does not rely on pure chance... it accepts that other forces in nature will affect the direction of evolution (emphasis, natural, not supernatural influence, e.g. food source, predation, weather, etc.)

      As for evolution being the only field of study that relies on random chance... well see above, it really relies on probablity, similar to another field of accepted science, quantem physics..

      As for *one* example of time creating increasing genetic complexity... well dependin on micro or macro... Micro evolution has been tested in lab with fruit flies and produced different critters.
      But I get the sense that by complexity you mean something like Cambrian explosian to modern times.... macro evolution has, through a decent fossil record showed development and incresing complexity. The current debate, I believe, is mechanism. In short is it as simple as Dawin's ideas of differentiation or do other factors (radiation leading to randome mutation, etc.) play a bigger role.

      Evolution and time are more observable then I.D. because even most I.D. people accept the fossil record, just no way to show that there was a supernatural intlligence behind it...

      My point is that creationis and I.D. both rely on a supernatural explanation. Science purposefully limits itself to something that can be observed and tested, along with the possiblity that the hypothesis could be wrong. Even Feynman said that science is just an attempt to create a model of the world we see... Creationism and I.D. do not create a model... They do not allow for the model to be negated or tested...

      In short to alow a supernatural explanation then opens up a huge can of worms... (e.g. Graivity... much too complex an idea for there to be some radom force that some how pulls every thing in the correct direction... there must be some intelligence guiding it so it knows where to go and how to make things fall....)
      In other words... I don't see a contridiction between religious beliefs (and I.D. is religious at its core) and science the only people that do are those who feel that science some how threatens religion and a percieved natural order of things based on some need to know that a higer order is behind it all...

    5. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by hbmartin · · Score: 1
      hmm, where shall I start?
      1. Proving that the earth is indeed old enough to allow for evolution.
      2. Proving that time can create new genetic information.
      3. Providing a single example of evolution (be sure to differ between evolution and natural selection)>

      I could probably think of more but I'm rather tired. Please reply if you need more and I'll answer later.
      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    6. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by sceptre1067 · · Score: 1
      Under Creationism... none of these are false... As soon as one allows a supernatural explanaton, one can change the rules...


      for #1: Earth is as old as the designer/god wants it to be to carry out either creation or I.D. with old Earth timing.

      2. Time can or can not create new gentic information at the decision of the designer/god.

      3. Examples of evolution are up to the designer/god.


      In other words you missed the point of the post... science allows itself to be wrong for the sake of finding a better model. In short it allows that it can be negated (and please do not throw out the consipriacy theories at this point, as is true of any human endevor there will be politics, personality clashes, etc. but over the long haul, the truth has come through.)


      I.D. and creationism do not allow for or have any mechanism to update thier models... they are either right or well... they don't accept an alternative. They don't accept any evidence outside of that which may disprove them... Evolution is as least still developing trying to figure out which mechanism best fits the data and how to refine hypothesis (plural?) to create a better model.

    7. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      So what makes those "more exotic" ideas any weirder than ID?
      I did not say existance of complex software = intelligence, but you'd agree (I think) that the existance of any software != chance.
      Quatum physics does not rely on chance to create itself.
      What do you mean be "decent fossil record"? Well sure, there are creatures more complex in the fossil record and creatures less complex. But if I line computers in five year intervals you would see increased complexity, but that does not prove those computers evolved.
      Gravity *does not* rely on chance.
      I don't feel that open minded sceince threatens anything. The more we've dug into the workings of life over the past century, the more we discover complexity that would have blown Darwin's mind. Hence, I love scientific advances because they simply point more and more clearly toward creation.

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    8. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      You mean that creation has remained steady and evolution is like a wobbling tower constantly on the brink of scientific disaster? I'd say that chalks up one for creation. Think of it this way: has the complexity of life become more explainable by chance since Darwin or less? ie has discoveries about proteins and genetic structure furthered evolution or given it one more headache that is has to try and explain?

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    9. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by jdkincad · · Score: 1

      Those proofs would problably cause Creationists some grief, and may even get them to stop arguing the infalablity of the Bible. But I think you misunderstood me; allow me to rephrase: explain how to prove that any event is free from the influence of an omnipotent being

      --
      The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.
    10. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      You are right, if an omnipotent being existed, he could do anything he wanted, including messing with gravity and what not. But it's obvious that the omnipotent being also created scientific laws which the things which he created follow.

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    11. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      I have done this above, if you read at +1 or lower
      (until I get modded down by the PC monitors, that is.)

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    12. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by Zirnike · · Score: 1
      "(until I get modded down by the PC monitors, that is.)"

      The word you're looking for is 'intelligent', not 'PC'

      From elsewhere you posted this: "Creationism probably isn't a scientific explanation. But it might be provable."

      It is provable. All that God needs to do to prove it is to come to Earth, prove he's God (easy enough, HE'S GOD...), and say that he did it that way. The point Creationism (and ID, creationism in a mask) is that it is not falsifiable. Hence, it is not a scientific theory, no matter how hard you want it to be one.

      --
      I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
    13. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Proving that the earth is indeed old enough to allow for evolution.

      Already done.

      Proving that time can create new genetic information.

      Already done.

      Providing a single example of evolution (be sure to differ between evolution and natural selection)

      Um. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. One way that happens is random mutation followed by natural selection. In other words, you've asked for an example of evolution that is counter to the definition of evolution.

    14. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      You mean that creation has remained steady and evolution is like a wobbling tower constantly on the brink of scientific disaster? I'd say that chalks up one for creation.

      No, that only proves that creationists refuse to accept evidence against their point of view, while scientists are constantly trying to find the right answer, even if it means throwing out the old ways of thinking.

      Look at it this way: Gravity used to be though of as a classical Newtonian force. Then Einstein came along and showed that, no, it's a curvature of four-dimensional spacetime. Now quantum theory says that it's caused by an exchange of particles called gravitons. Quantum theory and general relativity appear to both be correct. However, they are mutually incompatible with each other. Does this mean the concept of 'gravity' is on the brink of scientific disaster?

      Think of it this way: has the complexity of life become more explainable by chance since Darwin or less?

      Sigh. Evolution does NOT proceed by pure chance. Stop beating dead horses.

    15. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      creationists refuse to accept evidence against their point of view
      I'll accept any evidence against my point of view.
      Evolution does NOT proceed by pure chance.
      And whatever other "natural forces" are required. Gee, you almost make it sound like nature is intelligent.

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    16. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      There are no examples of random mutation followed by natural selection producing new creatures. Only more specialized versions of existing ones.

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    17. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      Um. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. One way that happens is random mutation followed by natural selection. In other words, you've asked for an example of evolution that is counter to the definition of evolution.

      No, you missed the point. Random mutations is a modification of existing genes, *not* the creation of new ones that is required for evolution to take place.

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
    18. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      I'll accept any evidence against my point of view.

      OK, have you read all of this yet?

      And whatever other "natural forces" are required. Gee, you almost make it sound like nature is intelligent.

      All you need is something which selects certain members of a species over others. A change in climate, getting eaten by predators, depletion of food/water, etc.

    19. Re:Are creationists safe doctors? by hbmartin · · Score: 1

      Have you read all of this?

      How does selecting certain members of species over other create new species?

      --
      Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
  42. Re:Are you an intolerant bigot? by sceptre1067 · · Score: 1
    Hmmm... to quote:
    "Creationist place much more evidence in scientific fact then evolutionists do. "

    By definition, Creationist science does not use (in fact deny's) methodological naturalism. To explain... Accepted science requires that one only rely on what one can test with no recourse to a supernatural explanation... One can still believe in the supernatural, but for the sake of science everybody has agreed to play by the same set of rules, methodological naturalism.
    Creationsist (and inteligent design believers) do not play by these rules, hence they are not in the business of science.

