I can't see how any amount of time can make something possible.
Yes, you've made that clear, hence the book recommendations.
If you extract back, the theory suggests chemical evolution of a "simple" cell. which even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein coding genes are required to be wholly operational for life to begin.
Now you're talking about abiogenesis, which is not part of evolutionary theory. Evolution deals with how the diversity of life that we see came about. It doesn't deal with how life first began on the planet. There are theories for that as well, though.
just a quick search of that site and i can quote this: which is the odds chemically of just 100 amino acids where the simplest known is 480 proteins.
what is the probability of getting just 100 amino acids lined up in a functional manner? Since there are 20 different amino acids involved, it is (1/20)100, which is 10^130. To try to get this in perspective, there are about 10^80 fundamental particles (electrons, etc) in the universe. If every one of those particles were an experiment at getting the right sequence with all the correct amino acids present, every microsecond of 15 billion years, that amounts to 4.7 x 10^103 experiments. We are still 10^27 experiments short of getting an even chance of it happening. In other words, this is IMPOSSIBLE!
I would appreciate it if you would look into sites that offer an actual scientific perspective rather than the illusion of such a perspective. It's easy to lie with statistics, especially when you cherry-pick your facts. The site you linked seems to be full of straw-man arguments and other fallacies that misrepresent the scientific position. Most of the positions taken have been addressed, and these distortions are pointed out.
I'm sorry but even though I am a rationalist I must dispute you here. That entire paragraph is a call to authority - which is a fallacy. Dawkins's being a respected authority on biology does NOT EVER make what he says about it more trustworthy than a criticism by a layman. Not only would claiming so be a fallacy it is also repugnant to the scientific method (one of the specific reasons FOR the scientific method is a defense against authority).
I think you should look up "appeal to authority fallacy", because you've got it wrong. The fact that he is an authority on the subject in question, and that the vast majority of other experts in the field agree with him, is the reason this is not a fallacy.
The correct answer to the GP would be "Dawkins follows the scientific method in his writings and thus far has done so impeccably, you say he is 'obviously wrong' - without giving any science at all to back up your assertion. Unless you can answer his science with BETTER science that's just meaningless drivel".
This is precisely why his statement wasn't a fallacy. If Dawkins didn't follow the scientific method and didn't use good science to back up his arguments, he wouldn't be an authority on the subject, and the vast majority of experts wouldn't agree with him. Then it would certainly be a fallacy. For what it's worth, I also don't think there are that many scientific breakthroughs being made by laymen.
Yeah, I think XBLI needs some kind of "Showcase" section to promote the best of the indie titles and elevate the stuff that is actually interesting and playable above the rest of the crap.
Since CEOs are not in jail and the public doesn't have torches in hands, either Wikileaks lied or something else entirely happened. Regardless, allowing for a cooling down period is good for the guilty, good for Wikileaks, if they are hoping to extort, and bad for everyone else. So again, the original point remains.
Your original post said there was a lot of shit they haven't released. What other info have they not released so far? I'm very curious to know, as I couldn't think of any aside from the BoA docs.
Did the bank of america stuff ever get released? Wasn't that supposed to shed light on the whole economic meltdown and put people in jail and save the world and shit? Or did it get released and the news never picked up on it?
Didn't get a lot of play in the news, but yeah, they did release it.
Seems more likely that both sides' networks leak like sieves, and both are getting a lot of data from each other. Chinese are certainly more tolerant of less convenient systems and processes than those in the West, so I think they might actually be able to deal with greater security measures and the tedious tasks and inconveniences that go along with it. Then again, from what I've seen, they do a pretty half-assed job in a lot of their construction, so maybe they do the same with their networks.
Anyone else notice a lot of shit which Wikileaks was suppose to release was never released in spite of the fact people are still manning the shop? Wikileaks existed solely to benefit, blackmail, extort, and steal information. The fact the information was never released seems to hint it was sold to the highest bidder. Otherwise, according to their claims, a lot of CEOs should be jail by now.
No, hadn't noticed. What shit, specifically, are you referring to?
Good employees don't stay at bad companies very long. If you're good at what you do, and you're surrounded by people who are not, you get out. The only people who stay in a job where they are surrounded by incompetent nitwits are a) other incompetent nitwits who like that they don't get judged to a higher standards, and b) people who'd kinda rather not be there, but aren't good enough to find anything within a reasonable amount of time and don't have the balls to get out and get away from the stink of the place before it rubs off on them. I wouldn't want to hire either kind of person, either.
