Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: New E3, Archimedes Webcast, Dell Wildfires

Slashback tonight brings some clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories including: a victory for evolution in Kansas, the Stardust Program launched, Lego Mindstorms goes live, continued backlash on the new E3, Archimedes gets a webcast, another Dell bursts into flame, and a possible RIAA silver bullet Read on for details.

A Victory for Evolution in Kansas. SatanicPuppy writes "Yesterday, elections in Kansas saw four of six pro-Creationism school board members replaced by pro-Evolution candidates in a one issue election. Interestingly, it didn't go by party lines; at least one of the conservative Republicans who supported Creationism failed to make it past their party primary. Ken Willard and John Bacon are the two remaining pro-Creationism incumbents."

Stardust Program Launched. lee1 writes "Anyone with an internet connection now has the the chance to find microscopic grains of dust from beyond the solar system. The project, called Stardust@home, is patterned on projects like SETI@home. But rather than exploiting idle processor time, it will ask volunteers to search through millions of microscope images on their computer screens, exploiting spare time in general as well as ego: 'People get very competitive,' explains the project director. The first volunteer to spot an actual interstellar dust grain will get to name it and will be listed as a co-author on any resulting research papers. The images come from a NASA project called Stardust, whose primary mission was to collect samples of dust from the tail of Comet Wild 2, but might also have captured some interstellar dust that could reveal the physics of the stars that produced it. To minimize false positives and to ensure that all the grains are found, each participant will go through an online training and testing process before starting their search. They will be scored on how well they distinguish real dust grain impacts from fakes."

Lego Mindstorms goes live. MicroBerto writes "As of August 1, 2006, the next generation of Lego Mindstorms is now available for sale in North America. Mindstorms NXT is a robotics toolset that allows you to build and program robots for various purposes. It combines the power of the Lego technic building system and an all new intuitive software environment powered by National Instruments LabVIEW."

Continued backlash on the new E3. Anonymous Howard writes "Angry Gamer reacts badly to the news of the Electronic Entertainment Expo's demise. They see it as a major blow for small game developers who are having enough of a hard time getting noticed by press and retailers as it is. From the article: 'This is a win only for the EAs, Sonys and IGNs of the world. Everyone else has to fend for themselves.' It seems like the days of smaller developers getting noticed by 'drive by traffic' at E3 are over." Relatedly The Escapist Lounge has an interview with the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences president, Joseph Olin, on what is actually happening to E3. As Joseph Olin responds: 'So it's going to take a couple of months until the world knows what the scope of E3 2007 will be, and how it will be structured. The opportunity to make material changes to improve it shouldn't be snap judgments. The rhetorical question I might pose is: "You know you have a problem. You know you need to make changes. How do you make changes and convey it and announce it, and to whom, and when?" There's never a good time. Whenever you make significant change, there's no way to introduce that change without detractors. The challenge is that without being able to announce the exact implementation of change it leaves that gray area for ignorance to fill the void.'"

Archimedes gets a webcast. jd writes "Some time ago, Slashdot covered the story of the rediscovery of several lost writings of Archimedes by means of X-Ray fluorescence. Well, they're still scanning the book and at 11pm GMT (4pm PDT) on August 4th will be putting on a live webcast as they scan and interpret pages not seen by human eyes for over a thousand years."

Another Dell bursts into flame. starwindsurfer writes "A Dell laptop's battery caught on fire in a company's IT department this week, burning a hole right through the casing. Nearby techs used fire extinguishers to put out the blaze. Employee Henrik took pictures to document the affair and uploaded them to the Toms Hardware message boards. From the writeup: 'The police department showed up. The entire lower floor was allowed to leave early and as we stood there in front of the building we simply couldn't resist... we jokingly called the engineer a terrorist as he was being asked a few questions by the friendly officer.'"

An RIAA silver bullet? Chris Fairman writes "TechDirt is running a story about how the RIAA seems to be dropping cases where the defense includes (or hinges on) an IP address as the means to identify the source of criminal activity. Essentially the defense argues that all an IP address can prove is who was paying for the net access at a particular time. Having a wide open WiFi router on your network seems to be currently the most effective means of getting the RIAA to drop all charges. Essentially the activity originating from one IP, only proves that illegal file sharing behavior is coming from one network, and not necessarily from any one specific computer or user. More importantly, it seems that the legal system is beginning to catch on to more complex technology concepts. Such concepts play a large part in how future legal cases are argued, and contribute ultimately to the foundation of complex technology legal precedents."

199 comments

  1. I believe in Evolution and God by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I view Evolution as God's tool. The days in the Genesis account were days of God, and not days of man. It's said in other places in the bible that a day of God is longer than a day of man. Besides what is a day when the sun isn't even in existance? I envision God sculpting the species over billions of years by using Evolution as a tool. God gave a small account of how he created the universe, but its also eloquent. Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the universe, but the Genesis account will never change.

    1. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by JanneM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the universe, but the Genesis account will never change.

      And that, in one sentence, summarizes the fatal flaw in using religion as a means of understanding the world.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    2. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo! Though simple in concept, and easy to accept as a "why not" for either side as bridge. Though many people do not like it for some reason.

      I often think that the universe is a giant game of dominoes(falling) combied with pool.

      See you at the bottom of the mod.

    3. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very convenient that religion can suddenly agree with science that would otherwise proove its beliefs wrong, all the while still clinging to other beliefs that are just as unreasonable, and will too eventually be proved wrong.

    4. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this inflexibility is a good thing?

    5. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh God no!!! he believes in religion AND evolution!

    6. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by geekoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      you do know that God didn't write the Bible?

      God could not use evolution, because if it was guided, it wasn't evolution.

      Just as a reminder, Evolution is a fact, and there no longer is a missing link.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      That site isn't worth pimping so often, man. Give it up or make it better.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    8. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0

      Yes folks, it's (drum roll please) Religilution!

      Or Evolugion, whichever you prefer.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Petrushka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, yes to evolution, and yes to the account of creation given in the first chapter of Genesis, and yes to the account of creation given in the second chapter of Genesis.

      ... um, mods, how is self-contradiction "interesting"? OK, well I suppose it's interesting in the sense that it's a very, very peculiar way to think. Or rather, I suppose, doublethink, since that is literally what it is.

      Even the craziest sentence in this post --

      Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the universe, but the Genesis account will never change.

      -- has some kind of rational meaning if you think about it in a sufficiently sideways fashion: e.g. "the Genesis accounts are unlikely to change in the next 1000 years, because people who are in the business of producing critical editions of historically important texts are going to want to preserve the text in a form as close as possible to its original". But just because it's possible to re-encode something in your head in such a way that it makes some kind of sense doesn't mean that it's a useful something for thinking with ... and that goes for creation myths, too, by the way.

    10. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by gasmonso · · Score: 0

      You're right! I need something awesome like JETRIS!!! That's a killers site man... seriously. Go commercial with that one! Or better yet, mind your own damn business :)

      http://religiousfreaks.com/
    11. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by anothy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      no, it doesn't. it summarizes the fatal flaw in using religion to replace science. religion's a very useful tool for understanding some aspects of the world, including human nature and psychology, even if you don't believe it's a useful or true description of the metaphysical. it's just not a replacement for science, nor a good means for understanding, say, physical phenomenon. don't confuse arguments against using religion to teach science with arguments against religion in general.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    12. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "religion's a very useful tool for understanding some aspects of the world, including human nature and psychology,"

      no.

      religion is a very useful tool for observing some aspects of the world, including human nature and psychology.

      it offers no understanding at all.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by SleepySheep · · Score: 1

      Uh... don't facts have to be supported by evidence? If evolution is "fact" then where is the evidence?

    14. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would god not be considered just some other factor in whether or not they live or change?

    15. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Insightful
      More power to you, Jim. I have no problem with people of faith when they're actually using their brain. That, to me is real faith, not the pseudo faith of the fundamentalist. The kind of faith you seem to have is more of a creative mental act, much like imagination. Faith gets a bad name because of the many people who claim to have faith, when really it's a matter of being brainwashed by a dogma.

      I was going to disagree with your contention that:

      Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the universe, but the Genesis account will never change.


      but after a little thought I decided that you might be right, at least on a deeper level. At any rate, there's nothing I can point to to say you're wrong, to prove that the underlying message has changed thru interpretations. On a more superficial level, one could point out the history of various translations of the Bible. Anyway, I won't argue for the sake of argument. I'll just try to keep an open mind.
      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    16. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      God could not use evolution, because if it was guided, it wasn't evolution.

      Not provable, nor falsifiable, therefore a bullshit statement scientifically.

      The concept that God has or had a hand in evolution is a metaphysical, philosophical, or theological idea. If you claim that science has an opinion on such, then you don't understand science.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    17. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Synonymous+Bosch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Religion isn't intended to be a means of understanding the world - it's a means of understanding yourself and in turn, understanding God.

      It's a shame most religions (or their followers) have lost sight of that point.

    18. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by bruno.fatia · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think God rather play in turns just like Civilization.

    19. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by GuyverDH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now stop and think a moment...

      When the information was shared with man on how the universe and world was created, who among us could understand genetics, quantum physics, superstring theory and a host of things we still don't know about?

      We understood the concept of god. We understood creating something. We knew simple numbers. We understood simple concepts for measuring time, days, seasons, etc...

      If the story of creation were handed down today, I'm positive it would read differently. For one thing, we'd get a lot more technical information on how it happened. We'd also understand terms like genetic mutation, manipulation, millenia for time periods, etc...

      For the longest time, I've thought about that story, and what it would sound like if it was given to us for the first time today. It's amazing to think that instead of a *rib bone* being used to create woman, it was actually sort of a proto-y chromosome component that was removed from man, and added to the same component on woman. Thus instead of an original XY for man and XX for woman, we originally had an X and Y with a half leg extending out the lower right quadrant. When that piece was removed from the original man, and combined with another to form the first XX chromosome, we changed - not only was there now woman, but a different form of man.

      How would that have been explained to the people of that time? As far as I'm concerned, it couldn't have. Thus we have the stories of the bible written in the simplistic terms of the day, instead of the meticulous scientific detail we'd like today.

      --
      Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
    20. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If evolution is "fact" then where is the evidence?

      You don't think there's any evidence for evolution? How can it have wide acceptance amongst scientists without evidence? For fucks sake go and get a clue. Try reading some books or something. I hear the bible is a good yarn.

    21. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Teach · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But just because it's possible to re-encode something in your head in such a way that it makes some kind of sense....

      But there's no re-encoding necessary. The biblical account of creation only has a few crucial claims, IMO:

      • God existed before anything and created everything.
      • Things appeared in a certain order: the universe, later plants, later sea creatures & birds, then land creatures and finally mankind.
      • Men are a special act of creation, unique from animals in that they're in "God's own image."

      So far, I've never learned any science that contradicts these fundamentals. Society at large used to think God created each variety of animal ex-nihilo; now the evolutionary process is commonly accepted, even by quite a lot of Christians. This "change" doesn't affect the above tenets.

      This is my viewpoint, anyway, and based on what the OP said, it's his, too. I hate to add to the offtopic-ness, but I felt like clarifying.

      --
      Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
    22. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kinda funny, but because I often find myself bored with the comments when I get this far down into it, I decided to make my own comparison. So I went to both sites, and truth be told, I spent far more time playing simple, blocky, ugly Jetris than struggling through the idiocy of your well-designed (I didn't waste enough time to bother investigating, but is that a template? are you using wordpress, or movable type? for shame) pool of hate-speech and one-sided, almost (approaching and maybe actually crossing the line; again, not enough research on my part) bigoted commentary.
      The point is, content always wins over display in terms of awesomeness. One of the fundamentals I learned in comm. art was to make the message more attractive, but if the message is so ugly to begin with, then it simply can't be made beautiful.
      And regarding minding your own damn business, maybe there's something you can learn from a famous Jesus parable that has nothing to do with god: worry about the sawdust in your brother's eye only after you've removed the plank from your own. Try minding your own damn business, instead of crusading against others who believe different than you.
      [Posted Anonymously to cover my knowledge of artsy and bible things so my fellow nerds don't think less of me as a coder or atheist.]