    This is not bigotry, it is simply fact and how science is carried out... observe, hypothesis, test...

  43. robots.txt by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Honoring robots.txt seems to me to be like honoring "all spam should have 'ADV:' at the beginning of the subject."

    What punishment is there for not honoring it?

    Instead there should be a technological solution, rather than a legal or social solution (the current solution, I believe, is social).

    The answer? Look to Slashdot. Create artificial "delays" in access times. Slashdot has 2 minutes between posts and 20 seconds between clicking "Reply" and "Submit".

    The web sites could have an artificial 2- or 3-second delay between accesses, so for instance if a "robot" was scanning the site it would experience slow-downs. And it could increase the delay upon multiple accesses, by (say) 1 second each access within the limit, so that the spider would end up taking a very long time to get each page.

    This would require no change in laws, or in "social" behavior to punish the spiders. People generally don't click on a new link that quickly anyway (they tend to read some of the page before clicking on a link on that page), so this would be very non-intrusive for regular users but would slow down a spider.

    Of course, then the spiders would be written such that they scan multiple sites, so a slowdown on one (or every) site wouldn't slow the spider down much. But that's the price we pay for putting information on the internet.

    I seriously think the practice of using "robots.txt" is silly.

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    1. Re:robots.txt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's to the advantage of spiders to honor robots.txt, and that's why they do. It helps them avoid things that might trap their spiders, causing infinite loops, or pages that might be temporary. Since everyone wins, it's a percect solution.

    2. Re:robots.txt by amorsen · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Web sites can try to detect spiders. Spiders can try to hide that they are spiders. This leads to an arms race. Robots.txt was an attempt at a social contract: Spiders would not be stopped by the web site, as long as the spiders upheld their end of the contract.

      If it becomes commonplace that spiders break the social contract, then web sites will have to get better weapons. This means development time spent on something that ultimately benefits noone. Some of the measures that could be used would in fact harm innocent bystanders. Take the 2-second delay as an example. Now implement it on a big web site, and imagine what happens when a big proxy tries to access several times a second. Perhaps you just cut yourself off from AOL. So more wasted development time to fix that problem...

      At the same time the legitimate spiders that upheld the social contract before may have to try to masquerade as normal users. Where do we end up? "In order to access this site, type the letters that appear in the picture below."

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    3. Re:robots.txt by Zirnike · · Score: 1
      "The answer? Look to Slashdot. Create artificial "delays" in access times."

      For spam protection, that works. Problem, though: I hit the main page, middle click on the interesting stories to open them in a new tab, and grab all the good stuff before going on to read the discussions. I use a lot LESS than 2 seconds between accesses, for about 30 seconds, then nothing for quite a while. I imagine that's a fairly common reading method, too.

      --
      I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
  44. Slight spelling mistake by bstadil · · Score: 1
    he does a lot of work on Cosmology,

    Are you sure it it not cosmetology?

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  45. correction.. by haaz · · Score: 1

    that should read "no-ass talentless clown." He's Canadian and all, ergo no ass.

    --
    -- haaz.
    1. Re:correction.. by Farley+Mullet · · Score: 1
      He's Canadian and all, ergo no ass.

      No he's not.

    2. Re:correction.. by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      He's Canadian and all,

      A preliminary Google search reveals that Mr. Bolton was born in New Haven, Conneticut.

      I'm not an expert on geography, but I'm pretty sure that Conneticut is not in Canada...

  46. No dual-channel memory for the Opteron? by NerveGas · · Score: 1


    I certainly couldn't find anything that says so. Of course, the *Athlon64* will only have a 64-bit (single-channel) memory interface, but the *Opterons* have 128-bit memory interfaces. All of AMD's docs have been saying so for quite some time, and the DECENT reviewers (read: Not Tom), which used the 128-bit memory interface enabled, showed significant improvements in memory bandwidth.

    steve

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    1. Re:No dual-channel memory for the Opteron? by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 1

      The Opteron has a single 128-bit wide memory controller, rather than the two 64-bit wide memory controllers in some other systems (most notably the nForce/nForce2 chipsets and Intel's i840 and i850 RDRAM chipsets, dunno about the new Intel i865 and i875 chipsets).

      There are some potential performance differences that could favor either one design or the other. In general though, the difference is likely to be significantly smaller than anyone will be able to reliably measure.

  47. Here's the full paper by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

    http://www.reproductivemedicine.com/Features/2001/ 2001Sep.htm

    --
    * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  48. Re:Are you an intolerant bigot? by hbmartin · · Score: 1

    I agree everyone should play by the same rules. But the rules should also be fair. Saying you can't rely on intelligent design to carry out scientific work is not a fair rule: the winner is already clear.

    Science is about going where the evidence leads us, not where we want to go. Science has been repeatedly misused over the course over the last century by those eager to provide evidence for evolution when, in fact, there was none.

    --
    Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
  49. creationist defenders missing the point by Patrick · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Those of you who, perhaps rightly, point out that a belief in Divine Creation and a medical degree need not be mutually exclusive are still missing the point.

    The point is this: students are asking Prof Dini to make a recommendation. A recommendation is a personal statement that Dr. Dini believes the student in question is qualified for... something. If he doesn't believe the student is qualified, he shouldn't write the recommendation -- regardless of his reason.

    To put it another way, the Department of Justice is essentially compelling Dr. Dini to write recommendations for students that Dr. Dini does not feel are qualified. Our Benevolent Government is making someone misstate his own personal opinions. The fact that it's a recommendation for medical school and the fact that Dr. Dini teaches at a public university are red herrings; We The People are still asking him to lie about his evaluation of a student's qualifications.

    Compelled speech isn't free speech.

    1. Re:creationist defenders missing the point by aminorex · · Score: 0, Troll

      They are prohibiting Dini from blacklisting students
      who are in fact qualified, as a result of their
      beliefs, irrelevant to their qualification.

      Dini is a modern Torquemada. Like most modern
      inquisitors, he finds that co-option is more
      palatable than coercion. If you know what is good
      for you, you will deny the truth in favor of the
      politically correct doctrine of the day.

      The old orthodoxy is the new heresy.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    2. Re:creationist defenders missing the point by Patrick · · Score: 1
      They are prohibiting Dini from blacklisting tudents who are in fact qualified, as a result of their beliefs, irrelevant to their qualification.

      Do you even know what blacklisting is? Dini is being asked to make a positive statement that a given student is qualified. He wishes to make no statement at all. To qualify as "blacklisting" a candidate, he would have to take active steps to prohibit the student's advancement.

      Note that Dini is not on an admissions committee, where he actually could exercise some sort of veto or blacklist. All he's doing is refusing to recommend candidates he doesn't think are qualified.

      Dini is a modern Torquemada.

      No, he's not. Torquemada could actively punish the people he disagreed with. The worst Dini can do is say, "I will make no recommendation." The students can always get a recommendation from another, less stringent professor.

  50. Re:Opteron and TPC-C Benchmarks by Jungle+guy · · Score: 1
    You can check out in Rackserver, but apparently they will be delivering the server only in 90 days.

    By the way, if anyone is interested in TPC-C benchmarks of the Opteron, it can be seen here. It is interesting to see such a small player like Rackserver among big boys like IBM, HP and Fujitsu.