That's a ridiculous over-simplification and generalization. Utterly worthless for evaluating a potential employee.
If this guy has seriously worn a colander on his head whenever outside of his house for three years, I will totally support his right to wear a colander in his license photo.
But not, he's a big fat hypocrite.
He wore the hat to oppose dogma, which is a central tenet of Pastafarianism. Wearing it at other times where it is not serving that purpose is not necessary.
Spoken like someone who's seen a lot of people who's insistence that they're better than average turns what could be an okay end result into a farcical disaster. Just look our current economic mess as a very good example of what happens when people become obsessed with ever-increasing success.
I've interviewed plenty of people for various positions, but I certainly don't rely on their insistence that they are better than average. I let them talk in detail about the work they've done. I ask them a lot of questions to see if they really understand the things they're saying they've done. Other important aspects are their communications skills, enthusiasm, ability to work well with others, etc. Obviously most people aren't going to be above average, but that doesn't mean I can't try to find those people who are.
There are even places for people with average skill sets as long as they are willing to further develop their skills, and aren't expecting to be paid above the value of their skills. I certainly wouldn't make assumptions about a candidate based solely on the fact that they worked for some particular company. That doesn't tell you anything useful at all, and just makes no sense unless you have no intention of giving people any sort of fair interview. You certainly aren't doing your company a service.
There are so many applications for each job opening that it's impossible to evaluate them with anything but extremely tenuous circustantial evidence. Besides, does it really matter? Most people are average, and most positions can be filled just fine by the average practitioner in the field.
Keep striving for mediocrity there dude! Spoken like a true PHB!
Are they? Do you have any support for that statement? Or do you just believe it because you've heard some convincing sounding arguments from Dawkins or whoever and nodded along with them. I'm willing to bet that you haven't given the question any serious thought. This is what actual thinking looks like. Pretending theists all believe in an invisible sky man is just willful ignorance.
There's really no need to argue about the existence of any god, let alone a specific god of the type described by the major religions. There's simply no evidence that supports it. All you have is writings of ancient people attempting to explain the world around them and/or ensure control of the masses, and the universe as we understand it at this point. None of it actually supports the kinds of beliefs that religious people have, but we still have to endure their insistence that they are the bearers of The Truth(TM), and their endless attempts to make others buy into their mythology and to force others to behave in accordance with whatever text/prophet they consider sacred.
You concede most trolls are atheists. Well, most people in the world are religious by every count I've ever seen. Therefore, even the most rudimentary understanding of math would lead you to the conclusion that atheists are more likely to be trolls than other people.
It doesn't really support your claim that the OP was a troll. You're misusing the term. Saying something to make a point is not the same as saying something simply to piss people off. Making a point may certainly piss people off as well, but it's not trolling.
And the primary drive of my post, if you bothered to read it, was that this is counter-productive. It sets people on the defensive, makes them angry, and makes it that much harder for us to coexist.
No, what makes it hard to coexist is the idea that some people should get special treatment just because they believe in some fairy tale. Obviously they can't all be right, so we know that at least most of them are wrong, yet we still make exceptions to the law for them. This causes strife.
Simply put, a bunch of smug asshole atheists have it in their head that they can destroy religion if they mock it enough.
Religious folks have no business calling anyone else smug assholes.
But the reasonable atheists don't seem to see this. They fall into the same tribal mentality as everyone else, and end up cheering on their team.
What team? Atheists in general just want religious people to stay out of their business and quit trying to make laws, or exceptions to laws, based on their religion. When we hear politicians trying to turn our country into yet another theocracy, we naturally get a bit defensive. When they say things about how we're not good citizens because we don't share their myths, we naturally get a bit defensive. It's hard to feel sorry for those in the religious majority when they stand idly by allowing this crap to go on.
If I'm ever in a position again to review job applicants, and I see a significant stint at Netflix on someone's job history, I'm going to have assume that they didn't know how to do their job, either.
Just what we need, yet another retarded manager. If you can't be bothered to evaluate the person rather than jumping to conclusions based on extremely tenuous circumstantial evidence, your company would be stupid to have you reviewing any applicant.
Exactly; therefore he is NOT required to wear a strainer because requiring him to do so would be dogmatic.
