They used an ornamental pepper and a pothos? They're simple, just water them every week or so. What would be impressive is if they worked a system for a hard plant, like a Pseudolithos, that would take humidity, time of year, soil type, ect. into consideration when telling you when to water.
No one mentioned atheism. The 'slit their throats in the night' guy's attitude is what causes radicalism. Unless, of course,
you're trying to associate rationality/atheism with genocide, and judging by the false dichotomy you set up, that wouldn't surprise me.
Some say religion is just the "given" excuse for violence and oppression. Let me tell you a little story about science, religion, and excuses.
About 150 years ago, in an age when most scientists believed that God created the universe, it was believed that black people were inferior to white people for biblical reasons. Some believed that God made the races separately, some believed that blacks were affected by Lot's curse. Either way, due to religious reasons, they said blacks were inferior.
Fast forward to post Darwin days. Now that evolution was widely accepted, the theory was that blacks are closer to monkeys than whites, and that since they were less evolved, they were inferior.
Do you see a difference here? I don't. Despite using two radically different ideas, one religious and one scientific, people came to the exact same conclusion. So, ask yourself, why is that? Do religion, AND science, really breed racism, or were they merely
justifications? Either science is racist, or religion (and science, and any other ideas people care to warp for political reasons), is, for the most part, simply abused by a select few to control the masses. At the end of the day, it is not the justification, but the usually harder to see root cause, that is the problem. In this particular situation, racism was the root cause, religion and science were merely justifications. Notice how they were interchangeable. It is foolhardy to blame the justifications and ignore the root cause.
Religion is also a large part of the reason for suppression of knowledge, increases in fear and the idea that "ideas are dangerous." Is that why, at one point, the Middle East became the technological center of the world under Islam? Is that why ideas flourished during the Renaissance in Europe, a more or less Christian period? I call BS. Religion does not affect ideas near as much as the political climate.
It appearers religion also prevents us from seeing the real problems. Believing that religion causes all that stuff is as wacko as Jack Thompson believing that video games cause people to commit murder. I'm not denying that people use religion to justify various nasty deeds, but odds are crazies will go crazy anyway. You remove religion, they'll just find some other reason to go nuts, like race, nationality, economic system, ect.
Heck, even if you thought global climate change were a complete scam I don't think that people think the facts are a scam, so much as the hypothesis. Fact: global temperature is rising. Hypothesis: this change is man made.
Personally, I think that the change is, at least in part, but not necessarily entirely, man made. However, judging by how crazy some GW advocates act (Eek! We're all gonna die unless you buy those swirly light bulbs!), it's not hard to imagine how one might dismiss the entire thing as a scam. Which is unfortunate because, climate change aside, energy efficient technology really is something that should see more use.
refining and transport, for example. Last time I checked, fossil fuels needed those things too, and usually from longer distances than biofuels would need. Did they take that into account?
I also find it interesting how the article kept talking about how biofuels were responsible for rainforest destruction, when they need not be, and they weren't talking about the most efficient biofuel methods. Also, of course, biofuel techniques are far from perfected at the moment, so even if it really is worse right now, I don't think the technology's potential shouldn't underestimated.
Actually, those who use this argument show an extremely poor understanding of biological science. True, but governments (at least, not mine) don't exactly have a great track record when it comes to getting the facts strait before rushing half-assed into things.
Re:Pro-science can be bad too
on
Science Debate 2008
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Correct. For example, in pre-Darwinian days, it was believed that God had created blacks separately than whites (or that blacks were the result of Lot's curse, or some curse), therefore blacks were inferior. Post-Darwin, however, blacks were closer to monkeys and whites were more evolved, therefore blacks were inferior.
It's funny how completely different justifications can so swiftly act as substitutes, but do you blame the emotion behind it or the ideas that have been twisted into a justification? I'd say the former, because regardless of justification, the results are the same. Just something to think about.
and that some who are running are sufficiently anti-science as to deny evolution. There are so many other scientific issues out there (alternate energy, genetic engineering, environmental protection, ect.), why is that inane creation-evolution pissing match always at the top of the list?
Actually, I think Christianity is every bit as morally bankrupt, worthless and vile as Islam Hi! Some of the most decent folks I know are Christian, mind explaining to me how they're more vile than people who accuse them of being vile because they can't be intellectually honest with themselves?
Apologies for the hypocrite accusations, then. I happen to agree with what you say in this post, Israel could exercise lot more tact in their military operations (killing civilians is both morally wrong [and that's an understatement] and tactically erroneous [because, even if you are struck first, you've become 'the bad guy' in the minds of the other nation's common people]), and they could (and should) try harder to establish peace. It's the common people, on both sides, who should be protected, and attacking them, which all parties are guilty of, is a tragedy.
Zebrafish are genetically similar to humans in many ways You mean, in the same way that every other vertebrate is, or is there something special about these particular fish?
Overrated, for all those times when you're just too stupid to post a reply. I know it's lame to whine about moderation, but if I'm wrong, please correct me. Modding overrated just proves that I'm correct, and someone who doesn't like it can't counter my points.
Ask Israel why they're spending billions of dollars building walls around their country Obviously racism, not the suicide bombers that think killing Israeli children is funny.