    23. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by cmeans · · Score: 1
      Well, the Genesis account has probably changed countless number of times. One more more times per each translation. Every translation puts someone else's spin on it, deliberately or otherwise. It only goes to show a lack of understanding of the history of religous (at least Judeo Christian) documents.

      This certainly doesn't mean that God/Jehovah/Allah doesn't exist...

    24. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Petrushka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But there's no re-encoding necessary. The biblical account of creation only has a few crucial claims, IMO:

      It must be very nice, just happening to be the person who knows which claims are crucial and which ones aren't.

    25. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would argue that religion is a very useful tool for exploiting some aspects of the world, including human nature and psychology.

      But one can also observe the responses of humanity to religion, and, through such obervations, gain some understanding. So it's a moot point.

    26. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by PacMan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      But there's no re-encoding necessary. The biblical account of creation only has a few crucial claims, IMO:

      • God existed before anything and created everything.
      • Things appeared in a certain order: the universe, later plants, later sea creatures & birds, then land creatures and finally mankind.
      • Men are a special act of creation, unique from animals in that they're in "God's own image."
      So far, I've never learned any science that contradicts these fundamentals.

      Then you havn't done much study in evolution, have you.

      Birds are descended from land animals (dinosaurs) and thus had to appear *AFTER* land animals.

    27. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by magetoo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      God could not use evolution, because if it was guided, it wasn't evolution.
      That's not quite right. You might very well have had some form of directed evolution. (The Christian god/some other god/the aliens/FSM altered/is altering genes gradually towards some goal, and here we are.)


      And related to this, Darwin did not come up with the idea of evolution, that would already have been known. What he proposed was natural selection; the method that pushed evolution seemingly "forward".

      But you're probably from the US, and they don't teach this kind of stuff there, right? ;-)

    28. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you reconcile the fact that the order in which types of animals are created in Genesis disagree with the order in which evolution says they came around?

      Note that there are different orders given in Genesis 1 and 2. This is often handled by claiming that Genesis 1 is chronological from God's point of view, while Genesis 2 focuses on Adam's experience and is not chronological. But that doesn't reconcile the order with evolution's claims.

    29. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can believe this and subscribe to this philosophy. I'm not trying to dumb down this in any way, but how exactly do you answer your 5 year old child when he or she asks you why the sky is blue. Do you say, "it is, because it is", "because god made it so", or do you try to explain how electromagnetic waves behave? Where I'm going with this is how do you dumb down an answer and have scientific detail in the answer? I don't think you can, and I believe this is what you might find in genesis.

    30. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by nihaopaul · · Score: 3, Informative

      you are all wrong.

      Religion is a very useful tool for controling the masses. (like tv reality shows and news groups (esp. but not limited to china))

      it offers neither understanding or observation

    31. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by c_forq · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis would disagree with you.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    32. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by magetoo · · Score: 1
      Oh, you're Bahá'í then?


      (I was aiming for "Funny", in case anyone was wondering..)

    33. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by c_forq · · Score: 1

      Evolution is guided. As Darwin envisioned it evolution was guided by survival of the fittest, guiding towards efficiency. At the very least it is guided by physics and chemistry.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    34. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Panaflex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And you appear to not have studied much religion - at least Genesis. The source material for much of Genesis goes back much further than the Bible and the Torah. Look up the Epic of Gilgamesh for instance.

      Regardless - it is not so much of real interest that things were created in a certain order. Certainly our view of the Earth has radically changed in 2,000 years and will continue to change I am sure, as an example.

      Classical studies often find that a timeline and factual accounts are far from reality - but are meant to convey the outcome, meaning, or possibly the causation (tropological study). The particular order and logic is mostly allegorical evidence and relation to the reader. As an aside - this is the point at which scientist balk much so.

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    35. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by aditi · · Score: 2, Informative
      A technical note:

      "... Thus instead of an original XY for man and XX for woman, we originally had an X and Y with a half leg extending out the lower right quadrant. When that piece was removed from the original man, and combined with another to form the first XX chromosome..."


      The "Y" chromosome is also X-shaped - and then only when the cell is dividing. The chromosomes double themselves, coagulate, and are linked to their doubles in the "middle", giving them an X-shape. When the cell is going about its other functions, however, the chromosomes are pretty formless.
    36. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by c_forq · · Score: 1

      I would like to point out that the Hebrew version hasn't changed in at least about 1,000 years, and I think the Latin and Greek are at least 800 years and 900 years respectively. These versions are still available, the reasons translations change is because the vernacular changes (and one of the reasons that the Catholic Church didn't want the Bible translated).

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    37. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by mjwx · · Score: 0

      "Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the universe".

      Our understanding of science will be drastically different 100 years from now, just as todays science is drastically different from 100 or even 50 years ago.

      Thats the point of science. In order to further understand something accepted conceptions of ideas need to be challenged and proven (either right or wrong). Science is not meant to be set in stone that would defeat its very purpose as it would not be able to accept new idea which lead to new discoveries and new technologies and greater understanding of life the universe, so on and so forth. If science was static it would be like religion. Science is the search for answers not the establishment and maintenance of them.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    38. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Guided? Don't you mean constrained? But that's hardly a constraint, because everything is constrained by physics. That's like saying that stars are constrained by having to exist within a universe.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    39. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by mjwx · · Score: 0

      Religion was a method of explaining human nature and the forces of the universe before we had the capacity to find out for ourselves.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    40. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Synonymous+Bosch · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds like a man who didn't own an electric flashlight ;)

    41. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big bang is no more or less ludicrous than the theory we all popped out of nowhere one day by the hand of some uber-leet god type figure. Try asking a scientist "where'd the initial mass for the big bang come from?" and the scientist will say "it's always been here; it cycles". To which I'd say "no poindexter, where'd the mass come from; fine it's always been here, but where'd it come from initially?". The big bang is a nice self-sustaining theory, but doesn't explain where the mass came from. Religion explains how the mass got here, but doesn't explain how it was sculpted.

      Science explains how, religion explains why. Do not mix them up. Just because religous institutions have persecuted you or because you disagree with them and their worldview is no excuse to become as mouth-frothing rabbidly mad as some of them are (and that's to everyone, not just you). Dealing with morons who say things like "a million people can't be wrong" and "God protects me" is very simple; tell them hitler had 30 million fallowing him and it was no problem for him to kill damn near twice as many as he had fallowing him, then push them and ask them why god isn't protecting them from you beating the fuck out of them, and if they continue the stupidity, ignore them and buy a couple of guns.

      If they finally go as insane as I know they will, you shoot when they start coming for you or your family on the grounds that those who disagree with us must be destroyed. Remember; idiots are for ignoring; cultists are for killing.

    42. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      Thus we have the stories of the bible written in the simplistic terms of the day, instead of the meticulous scientific detail we'd like today.
      So why do some moden day people insist that a story told to Moses over 2700yrs ago is the literal truth?

      I know some people struggle to reconcile modern day science with "divinely inspired" truth, but those aren't the ones I'm talking about.

      P.S. Since the sun/moon/stars weren't created till day 4, how can anyone claim to know how long it took? It isn't like the sun was orbiting the earth, I mean the earth orbiting the sun, to provide a convienent way to create a unit of time. Not that man was around to keep track of time anyways.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    43. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Besides what is a day when the sun isn't even in existance?"

      24 hours :p ?

    44. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by klui · · Score: 1

      I gather you're referring to what Mark Twain wrote in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court?

    45. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by nihaopaul · · Score: 1

      no

    46. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, NO. Religion is a very useful tool for CONTROLLING human nature and psychology

    47. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by nihaopaul · · Score: 1

      religion gives hope to people, it is a placebo where people try to explain things that cannot possibly be caused from natural disasters. i guess thats why god built cat5 and produced FTTH and evil corporations, opps getting off track now

      yeah so religion helps people who arn't happy somewhere and in a way brainwashes them into believing in a higher being, not only that it also allows people at the top of the pyramid to control people all the way down, its a profitable business model, funny thing is when you have people that disagree with them they get labled as terrorists or cults.

      expecting everyone to believe in the same thing is so 10 yrs ago, we are individuals not sheeple, respect yourself and respect your beliefs but also respect your fellow man.

      thats why jesus saves, but budha runs a raid10 system with offsite backup and redundant links on a beowolf cluster running over 10 bluegenes.

      food for your mind:
      if you believe in your god so much why do you as the courts to enforce this?

    48. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by LKM · · Score: 1

      Isn't god, like, all mighty? Why didn't he just make people understand instead of dumbing everything down to the point where it became pure stupidity?

    49. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by jcostom · · Score: 1
      Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the universe, but the Genesis account will never change.


      And that, in one sentence, summarizes the fatal flaw in using religion as a means of understanding the world.

      How so? Remember, that any sufficiently advanced technology would seem like "magic" to a sufficiently undeveloped mind. Are you really so bold as to believe that we've already advanced to the point of being capable of understanding every possible notion in existence?

      Anti-Bible folks always trot out the whole "Earth created in 6 days" stuff and proclaim the entire Bible to be false, since they claim to have facts that the Earth is in fact millions of years old. A couple of observations there. Radio-carbon dating depends on an estimated window of how old you think the object is in the first place. Secondly, they conveniently dismiss the notion of the fact that God is not bound by the human concepts of time, "a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day".

      In short, you absolutely, positively, cannot prove the theories presented by today's scientific community. Theories are unproven, by definition. If they were proven, they would no longer be theory, but axiom. Take care to realize I've not dismissed those theories, just stated the simple fact that they are not absolute truths having been already proven.

      --

      The unsig!
    50. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Who cares what C.S. Lewis thinks? The man was an author and literature professor. He was neither a scientist nor a theologian. His lack of vision gives him no special knowledge.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    51. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      most would call a vast fossil record showing both mass extinctions and explosions of speciation something like evidence. I dont' know if there's a god or not, but if there is I think he just set things up, and now they run all on their own by and large.

    52. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1
      When the information was shared with man on how the universe and world was created, who among us could understand genetics, quantum physics, superstring theory and a host of things we still don't know about?


      Tell me, who "shared" the information with man? Your statement assumes a superior, or supreme, being handing out knowledge. Where did this being come from? How did that being get the information?

      Sound to me like another stupid death cult ploy. Yes, christianity is a death cult.
      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    53. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by TheRequiem13 · · Score: 0

      Then he played around trying to make a "superhuman" by making XXY. It didn't pan out.

      --
      What?
    54. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by operagost · · Score: 1
      This post was modded as informative? Who brought Nietzsche in here?

      Someone didn't learn the difference between fact and opinion in first grade.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    55. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any sentence of the form "Religion is X", where X is some simple, monovalent role in some schematic view of "everything" is bound to be twaddle. Religion is definitely a natural product of the human condition: the interaction of human biology, psychology, and sociology. Say anything definite beyond that and you're on shaky grounds.

      It might also be a product of God trying to sneak into our thick skulls. But be that as it may, I've never seen a simple theory of what religion is, positing that religion exists to perform a particular single function, that holds water when examined critically.

      Religion is a product of complexity, and as such plays different roles, usually imperfectly, in different situations.

      Philosophe style theories of religion are like a lot of shallow explanations of organisms in terms of the role they play in ecologies, e.g., those that imply that wolves "exist" to keep prey species healthy. Wolves, or coyotes in places where they've moved into the top predator niche, do do that. But it's not "why" they exist. They just do. If they're put into different contexts, they might play other roles like scavengers. It's not a violation of natural order, it's them doing what they do naturally, in a different context.

      Religion is much the same way. It just is, and it does different things depending on the situation. It can certainly be used as a tool of oppression. It can also be used as a check on oppression. In either role it is less than perfect as a tool because it was never made as a tool, and can trecherously slip in your grip to produce unwanted effects.

