Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, OSI Discuss Shared Source Licenses
linumax writes "While Microsoft Corp. has publicly said it has no immediate plans to submit its newest Shared Source licenses to the Open Source Initiative for approval, the company met with the OSI board this week to discuss the matter. Ronald Mann, a law professor at the University of Texas in Austin, said two of the new licenses, the Microsoft Permissive License, which is modeled on the existing BSD license, and the Microsoft Community License, based on the Mozilla Public License, appeared to satisfy the Open Source Definition administered by the OSI."
If you look, scientific journals are full of inconsistencies of evolutionary theory. Most of this belief stems from fossils found that indicate some mutations occurred to eventually result in present man. An incomplete fossil record shows various 'holes' that have never been filled. More than 400 scientists have signed a statement 'Dissent from Darwin'. Even 71% of the public favors allowing teachers to acknowledge the scientific controversy over origins of life('Zogby'). Humans have not been around long enough to 'prove' either theory.
More of the 'disbelievers' immediately say ID is a matter of philosophy, not science. If you look into Webster's, Science is 'knowledge based on observed facts and tested truths'. Neither ID, nor evolution, fits the 'tested truths' definition. But one theory seems to have an overwhelming number of 'observed facts'.
'Reasons to Believe'(think-tank[reasons.org]) has scientifically deduced that the chance of intelligent life forming from 'primordial' matter is calculated to be 1 in [10 to the 131st(power)]. And, that "power" increases by 30 places upward every 6 months. This means that evolution seems much more unlikely as more information is acquired.
'Neanderthals' are thought to be direct proof of what evolved into humans. But scientific evidence has proved that 'neanderthals' and ancient humans are two different species. The DNA of humans over an 80,000 year sampling time(fossils) shows NO evolution of the human genome. Even more convincing, there was no evidence of interbreeding--no human DNA found in Neanderthals(and vice versa). Evidently, in the cases where interbreeding was attempted, 'inter-sterility' resulted. A usual ploy used in the debate: "Evolution is scientific, and ID is religious mythology". Per Webster's definition, ID has much more scientific evidence than evolution does.
Conclusions from several present-day scientists include:
But you constantly hear that acknowledging a Supreme Being is a religious statement. That 'evolution' is a well-established theory. That ID is only Biblical 'creationism' in disguise. That either you believe in 'evolution' by default, or there is no place for you at the table of credibility. That ID is not a testable theory in any sense, and is not accepted by the scientific community. That if nearly all original species are extinct, the intelligent design creator was not very intelligent.
But real science must evolve from the theory with the most observed facts. One item we know has already been eliminated by Darwinists--"that the supernatural does not exist, and that a Creator isn't compatible with scientific inquiry". In any true science theories disposing of assumptions without being able to prove or disprove them, is discarded.
Because both theories have no direct evidence, they must rely on inferred evidence. ID has all the evidence from the above calculated data, but also infers that a Supreme Being must exist, due to the data's direction. Science is always supposed to take you w
Hey everybody, jihadi_31337 here again. You may remember me posting from the Internet Measurment Conference earlier this week. I'm on a road trip for the weekened, and I'm at a friend's place. One of my favorite things about going to friends' places is that I can do a bunch of jihad posts and get their IP banned too :)
Ok, here we go. Thanks for reading the intro.
Ever notice the "beat the rush and see it early" link at the top of slashdot when a new story is about to come out?
Sounds good, doesn't it? To be able to view the pages linked to in the article before the tens of thousands of other slashbots click to view them.
Did it ever occur to you that you're taking part in cyber-terrorism?
That's right: Slashdot's editors are cyber-terrorists. They coordinate a DOS against small websites, and they attempt to collect moeny from people who wish to be spared the effects of said DOS. Terrorism, plain and simple.
You can fight this and other crimes by slashdot's editors by joining anti-slash. Anti-slash is committed to forcing the editors to own up to their numerous crimes against the geek community. Until our demands are met, we will relentlessly discredit them as a news service through trolling and other means.
Also, props to poopbot and the alan thicke troll. We remember your accomplishments.
In sacred jihad...
jihadi_31337
| _ __ | |
_) |_|_)__/_| |
(_) o