It's not required that he wear it, but since rejection of dogma is an integral tenet of his beliefs, he must be allowed to wear it in situations where doing so will effectively mock or otherwise undermine dogma. So he wouldn't need to be wearing it in the car if he's pulled over, and in fact, not wearing it at other times is the most effective way to make the point.
Such legal acknowledgement does not have to be called "marriage," nor does it have to be conflated with any religious practice.
Doesn't have to be called marriage, but that's what it's currently called, both for religious and governmental purposes. Calling it anything else just confuses the issue and is a rather dumb idea. Ultra-conservative religious types just need to get over themselves and their ridiculous idea that they should be able to dictate who may or may not be married. That crap has gone on far too long. They've lost every other battle over it, and they'll lose this one too. They're just too dumb to see it. They can believe whatever they like, but that shouldn't allow them to prevent others from being married if they want to be.
My grandmother had a better solution. When the Jehova's Witnesses came over, she told them they could talk to her if they changed the tire on her truck.
They did, so it really worked out quite well.
That's a great idea! I wonder if I could get them to mow my lawn...
Effectively there are two parts to a marriage: the religious / social part which people can argue about and debate within the context of their own personal beliefs and the financial part which requires the government to at least recognize that the people are filing their taxes jointly.
You're leaving out a LOT of benefits/rights that married people get:
How about 100% uptime, 911 service, no dropped calls, no batteries, massively better sound quality, the ability to use a fax machine, and drastically lower monthly charges?
Any major cell network will have 911 service, nearly 100% uptime (and even landlines don't have 100%), and few or no dropped calls if you get one that has good coverage in your area, which is kind of an obvious choice. Yeah, the sound quality might not be as good, but I'm not really using it to listen to the awesome hold music, and it's easily clear enough to understand the other person without any trouble. Couldn't care less about faxes. They can email me and I can receive it on my phone.
As for the charges, you'll pay more for mobile, but then you can answer your phone anywhere. If you primarily stay at home, don't get many calls, or don't care about being able to talk to people at the time they call rather than returning the call later, then yeah, stick with landline.
A much cleaner solution is to forbid campaigning by sitting elected officials. Most will get elected and then have to go back home and live under the laws they wrote while in office for their one term. They'll be much more considerate of how the laws they're writing will affect people. Lobbyist will be undercut, because "their man" won't be there in a couple of years. Politicians will have to be mighty good to get entrenched the way they do now. Politicians stay in office by bringing home pork, and they're able to get more pork the longer they stay in office. This feedback loop will be cut.
Wouldn't matter most likely. If you don't let the candidate campaign themselves, then PACs and other organizations will just do the campaigning for them with unlimited and untraceable funds.
Those are "required" by the regulators though... Crooked, but that's how "adjustments" work when they go thru big bureaucracy.
Some of them are, but others are just things that the telecom companies add themselves, but call them something that sounds like it's a government-mandated fee. I've seen this from Sprint and Verizon both in the past. If you call and ask about them, they will usually tell you that it's a mandatory fee. I had to get escalated a couple of times to some higher level manager before I was able to find out that they weren't actually mandated by the government, but were, in fact, just additional charges added by the company.
Fairly difficult to move??? As I recall, most of our ancestors traveled across this nation, either on foot or by horse (those who could afford.) With only what they could carry. Seems like they were able to do just fine. Being difficult is just a mind set. Sadly, one that is held by many of todays youth.
Make them carry the entirety of the laws of the state with them in paper form. I bet they don't get too far then. It's not like I can just walk until I come to a river and then start cutting down trees to build a house nearby.
Most pig tail lights are not supposed to be used in enclosed lighting fixtures. Do you have any expensive interior or exterior fixtures? TOO BAD, THE GOV'T EXPECTS YOU TO REPLACE THEM. LOL
Many special-purpose incandescents are given a pass on the new regs, and there are already newer, more efficient incandescents on the shelf, and more on the way. So, no, you don't have to replace your fixtures.
"It's not a ban, and they aren't banned until 2012 anyway."
Reading comprehension FAIL. Try, "It's not a ban, and the new standards don't go into effect until 2012 anyway." Maybe then consider also that incandescents that meet the new standards are already on the shelf.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't see how any amount of time can make something possible.
Yes, you've made that clear, hence the book recommendations.