  51. Simple Solution by rsm00th · · Score: 3, Funny
    <?PHP
    if(strpos($HTTP_USER_AGENT, "grub-client"))
    {
    echo "Grub is teh lame!";
    exit;
    }
    ?>
  52. Huh by arvindn · · Score: 1

    You think Vaidhyanathan is difficult to pronounce? Try Thirugnanasampanthamoorthy. (Minor character in Arthur Clarke's 3001 space odessey, the fourth in the series.) Vaidhyanathan is a very common Indian name, and the other one isn't rare either. Anyway if you find it difficult remember Vie-dhya-nah-thun. I imagine you'll have trouble with the second syllable, its peculiar to sanskrit. I've seen westerners split it into two syllables, like dhee-ya. Its not. Its a single syllable.

    1. Re:Huh by Oopsz · · Score: 1

      Thank goodness I'm a gupta. ;)

      And yet, they seem to get it wrong *so* bloody often...

  53. Re:Are you an intolerant bigot? by praksys · · Score: 1

    Science is about going where the evidence leads us, not where we want to go.

    Right here we have the real problem with creationism. All creationists believe in God, and not because the evidence led them to believe. If you try asking a few about their belief in God then you can be pretty sure that they will say that they have faith that God exists. This leads to a crucial difference between the way in which real scientists believe in evolution and the way in which pseudo-scientists believe in creationism.

    Here's the difference:

    If the evidence started going south for Darwinism (lets say Lamarkian evolution started to fit the evidence better) or even for Evolution (lets say we start finding alien artefacts, along with manuals with titles like "How to Design a Species" etc), then scientists would switch to the new theory. By contrast, do you really think that creationists would change their religion, or even become athiests if the evidence started going south for their favourite version of creationism?

    Scientists change their beliefs all the time, even with regard to the most fundamental ideas. As you put it, they follow the evidence, even when it leads them in surprising directions. Creationists, like most religious people, do not. They take some beliefs on faith, and stick to them regardless of where the evidence leads.

  54. Absurdity of the Creationist's Case by NialScorva · · Score: 4, Informative

    1) Dr Dini did not change his requirement in any appreciable way:

    Original:

    "How do you think the human species originated?

    If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences"

    New:
    "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species? If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation."

    Read the statement: http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm

    He explains his requirement and *still* says that he will not recommend people who reject evolution.

    2) Professors have the right to choose who they will and will not write a recommendation for. Should they be required to put their recommendation behind anyone who asks them?

    3) The student in question never asked Dr Dini for a recommendation at all.

    4) Dini also requires the student to have earned and "A" in one of his classes. Spradling had not done this.

    5) Dini requires that "I should know you fairly well." Dini says he had no idea who Spradling was.

    Basically the whole situation is a publicity stunt dreamed up by a creationists. The Spradling didn't meet *any* of Dini's criteria for recommendation.

    1. Re:Absurdity of the Creationist's Case by Zirnike · · Score: 1
      Well, this version gives him some wiggle room. Instead of saying 'believe there is no evolution, than no letter', he says 'show you comprehend the idea and can use it for analysis'.

      In other words, the first way says that you can't be a creationist at all. The second way says that you have to prove you can do science. There is a bit of differance.

      --
      I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
  55. An anecdotal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not published anywhere that I am aware of, but I certainly have personal evidence of power of prayer that seemed to influence someone other than the ones who were praying.

    My son was born very premature. The hospital he was born at didn't have appropriate neonatal advanced care facilities,this was in the 70's, BTW, so he was rushed to another hospital about 50 miles away. He was in very bad shape. The first week he was barely hanging in there, and slipping, all his vitals were going downhill despite their best care. His mother and I also prayed, but it seemed almost hopless. His godmother has a brother who is a franciscan. They all gathered at the monkery? Is that what it's called? Anyway, they dropped what they were doing after a phone call from her, and did a mass prayer for his health and safety. We did not know this was happening, the hospital staff didn't know, obviously the baby didn't know. Long story short, to the best of anyone's calculations, within a few minutes of the mass prayer, his vital signs took a tremendous swing for the better. It was enough to astound the doctors and nurses there. He was out of the hospital two weeks later, still at that point over a month premature.

    Call it whatever you want, the odds and timing are heavily against it being a random coincidence.

    Posting AC because I really do not want to hear from the goat trolls and vulgar people, and this is personal to me, but important enough to "witness" in this manner. Some things in science are too hard and too cruel to "duplicate" over and over. I have never found a conflict with the scientific model and a belief in God or prayer. To claim otherwise is to deny there have ever been any mass changings in the scientific model or mindset, wheras reality is that firmly held "cold clinical scientific beliefs" have changed over the years and centuries. Just because it isn't easily explainable now, or easily reproduced in some laboratory doesn't mean it hasn't been observed "in the wild" or that it doesn't exist.

    That really should be the biggest clue, just to look back and see how radically different "scientific" establishment beliefs have changed, sometimes back and forth. No true scientist may make any credible claim that they "know it all" even inside any particular extreme subsection of any named discipline.

    As to macro evolution, /me shrugs shoulders. I can see points from both points of view, which to me means neither is entirely accurate to date.

    There's a reason humans have a term for some people, called "extremists", and consider people like that to be a bit-off. Either direction. I think there are some whackjob nutcase "scientists", along with some nutjob fundies. I tend to dismiss both sets of extremists, BUT, I will at least listen to what they have to say, and with every new piece of data added, to refine my position - on evolution, or any subject really. The minute you dismiss something out of hand, either empirical or verifiable anecdotal, is the minute you lose true objectivity, and become a fanatic.

    1. Re:An anecdotal by t · · Score: 1
      I do not doubt you in the least. These types of stories do indeed happen.

      It is a big world and the definition of random is that sometimes somewhere something like this will eventually happen. It doesn't indicate that there was any kind of direct cause and effect. What saved your son was probably you and the mother, somewhere you gave him the just the right genes in the right places. Sadly, for every story like yours there are probably many where people prayed and the outcome was still not as desired. This is often referred to as "gods will", or working in mysterious ways. It is human nature to perpetuate only the good stories.

      I wish there was a direct effect from praying, it would give many people all over the world the ability to control the world around them, even when all seems hopeless.

  56. Re:Are you an intolerant bigot? by hbmartin · · Score: 1

    There is a difference between faith in God and belief in creation. So try not to confuse the two. If you provide me with enough evidence to believe evolution I'll "switch" (see this post. Now what would you accept as acceptable evidence for creation? Or are you determined to have faith in evolution?

    --
    Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
  57. Recommendation policy? by Wiwi+Jumbo · · Score: 1

    What exactly does that mean?

    Is this a personal recommendation that is being given?

    Like looking for a resume refrence??

    --
    Wiwi
    "I trust in my abilities,
    but I want more then they offer"
    1. Re:Recommendation policy? by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 1
      Yes.

      Basically, the situation is that you need to know if the response will be positive before you actually ask or you are taking a big risk. Central to his policy is that he won't make a recommendation if it isn't positive, and he won't do that if he can't do it in some depth and with confidence. All very reasonable, so I can't see the basis for any complaints.

    2. Re:Recommendation policy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No not exactly.

      This is for letters of recommendation which are needed to apply to most Gradute and Medical Schools.

      It generally gives the opinion of the recommender as to how well suited the person is for whatever field they are trying to pursue. Here is a link that gives advise to teachers on how to write letters of recommedation for an idea of what kind of things they have in them.

  58. Re:"what it will take for the Athlon 64 to succeed by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    How would that compare in speed to a dedicated HT link directly between the two processors?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  59. I disagree (Religion, Science, and Philosophy) by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By definition, Creationist science does not use (in fact deny's) methodological naturalism. To explain... Accepted science requires that one only rely on what one can test with no recourse to a supernatural explanation... One can still believe in the supernatural, but for the sake of science everybody has agreed to play by the same set of rules, methodological naturalism.
    Creationsist (and inteligent design believers) do not play by these rules, hence they are not in the business of science.