      Another truism which I lack confidence in is "religion causes war". You can also say "religion mitigates war". And you can find evidence for both ideas. I think, looking at history, the most you can say is religion is part of the landscape in which war takes place, and is used in every conceivable way to further and retard the aims of people making war.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    56. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by operagost · · Score: 1

      Your post is so wrong I don't know where to begin. How about: yes, he was a theologian. You're simply ignorant and wrong. Try reading "Mere Christianity" at least. Renting "Narnia" on DVD doesn't qualify you to deconstruct C. S. Lewis.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    57. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by DieNadel · · Score: 1

      I'd say that the Genesis accounts won't change, even in the face of huge scientific changes. What will change is our perception of it.

      Just like people today may embrace Science AND God concurrently (and I'm among them) to perceive what the parent-poster described as "days of God", we may get, through science, new understanding and meaning to the words in Genesis.

      --
      Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
    58. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by operagost · · Score: 1
      The source material for much of Genesis goes back much further than the Bible and the Torah. Look up the Epic of Gilgamesh for instance.
      It is true that Gilgamesh dates to ~2000 BCE while the Torah has only been traced to 650 BCE. However, if you're referring to the flood myth, then I'll have to trot out my higher critical analysis (the only kind accepted by the elite) and point out that the Gilgamesh tale is far more elaborate than the Genesis account. It is generally accepted that a myth (we'll call Genesis a myth for convenience) elaborates, rather than simplifies, over time. Also, the dimensions of the boat in the Genesis account indicate a seaworthy vessel while that in Gilgamesh (actually copied loosely from the Atrahasis epic) is an almost cubelike vessel which would quickly capsize.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    59. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by operagost · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Dead Sea Scrolls gave us texts from 250 BCE so now we know the Hebrew Bible hasn't changed in over 2,250 years.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    60. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      The biblical account of creation only has a few crucial claims...So far, I've never learned any science that contradicts these fundamentals.

      Please learn some more science, then...

      "Things appeared in a certain order: the universe, later plants, later sea creatures & birds, then land creatures and finally mankind." We know this to be inaccurate, birds are a relatively recent evolutionary branch.

      "Men are a special act of creation, unique from animals in that they're in `God's own image.'" Science show us that we are close cousins with other animals; the more we investigate, the less unique we find humans. (Though great anthrocentrism persists in our culture, especailly in terms of ethics, it is not scientific.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    61. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      and where can i get these "placebos"?

      --
      Jeremy
    62. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      When the information was shared with man on how the universe and world was created, who among us could understand genetics, quantum physics, superstring theory and a host of things we still don't know about?

      What, God couldn't leave us a time capsule that would open when we were smart enough to understand it? Or better yet, get off his celestial ass, come down here (wait, isn't he already here?), and talk to us now? This omnipotent creator of the Universe could only speak to ancient illiterate Israelites?

      Either God (the sort of personal creator-being existing outside of space and time popularly conceieved of in our culture) does not exist, God does not want to communicate clearly with us, or God is severely limited in powers and abilities.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    63. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Uh... don't facts have to be supported by evidence? If evolution is "fact" then where is the evidence?

      Uh...did you sleep through biology? Ok, maybe you went to school in Kansas, or were homeschooled by parents determined to keep you ignorant, sorry about that.

      May I recommend the talk.origins archive to catch you up on the science you unfortunately missed out on? Happy reading!

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    64. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Teach · · Score: 1
      It must be very nice, just happening to be the person who knows which claims are crucial and which ones aren't.

      I should confess that I think most people would only consider claims 1 & 3 to be crucial. It's just a personal belief of mine that eventually science will vindicate the order of things mentioned in the biblical creation account (claim 2), much in the same way that archaeologists finally found evidence of the existence of the Hebrew king David after centuries of claiming that no such evidence existed. Ditto for the city of Jericho.

      It's actually not very hard to know what's important and what isn't, if you're intelligent. Can you read one of Paul Graham's essays and then of all his points, tell me which ones are crucial to his argument and which ones aren't? Sure you could. Especially if you've read several of his essays and get a feel for his personality, values and style.

      It's just the same for the Bible; if you've read *all* of it and really processed what you've read, then following the flow is doable. The Bible's just four megabytes of text, whereas a PG essay is more like 30 KB. Oh, and there's a bit of historical distance between the original audience of the Bible and readers today, so a good translation and some basic interpretation rules are needed.

      I don't want to be condescending, but unlike most Christians, I've actually read every word of the Bible myself. Three times, in fact, in multiple translations, and I'm working on my fourth time. Some passages I've read literally dozens of times, and probably some "popular" passages literally one hundred times.

      You can't just open up the King James version of the Bible and read two paragraphs in Genesis and then throw it down, proclaiming "This stuff is stupid!" any more than I should open up a Differential Equations text, read a couple of pages in chapter 10 and give up in confusion.

      There's no reason the technical details of theology should be any easier than the technical details of physics or operating systems. You understand that there are rules for literary criticism, right? That theology is a 'liberal art' with as much rigor and complexity as philosophy?

      --
      Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
    65. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by makomk · · Score: 1

      Okay, so you say God created the universe... but where did God come from?

      And then you reply "well, He's just always been there", and we're back to square one again. How pointless.

    66. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Actually, a theory (or theorem) is a provable statement. Postulates are unprovable, but widely accepted as fact. Theories can be disproven, but many widely accepted theories are so because of all the attempts at discreditting them failing.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    67. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by InfinityEdge · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points to counteract whatever nazi-mod gave you a -1 flamebait.

      Leave it to supporters of illogic to think that pointing out birds are descendent from land animals to be flamebait. Just because everything we've learned about the universe shows your fairy tale to be laughably inaccurate doesn't mean everyone is trying to persecute you.

      If your idea of what reality is differs from actual reality, you are the one who is wrong, not reality.

    68. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by tbannist · · Score: 1

      You're like the guy who has his fingers in his eyes and his eyes jammed shut screaming "I can't hear you! Na-na-na!".

      The evidence is here and is pretty damn conclusive. However, you prefer to believe that a book written by some people about 2000 years ago in another language, and translated several times, is "truthier" than the evidence right in front of you.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    69. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Brownstar · · Score: 1

      I think you need to re-read your bible.

      In the first creation story of Genesis, things occur in the order you listed.

      In the second creation story of Genesis, Man was created before the plants and animals

      So which one is it?

    70. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the universe, but the Genesis account will never change.

      That's why I will always trust science more than a religious text to explain how this universe works. Scientific theories and beliefs are willing to change when they become under scrutiny. The bible, on the other hand, will never change, just more excuses or attempts of explaining fallacies and inconsistencies. If we treated science like we did the bible, we would still believe the earth is flat.

      Beleiving in evolution and in God is definately feasable and sensible. Beleiving every word in the Bible as truth from God's mouth while believing in evolution is a different story, as it requires ignorance of obvious conflicting views.

    71. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis would disagree with you.

      Unless it's night time, or in a dark cave. Than he uses a flash light with the duct tape mod.

    72. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Teach · · Score: 1

      I have "re-read" the Bible. I've read it cover to cover three times, in multiple translations.

      In Genesis chapter 2, it does not say that man was created before the plants and animals. There's not much chronological language in Genesis 2, in fact. It says that "the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field..." (emphasis mine), which is just a reminder of the creation detailed in chapter 1.

      Which version of the Bible are you reading where Genesis 2 states or even implies that man was created before plants and animals?

      --
      Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
    73. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is your definition of theologian? He definitely delved into theology publishing several books about Christianity and doing a few BBC programs in addition to public speeches. He was no doubt involved in apologetics.

    74. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Brownstar · · Score: 1
      The New American Bible.

      I've also read it in other versions of the bible as well.

      If you are going off of the King James Bible, James in his infinite wisdom had it re-worded to make both creation stories consistent.

      http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis2 .htm

      "Such is the story of the heavens and the earth at their creation. At the time when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-- while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, but a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground--

      the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being. "

      emphasis mine.

    75. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Religion is a very useful tool for controling the masses. (like tv reality shows and news groups (esp. but not limited to china))

      it offers neither understanding or observation

      Horse-pucky!!!

      While I agree that religious dogmatism and the like doesn't provide any useful understanding or observation, there is a lot in some religious traditions which actually do offer some insights.

      I would claim that Buddism and Hinduism offer a lot of understanding and insight. And, further, I would claim that most relgions offer at least something of value. If you get tied up in the literal interpretation of stuff, you get bogged down in some stuff which isn't very helpful. But, there is a lot of stuff which is helpful for personal growth and figuring out how to best interact with other people.

      This meme about religion being only effective in controlling the masses (Marx was a cynical bastard) completely ignores the fact that an individual can get a lot out of their religious traditions if they're willing to sift through it. I've known quite a few very intelligent, productive scientists who have no problem reconciling their religious (mostly Christian) beliefs with objective science.

      Just because religion frequently gets used for all of the wrong reasons, doesn't mean that all forms of religion are just simply there to herd the masses.

      I'm not a religious person per se, but I do believe there is value in having one's own spirituality as a moral compass and a guide for how to treat people. I once thought as you do, that it's all a waste of time. As I get older and inform myself about more of it, I find myself changing that position.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    76. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not religion per-say, spirituality of any sort.

      Sometimes is the ultimate form of psychological blame escape, not only is it not your fault but it's now impossible to even show it was really your fault. How can you show that it really wasn't an evil spirit that did it (I heard that one used seriously by someone recently)? Other times it justifies your actions and views, the stars or spirits agree with you so you must have been right.

      Personally I find it all unconstructive and really unnecessary although I've had a decently good life. And really I find "crap happens" to be a much nicer explanation than "[insert supernatural] did it" when things to wrong.

    77. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by jcostom · · Score: 1
      Actually, a theory (or theorem) is a provable statement.

      I suppose you are indeed correct. A theorem can be proven, but the theories that are germane to this discussion are still nothing more than unproven theories.

      --

      The unsig!
    78. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Teach · · Score: 1

      The New American Bible dates from the 40s. I wouldn't consider it an extremely accurate modern translation.

      [King] James in his infinite wisdom had it re-worded to make both creation stories consistent.

      That's an interesting theory. Too bad the phrase "had formed" doesn't appear in the King James in verse 19. The verb "formed" is in the qal imperfect tense but also has the waw prefix, which mean the prefix functions grammatically as "the waw consecutive". "If two verbs are referring to the past in one continuous narration, only the first verb is in the Perfect, while any following verb is in the Imperfect with a prefixed waw."

      Does this mean that "the LORD God had formed every beast of the field" is a better translation than "the LORD God formed every beast of the field"? Heck if I know. But I'll bet tens of dollars that you don't either, which is why we have to trust translators and compare multiple translations that you know in advance are likely to differ in their approach. THe KJV and NASB, both word translations, render it "formed". The NIV, which uses dynamic equivalence, renders it "had formed". The ESV puts "formed" but then puts a footnote saying "or 'had formed'".

      However, I think your main confusion (or agenda) from this passage stems from the descriptions of the plants in the beginning of chapter 2, verse 5.

      In Hebrew, these are literally "plant [of] the field" and "herb [of] the field", where the word "field" is the same in both cases. The word which the KJV renders "plant" is the Hebrew word "siach", which, according to my Hebrew dictionary, is a "shrubbery, a shrub, a plant, or a bush." This word only occurs four times in the Bible.

      The word rendered "herb" is the Hebrew "ehseb", which means "grass (or any tender shoot) - grass, herb". This is not the only Hebrew word for grass.

      This post is taking longer to write than I wanted, so I'll just do a bit of hand-waving here. If in verse 5 it says "no field shrub on earth... had sprouted", does this mean no plants at all, or just certain types of plants (like shrubs)? In verse 6, what is the point of "watering all the surface of the ground" if there are no plants at all? In verse 8, the NAB reads "the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed." Can you put a man in a garden if there are no plants yet?

      I believe that foliage was present before the appearance of man, but nothing that needed 1) rain to survive, or 2) to be cultivated. This is the additional detail I get out of Genesis chapter 2. Obviously you can read into it whatever you choose to.

      --
      Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
    79. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "That's not quite right. You might very well have had some form of directed evolution. (The Christian god/some other god/the aliens/FSM altered/is altering genes gradually towards some goal, and here we are.)"

      The that is certianly not natural selection. Which is what people mean when they say evolution.