If you extract back, the theory suggests chemical evolution of a "simple" cell. which even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein coding genes are required to be wholly operational for life to begin.
Now you're talking about abiogenesis, which is not part of evolutionary theory. Evolution deals with how the diversity of life that we see came about. It doesn't deal with how life first began on the planet. There are theories for that as well, though.
just a quick search of that site and i can quote this: which is the odds chemically of just 100 amino acids where the simplest known is 480 proteins.
what is the probability of getting just 100 amino acids lined up in a functional manner? Since there are 20 different amino acids involved, it is (1/20)100, which is 10^130. To try to get this in perspective, there are about 10^80 fundamental particles (electrons, etc) in the universe. If every one of those particles were an experiment at getting the right sequence with all the correct amino acids present, every microsecond of 15 billion years, that amounts to 4.7 x 10^103 experiments. We are still 10^27 experiments short of getting an even chance of it happening. In other words, this is IMPOSSIBLE!
I would appreciate it if you would look into sites that offer an actual scientific perspective rather than the illusion of such a perspective. It's easy to lie with statistics, especially when you cherry-pick your facts. The site you linked seems to be full of straw-man arguments and other fallacies that misrepresent the scientific position. Most of the positions taken have been addressed, and these distortions are pointed out.
I'm sorry but even though I am a rationalist I must dispute you here. That entire paragraph is a call to authority - which is a fallacy. Dawkins's being a respected authority on biology does NOT EVER make what he says about it more trustworthy than a criticism by a layman. Not only would claiming so be a fallacy it is also repugnant to the scientific method (one of the specific reasons FOR the scientific method is a defense against authority).
I think you should look up "appeal to authority fallacy", because you've got it wrong. The fact that he is an authority on the subject in question, and that the vast majority of other experts in the field agree with him, is the reason this is not a fallacy.
The correct answer to the GP would be "Dawkins follows the scientific method in his writings and thus far has done so impeccably, you say he is 'obviously wrong' - without giving any science at all to back up your assertion. Unless you can answer his science with BETTER science that's just meaningless drivel".
This is precisely why his statement wasn't a fallacy. If Dawkins didn't follow the scientific method and didn't use good science to back up his arguments, he wouldn't be an authority on the subject, and the vast majority of experts wouldn't agree with him. Then it would certainly be a fallacy. For what it's worth, I also don't think there are that many scientific breakthroughs being made by laymen.
Yeah, I think XBLI needs some kind of "Showcase" section to promote the best of the indie titles and elevate the stuff that is actually interesting and playable above the rest of the crap.
Extradition requests are frequently quashed, seldom squashed.
It was a pretty harsh ruling. Squashing is not out of the question.
Since CEOs are not in jail and the public doesn't have torches in hands, either Wikileaks lied or something else entirely happened. Regardless, allowing for a cooling down period is good for the guilty, good for Wikileaks, if they are hoping to extort, and bad for everyone else. So again, the original point remains.
Your original post said there was a lot of shit they haven't released. What other info have they not released so far? I'm very curious to know, as I couldn't think of any aside from the BoA docs.
Did the bank of america stuff ever get released? Wasn't that supposed to shed light on the whole economic meltdown and put people in jail and save the world and shit? Or did it get released and the news never picked up on it?
Didn't get a lot of play in the news, but yeah, they did release it.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/03/anonymous-hackers-release-bank-of-america-emails/1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/14/anonymous-hackers-release-bank-america-emails
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/bank-of-america-anonymous-leak-mortgage_n_835220.html
Seems more likely that both sides' networks leak like sieves, and both are getting a lot of data from each other. Chinese are certainly more tolerant of less convenient systems and processes than those in the West, so I think they might actually be able to deal with greater security measures and the tedious tasks and inconveniences that go along with it. Then again, from what I've seen, they do a pretty half-assed job in a lot of their construction, so maybe they do the same with their networks.
Anyone else notice a lot of shit which Wikileaks was suppose to release was never released in spite of the fact people are still manning the shop? Wikileaks existed solely to benefit, blackmail, extort, and steal information. The fact the information was never released seems to hint it was sold to the highest bidder. Otherwise, according to their claims, a lot of CEOs should be jail by now.
No, hadn't noticed. What shit, specifically, are you referring to?