    What you have described is what I call the "religion of science" and is as much a departure from strict empiricism as any religion. Which is perhaps why many anthropologists call Science a sort of religion. My own feeling is that by denying that scientific theories are rooted in philosophical assumptions is at best naive, and at worst self-delusional.

    Many may fault me from quoting such an old book, but I think "Physics and Philosophy" by Werner Heisenberg (yes, that Heisenberg!) is well worth referring to, Heisenberg (and for that matter Einstein wrote on this as well) held that a set of data does not imply a single correct scientific explenation. Instead, valid scientific theory arises from the combination of data and pre-existing philosophical assumptions which inform the interpretation of this data.

    Scientists put a great deal of faith in the idea that eventually the discussion will settle on the Truth about a certain theory, but this hasn't happened. Instead every scientist brings to the table a unique set of assumptions which inform their interpretation of the data and so the discussion continues. For example we have seen a fierce debate rage over nearly a century regarding the nature of wave-like behavior of electrons. That debate has changed many times, but has never gone away. At heart-- how can an electron interfere with itself and still strike a target as a single particle? Many people have different ideas (including many which place an almost supernatural power on such things as observation or consciousness).

    In fact, the neoplatonist, while admitting to the supernatural in a sort of empiricist manner, probably has more in common with the scientist than with the creationist because the former two place a great deal of importance on dialogue and intellectual search, while I think that most people are content with ignorant faith.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:I disagree (Religion, Science, and Philosophy) by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 1

      No, he got it exactly right. There are a lot of people with a scientific bent who take this prohibition of super-natural explainations to be an absolute limitation on the "Truth", and I would claim they are believers in the "religion of science" as you put it. Philosophically, I would call most of them Positivists, and I think they are just as wrong and the Creationists.

  60. Who are people who blindly beleive in evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who beleive in Medicine. Most not all people would go to a doctor if ill. These are the people you are talking about.

  61. Re:Are you an intolerant bigot? by praksys · · Score: 1

    I notice you avoided dealing with the crucial question. Would you stop believing in God (or whatever your favourite creator is) if the evidence went against creationism? Or is your belief that there is a creator based on something other than the evidence?

    As for evidence of creationism I would be quite happy if you could say, provide me with a short video of the creator at work, maybe creating a small species of bacteria or something (doesn't have to be anything too complex, I know he is a busy guy). Also you (or he) should provide a short explanation of the creation process and give sufficient details of his (or her I suppose) methodology, so that other scientists could reproduce the results in a lab. It would also be helpful if your explanation of the creation process could be used to answer the sorts of basic questions that evolutionary theory answers, like why men have nipples perhaps (was that a joke, or just something about the way the creation process works?), or why we find animals with spotted bodies and striped tails, but never the other way around (just a fashion preference?).

    Feel free to start where ever you like.

  62. Indian Names - Long and Short. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

    Sreeveeravenkatalakshminarasimharaajuvaaripuram. India's longest train-station name without abbreviations.

    I, of course, cheated; it's easier to read/pronounce if you break the name into its constituent Telugu words "Sree Veera Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Raaju Vaari Puram", but they write it in the station without spaces. Now, 'Veera Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Raju' is, arguably, not an un-common Telugu name; in fact, Telugu names will usually have an additional surname in front. Consider then, the travails of someone named, say, Kasimbhatla Veera Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Raju; I guess he'll write his name as 'KVVL Narasimha Raju' or something.

    Incidentally, that place is literally a state away from Ib, Orissa, which has the shortest name for any train station in India.

    --
    More than mere navel gazing.
    1. Re:Indian Names - Long and Short. by catman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ib, Orissa, which has the shortest name for any train station in India. .. and the shortest place name in the world is Å - that's an upper case A with a ring above. It's in Norway, one of the three countries (well, four) that uses that letter in their alphabets.
      More at their tourist info site.

    2. Re:Indian Names - Long and Short. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      Yup, I remember reading about Å; it, expectedly, has a mention in the Guinness Book of World Records.

      Additional info, but if I remember correctly, there are at least seven towns in Kentucky, US, with two-letter names. And then, there's another town called 88, although US postal regulations state that it must be called as 'Eighty Eight' or something. Can't remember where it is located, probably in NY state.

      --
      More than mere navel gazing.
  63. Oregon is not washington by baomike · · Score: 2, Informative

    However washington (there is no R is washington)
    was part of Oregon, Oregon territorry that is.
    When Oregon became a state in 1859 (Valentines day)
    there was some stuff left over ie Washington, Idaho,... Not sure why the Oregonians of the day didn't want it.

    1. Re:Oregon is not washington by Atomic+Fro · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what the exact number is, but one of the requiorments in becoming a State in the Union, is that you need an X ammount of people per sq. mile. I am sure that at the time, the land mass that latter became Washington and Idaho didn't meet the requiorment, and Oregon couldn't become a state if that land mass was included.

      --

      ==================
      Hippie Logger Jock
      ==================
  64. Re:Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't beleive in evolution you don't beleive in conventional medicine and it would be unethical for you to make recommendations to patients based on something you beleived to be untrue.

  65. Obligatory DDR joke by yerricde · · Score: 1

    in late 2003 or early 2004 they are completely switching memory to DDR2, but since DDR2 is as hard to come by as Jesus in a Bottle

    DDR2 on eBay

    Oh, that DDR2.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  66. How many pins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that wouldn't be sufficient for another DDR controller, which requires 201 pins

    Last time I checked, I counted only nine pins on the connector of my DDR controller.

    1. Re:How many pins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TLA overload!

    2. Re:How many pins? by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      That's TOL to you buddy. I guess you're SOL. HTH.

      --
      Program Intellivision!
  67. Alive! by PotatoHead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This guy either does not support the bill, or has not really investigated the issue. His office needs a few more phone calls. Lets make sure he gets them.

    You all must remember, the process is fluid. There are many ways this bill can continue to move through the legislature.

    If this is something we *really* want, and they understand that, then the bill stands a chance. They can move any issue they want to in any number of ways. If this were a sweetheart bill, you can bet it would find a way to move through the house. This bill can too.

    The Oregon Legislature is getting a lot of calls and mail on this, and we need to keep it up.

    Basically, we have money on one side and political creedence on the other. If enough people continue to remain involved, it remains harder to quietly kill the bill.

    The issue of Open Source is alive in the Legislature right now. Getting a work session is important because the objections can be ironed out.

    By making Open Source and Open Standards an issue, we at least bring awareness of the problems to a level that is hard any other way.

    Just keep your perspective. The other bills died as quickly as the headlines went up. This one is still around with support in the Legislature. That is a WIN, not a loss by any measure!

    If you have called, you might wait a day and ask for an update. Its another reason to call and the type of thing that demands a response which clearly shows interest.

    Preparing responses takes time. Ask good questions, who when why how? That way a simple form letter does not cover the issue well enough to be considered a response.

    If you get a form letter, make a quick phone call. You will get an answer and a chance to take someones time. That matters.

    Representitives who simply say it's over do not support the bill. This does not mean it's over, it means you can stop calling now.

    Don't do that.

    This is what the lobbyists want. They want it because that keeps the status quo.

    Take a good look at who opposes the bill. All those companies consider this a direct threat to one of their largest customers; namely, the state of Oregon.

    Here is what I got from my Rep. (Encouraging.)