      "And related to this, Darwin did not come up with the idea of evolution, that would already have been known. "
      no shit, really?
      People still argue evolution didn't happen. Of course most people don't even know there own theology on this subject.
      Evolution through Natural select is why we are here the way we are. There are countless studies a,d evidence that support this. Scientists use the data to make acurate predictions.

      "But you're probably from the US, and they don't teach this kind of stuff there, right? ;-)"

      haha fuck you.
      I am tired of that attitude.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    80. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I wish I had mod points to counteract whatever nazi-mod gave you a -1 flamebait


      The answer: Meta-Moderate.

    81. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      It's actually not very hard to know what's important and what isn't, if you're intelligent. Can you read one of Paul Graham's essays and then of all his points, tell me which ones are crucial to his argument and which ones aren't? Sure you could.

      This is a fair point, and I owe it to you to accept it and point out that I see this as the really crucial thing in your own post. But I don't accept your claim that "there are rules for literary criticism". Within limits it holds water, yes, but it looks like you're trying to make the broader claim that for all periods and all audiences there is one correct way of reading a text.

      In the case of Genesis it's plainly obvious that not everyone's going to read it the same way. For example, you're not going to find many people in this day and age who would derive clear-cut and distinct literal, allegorical, anagogical, and moral readings. You don't, after all. But even within this day and age, when I read Genesis chapter 1 I don't see a story designed to explain how the world came into being, I see a polemic against polytheism: that, to me, is the crucial point, and everything else seems to me to be just feeding into that argument. And when I read chapter 2 I still don't see a story about creation; what I see is a story designed with two aims, namely (1) to justify the relationship between sexes in a very specific society and time, and (2) a polemical aim again, this time against gods with animal features. On my reading, these are aims that are clearly limited to a specific place and time, and are unlikely to be relevant in other places and times except as a matter of historical interest.

      Now, I wouldn't claim my reading is the correct one -- I'm no specialist in biblical studies -- my point is that I don't agree that rigour is possible. Rigour may be attainable in theology, but not in exegesis. I certainly don't see any merit in claiming that one 3000-year-old creation myth has superior explanatory powers to any other 3000-year-old creation myth.

    82. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by jc42 · · Score: 1

      I'd say that the Genesis accounts won't change, even in the face of huge scientific changes. What will change is our perception of it.

      Actually, probably not. The perception of the Genesis creation story used to be that it was God's Revealed Truth. Scientific research has change this; now it's viewed as just one of many charming creation myths of a primitive society, with a few ignorant religious nuts still insisting that it's Truth. This situation probably won't change in the future.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    83. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Who cares what C.S. Lewis thinks?

      More to the point, his example is plain wrong. If your idea of vision is limited to what you can see with your eyes in the sunlight, you are excluding a great deal of useful (and sometimes beautiful) things in this world.

      An example that's rapidly becoming more familiar to a lot of people: If you visit weather sites like weather.gov, you'll see IR "false color" images of the planet that are much more informative than the visual images. For one thing, the IR works on the nighttime half of the planet. But mostly, it gives you a visual image of cloud temperature, which is more important than the mostly-white visual color.

      Scientific imaging can be very effective at showing things that aren't visible to the unaided eye. Lewis might object, but it's his loss.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    84. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by GWBasic · · Score: 1
      Actually, now that I have a better understanding of the big bang and evolution, (after attending a speech given by Steven Hawkings and reading the first half of Darwin's "Origin of Species,") I have a significant amount of respect for the insight in the book of Genisis.

      Specifically, I find that Genisis gives insight and opinion that science can not. It tells us that the human race is the keeper of the planet, and it helps explain what makes man different from other animals. (Hint: we wear clothes!) These stories are also some of the oldest known to man, and throwing them away would be a horrible disservice to our culture.

      What bothers me are when "religous" people claim that I am some athiest heathen because I believe in the big bang and evolution. Certainly, they overlook the insights of our ancestors.

    85. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by jc42 · · Score: 1

      When the information was shared with man on how the universe and world was created, who among us could understand genetics, quantum physics, superstring theory and a host of things we still don't know about?

      Most of us, actually. All the evidence is that humans 5000 or 40000 years ago were every bit as intelligent as we are today. They were merely ignorant, not stupid. If God had wanted them to understand, He could very well have set up a few courses in physics and explained how it all really works. Many of those ignorant shepherds could have understood it. If God gave the Genesis creation myth to people, then God was knowingly keeping them ignorant of the truth.

      God probably couldn't have explained genetics or quantum physics to a class of chickens, sheep or horses, but He certainly could have explained it to his favorite humans. At least to a small crowd of the geekier ones.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    86. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by magetoo · · Score: 1
      "That's not quite right. You might very well have had some form of directed evolution."


      The that is certianly not natural selection. Which is what people mean when they say evolution.

      And that was my point, that when people say "evolution" (observable facts) they should not confuse it with "natural selection" (hypothesis that explains them). Thank you.

      "But you're probably from the US, and they don't teach this kind of stuff there, right? ;-)"


      haha fuck you.
      I am tired of that attitude.

      What attitude? Jokes?

      Well, at least you knew what I was talking about. Can't have it all I guess.

    87. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing will ever be proven right or wrong, from a religious context. Assuming an omnipotent force, there cannot be proof or disproof of anything. And the existence of an omnipotent force cannot be proven or disproven.

    88. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe to let us advance on our own? Maybe for reasons beyond us? But, really, your question is silly. You could always ask why God didn't do something. e.g. "Why didn't God make flying kangaroos that build castles out of clouds and eat only bubble gum, that would have been cool!".

    89. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by LKM · · Score: 1
      Maybe to let us advance on our own? Maybe for reasons beyond us?

      "Ignore it, you don't understand anyway" is a typical reaction from a religious person, but not really an answer to my question.

      But, really, your question is silly. You could always ask why God didn't do something. e.g. "Why didn't God make flying kangaroos that build castles out of clouds and eat only bubble gum, that would have been cool!".

      But that's not what I asked, now is it? The point is this: Let's assume god exists. He obviously wanted to tell us something. But instead of simply telling us (which he could have done, since he's allmighty), he decided to dumb it down until it was sure to lead to 2000 years of religious violence.

      That doesn't make too much sense to me. None at all, actually.

    90. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Teach · · Score: 1

      Well, bonus points for correctly using the word "exegesis". I basically agree quite a bit with your post. Here's where I take things further:

      • God (allegedly) told the Israelites to study the Scriptures. To remember them. To teach them to their children.
      • Jesus obviously knew the Scriptures very well.
      • The apostles continued to validate the importance of studying the "Old Testament", even as they wrote the new.

      So, since I believe the claims of Christianity, I must also abide by that tradition. Thus I believe that the Bible had meaning for the ancient Hebrews, yes, but also that it has meaning for me.

      So then, how do I extract that meaning? Some basic ground rules:

      • Genesis was written for the Israelites circa Moses first, and only secondarily for later generations. Thus, any given passage cannot be expected to largely mean something to me that it could never have meant to its original audience. What it is supposed to mean to me must necessarily flow from what it meant to them.
      • Since the whole Bible is (allegedly) inspired by God, then all passages point at the same truth, and you shouldn't adopt an interpretation for a passage which flies in the face of what is clearly taught by other passages.
      • The Bible consists of 66 books by various authors over centuries, and not every book is the same type of literature. There is poetry, historical narrative, personal letters, prophecy, songs, genealogies, etc. You must read each book with an eye to its literary type. For example, if you go into Ecclesiastes not reading it as effectively a satire, you're going to get some seriously wrong ideas.

      So, I really don't disagree with your reading. I think monotheism was (and is) a pretty integral part of Christianity, and I think the Genesis creation passages set that tone early. But I do think there are rigorous ways to do textual criticism of the Bible. It's not always possible to nail down EXACTLY what a passage is supposed to mean, but you can always winnow out a lot of obvious things it DOESN'T mean, and almost always narrow it down to no more than two or so plausible meanings.

      Which, of course, is one of the big factors behind different Christian denominations. Because lots of well-meaning, learned, smart people just simply disagree on the 3% of passages that can't really be nailed down. You will find, however, that even among a half dozen Christian denominations, those who've really studied their Bibles and take their faith seriously will agree on 95% of everything. They just tend to make a big deal out of the few differences, in my experience.

      --
      Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
    91. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by anothy · · Score: 1

      the bible (including Genesis) changes over time, just phenomenally slowly. look at the scholarship around the J, P, E, and other authors in the torah. or the book selection process during the protestant reformation, or the fact that the roman and orthodox churches use different sets of books in "the" bible. and that's to say nothing of translation and editing issues, which make the biggest difference in the modern world (for christians, anyway; jews are affected much less by current translation issues, muslims practically not at all).

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    92. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by GuyverDH · · Score: 1

      It's in the way of an experiment.

      If he gives us too much information, he spoils the outcome.

      --
      Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
    93. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by GuyverDH · · Score: 1

      This supreme being was always there, always will be.

      If you take the hard scientific route, then nothing ever should have been.

      You can't create something out of nothing, where'd the something come from?

      Sounds to me like another stupid "science has all the answers and there is no god" ploy.

      Yes adhering to only what you can see and comprehend is stupidity in the extreme.

      --
      Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
    94. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by GuyverDH · · Score: 1

      Actually he did leave us a time capsule. Ourselves. We are just now learning enough to understand things the way an infant would.

      Eventually we will learn enough, evolve enough that we will fully understand the message left to us within our genetic code.

      --
      Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
    95. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by GuyverDH · · Score: 1

      The people of the time may have had the capacity to learn all that we know today, yet they didn't have the reference points. And unless I miss my guess, giving the people of the time all that knowledge, without the firsthand experience of how that knowledge was (or would have been) attained, would have led to the obliteration of the human race.

      Hmmm - war like race, lower populations, bent on total domination of the world. Given the tools of modern man (ie nuclear / quantum physics) - leads to total destruction of the planet merely because we didn't understand that setting off a 3000 megaton bomb would be a bad thing.

      Being told that the stove is hot, doesn't prepare us for the reality of placing our fingers on the surface and being burned. Having our fingers burned teaches us not to touch the burner again.

      Knowledge without the sacrifice of understanding is dangerous.

      A caring and loving God would not do that to his people.

      --
      Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
    96. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by LKM · · Score: 1
      It's in the way of an experiment.

      So god is some kind of insane scientist, chasing lab rats through mazes? That's the first religious idea that actually makes sense to me :-)

    97. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by jc42 · · Score: 1

      When I was born, a short time ago by God's standards, I was also totally ignorant and without reference points. Yet I and many others just as limited have managed to learn, and most of us understand quite well the dangers inherent in the technology. (The rest seem to go into politics. ;-)

      Also, if God had set up a basic scientific education program, the little band of at most a million or so ancient Hebrews wouldn't have had the resources to use it to destroy (or conquer) the world in any meaningful sense. That would require significant infrastructure, including lots of geological exploration to find the ores, refining and manufacturing plants, a transportation system to support it, and a power distribution system to run it all. This would have taken generations, and their schools would have been full of students from all the neighboring groups. The result would have been a distributed industrial revolution much like what happened in Europe over the past 300 years or so. Yeah, those Hebrews might have ended up dominating the technology, but they wouldn't have been the only ones using it. They'd have ended up sharing the world with at least the Phoenicians and Greeks.

      Actually, there have been sci-fi novels about alternate time lines in which the scientific/industrial revolution happened way back then. The idea has been thoroughly hashed out in some circles.

      Also, to explain how the world was created, God wouldn't have had to teach modern quantum physics. A much simpler story, similar to what's in our high-school science classes, would have sufficed for the purposes of a book (B'reshit, aka Genesis) of a few thousand words. If that story really came from God, there's no excuse for it not being much more accurate than it was.

      A much more credible explanation is that God told His people "I'm not telling; figure it out yourself." God was hoping that they'd examine his handiwork, figure it all out, and show that God had done a good enough job that they would eventually become worthwhile companions, ending His cosmic loneliness. Instead, the humans made up their Just-So Stories, God was sorely disappointed, and He hasn't wanted to talk to us about it ever since.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    98. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      I'd largely agree with what you've said, except for the initial assumptions -- existence of God, divine inspiration -- so I guess we're on the same wavelength now. :-) Kudos for engaging in dialogue with an obviously hostile interlocutor. (Which I remain, intellectually at least, even if we are now on the same wavelength.)