Good employees don't stay at bad companies very long. If you're good at what you do, and you're surrounded by people who are not, you get out. The only people who stay in a job where they are surrounded by incompetent nitwits are a) other incompetent nitwits who like that they don't get judged to a higher standards, and b) people who'd kinda rather not be there, but aren't good enough to find anything within a reasonable amount of time and don't have the balls to get out and get away from the stink of the place before it rubs off on them. I wouldn't want to hire either kind of person, either.
That's a ridiculous over-simplification and generalization. Utterly worthless for evaluating a potential employee.
If this guy has seriously worn a colander on his head whenever outside of his house for three years, I will totally support his right to wear a colander in his license photo.
But not, he's a big fat hypocrite.
He wore the hat to oppose dogma, which is a central tenet of Pastafarianism. Wearing it at other times where it is not serving that purpose is not necessary.
Spoken like someone who's seen a lot of people who's insistence that they're better than average turns what could be an okay end result into a farcical disaster. Just look our current economic mess as a very good example of what happens when people become obsessed with ever-increasing success.
I've interviewed plenty of people for various positions, but I certainly don't rely on their insistence that they are better than average. I let them talk in detail about the work they've done. I ask them a lot of questions to see if they really understand the things they're saying they've done. Other important aspects are their communications skills, enthusiasm, ability to work well with others, etc. Obviously most people aren't going to be above average, but that doesn't mean I can't try to find those people who are.
There are even places for people with average skill sets as long as they are willing to further develop their skills, and aren't expecting to be paid above the value of their skills. I certainly wouldn't make assumptions about a candidate based solely on the fact that they worked for some particular company. That doesn't tell you anything useful at all, and just makes no sense unless you have no intention of giving people any sort of fair interview. You certainly aren't doing your company a service.
There are so many applications for each job opening that it's impossible to evaluate them with anything but extremely tenuous circustantial evidence. Besides, does it really matter? Most people are average, and most positions can be filled just fine by the average practitioner in the field.
Keep striving for mediocrity there dude! Spoken like a true PHB!
Are they? Do you have any support for that statement? Or do you just believe it because you've heard some convincing sounding arguments from Dawkins or whoever and nodded along with them. I'm willing to bet that you haven't given the question any serious thought. This is what actual thinking looks like. Pretending theists all believe in an invisible sky man is just willful ignorance.
There's really no need to argue about the existence of any god, let alone a specific god of the type described by the major religions. There's simply no evidence that supports it. All you have is writings of ancient people attempting to explain the world around them and/or ensure control of the masses, and the universe as we understand it at this point. None of it actually supports the kinds of beliefs that religious people have, but we still have to endure their insistence that they are the bearers of The Truth(TM), and their endless attempts to make others buy into their mythology and to force others to behave in accordance with whatever text/prophet they consider sacred.
You concede most trolls are atheists. Well, most people in the world are religious by every count I've ever seen. Therefore, even the most rudimentary understanding of math would lead you to the conclusion that atheists are more likely to be trolls than other people.
It doesn't really support your claim that the OP was a troll. You're misusing the term. Saying something to make a point is not the same as saying something simply to piss people off. Making a point may certainly piss people off as well, but it's not trolling.
And the primary drive of my post, if you bothered to read it, was that this is counter-productive. It sets people on the defensive, makes them angry, and makes it that much harder for us to coexist.
No, what makes it hard to coexist is the idea that some people should get special treatment just because they believe in some fairy tale. Obviously they can't all be right, so we know that at least most of them are wrong, yet we still make exceptions to the law for them. This causes strife.
Simply put, a bunch of smug asshole atheists have it in their head that they can destroy religion if they mock it enough.
Religious folks have no business calling anyone else smug assholes.
But the reasonable atheists don't seem to see this. They fall into the same tribal mentality as everyone else, and end up cheering on their team.
What team? Atheists in general just want religious people to stay out of their business and quit trying to make laws, or exceptions to laws, based on their religion. When we hear politicians trying to turn our country into yet another theocracy, we naturally get a bit defensive. When they say things about how we're not good citizens because we don't share their myths, we naturally get a bit defensive. It's hard to feel sorry for those in the religious majority when they stand idly by allowing this crap to go on.
If I'm ever in a position again to review job applicants, and I see a significant stint at Netflix on someone's job history, I'm going to have assume that they didn't know how to do their job, either.
Just what we need, yet another retarded manager. If you can't be bothered to evaluate the person rather than jumping to conclusions based on extremely tenuous circumstantial evidence, your company would be stupid to have you reviewing any applicant.