    Dear Mr. Potatohead,

    Thank you for your email in support of HB 2892. Rep. Dingfelder supports
    the concept of this bill and realizes the cost savings that it would
    bring about. At present, the bill is undergoing a few amendments so I am
    unable to commit to her vote for the bill until the final versions come
    out. However, my guess is that she will support it. I have passed along
    your comments to her. In addition, I will place a copy of your email in
    the bill file. This will assure that she again sees your comments prior
    to voting on the bill on the house floor.

    Thanks for taking the time to contact our office regarding this issue.
    The representative greatly appreciates your input! Please feel free to
    contact out office at any time we can be of assistance to you.

    Sincerly,
    (!?!)
    Legislative Assistant to Rep. Jackie Dingfelder
    House District 45
    (Phone)

    --
    Blogging because I can...
  68. What did your Rep say about Open Source in Oregon? by PotatoHead · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have already posted this under another thread, but just got the idea after reading a couple other posts.

    So, what does your Rep say? Here is mine:

    (Positive)

    Dear Mr. Potatohead,

    Thank you for your email in support of HB 2892. Rep. Dingfelder supports
    the concept of this bill and realizes the cost savings that it would
    bring about. At present, the bill is undergoing a few amendments so I am
    unable to commit to her vote for the bill until the final versions come
    out. However, my guess is that she will support it. I have passed along
    your comments to her. In addition, I will place a copy of your email in
    the bill file. This will assure that she again sees your comments prior
    to voting on the bill on the house floor.

    Thanks for taking the time to contact our office regarding this issue.
    The representative greatly appreciates your input! Please feel free to
    contact out office at any time we can be of assistance to you.

    Sincerely,
    (name)
    Legislative Assistant to Rep. Jackie Dingfelder
    House District 45
    (Phone)

    --
    Blogging because I can...
  69. Re:"what it will take for the Athlon 64 to succeed by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1

    There would be an increase in latency. I'm not sure how significant it would be, compared to the normal latency between two Opterons directly attached via HT with no tunnel between them.

  70. Ways of Knowing by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 1

    I'm the last person to suggest that science is the only way of knowing, but I don't see how creationism has anything to do with knowledge, except to be obstructionist. Seriously, how can anyone maintain a position of strict literal interpretation for any book, much less one as distant in time, place, culture and language as the Bible? I would be more sympathetic to idea that rejecting creationism is intolerant if the whole program didn't come across as intellectually dishonest. Even if they believe what they say, there is a basic dishonesty in even suggesting a scientific basis. The whole point of the excercise is to validate "received knowledge" as if there were any evidence that would ever to taken to falsify this theory.

    1. Re:Ways of Knowing by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      I think you're talking about so-called "Creation Science," which is completely different than creationism. (I say it's so-called because it attempts to call itself science, while rejecting the tenets of science. That's certainly dishonest.) Creationists can hold a wide variety of beliefs, some of which include complete literal interpretation of the Bible and some which don't. Like I said in my first post to this thread, the actions of a few shouldn't determine your opinion of everyone who believes in creation. I don't believe that someone who happens to believe what the Bible says should be labeled obstructionist, as long as they are tolerant of other belief systems.

      Lest I sound intolerant myself, I'm not against everyone who tries to find a scientific basis for the Bible. Just those who are deceptive and dishonest about it. (A lot of the anti-evolution "proof" comes to mind.)

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:Ways of Knowing by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 1
      Point taken, but I do think you are splitting hairs a bit.

      A good example of someone attempting to find a scientific grounding for biblical truth is Maimonides (sp?). When done well it is an attempt to find a more modern interpretation for ancient inspiration, but typically there is a lot of wasted effort to remain alligned with current orthodoxy. In the end it gets down to the correct interpretation of texts (hermeneutics), and there is a very basic split between the literalists who insist on one correct or cannonical interpretation and the rest. For me, if a text has "depth", it admits to many interpretations that may go well beyond any intention of the author. This is also why these texts remain relevant thousands of years later.

      So even if all creationists are not just wrong and/or dishonest by claiming scientific basis, I find their reading of biblical sources to be limited and shallow.

    3. Re:Ways of Knowing by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      I don't think I am at all. There is a very real difference between those who accept the Bible (and creationism) on faith alone, and those who work on trying to justify it by using a scientific framework. Lumping them together is a popular way to attack them.

      You're certainly entitled to think that any creationist is thinking shallowly. Many of them might say the same about you. I don't buy the notion that you can call that "ignorant;" it's not the same thing. And I certainly don't believe that someone who believes in creation is unfit to practice medicine. That's just religious discrimination, not an intelligent policy.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    4. Re:Ways of Knowing by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 1
      One final point. I make a big distinction between faith and belief, which you are using somewhat interchangably. I like to quote Robert Anton Wilson from the preface from a later edition of
      • Cosmic Triggers
      which includes a lot of very speculative and fanciful material. Lots of people asked him whether he "believes" all this stuff and his reply is "I don't *believe* in anything". I share this view, but I will also clearly state that at the point that science and logical thinking fail, there is only faith to fall back on. Beliefs are practically worthless, but you can learn a lot by asking yourself what you have faith in.

      Try out the difference between "I believe in creationism" and any related statement you could make about faith. "I have faith in creationism" seem incredibly shallow and pointless, at least to me. "I have faith in God" is much more productive, and it is unlikely to invalidate anyone else's faith either.

  71. "disasterous" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would become impossible to have Open Source implementations of key pieces of the infrastructure.

    I must have missed the part where this is prima facie "disasterous."

    Silly slashdotters.

    (Also: anybody who uses the phrase "chilling effect" automatically loses the argument.)

  72. Blacklisting? Hardly by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 2, Interesting
    No one has suggested that he would take any action against students he does not recomend, so explain how not giving a recomendation is blacklisting. Seems to me he is helping them by telling them not to waste their time trying to get a recomendation from him on the basis of unscientific ramblings.

    Modern inquisition? Give me a break.

    1. Re:Blacklisting? Hardly by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Not on the basis of. He intends to ignore their
      qualifications and the quality of their work on
      ideological grounds. That is a punitive action.

      The analogy is direct. I notice that you decline
      to offer any refutation.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    2. Re:Blacklisting? Hardly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've posted quite a few comments against him here today.

      How do you refute his position that those who do not believe in evolution may contribute to drug resistant bacteria/viri/etc?

  73. Re: Newegg.com has them for $300 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad they don't have any motherboards for them. Pretty nifty as a paperweight though ;-)

  74. MySQL vs MS SQL Server?? by leandrod · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What about comparing things that are in the same level?

    MySQL doesn't do as much as MS SQL Server, forcing much logic onto the application and not scaling as well. The valid comparision would have been PostgreSQL.

    --
    Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
    DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
    GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  75. Mod Parent Up by mike3411 · · Score: 1

    He's 100% right, and summed up the response I was about to post. Genetic variation * selection = evolution. We can actually witness it happen, and regardless of other beliefs (God, creation of the world, etc.) for a "scientist" to say that evolution does not occur means that that he has either not done his research or isn't capable of understanding basic biology & logic. While _all_ science is theory, and no good scientist will assert absolute knowledge of ANYTHING, for anyone to suggest that evolution does not occur implies that they have not correctly evaluated the arguments, since the evidence we have collected is remarkably clear and well understood.

    --
    Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  76. Hi! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi, you must be new...oh forget it. You're an idiot. Shut up now.