      The only relevant comments I think I can add to what I've already said are:

      1. I agree with your first and second ground rules, but not this one: "Since the whole Bible is (allegedly) inspired by God, then all passages point at the same truth, ..." I don't buy this syllogism even slightly. It depends on a very subjective notion of "truth": I will say that truth is too nebulous to be pointed at other than in the vaguest way. But I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that; your claims about rigour, and the possibility of determining what is crucial, are still too strong for me to accept.
      2. "... but you can always winnow out a lot of obvious things it DOESN'T mean ..." I wholly agree with this; "... and almost always narrow it down to no more than two or so plausible meanings" -- not agreed. You don't have to be a nihilist or a deconstructionist to realise that even just present-day literary critics' interpretive methods reveal a far vaster range of possible interpretations of what is "crucial" in a text. But even that's too limiting: I alluded in my last post to the mediaeval methodology of discerning four discrete "layers" of exegetical meaning to any biblical text; I suggested another reading of Genesis 1-2, which I don't think is invalid, but is just not on the radar of most modern readers; etc., ad infinitum. Interpretations are created by personal choices for which the reader is at least partly responsible. Sure, they're delimited by readings that you can rule out, but the range of possible interpretations -- and possible disagreements -- is simply too boundless to exclude the element of personal, non-inspired, choice.
      3. Finally:

        Which, of course, is one of the big factors behind different Christian denominations. Because lots of well-meaning, learned, smart people just simply disagree on the 3% of passages that can't really be nailed down. You will find, however, that even among a half dozen Christian denominations, those who've really studied their Bibles and take their faith seriously will agree on 95% of everything. They just tend to make a big deal out of the few differences, in my experience.

        I think you're right that most people will tend to agree on a certain percentage of everything (though I'd wager it's a lot lower than 95%, though that will be affected by all sorts of factors). It's one of the reasons why, of all denominations, I have a certain sneaking intellectual respect for the Catholics, since they're quite open about the fact that what's important isn't so much the Bible itself, even though it is "inspired", but how the Christian community (the "church") agrees to interpret it.

      I'm glad this discussion has continued, even if I'm as adamantly opposed to your position as ever, simply because I did genuinely find your first post self-contradictory -- basically, out of context, it sounded dumb (sorry). I think I understand better now where you're coming from, but it's quite a sophisticated -- and in some ways non-intuitive -- position. I really want to suggest having a careful think about the exegetical principles you propose, though. For example, try testing whether they work with other kinds of texts: does a literary work bear up under the same rules?

      I hold that they won't, or not very well: because it's not just a matter of trying to narrow down the range of possible literal meanings, it's also a matter of thinking about what the text is trying to achieve, which is generally going to be amazingly nebulous. For example, I suggested a reading of Genesis 1-2 that was more about

    99. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by c_forq · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about? He is talking about believing the sun has risen, and states the reason he believes so is because he not only sees the sun but is able to see everything else as it is lit by the sun. He is comparing that to his faith, saying he believes in God not only because he sees God, but that he sees everything else by the light of God. Plus I think by definition vision is limited to the visible light spectrum.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    100. Re:I believe in Evolution and God by Teach · · Score: 1
      I really want to suggest having a careful think about the exegetical principles you propose, though. For example, try testing whether they work with other kinds of texts: does a literary work bear up under the same rules?

      I think the principles do not hold up for other literary works, particularly not fiction. The principles for Biblical interpretation I use make the most sense if you presuppose that 1) God is a knowable entity, with intelligence and goals, 2) God wants His creation to know about Him, 3) the Bible is non-fiction and is the primary means God has used to reveal what He wants mankind to know about Himself.

      Without those fundamental assumptions, the idea that there's a particular, correct meaning to pull out of a particular passage just falls apart, exactly as you've asserted. If there's no supreme Author with a specific agenda for the text, then who's to say what a passage is "supposed" to mean?

      It's been a fun discussion. There probably aren't too many of us rational Christians on slashdot, so I feel sort-of compelled to speak up when the topic strays near something I've happened to think a lot about.

      But we need to quit. These posts take me longer than I intend to spend on slashdot.

      --
      Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
  2. I'm a little surprised by the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they were SCO they'd claim that, by having an open WiFi router, the defendant was negligent and somehow owed double damages. I guess that, unlike SCO, they actually care if they continue to exist after they lose a case.

  3. Thank God... by posterlogo · · Score: 1

    ...for the ability to reason! Go Kansas! (Until the next election that is...they've flipped their so-called standards virtually every 2 years).

  4. Archimedes gets a webcast by ChowRiit · · Score: 1

    I hope they translate it before the webcast (at least provisionally), or it's going to be rather limited interest to most people...

    1. Re:Archimedes gets a webcast by spidkit · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fine...it'll be all Greek to them anyway.

    2. Re:Archimedes gets a webcast by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Well, I hope they put up both the original Greek and a translation. Then those of us with the interest can use it to polish up their classical Greek, and read what Archimedes actually wrote.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    3. Re:Archimedes gets a webcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The show is going to be so interesting and so popular that your School Board is going to name a high school after Archimedes, and they're gonna name the football team "The Fighting Palimpsests." And they'll have a mascot that looks like a prayer book but it'll actually be two guys standing next to each other, see, and when the team scores a goal the costume will split apart and then one guy will stand on the other guy's shoulders and that way they'll make a book of Archimedes notes, and everyone will cheer! It's gonna be sooo cooool!

      And they'll have a cheer like...

      GIMME A "P"! [P!]
      GIMME AN "A"! [A!]
      [minutes pass]
      GIMME AN"S"! [s...]
      GIMME A "T"! [...t...]
      WHAT'S IT SPELL? [general crowd mumbling and grumbling]

      Man, it's gonna be GREAT!" I can't wait for the program to start!

  5. RIAA by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    Re: the RIAA "silver bullet"....are there any /. lawyers or legal students (no armchair lawyers please) who can weigh in on the effectiveness of it, and any potential limitations it might have due to state laws?

    If this really is as big a solution as they are making it sound, then work should be done to ensure that the information gets distributed to the mainstream college students and high school students who are the main people at risk and who are the least prepared for legal problems both in knowledge and in ability to weather the results.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      IANAL but I have followed the legal battles of the RIAA pretty closely the last six years. I was under the distinct impression that having an open WIFI was NO defense at all. I can't remember the exact legal document but years ago when this defense was concocted on /. everyone linked to some Ashcroft document that clearly stated that whoever pays for the internet connection is ultimately responsible for anything and everything that goes on with that connection. That is to say that leaving your WIFI connection wide open is something wreckless that you did and you should still be held accountable. This is much like if you had someone in your car and you were pulled over and the person in your car had a loaded handgun and a pound of cocaine. The cops wouldn't necessarily cart your ass to jail BUT you would get yelled at about how it was your car, everything in that car is technically your responsibility and if you were itching for arrest they probably could arrest you on that basis. Same thing with P2P over unsecure connections.
      If the Feds come kicking in your door because they have found that hundreds of child porn (I know it's an extreme example) videos have been uploaded at that IP and your defense is that "well I don't know, it could be anybody really, I never set up my router" I think that you would be in some serious trouble. In that case you could hope to get off because it is criminal and reasonable doubt is your friend. With P2P it is entirely a CIVIL matter and thus rather then having reasonable doubt as your friend you have the high probability of guilt damning you at your court hearing.
      However, things may have changed. Perhaps the issue has become so wide-spread and there is so much anger against the RIAA that the attitudes of those serving on Civil trial juries are hostile to the intentions of the RIAA. If they have decided that is the case then it is in their best interests to avoid any case where more then an IP address would be required before qualifying for your high probability of guilt. Nothing about the article /.'d says anything convincing one way or the other about it though.

    2. Re:RIAA by r1_97 · · Score: 1

      What he's saying is that w/ a wide open unsecured wireless router, anyone on the network can download a file using the same IP address. If true, then you can't prove which computer did the illegal download. They'd have to seize the computer with the illegal file on it.

    3. Re:RIAA by Rophuine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One bit of FUD being spread around is the whole "They'll be able to prove it was you when they seize your computer" crap. I haven't seen it hit /. but I've certainly seen it around the place. This isn't a criminal matter. The police aren't going to be getting search warrants and raiding your place for MP3 sharing. If the RIAA turn up at your place and try to take your laptop, call the police and have them arrested for Unauthorised Entry and Attempted Theft. The best the RIAA can do is subpoena your stuff, at which point you are required by law to provide them with copies (or possibly access to the real thing) at an actual court hearing. They can also demand copies of records you have during disclosure, if it makes it to a hearing. At the end of the day, they are going to have to be satisfied with the access YOU give them, under the terms of a court order. While I'm not suggesting you should falsify evidence (which would be a serious crime), hard drives crash all the time. Who makes regular backups, really? Do you save and keep all the logs from your wireless router? The data doesn't need to be missing. If they subpoenaed me for a list of all the MP3s on my desktop, I would happily give it to them. I keep all my MP3s on my MP3 player, not my desktop. What about all the P2P software which has ever been installed on my laptop? I have an old laptop sitting downstairs running as a router. That's the laptop they mean, right? Ultimately, the infringement they're chasing you about, and the potential gain to them, is not worth the cost of a serious investigation. Especially not when it's weighed against the potential loss of actually losing a case and setting a precedent. I say: Fight the good fight. I never used to buy music; it was burned CDs for me. I was a poor high school student. Now that I work as an engineer, I buy CDs all the time (not from Sony anymore, though). If the RIAA had bent me over and spanked me as a student, though, I'd have to wonder why I should go legit now that I can. Ultimately, the RIAA is alienating today's P2Pers who would have been tomorrow's customers. They would have ended up buying their own music, CDs as gifts, gift vouchers, iPods... But once they've been grounded for a month and banned from the internet for three because their parents had to pay a settlement to the RIAA, FORGET IT. On that note, wouldn't it be nice if America could stage a large-scale music boycott over this issue?

    4. Re:RIAA by Trogre · · Score: 1

      One bit of FUD being spread around is the whole "They'll be able to prove it was you when they seize your computer" crap. I haven't seen it hit /. but I've certainly seen it around the place. This isn't a criminal matter. The police aren't going to be getting search warrants and raiding your place for MP3 sharing. If the RIAA turn up at your place and try to take your laptop, call the police and have them arrested for Unauthorised Entry and Attempted Theft. The best the RIAA can do is subpoena your stuff...

      So what about the more likely case, that they turn up with a police officer and a search warrant?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:RIAA by Rophuine · · Score: 1

      Police Officers and search warrants are for criminal matters. See other comments around this one.

    6. Re:RIAA by Jack+Schitt · · Score: 1

      I tried that same "let's boycott the entire industry" arguement once. Result? Some dick shooting down my dreams on /. with the proper use of logic: "See, your honor? All these people downloading music ARE hurting our sales." ... "The court rules in favor of the plaintiff. Court is adjourned." New precident is set: Downloading an MP3 is now in the same class of felonies as punching somebody in the face [iirc, that is a felony, right?]. Why? It 'injures' the corporate entity. (Coporations have the same rights as a human for some reason.) That type of felony (iirc) is normally punishable by 3 - 5 years in prison and counts as a strike in California.

      Now back to reality: Downloading can not be considered theft because you're simply not depriving the owner of their original work. They can still copy and distribute the work unhindered. Futher, you're not stealing profits because they haven't made those profits yet. Remember you haven't purchased the cd, therefore the money you would have paid for it is still yours. To further simplify: You can't steal something from me that wasn't mine to begin with.

      --
      This message brought to you by Jack Schitt's Previously Shat Shit
    7. Re:RIAA by Detritus · · Score: 1
      The fact that it isn't a criminal case isn't going to save you. When the Clams (Church of $cientology) have gone after their critics for alleged copyright infringement, they have obtained court orders to search and seize their critics' computers for infringing material.