Exactly; therefore he is NOT required to wear a strainer because requiring him to do so would be dogmatic.
It's not required that he wear it, but since rejection of dogma is an integral tenet of his beliefs, he must be allowed to wear it in situations where doing so will effectively mock or otherwise undermine dogma. So he wouldn't need to be wearing it in the car if he's pulled over, and in fact, not wearing it at other times is the most effective way to make the point.
Such legal acknowledgement does not have to be called "marriage," nor does it have to be conflated with any religious practice.
Doesn't have to be called marriage, but that's what it's currently called, both for religious and governmental purposes. Calling it anything else just confuses the issue and is a rather dumb idea. Ultra-conservative religious types just need to get over themselves and their ridiculous idea that they should be able to dictate who may or may not be married. That crap has gone on far too long. They've lost every other battle over it, and they'll lose this one too. They're just too dumb to see it. They can believe whatever they like, but that shouldn't allow them to prevent others from being married if they want to be.
My grandmother had a better solution. When the Jehova's Witnesses came over, she told them they could talk to her if they changed the tire on her truck.
They did, so it really worked out quite well.
That's a great idea! I wonder if I could get them to mow my lawn...
Effectively there are two parts to a marriage: the religious / social part which people can argue about and debate within the context of their own personal beliefs and the financial part which requires the government to at least recognize that the people are filing their taxes jointly.
You're leaving out a LOT of benefits/rights that married people get:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
How about 100% uptime, 911 service, no dropped calls, no batteries, massively better sound quality, the ability to use a fax machine, and drastically lower monthly charges?
Any major cell network will have 911 service, nearly 100% uptime (and even landlines don't have 100%), and few or no dropped calls if you get one that has good coverage in your area, which is kind of an obvious choice. Yeah, the sound quality might not be as good, but I'm not really using it to listen to the awesome hold music, and it's easily clear enough to understand the other person without any trouble. Couldn't care less about faxes. They can email me and I can receive it on my phone.
As for the charges, you'll pay more for mobile, but then you can answer your phone anywhere. If you primarily stay at home, don't get many calls, or don't care about being able to talk to people at the time they call rather than returning the call later, then yeah, stick with landline.
A much cleaner solution is to forbid campaigning by sitting elected officials. Most will get elected and then have to go back home and live under the laws they wrote while in office for their one term. They'll be much more considerate of how the laws they're writing will affect people. Lobbyist will be undercut, because "their man" won't be there in a couple of years. Politicians will have to be mighty good to get entrenched the way they do now. Politicians stay in office by bringing home pork, and they're able to get more pork the longer they stay in office. This feedback loop will be cut.
Wouldn't matter most likely. If you don't let the candidate campaign themselves, then PACs and other organizations will just do the campaigning for them with unlimited and untraceable funds.
Those are "required" by the regulators though... Crooked, but that's how "adjustments" work when they go thru big bureaucracy.
Some of them are, but others are just things that the telecom companies add themselves, but call them something that sounds like it's a government-mandated fee. I've seen this from Sprint and Verizon both in the past. If you call and ask about them, they will usually tell you that it's a mandatory fee. I had to get escalated a couple of times to some higher level manager before I was able to find out that they weren't actually mandated by the government, but were, in fact, just additional charges added by the company.
Fairly difficult to move??? As I recall, most of our ancestors traveled across this nation, either on foot or by horse (those who could afford.) With only what they could carry. Seems like they were able to do just fine. Being difficult is just a mind set. Sadly, one that is held by many of todays youth.
Make them carry the entirety of the laws of the state with them in paper form. I bet they don't get too far then. It's not like I can just walk until I come to a river and then start cutting down trees to build a house nearby.
Most pig tail lights are not supposed to be used in enclosed lighting fixtures. Do you have any expensive interior or exterior fixtures? TOO BAD, THE GOV'T EXPECTS YOU TO REPLACE THEM. LOL
Many special-purpose incandescents are given a pass on the new regs, and there are already newer, more efficient incandescents on the shelf, and more on the way. So, no, you don't have to replace your fixtures.
"It's not a ban, and they aren't banned until 2012 anyway."
Reading comprehension FAIL. Try, "It's not a ban, and the new standards don't go into effect until 2012 anyway." Maybe then consider also that incandescents that meet the new standards are already on the shelf.