  77. HB 2982 by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

    Heh, I went to the page, started to write, and realized two things:

    1) They're not going to listen to e-mail. The last time I wrote my congressman I wrote them a letter. I was 19. I got a hand written letter back. Whether or not he did it himself, probably not, it was a nice gesture -- someone out there wasted a good deal of time replying to me in a very personal fashion. I think the same respect should be returned in kind. Your message will mean more if you take the 10-20 minutes to write that letter (I'm a slow hand-writer :) and send it off.

    2) I don't vote. Why should I care now? Perhaps the reason that I should vote is for bills like this, but then again, I just don't care. Open Source in government is nice -- but frankly, if it's not the right product, it shouldn't be used.

    I would rather see them use Sun or IBM than use Open Source. If only for the support contracts.

    I guess my point is, is that I caught myself being a sheep and not analyzing the situation properly, at least to my own feelings. Please make sure those of you who read this do not do the same. Thank you. :)

    1. Re:HB 2982 by geekoid · · Score: 1

      from my contact with my Oregon reps., they perfer email. its safer, cheaper, and more ledgable.

      I was told that shortly after the anthrax scare, but You should at least ask them there perferd method of contact.

      Vote. please Vote. I don't care if your beliefs are opposed to mine. Vote.

      I agree that support contracts are important, but you can get support contract for Open Source.
      I can't think of an Open SOurce database I would want them to use, but it is the perfect enviroment for open source on the desktop.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  78. Software Scrubbing by Detritus · · Score: 1

    It is trivial to add support for scrubbing to the operating system. I've done this on embedded systems. I just added a small bit of code to the real-time clock ISR to read the contents of the next N addresses, where N was sized to guarantee that all of the installed ECC memory would be scrubbed at a reasonable rate. It didn't have any noticable impact on performance.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Software Scrubbing by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1
      I fully agree. In the case of Linux, it isn't even necessary to add it to the kernel per se. A user-level process, running as root, can mmap() chunks of /dev/mem (or all of it, if the amount of installed memory is not too much more than 1 GiB) and read it.

      Whether it's done in the kernel or a user process, it will result in displacing useful data from the data cache. I had not characterized the performance hit, but as long as you don't want to scrub the entire memory space to quickly, it doesn't surprise me that the performance impact may not be too noticable.

      A kernel-space scrubber could potentially disable interrupts for a very short period, disable the data cache, read some memory, then reenable everything. That trades off cache eviction for higher interrupt latency, which might be better under some circumstances.

      Having scrubbing implemented by the memory controller is clearly the best option, so I'm pleased to see that AMD implemented that in the on-chip DDR controller of the Opteron, and in the AMD 762 system controller chip of the 760 MPX chip set.

  79. 2 Problems by j2gEEk · · Score: 1

    "One can ignore this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one's understanding of science and the scientific method."

    Uhm... no. Either develop a repeatable test that results in macro-evolution, or stop pretending that the theory of evolution is the result of the scientific method. It wasn't. It was the result of an untested epiphany of some guy on an island (and that is an *empirical fact*, lets remember), and it absolutely boggles my mind that supposedly scientifically sophisticated individuals don't/won't/can't(?) understand that.

    On the otherhand, I think the professor has the right to give recommendations out to whomever he chooses. I mean, if he thinks only women should go to grad school, wouldn't it be within the bounds of his personal freedom to recommend only women? I think it would.

    Jake

    PS- I know the name of the guy.

    1. Re:2 Problems by geekoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Everything starts with an idea. it doesn't matter where that idea comes from.
      Evolution has been proved by scientific methods. Creatonist refuse to believe the results of those methods.

      How small a god you must have, if he couldn't create a universe that evolved.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  80. US Christian Fundies and NeoCrusades by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The rise in tolerance of unbelievable points of view, moreover their impact on policy in the US, is incredibly disturbing.

    From the Republican Senators (the racist/homophobe), Ashcroft's prayer meetings, Ashcroft's draping a nude statue w/ a drape (!), bush's "faith based" BS... etc etc etc.

    The seperation between church and state, and the ability for people to understand that ALL these things are instances of Fundemental (Reconstructionist even) Christian goals/acts/efforts is very scary.

    Even Bush believes God is on his side in Iraq - you'd think someone in his position, a leader of a secular USA, wouldnt be a delluded cultist.

    From that article above:

    One in three American Christians call themselves evangelicals and many evangelicals believe the second coming of Christ will occur in the Middle East after a titanic battle with the anti-Christ.

    Does the president believe he is playing a part in the final events of Armageddon?

    If true, it is an alarming thought.

    But he would not be alone, as 59% of all Americans believe that what is written in the Bible's Book of Revelation will come to pass.

    1. Re:US Christian Fundies and NeoCrusades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They added the drape because assholes kept taking pictures of Ashcroft with the statue strategically positioned in the frame. The drape isn't on the statue, they hang it up for press conferences and briefings. Did you even bother to look into that claim or are you just repeating something you read in a Paul Krugman column?

    2. Re:US Christian Fundies and NeoCrusades by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      "They added the drape because assholes kept taking pictures of Ashcroft with the statue strategically positioned in the frame"
      strategically placed what? boobies? who fucking cares? wake up and smell the new millenium.

      The drape isn't on the statue, they hang it up for press conferences and briefings"

      They hang it up anytime the room is used - ok. got it.

      Did you even bother to look into that claim or are you just repeating something you read in a Paul Krugman column?
      adhominum attack. Did you bother to read my post or is this something you read at a freerepublic column?

  81. evolution believes in you by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

    You don't have to believe in evolution, evolution believes in you

    Bacteria and virii evolve faster than large animals. Hence, we have antibiotic-resistant bacteria, new strains of HIV, SARS etc. Deny evolution and you deny them.

    There are two ways out of this, besides the obvious giving in and admitting that creationism is a crock (which does not necessarily mean denying god, just denying the literal truth of scripture).

    Doublethink: Humans are perfectly capable of holding mutually contradictory beliefs, so long as they are held in different contexts. I'm not going to object overly to what my doctor believes in church on Sundays, so long as he understands modern medicine when I visit him on Wednseday.

    The old "concede micro evolution, deny macro evolution" malarkey: I saw this well debunked here on slashdot like this:

    Microwalking is when you walk from one side of the apartment to the other. It takes 1 minute. Macrowalking is when you walk from one side of the country to the other. It could take years. Sure Microwalking happens, we've seen it, but Macrowalking has never been seen, is something completely different, in fact it's impossible.

    Spot the logical flaw? Macroevolution is nothing but microevolution on a longer timeline.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

    1. Re:evolution believes in you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you don't believe in God, God believes in you :-)

      Your "microwalking" analogy makes little sense.

      The truth is evolutionists use something that isn't evolution at all (adaptation) to prove evolution. You say virii "evolve" and that this proves evolution but the truth is they simple adapt. No matter how long they "evolve" they're still virii. They didn't morph into bacteria or amoebas. The basic premise of evolution that creationist reject is that species do NOT evolve into different species. We do not reject the idea that species change and that the environment affects how later generations appear, act, and live.

      This basic premise that species came from other species which originally came from some chemical soup really has no bearing on the real science people practice today. Whether you believe a virus came from soup or that is was created by God has no effect on your understanding of the properties and behaviours of that virus.

    2. Re:evolution believes in you by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1
      No matter how long they "evolve" they're still virii. They didn't morph into bacteria or amoebas.


      That is precisely what I'm not saying. Your line of argument seem to be "no matter how you walk around your apartment, you will never find yourself in another country."

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

  82. Vaidhyanathan by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 1

    There are lots of posts joking about Vaidhyanathan's name, but has anybody read the interview? It's really quite brilliant. Our culture is being stolen from us, and he explains how it's happening and, more importantly, why it matters.