      See http://www.skeptictank.org/gs/sci691.htm for an article on the subject.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    8. Re:RIAA by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Punching someone in the face when they don't want you to is battery. Doesn't take a law degree to know that (so I'm not noting I'm not anal).

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  6. Wifi Routers not needed. by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Its even more common then most, since most every laptop ( and many desktops ) come with wifi built in.

    At least the courts are starting to come to their senses ( I hope ). But how does one prove you had open wifi during the time they think you did something wrong? I know personally i have mine wide open for my neighbors, but that still doesnt PROVE it.... ( i sit here now with my macmini with internet sharing going on the airport )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Wifi Routers not needed. by conteXXt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well that's actually a great question for the legal types (you know them they preface everything with IANAL).

      If it were a criminal case (as I understand US law) you SHOULDN'T have to prove it was someone else, just introduce the reasonable doubt that it was actually you. A dynamically assigned address and an open wifi introduce a lot of doubt.

      It's up to them to prove you did it.
      This unfortunately isn't a criminal case (yet!).

      --
      The truth about Led Zep should never be told on /. (Karma suicide ensues)
    2. Re:Wifi Routers not needed. by GizmoToy · · Score: 1

      Reasonable doubt is not the required weight of evidence in a civil matter. In civil matters, only the less strict "preponderance of evidence" is required. Therefore, the RIAA only has to show that it was likely you, not you beyond a reasonable doubt.

    3. Re:Wifi Routers not needed. by hawridger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Likely" is not the precise standard of proof that the RIAA would be required to show. Actually, a preponderance of evidence requires the plaintiff to prove that it was more probable that not that the defendant is liable. By pointing to a wide-open network IP address, the RIAA will face difficulty in proving by a preponderence that a particular user of that network was the infringer. As the plaintiff, the RIAA has both the burden of production and persuasion. Only after both of those are met is the defendant required to offer evidence to counter the RIAA's burden. I think the significance of this "silver bullet" is that courts will decreasingly recognize an IP address as meeting these burdens. An IP address, without more, is merely a piece to the evidentiary inquiry. Therefore, defendants in RIAA cases would be able to successfully move for summary judgments if the RIAA has nothing more to offer as identifying evidence.

    4. Re:Wifi Routers not needed. by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      You can always countersue the **AA and the attorneys who filed the suit.
      Say it was a frivilous lawsuit or barratry
      (move to get your lawsuit certified as a class action)

      Then (refuse to?) settle.

      Depending on what state you're in, claim that they intentionally inflected emotional distress upon you. "The intent of the act need not be to bring about emotional distress. A reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing emotional distress is sufficient."

      I think that girl who got told "drop out of college to pay us the settlement" would be able to make a very strong case that there was a "reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing emotional distress."

      The best defense is a good offense and if you stir up enough interest with a civil action, some District/State Attorney might decide to follow up on it with an investigation, if for no other reason than it'll be good PR.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  7. Tubes by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Funny

    this comment on the page about the RIAA is a must read for those with a sense of humor. I would just copy the text, but that might be copyright infringment.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Tubes by sepluv · · Score: 1

      Aah, but according to the RIAA linking to copyrighted material (that's like when you give directions to lost souls in the tubes) is copyright infringement, you pirate, you.

      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
  8. Your one and only friend when it comes to RIAA... by Omeger · · Score: 1

    PeerGuardian

  9. but the Genesis account will never change....errrr by Maelwryth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    New King James Bible
      In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep, And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

    New International Version
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morning-- the first day.

    And thats just from two versions in english. Fairly similar, but changing.

    --
    I reserve the write to mangle english.
  10. some more years wont hurt... by nazsco · · Score: 0

    > on August 4th will be putting on a live webcast as
    > they scan and interpret pages not seen by human
    > eyes for over a thousand years."

    And putting up a _real video_ webcast they intend to do what exactly? keep it away from human eyes for some more time?

  11. New E3 by Rolman · · Score: 1

    I mentioned it a couple times since last year so I don't need to repeat myself, but I agree with that view about the small developers and media receiving a big blow out of this new E3.

    A more intimate event will weed out most of the people that didn't have any business there, but it will also pull out of the radar all those really innovative games that don't come from the big players, and the media interested in them.

    It certainly looks bad, but now look at Hollywood, there's no place for small indie films in the big events, theme parks and whatnot, but there are independent film events and the media covers them because there are GOOD MOVIES to be seen there.

    What's needed is to fortify and separate the indie game development and let them have their own events. The market for indie gaming will not disappear as long as there are people interested in innovation or are not willing to buy crapware just because it's licensed by the NFL/NBA/FIFA/etc.

    Let's face it. We, the people interested in real games represent a very small percentage of the market, but I hope things like the Xbox Live Arcade and the Wii Virtual Console will become a place to showcase those games without having small developers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to E3 just to be "the leftovers".

    What I feel the most about is the small media outlets. No more bloggers or small time writers to keep the big guys from becoming even worse than they are today.

    --
    - Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
    1. Re:New E3 by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      At least we can hope that with a more low key e3, we'll see a return of the booth babes. Relegating them to the private suites for "private demos" was pretty cool for the lucky few, but not fair to the rest of the poor stiffs. =)

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  12. PAX by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 3, Interesting
    'This is a win only for the EAs, Sonys and IGNs of the world. Everyone else has to fend for themselves.' It seems like the days of smaller developers getting noticed by 'drive by traffic' at E3 are over.

    I guess there's always the Penny Arcade Expo...
    --
    There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
  13. Joseph Olin by BackOrder · · Score: 1

    Reading the article doesn't help that much. It's a bunch of nothing and it resumes to a PR stunt. Did he said anything relevant? I don't think so. He's rather trying to say "cool down, we're under control" whereas many are just unhappy about how E3 turns out.
     
    Besides, how can we trust companies to gather together and have a consensus to everyone's advantage? What benefits big corporations such as EA games will gain to let small developer in? There are so many questions and ignorance may fill the void but stupidity will let other bad guys fill the void in their way too.

    1. Re:Joseph Olin by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Well, one way I see this working out is for say Sony or MS or Nintendo to each have their own show for their own consoles. There'd be an exhibition hall for developers to show their stuff. Think of it as the console equivalent of Mac World.

      Oh, I left out Phantom. Well, I guess they can have their own show, too. =)

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  14. Re:but the Genesis account will never change....er by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    actually a good pastor will reference the original Greek|Hebrew|Latin text (and besides quite a few pastors will use only the King James|New King James for this very reason

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  15. Like eating regurgitated food. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 0, Troll

    But without the great taste. Think about it: the Slashdot editors get paid (more ad exposures) for reposting comments (which were sorted out of hundreds by moderators in the viewing public for free) with some useless commentary tacked on. All in the same of extending the conversation on a few silly topics beyond the original submission. Ultimately, it means more income. It also appears to be a substitute for a steadily decreasing volume of worthwhile news. Yes, Blackslash sucks!

    1. Re:Like eating regurgitated food. by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Well, at least this clears up the mystery as to why my dog likes backslash so much.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    2. Re:Like eating regurgitated food. by tknd · · Score: 1

      SlashBack is Slashdot's way of communicating: /^H

    3. Re:Like eating regurgitated food. by Rolman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you don't like the food, then don't eat it. Very simple fix.

      There are some of us that weren't available in the original discussion and have something to say. So, if you already posted or read something about these topics before, then it's very simple for you not to click in the story and not to produce more ad impressions to the oh-so-greedy editors.

      Just ignore them, that works quite better than complaining.

      --
      - Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
    4. Re:Like eating regurgitated food. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Backslash is indeed crap, but this is Slashback, which actually serves a useful purpose. Don't confuse the two.

  16. Re:backslash is crap. Reply here if you agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's total crap!! :(

  17. Re:but the Genesis account will never change....er by grogdamighty · · Score: 1

    No, that's one version in 1611 English and one in 20th century English. You'll notice that they say the same thing, just in the vernacular of the times.

    --
    My other sig is funny.
  18. Root of All Evil? by Rolman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Last year, Richard Dawkins, of The Selfish Gene fame, made a documentary about religion called "Root of All Evil?", where he defines faith as "the process of non-thinking" that can lead to even the worst human condition, like murderous thinking when the fundamentalism make people hate and kill each other. Just like what's happening in Israel right now.

    One of the most interesting things about it is that he tries to talk with several religious leaders about evolution, and they sistematically avoid any rational discussion and undeniable evidence with the same stupid arguments, equivalent to "my book says this and therefore, it must be true".

    He brings forth the question "why can't schools just teach science in SCIENCE class?"

    Quite controversial, I recommend it very much.

    --
    - Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
    1. Re:Root of All Evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ah, the non-thinking goes both ways.

      For example, taking the definitions of both science and evolution I found in text books such as "Life, and introduction to biology" by Drs. George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck (I've been told they were somewhat important evolutionists) I not only found that it is impossible for evolution to be scientific at all, but in over thirty years of asking, I have yet to hear a defense of evolution as science that is logically defensible.

      It is the same definition of science that makes creationism not science.

      Further, Richard Dawkins' claim that religion leads to murder (true, for some religions, but for all?) is just as applicable to some followers of evolution (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, to give a few). It is for good reason that such an argument is called a logical fallacy.

    2. Re:Root of All Evil? by kfg · · Score: 1

      "why can't schools just teach science in SCIENCE class?"

      For the same reason that multipart math questions now conclude with:

      "How does that make you feel?"

      KFG

    3. Re:Root of All Evil? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Dawkins also describes the Christian god Yahweh as "the most evil fictional character ever."

      Think about it. This creature will ultimately resurrect, then heave into Hell almost every person who ever lived, where they will lie in unending agony. Very few get into Heaven, after all. The Bible tells us so.

      Now torturing almost everyone who ever lived, for ever and ever, isn't the definition of worst possible being, I don't know what is.

      No need to argue or debate whether God is real or not -- just conclude that, either way, it is evil beyond Hitler and Stalin and Ghengis Kahn and John Wayne Gacy put together. Anthropologists estimate 75 billion people have lived, more or less, so far. All but 144,000 of them are going to be excruciatingly tortured for ever and ever. Or a few million. Or even a few billion. Googol to the googolplex years, and the remaining scores of billions are still just getting started.

      That's a perfect and omnibenevolent god for ya!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:Root of All Evil? by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Last year, Richard Dawkins, of The Selfish Gene fame, made a documentary about religion called "Root of All Evil?", where he defines faith as "the process of non-thinking" that can lead to even the worst human condition, like murderous thinking when the fundamentalism make people hate and kill each other. Just like what's happening in Israel right now.

      In any group, whether religous or not, you will find nutjobs trying to usurp the group for their own purposes.

      The issues with Jews and Arabs would exist even if both groups were the same religon. Anti-arab and anti-semetic feelings exist among just as many non-religous groups.

      Groups like the KKK didn't claim Blacks and other non-whites followed the wrong God. They made-up their own secular reasons to justify what they already wanted to do.

      Religon is just another scapegoat for bad people that want to do bad things.

      One of the most interesting things about it is that he tries to talk with several religious leaders about evolution, and they sistematically avoid any rational discussion and undeniable evidence with the same stupid arguments, equivalent to "my book says this and therefore, it must be true".

      The Catholic Church recognizes and supports "The Theory of Evolution", and has repeated condemed "The Hypothesis of Intelligent Design".

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Root of All Evil? by MadEE · · Score: 1
      Last year, Richard Dawkins, of The Selfish Gene fame, made a documentary about religion called "Root of All Evil?", where he defines faith as "the process of non-thinking" that can lead to even the worst human condition, like murderous thinking when the fundamentalism make people hate and kill each other. Just like what's happening in Israel right now.
      Faith, Paranoia, Nationalism, etc can all do this, for that matter anything that would be more apt to draw an emotional response rather then a rational one, religion is not anything special in this regard.

      One of the most interesting things about it is that he tries to talk with several religious leaders about evolution, and they sistematically avoid any rational discussion and undeniable evidence with the same stupid arguments, equivalent to "my book says this and therefore, it must be true".
      This doesn't surprise me in the least; those that don't buy the most probable scientific answer to the problem are probably not following the scientific method to derive their answer. While they are certainly those that attempt to prove their beliefs with science (and typically look the fool) the vast majority of those who hold the belief know what they believe goes against what the consensus of science and debating them on science really is sort of foolish on both parties parts.