    This interview should be required reading for all our congresscritters and judges.

    --
    No sig? Sigh...
  83. $20000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $20k? For how many CPUs? Surely that's a typo on your part. The CPUs are about $700 apiece for the 1.8GHz. A dual Opteron workstation should be in the 2K to 3K territory.

  84. Way to go slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never imagined the slashdot editors could be racist too. Great work, feeding the racist trolls. This will go even further to establish your reputation as a credible news site.

    1. Re:Way to go slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You actually think Slashdot is capable of being a credible news site? You must be new here. Slashdot doesn't report news, it just links to it.

  85. Creation vs. Evolution by jazzbotley · · Score: 1

    So you wake up one day and wonder how you got here. Rather than repeat all the rhetoric (I don't think I'm intelligent enough to capture your attention for that long, anyway!), let me make one observation:

    Your ultimate success in this life depends on how you relate to the people in your life. If you yourself is your top priority, what a miserable person you will be. If others become your top priority, then -- as if by magic! -- you find fulfillment in serving their needs.

    OK, two observations (so I can't count): God is a person, and no He's not dead. How He made the world is still up for debate, and -- oh my! -- what a lively debate it is! But it doesn't really matter much in the long run "how" He did it. What matters is how you relate to Him. Relationship is key. Knowledge only matters as much as it helps you help others -- relationships must be primary! So quit asking "How? Why?" and start asking "How may I serve?"

    Or don't. Stay miserable. Your call.

    1. Re:Creation vs. Evolution by geekoid · · Score: 1

      How about, I'll do what I think is best?

      Who is more worthy, the person who does the right thing because its the right thing to do, or the person who does the right thing because they believe it will earn them credit with God?

      If God created people, then he can not be a person.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Creation vs. Evolution by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      So quit asking "How? Why?" and start asking "How may I serve?"

      Yeah, close your mind. Stop trying to learn. Knowledge is bad. Freedom is slavery. Great.

      Or don't. Stay miserable. Your call.

      I don't believe in a god, and I'm not miserable. Is your life so hollow that you can't be happy without a god? That's rather sad.

  86. While they're fixing ROBOTS.TXT by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    While they're fixing Grub's problem with ROBOTS.TXT, they should also honor the robots META tag

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  87. RIAA Human Resources is a bit biased... by beowulf_26 · · Score: 1

    "Couldn't they use their brains for a better business model?"

    Ha! They've already spent all their resources on staffing the law department. I bet because there are such huge losses they slashed the business department thinking, "Lawyers are a successful business model, right? Riight?"

    --

    --I hate big sigs.
  88. You probably copy MP3s, don by Ashurbanipal · · Score: 1

    Because, that which is not mandated is forbidden, you dirty GNU hippy.

    Haven't you been paying ANY attention to Mullah Ashcroft?

    Traitorous freethinkers like you will be first up against the wall once Fightin' George Bush completes the Reagan revolution!

    1. Re:You probably copy MP3s, don by sholden · · Score: 1

      I don't qualify as 'traitorous', since the US isn't my country...

      And no I don't pay much attention to the AG of some irrelevant little country on the other side of an ocean. Other than giggling at his pathetic attempts to create a modern police state.

  89. As Andre the Giant might have said; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you are confused about the meanings of the words "capitalism" and "socialism".

  90. Re:"what it will take for the Athlon 64 to succeed by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 1

    It may still be possible to run the Athlon64 in dual-processor mode, in much the same way that the Athlon XP can quite easily work in a dual-processor system but doesn't "support" dual processor setups.

    The plan with dual-processors setups on the Athlon64/Clawhammer has always been to split it's single 16-bit HyperTransport link and use it as two seperate 8-bit HT links. This would cut your I/O bandwidth in half (might reduce performance in some applications, but the available bandwidth is still pretty good for the price bracket), but dual-processor systems could work.

    FWIW it's not possible to do dual-processing with the Athlon64 without doing some pretty tricky/expensive stuff. Such a chipset would be almost as complicated as making chipsets for a 16-processor Opteron server. Long story short: it ain't gonna happen since a dual-Opteron system would be WAY cheaper.

    That being said, dual-Opteron systems don't look liek they'll be all that expensive. The chips will probably be available for about $300-$500 a piece (for an Opteron 244, slower Opterons could be cheaper) by the time the Athlon64 makes it to market, and motherboards could easily be down to the $200 range for a workstation board.

  91. Overkill by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

    Dude, he only asked for one.
    Showoff. ;)

  92. Make your own proof of evolution... by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
    Any evolutionist programmer willing to say that life was created by accident can now prove his theory with-

    Proof of Evotion Test 1

    The easiest of all. Take all the text from this script.
    ----------
    function sayHello(){
    echo hello;
    }
    sayHello();
    -------

    • Make a random text generator that only spits out the words above.
    • Run for a month, and see if ever comes out in the original form.
    • Here are the form blocks you can use:
      • function , sayHello , () , { , echo , hello , ; , /n (newline), (space)
    • There are only 9, so it should be very easy to replicate this code in a manner that it is usable.
    • Last rule on this one, you can't copy and paste the code out of the text file or program, cause then the creator is taking a hand in the creation of the code, which is against the _theory_ of evolution.
    • No, if statements to help the code generator, as this would intelligent design and not evolution.
    • Run the code as long as you want and run as fast as you want...

    Proof of Evotion Test 2

    • Spit out random letters from the alpha bet, spell ONE comprehensible sentence.

    Proof of Evotion Test 3

    • HTML test. Spit out text with extra brackets <> and make ONE properly formatted html page. With or without content.

    Proof of Evotion Test 4

    • Get any application, script, program, that does not currently replicate itself, to do so by injecting random code into it...
    • As the theory of evolution has assumed that self replication is such a normal and basic function of one celled animals, then we should be able to replicate that process with random code very easily, as since our scripts and apps are very simple comparatively speaking, this task should not take billions of years, especially since there is a creator to the random code...

    Final rules

    If you get one of these to prove to work, try and get your computer to randomly execute the code, without

    1. Saving it as an executable/readable file (then the creator would be taking a hand in things and mucking with computer evolution)
    2. Opening or inserting the text into any application to read or digest the material.
    3. Replicate the material in any way (as even the most basic life forms could replicate themselves, so think how simple that one thing is... so this happening randomly should be a snap)
    4. Run these as fast as you want for as long as you want, if you ever get a result that even comes close, post it on slashdot, as it will certainly be news worthy...

    Note: These are very specific tests with tons of limits to make this a very simplified test, so these should be able to be accomplished in a very short time period with the speed of modern computers, and should be able to give lots of solid support for the theory of evolution.

    1. Re:Make your own proof of evolution... by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Make a random text generator that only spits out the words above.

      I already explained to you that evolution doesn't work that way, so your 'test' is invalid. Also, I guess you've never heard of genetic algorithms?

    2. Re:Make your own proof of evolution... by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
      Show me one genetic algorithm that happened by accident... I bet people had to "create" them...

      Also the statement that evolution has any methods to do anything is contradictory to it's self, as evolution was a random happening with no design involved.

    3. Re:Make your own proof of evolution... by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Show me one genetic algorithm that happened by accident... I bet people had to "create" them...

      Wow... just... wow.

      I am going to explain why your idea of evolution is wrong and why your contest is bunk, and then I am going to stop posting.

      Let's say you start with a bunch of generic mutt dogs and want to eventually produce chihuahuas. According to your view of evolution, what you would do is just keep breeding them, picking random offspring, breed them, pick random offspring, breed them, etc, until out popped a chihuahua.

      Of course, that's ridiculous. What you would do is pick the offspring that are smaller and have shorter hair, and breed them for the next generation, and take their smaller, shorter-haired offspring and breed them for the next generation, and so on.

      This is how evolution works. It's not "random". Things that work are saved (ie, the organisms survive) and are used to produce the next generation.

      Here's a hypothetical example. Say there's a population of small, brown, furry creatures living in a forest somewhere. Called them, I dunno, frobbits. Now, due to tectonic movement, a mountain range slowly (over millions of years) starts rising right on their habitat. Gradually, the climate gets colder and snowier. Naturally, some of the species will migrate to the lowlands, but some will stay. Of the ones that stay, some will have slightly thicker and lighter-colored fur, and slightly thicker layers of fat. The frobbits that survive to produce the next generation are not just a random sample of all existing frobbits. The ones that survive will be the ones that withstand the cold winters and avoid the predators. The evolutionary direction, as time goes on, will be for their fur and fat get thicker (to survive the cold), and their coloring gets whiter (to hide in the snow). If you wait long enough, the mountain frobbits will not/could not breed with the lowland frobbits and at that point would be considered a separate species. Note that none of this implies a designer, except if you suppose the designer was the one which caused the tectonic motion which caused the mountain range to rise.

      In order to make your contest valid, you would have to allow reuse of prior attempts. Start with a random set of characters. Keep the ones that are correct and vary the others, and repeat. Given that, your "hello, world" program could be produced in minutes, if not seconds.

    4. Re:Make your own proof of evolution... by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1

      Ok, show me how evolution would have the logic to "decide" anything...

      The problem here is that none of your ideas you listed above would work without someone/thing with a brain smart enough to change or decide what works and what doesn't...

      If you insist that decsions were made about what works, and what doesn't then you have a creator.

      If you insist that there was no creator, then there was no logic to decide anything and it is chance, and my experiements are valid.

      If they are valid, then you will see that you can't recreate anything at all with chance, hence the theory of evolution is FUD...

  93. Not believing in Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is incredibly ironic that slashdotters continuously espouse the need for free speech and the freedom from a state run religion, that the justice department is blasted for helping out a student who was being forced to not freely practice his God-given right to believe what he wants. I guess it is freedom of speech as long as you agree with what is being said.

  94. Speak Dogwood! by halxd2 · · Score: 1

    Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors?

    I'm going to chime in on the side of creation. It's part of a faith leap. It does not mean that God could not have done things in some way and then have it interpreted by men a thousand years later. (The OT was to be looked at in several different ways, The NT is mostly letters, love letters really [agape]) Also we are discussing a craftsman who's work is very familar to the vet as well as the ear/nose/throat guy. So any research will be accepted, I should think, if only because those animals are provided by that same craftsman.
    Things change, but that does not preclude an event of creation.

    Flame me now, I'm ready &> /dev/null

    --
    hal
  95. Re:Are you an intolerant bigot? by hbmartin · · Score: 1

    Yes, I would stop believing in God, should the evidence point to evolution.
    a short video
    I don't think video cameras existed about the time of creation.
    sufficient details of his (or her I suppose) methodology
    He spoke and it happened. Feel free to repliacte that in you lab.
    As far as you other questions, I'd love to hear the evolutionary explaination for those.

    --
    Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
  96. Re:Are you an intolerant bigot? by praksys · · Score: 1

    I don't think video cameras existed about the time of creation.

    So there is no creation going on now? Any explanation of why? Or is this one of those mysteries where you need to consult religion for the answers?

    He spoke and it happened. Feel free to repliacte that in you lab.

    Pretty thin explanation there, and I am not really sure what the evidence for this is supposed to be. What makes you think that speaking was involved? What makes you think it was a "he"?

    As far as you other questions, I'd love to hear the evolutionary explaination for those.

    You can start reading here:

    You will find all sorts of interesting evolutionary explanations - everything from explanations of vestigial biological structures, to the oddities of human psychology. Is there anything like this published by Creationists? Anything at all that looks remotely like a use of the theory to solve an actual scientific question?

    See, as far as I can tell from reading Creationist literature (and I have read quite a bit) it all amounts to little more than the claim that "God did it" plus a laundry list of objections to the theory of evolution. There is no actual creationist theory. Just that one singular claim. No evidence is ever given for Creationism, no explanation is ever given of what the creator was, no explanation is ever given of how the creating was done or even why it was done, no use of the theory is ever made in answering the kinds of questions that scientists want to answer.

  97. Re:Are you an intolerant bigot? by hbmartin · · Score: 1

    So there is no creation going on now?
    I'm not aware of the appearance of any new organisms in the last few thousand years.

    Pretty thin explanation there, and I am not really sure what the evidence for this is supposed to be.
    You asked what I thought the method was. This is where the evidence leads me. But if you want to debate this you first have to accept intelligent design.

    See, as far as I can tell from reading Creationist literature (and I have read quite a bit) it all amounts to little more than the claim that "God did it" plus a laundry list of objections to the theory of evolution. There is no actual creationist theory. Just that one singular claim. No evidence is ever given for Creationism, no explanation is ever given of what the creator was, no explanation is ever given of how the creating was done or even why it was done, no use of the theory is ever made in answering the kinds of questions that scientists want to answer.

    Since you're asking for an explantion of the process, creator, or reasons, I would have to stray from your idea of "pure science". The reason I have to do that is simple: if we accept intelligent design (let's say we do for the sake of argument) we then have to choose (again from the best evidence) who did the creating. Then we can look at his/her reasons as given.

    If you want to accept ID (even for the sake of argument, then I'l continue.

    --
    Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
  98. Re:Are you an intolerant bigot? by praksys · · Score: 1

    This is where the evidence leads me.

    Which evidence was that again?

    But if you want to debate this you first have to accept intelligent design.

    Oh I see, so I have to accept the theory before I get to see any of the evidence. This is what logicians called "begging the question". How can you honestly claim that Creationism is even a theory, let alone a scientific theory, when you admit that there is no way to even start answering the most basic questions about what this so-called theory says, or what the evidence for it is, without first accepting that it is true, and without straying from "pure science".

    You don't have to accept that the theory of evolution is true, not even for the sake of argument, in order to understand what it says or how it is supposed to work, or what the evidence for it is.

    If you want to engage in philosophical (or even theological) debate then that is fine with me. Just don't pretend you are doing science. And seriously, if your theory starts out with a theological claim, and proceeds with a whole lot of theological speculation based on that claim, then you are doing theology, not science.

  99. Seconded by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

    This is an old-sk00l flamewar, so everybody gets it evenly. But I think you (jgardn) may be the only hard-core creationist to have posted anything significant in this thread non-anonymously. That's worth a lot!

    --
    * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  100. Re:Slashback, slashwife by son_of_asdf · · Score: 1

    This is the most useless, pathetic, miserable excuse for a troll that I have yet encountered on Slashdot. Be ashamed, be very ashamed.

    --
    Don't Panic!
  101. Like I said by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

    Once a fundie, always a fundie. People said the same thing to me when I was a creationist. :-)

    --
    * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  102. Re:Are you an intolerant bigot? by hbmartin · · Score: 1

    No, you're missing th point. There *is* a difference between intelligent design and creation. ID simply claims that all things originated from an intelligent source and makes no claims as to who or why. Creation is a seperate theory that builds on ID and attempts to explain who and why. You can beleive in ID without beleiving in creation.

    The evidence for ID is complex natural structures, irreducible complexity, etc. The how it works is that something intelligent made it happen.

    I beleive (and you may differ, or course) that philosophy and (if it's reasonable) theology should be based on sound science.

    --
    Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)