      He brings forth the question "why can't schools just teach science in SCIENCE class?"
      Personally I think that it's almost a benefit to the students that it is there. One of the most fundamental things of a science class should instill the student is the ability for them to determine what good science (or logic for that matter) is and likewise what bad science is. If a child cannot see on their own that ID is not science then no knowledge, no equations, no nothing will help this person in the field or in life.
    6. Re:Root of All Evil? by endemoniada · · Score: 1

      I did actually get to see parts of this. In my honest opinion, Dawkins came off as MORE ignorant than ANY of the people he interviewed.

      Basically, he just went out to try and ridicule every single religion. He had no real arguments that were much better than "my book says so, thus it must be true" himself, and in the end he just looked quite stupid.

      While I'm all for religion and science in a happy co-existance, I'm an atheist myself. I believe in facts, and not fiction. Show me one single fact saying that the bible is a true story, and I'll consider it. Until then, the bible is just a work of fiction.

      --
      Blog -
    7. Re:Root of All Evil? by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slashdot, where arm chair scientists get shouted down and arm chair theologians get modded up.

      Try reading the books of the bible and then study the thoughts of some of the great Christian Apologists over the ages. Perhaps then you can stop repeating the group think of everyone that dislikes Christianity because Pat Robertson and his ilk are assholes. For example only a few small groups (and no main stream denomination) believe in the whole 'only 144000' make it into Heaven thing, even a simple search of google will find that for you.

      Or a few million. Or even a few billion.

      ... or even all 75+ billion.

      That's a perfect and omnibenevolent god for ya!
      Yup.

      Seraphim

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    8. Re:Root of All Evil? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      I see you had to fish back to 1957 to find a text book you could use. How very underhanded of you.
      How are you qualified to say what is or is not scientific?

      If you truly believed your words, you would stand behind them. Instead, you are nothing but an anonymous coward.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    9. Re:Root of All Evil? by Creedo · · Score: 1

      If damnation or salvation were like a grade tacked onto a life, you'd have a point. It seems to me that Heaven and Hell are likely to be the same metaphysical reality. Both are described as burning and intensely bright in places. In my beliefs, they are one and the same, and the source of that bright burning is God. The difference is the attitude of the individual.

      An example on earth would be the reaction of a person meeting someone who was better at something than they were, say, playing chess for example. The lesser player has effectively two possible broad reactions to the greater: acceptance or denial. The former is based in humility. They would see this as an opportunity to learn and grow. The latter is fueled by selfish pride. They would rather reject the opportunity and stew in their own anger and self-importance.

      Now, take this relatively minor difference in ability, and magnify it to an infinite degree in the person of God. The humble person would be exalted. The prideful one would be appalled at having their own inadequacy cast into perfect relief next to true perfection. The nature of God doesn't change. A good person is not made evil by the fact that someone hates them. But the subjective experience will be very different.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    10. Re:Root of All Evil? by operagost · · Score: 1

      I imagine that you have to consider the history of the Roman Empire to be fiction as well, since you couldn't possibly have any first-hand knowledge.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    11. Re:Root of All Evil? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      The Catholic Church recognizes and supports "The Theory of Evolution", and has repeated condemed "The Hypothesis of Intelligent Design".

      Condemnation isn't the right approach. The right way is to calmly explain why ID is wrong.

      Of course, it's wrong because it's a hypothesis that can't be tested.

      Hmmm ... I think I see why they don't do that.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    12. Re:Root of All Evil? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I note two flamebaits to one insightful.

      How is this flamebait? Please tell me how such a creature is not the most evil fictional character of all time. And don't say "because He's real", because you're not helping your case.

      Is, or is not, a creature that tortures not just evil, but decent people who refuse to believe in Jesus, for ever and ever, not incalculably evil?

      It's a simple question.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  19. IP Address by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could they use similar laws to traffic infringement ? They know your car went through a red light (by camera) but not who was driving. Either you pay the fine or tell them who did.

    1. Re:IP Address by Bishop · · Score: 1

      The RIAA could not use the same rules as traffic cameras. Because a car is a big physical thing then it is likely that a car is driven by the owner, or someone who has the owner's permission. Either that or the car was stolen. Wireless is quite different. The RIAA might go for the negligent angle and claim that the user should have used WEP/WPA etc.

    2. Re:IP Address by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I recall reading somewhere that this is the case in some municipalities. In order for this to work properly, the camera has to a) show your licenseplate, b) show your face, and c) show that the light was infact red. Too lazy to look up a source, but I recall also reading in the same place that people were getting off on traffic charges due to the fact that the camera was positioned properly to get those 3 items, but the timing was off so it was showing yellow lights instead of red. Local laws may vary on this or have been amended since the incident, so don't take my word for it.

      --
      There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
  20. Asploding Dells by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, the photos aren't visible any longer, although one gets a good idea of the extent of the damage from the description.

    Also interesting was a link posted in the comments to the letters section of the inquirer regarding why Li-on batteries might catastrophically fail.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  21. Re:backslash is crap. Reply here if you agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashback is dry and kinda pointless IMO. They would do better to let users submit Slashback stories. Good luck with this... I know you're gonna get modded into hell. (Hence my cowardice.)

  22. Re:but the Genesis account will never change....er by GuyverDH · · Score: 1

    Actually, that is incorrect also, because the older king james version did NOT use the term *water* - they used "firmament" whose meaning has been changed to indicate water. The firmament was not actually water as we see it in a pool or out of our faucet, it was water in the form of frozen ice particulates surrounding the earth, helping to isolate the earth from the rest of the universe. Light, could only come through at the poles, due to the magnetic poles and radiation belts helping to form natural holes in this firmament. This is where a lot of people have gone in thinking that the Garden of Eden was actually under the icecap of Antarctica.

    The stories of the flood, however they came about could also indicate that God caused the *firmament* to be pulled from the heavens, melting as it came to the Earth, causing the rains and the floods, changing forever the face of the Earth and the peoples who had lived, sheltered from the Suns radiation, much longer lifespans than we do today.

    --
    Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
  23. So it's come to Kansas now by Guuge · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There may be something of a backlash against the new direction of conservative politics in this country. Is this a sign of things to come? Is there hope that the near future will hold less politicization of religion? The optimist in me hopes that people are fed up with politicians exploiting their religious beliefs in these nonsensical confrontations with science. The fact that a pro-evolution Republican is even possible in Kansas gives me hope.

  24. Free WiFi in Perth by cheese-cube · · Score: 1

    On the topic of unsecured WiFi in the "RIAA silver bullet" article if you ever frequent the CBD in Perth, Western Australia, be sure to check out the coffee shop called Gelare on William Street near the train station. They have an un-secured AP there with an SSID of "gdfw". It sure beats going to the net cafe Netcomm around the corner where the wireless costs about $15AUD for five minutes or some other absurd amount.

    -1 Off-Topic here I come! And to think I finally got my karma from bad to positive.

  25. Stardust@Home by jcarkeys · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that this is going insanely slow for? Pages take somewhere around 1 minute to load, and I have 1.5 mbps DSL and no load on the network. Is this an isolated incident? Regardless, I must say that this excites me. It's fun when I see a track then have to wait to see if it was a calibration test or not, secretly praying that I actually find a particle and get published.

    1. Re:Stardust@Home by ahecht · · Score: 1
      From their front page it looks like a good old fashoned slashdotting:

      Latest News: Aug. 2, 2006 - 5:45 PM PDT
      We are currently experiencing heavy traffic from all of our enthusiastic volunteers and the site is running quite slowly. We are working to add server capacity, so things should speed up over the next several hours. Thanks as always for your patience.
    2. Re:Stardust@Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could just read the url for whether ondeckmovie is 'real' or 'testing' to see if it's a calibration movie or not.

  26. Re:but the Genesis account will never change....er by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

    1611 version
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

    And the version I used....
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep, And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

    Same version, different times, still differences. Note the second one has been modernised. You could say that I shouldn't just copy and paste off the internet, but that would prove my point as well. Things change.

    --
    I reserve the write to mangle english.
  27. its a great day for kansas by CompMD · · Score: 1

    Today the voters here in Kansas showed the world that they aren't a bunch of redneck idiots. What people should find most impressive is that Western (read: very rural) Kansas voters elected a moderate, pro-science candidate. As someone who has lived in Kansas for five years, I was shocked to hear that. If I'm not mistaken, that Bacon guy represents the district including Johnson County, which is populated mostly by nouveau riche neocons that honestly think they are upper class.

    I think the people of this state are tired of being laughed at and are finally starting to move for change.

    Kansas is a great place for innovations in science and engineering, it needs to stay that way.

  28. So disappointed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Archimedes Plutonium was getting a webcast. :(

  29. Straight to the classroom... by Otto-Marrakech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From watching Ken Miller's recent lecture at Case Western University (whole 2hour talk can be seen here), one point really stands out for me, that for 'Intelligent Design' a supposedly non-religious packaging of creationism to be accepted, it must go through a simple process that evolution also went through;

    Novel Scientific Claim > Research > Peer Review > Scientific Concensus > Classroom & Textbook

    Intelligent Design proponents are doing the follow;

    Intelligent Design "Theory" > Classroom & Textbook

    If Intelligent Design supporters are so confident in their research and findings which supposedly vindicate the literal truth of the Bible, why do they skip the most important process in getting their theory accepted?

    Meanwhile we have Ken Ham already building a 25 million dollar creation science museum.

    1. Re:Straight to the classroom... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creationism has passed peer review phase - the muslims believe it too !

  30. Klingon. Good luck. by gardyloo · · Score: 1

    1:1 | Daq the tagh joH'a' { Note: After "
            joH'a'," the Hebrew ghajtaH the cha'
            letters "Aleph Tav" (the wa'Dich je
            last letters vo' the
    1:1 Hebrew alphabet) as a grammatical marker. }
            created the chal je the tera'.
    1:2 | DaH the tera' ghaHta' formless
              je empty. HurghtaHghach ghaHta'
            Daq the surface vo' the deep. joH'a'
              qa' ghaHta' hovering Dung the surface
              vo' the
    1:2 bIQmey.
    1:3 | joH'a' ja'ta', " chaw' pa' taH
              wov," je pa' ghaHta' wov.
    1:4 | joH'a' leghta' the wov, je leghta'
              vetlh 'oH ghaHta' QaQ. joH'a' divided
            the wov vo' the HurghtaHghach.
    1:5 | joH'a' ja' the wov " jaj," je
            the HurghtaHghach ghaH ja' " ram."
              pa' ghaHta' evening je pa' ghaHta'
              po, wa' jaj.

  31. But why do _really_ buy now? by maddogsparky · · Score: 1
    I never used to buy music; it was burned CDs for me. I was a poor high school student. Now that I work as an engineer, I buy CDs all the time...



    A college student doesn't have a whole lot to loose (a few thousand dollars of debt is just another semester of classes). A professional who has a reputation to worry about and likely has dollars in the bank has a bit more on the line. Not trying to knock down the poster of the parent, but one has to wonder: even though a lot of posters spout similar lines to the parent, what kind of habits would they have now if the RIAA never started taking action? After all, free beer is free beer.


    --
    science is a religion
    1. Re:But why do _really_ buy now? by Rophuine · · Score: 1

      You make a fair point, and I can only speak to my own motives, which are probably far from representative.

      I live in Australia. AFAIK, there has never been a case made in Australia against somebody for low-level copyright infringement. They'll take down large-scale distribution rings et al, but not simple CD copying or even P2P file sharing. Thus, no real motivation to not pirate music for me.

      Poor students want lots of music for their own gratification, and often aren't in a position to pay for it. I was there.

      Now, I purchase CDs because:
      1) I get a whole, high-quality album conveniently. No hunting P2P networks for individual tracks, or hoping lengthy downloads are reasonable quality and not fake.
      2) When people come to my place, they can see my CD collection sitting there in racks. Not quite showing off, but something along the lines of 'positive visual impact'.
      3) I can throw a few of them in the car and play them easily, not worrying about my MP3 player running low on batteries, my car stereo not supporting file formats, ... sure, I could buy an MP3 player for my car. Have it installed. Transfer files to it... I just wanna throw a few CDs in the car and listen to music, mate.
      4) I'm supporting the artists I enjoy listening to.
      5+) Lots more reasons.

      I'm prepared to pay for the convenience now, and like supporting artists I enjoy listening to. The CD industry needs to make legitimate purchasing attractive, not use the courts to prop up a product which isn't drawing market share. Oh, and not alienate all of their future clients, creating an atmosphere where, in ten years time, their target audience is full of people who've been burned by them.

      If we started to see litigious behaviour over here in Aus, I'd just be inclined to boycott participating labels. If the artists are gonna screw their fans, then the fans should screw them right back. Oh, and to this day I will occasionally download a few tracks. Usually, because I heard a track or two on the radio, and wanted to sample a bit more of the artist. If I like the music, I might even go out and buy the CD.

    2. Re:But why do _really_ buy now? by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      what kind of habits would they have now if the RIAA never started taking action? After all, free beer is free beer.

      I would say there is _more_ chance of me infringing copyright now than there used to be, coz now I might have to download illegal copies of things that I can't buy a CD for (because they have started selling corrupt optical discs instead of CDs).

  32. Watch it online by Noksagt · · Score: 1

    A site that has a lot of embedded videos of material which are in the public domain happens to have the first episode of Root of All Evil? . (Thouch, since it is recent, I do wonder the copyright status of this.)

  33. Two Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    1) There's such a thing as "civil seizure" and there are also ways they can do "surprise discovery" via Federal Marshals in an ex parte process if a judge is willing to sign off on that. So far, I think it's usually the BSA, not the RIAA, that employs those tactics.

    2) Their sources of IPs are, at best, "electronic hearsay" -- that is, in many cases, they have *NO* way to prove that:
    * They weren't lied to by some random computer on the internet.
    * They know who was actually sharing some file.

    The first of those two points is particularly poigniant. It would be quite easy to frame someone if you put your mind to it. Especially when they're getting their data on who is sharing what from random file sharing computers on the internet. It's also quite easy to fake their reports by changing a few IPs, so you could just as easily generate a report saying that, say, whitehouse.gov was really the one pirating that. While part of this can, SFAIK, be solved by an affadavit saying that "I personally ran this program to find pirates and I swear that it really did give me this report of this IP as being one of the sharers." if you subpoena all the information on the programming of the computer they got this information from, you might very well uncover a fatal flaw in their evidence gathering process.

    Of course, IANAL, this is not legal advice, and you should have a lawyer and an expert review the evidence against you. Hopefully, they'll be able to point out the flaws and scare away their goons. Honestly, though, I'm guessing that they're dropping the cases based on which lawyers seem to understand technology, because they don't want any long or expensive legal fights... after all, what if they weren't able to recoup attourney's fees, and ended up losing money prosecuting the case?

    As for boycotts, I'm boycotting Sony still, and there are a host of reasons for that. In fact, it makes me smile every time I see a mention of Sony on something I've pirated :D And even if they trace this, all they'll find is a wide open wireless system. Who am I? I'm Anonymous Coward, that's who :P

    1. Re:Two Points by Rophuine · · Score: 2, Informative

      Federal Marshals with judicial approval after an ex parte hearing? Dude, do you know how much that would cost to effect? Process fees, lawyers drawing up documents, barrister fees... Plus, do you have ANY IDEA how pissed off the judge will be when the RIAA tries to waste his time with that? Anyway, even though the hearing would be ex parte, you'll have indications that it's in the works. They can't just start down that track with every law suit.

      Admittedly, I speak from experience with the Australian legal system, not the US one, but judges HATE having their time wasted. Federal Police (I think our closest counterpart to your FMs) will be nearly as pissed off as the judge. We have trouble getting even local police to look at anything civil unless the aggrieved party is claiming losses in excess of fifty to eighty thousand dollars. A few grand over file sharing? Not a chance.

      Love the rest of your comment though. Great points.

  34. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What religion was responsible for Mao and Stalin's crimes? Was it not, in part, atheistic "murderous thinking"? Why is it not atheism which promotes such thoughts, given that those two have killed more than any religious person ever, especially when many of the deaths resulted from their suppression of religion. Especially when they used some of Dawkins' rationale to justify their suppression of religion?

    And what of the religious people who have no problem with evolution, science, and teaching both in the classroom? Is it not easy to vilify any group if you ignore any good they've done while magnifying all the evil others have done in the name of that group? But if you don't believe that, why was it so easy for me to vilify atheists just now, when a great many of them are decent, peaceful folks?

    Dawkins is nothing more than the atheist's Ann Coulter, IMHO, and I disagree with both of them.

  35. Re:Your one and only friend when it comes to RIAA. by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your forgetting the blue canary in the outlet by the lightswitch.

  36. defense against RIAA by wakingrufus · · Score: 1

    well the way i see it, the mp3 is about 1/10 or 1/15 the size of the uncompressed audio file. Im pretty sure distributing about 10% of a song is fair use :-)

  37. Re:but the Genesis account will never change....er by PacMan · · Score: 1
    The stories of the flood, however they came about could also indicate that God caused the *firmament* to be pulled from the heavens, melting as it came to the Earth, causing the rains and the floods, changing forever the face of the Earth and the peoples who had lived, sheltered from the Suns radiation, much longer lifespans than we do today.

    Have you noticed this neat thing about the lifespans the bible attributes to pre-flood times? If you call the time periods "months" instead of "years", they all turn out to be about the same as current normal lifespans?

    Interesting, isn't it?

  38. Bible contradicts Creationism anyway. by Circlotron · · Score: 0

    An fact often overlooked by both pro and anti evolution parties is that the Bible itself contradicts the assertion of six-day creationist-type people that the whole universe and the earth and everything in it arose in six days. It's opening sentence states that =first= God created the heavens and the earth. Only =after= that event do these six days occur, therefore there is the opportunity for billions of years to pass in the intervening time. These six (not necessarily literal 24 hour) days that follow *after* this long time period have nothing to do with the creation of the earth as such, but rather were the period where the raw earth was subsequently prepared in stages for habitation by various forms of life. The abovementioned biblical long time period as far as I can tell supports current science and, paradoxically, shoots creationists down in flames.

    1. Re:Bible contradicts Creationism anyway. by embracethenerdwithin · · Score: 0, Troll

      Let me preface this by saying I'm a Christian. I beleive in the Bible, God, Jesus all that. I would be considered "evangelical" by some I suppose, although I don't know if I label myself as such. And I won't post this as a coward because I am not ashamed.

      Not all of us believe in a literal 6 day creation. That is not the only one theory of creationism, it is just the best known. There are young earth creationists, old earth creationists and all kinds of other theories out there. So when creationism is talked about, it may not alwasy mean literally 6 days.

      I do beleive in creation by God, I don't pretend to have any idea how it came about or anything like that. I simply beleive God acted and creation occured. Could God use evolution to pull it off? You bet He could. While I personally don't beleive evolution is as iron clad as the world thinks it is, thats not what I am here to debate.

      I beleive God created this universe and everything in it, I don't know how, none of us do.

      I just want to set the record straight. You can be a Christian and not be some kind of wacko. Nor does being a Christian make someone suddenly an idiot. I'm in college, I'll be getting my Master's soon. I know at 4 math professors who are Christians as well. You weren't making these accusations, but I know it's how many on slashdot feel.

      Many people are uninformed people on both sides of the debate. It's easy for us to lump each other into sterotypes, but I hope we can learn to go beyond that. This is just my attempt to help everyone better understand us crazy Christian folk.

  39. These Dell stories... by thebdj · · Score: 1

    are getting old and bordering on FUD and trolling. Dell has issued recalls for batteries that might cause this problem (and power supplies but those haven't been the problems in the reported cases). Remember, keep your laptops cool by not blocking the ventilation holes, the things are already hot enough...if you haven't checked your Dell battery then please do so here and avoid a disaster like this.

    --
    "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    1. Re:These Dell stories... by Cycloid+Torus · · Score: 1
      Useful Information!

      Link indicates batteries were sold during one week (October5 to October13 2005) most with new notebooks and a few as replacement battery sales) and the specific batteries involved were models: 3K590,C5340,X5308, F5132, U5882,U5867,6P922,C5446,C2603.

      Peace of mind.

      --
      Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
  40. Legos and Labview by ppz003 · · Score: 1

    Uhg, Labview. For the sake of current and future programmers, I hope they are not going to use the Labview 7 style of programming. Ridiculously complicated flowcharts should not be programs.

    1. Re:Legos and Labview by getek2006 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Exactly. When commodores came out we got a generation of kids who could program in BASIC. And then we all got criticized for not using "good programming techniques". But the point is we did learn the fundamentals of programming and logical thinking and problem solving. C was much easier for me to pick up than if I had no concept of "for loops", or "subroutines". I agree with what your saying - that Labview should not be considered for serious development work, but it can get the kids used to thinking logically, and using available tools to solve real problems.

  41. Re:but the Genesis account will never change....er by SirBruce · · Score: 1

    No, it's not true at all. Do the math yourself; some people still live too long and others not long enough.

  42. Re:but the Genesis account will never change....er by operagost · · Score: 1

    "Errrr..." those are translations from the original Hebrew. All Bible translations come from the original language texts. In addition, if you'll note, both of those say EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  43. Re:Your one and only friend when it comes to RIAA. by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 1

    PeerGuardian is a useful tool, but it is not infallible. Yes, you're somewhat safer by using it, but don't think you're secure. At best, its only as good as the people keeping the IP listings up to date.

    --
    There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
  44. TOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That might well be the Justice Departments' position, but it is quite questionable and as far as I know hasn't held up in Court.

    The same arguments could be applied to the TOR network, of which the EFF lawyers are quite confident that TOR is legal. See their website for their views on TOR.

    So, the bottom line is that the legality of the defense is still up in the air. The Justice Departments' views are just opinions; the final arbitrar is the U.S. Supreme Court, and nothing has made it that far.

  45. Bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How could you?

    jokingly called the engineer a terrorist

    A 'friend' of mine at work decided to jokingly say to my girlfriend as she was going out the door of Target and showing the girl on watch her bag: "are you stealing stuff again?". Guess what the girl did. Right, what her job is: Called management. Who called the cops. Of course, the 'friend' from work was 'not available', but I have taken a different path with dealing with this: I told management at work. He had a meeting with his team leader and section manager who asked him SPECIFICALLY about lying to people. He's not fired. We have to work with this asshole.

    So, to you, the above 'jokingly' doesn't cut it. Be thankful you didn't get a new one ripped for your trouble. Asshole.

  46. You have my goat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the things is that gets my goat is Dell seems to be lacking in the control over the quality of the manufactures of it components. If I had these kinds of issues I would be seriously checking the manufactures QA measures and rethink of where I am getting my parts from and take more interest into the quality and the way they are manufactured. I am not sure how Dell follows tends in its defective components but it is imperative that companies now provide quality along side quantity. Money just does not go as far as it use to.

    I work for a company that supports devices that use LION batteries in every product we ship. We take things like overheating, bulging batteries and other battery problems very seriously. Theses multiple incidents could result in a major lawsuit by those who have had similar and even small amounts of trouble regardless of damage or injury. I don't think Dell has a problem paying of one person but if it continues the reputation could suffer far more damaging results than a lawsuit or payoff ever could.

    The Chemistry behind LION batteries is in itself an accident waiting to happen and I have found a few amazing videos demonstrating what batteries can do...

      (wmv only, Sorry)

    http://www.utahflyers.org/movies/Lipofires.wmv
    http://www.utahflyers.org/movies/Lipo2.wmv
    http://www.utahflyers.org/movies/lipo3.wmv

    You can find more videos like the above on Google.

    I was going to buy two laptops at the end of this month via an employee purchase plan and this news has me seriously thinking twice about Dells.

  47. Ah, the irony... by famebait · · Score: 1

    ...of believers accusing the critics of "group think".

    --
    sudo ergo sum