They settled in Muslim holy land That sucks, but they're there now, raising kids, living life, and making a lot more with what they've got than their neighbors, I might add. Still think they should move? Well, the Native Americans would like a word with you. Oh, its different when we're talking about you, huh? If you're American, you're a hypocrite.
"we are the victims of the holocaust" card ALL THE FUCKING TIME No they don't. That's just some shit the idiot who wrote that Protocols of the Elders of Zion made up.
crazy dictators rule the poor middle-east countries That's Israel's fault, how? Oh, that's right, the global conspiracy that no one's been able to prove.
When Israel attacks their neighbors...news reports are quick flashes Where were you when the news constantly had stories about Israel bombing Lebanon?
And it is true that the jews do own the media, and the banks, and the world. Wow. Do you have any, what are they called, FACTS to back that up? Any proof of this vast Jewish conspiracy? Besides a few hundred years of hateful accusations, I mean.
But you're too stupid to THINK about anything. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Open your eyes and look at the atrocities the Israel STATE is commiting again CIVILIANS in neighbor countries Wow, you finally got something half right. When provoked, Israel has harmed civilians. That's a bad thing, yes. Of course, that doesn't mean all Israelis/Jews (since you it doesn't look like you can tell the difference) are bad anymore the all Americans are since the US is harming civilians now in the Middle East, too. Again, if you're American, you're a hypocrite. And, of course, their civilians are being harmed too. I noticed you're not condemning that. Looks like you're the racist.
At least Hamas and those religious fanatics are not part of the state. No, they're just backed by the state, and even if they weren't, is Israel just supposed to take it? Of course they are, they're the greedy, world-running Jews, aren't they?
Then they go crying into the UN's arms when Iran tries to play with the atom, and they manage to sanction Iran. Considering Ahmadinejad said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, can you blame them? If some one said they wanted to shoot you, would you want them to have a rifle, even if they claimed it was just to go hunting? I hope I'm wrong, but I sure wouldn't want Iran's current theocracy to have nukes.
Fuck israel. Fuck anti-semitic assholes. In Israel, you have relative freedom. In other Middle East countries, you can be executed for speaking out against the Koran, being homosexual, or being raped. Nice. I don't condone all of Israel's actions, but they're just randomly killing Arabs for the fun of it, they just want to be left alone. But some people (hint:you) will hate them because they're Jews no matter what they do. But they have the right to defend themselves. Their government hasn't always made the wisest moves, but the common people do not deserve to be constantly attacked by the neighboring countries. If you disagree, you are wrong.
Well, religion is important in American politics because bullshit is one of the main things people are looking at. We can't be distracted with the real issues when there's petty bullshit to focus on.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that the cure had the potential to be worse than the disease in this case, and I really wish people would consider better solutions that don't mess with the entire food chain, I'm just saying that if I, or mostly anyone, were in the position to be affected by this, we'd probably take our chances. Its not a crude revenge, its living by any means necessary.
I call them hypocrites because, in order to sustain the average modern lifestyle, a lot of nature must be sacrificed. Think of all the water required, pollutants produced, and forests logged in the process of making all the goods, necessary and otherwise, that we all use everyday. Unless they grow their own food, make their own clothes, and live without electricity, they're hypocrites. What right do we have to talk about the environment when someone else wants to do the same thing we do in excess every day to save themselves?
Sorry if that sounds unenlightened. That's not unenlightened at all. What's unenlightened (or rather, naïve) is people claiming they wouldn't do the same. Its easy to talk about all the long lasting effects this might have when the problem is on a different continent, but I bet they'd change their tune if the problem was in their backyard. What gets me is these people saying, 'Well, if you support this, you don't like the environment.' Bullshit, I love nature, I'm just not a hypocrite, and unless these people doing something equivalent to dying of malaria for the environment (and obviously they're not, because electronic devices like computers contribute to the destruction of the environment), then that's all they are, hypocrites.
Wow, I can't believe some of the replies to this post. I guarantee all the people moaning about how this will harm the environment have never left their cozy little post industrial countries and seen the human suffering these diseases are causing. If they cared so much, they'd stop using energy hogging computers and other electronic devices, stop driving gas guzzling cars, stop wearing clothing produced in a country with virtually no environmental protection regulations, stop using products made from old growth forests, stop wasting water with all the unnecessary uses it has, and the list goes on and on.
But they won't, because that would inconvenience them, and once something causes them to step out of their comfort zone, they give up. Its OK for the environment to take one for the team when their high tech, comfortable, modern lifestyle's on the line, but when they see some poor bastard in some third world hellhole is dying, what do they say? Fuck them, fixing THEIR PROBLEM might hurt the environment, ensuring that their kids don't die might screw up the ecosystem. Its fine and dandy for them to bulldoze a forest to put up a new strip mall, but God forbid someone want to not die so bad that they take the chance of maybe harming the environment. You know, I bet every one of them would kill every bug, bird, and rodent within a hundred mile radius if it was their lives on the line. Hypocrites.
Not really. From Wikipedia, concerning Carrie Buck, a sterilized woman:
Carrie Buck was paroled from the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded shortly after her sterilization was performed. Carrie eventually wed William Eagle and they remained married for twenty-five years before he passed away. As scholars and reporters visited Carrie it became abundantly clear to everyone that Carrie Buck was a woman of normal intelligence. Later in life she expressed regret that she had been unable to have additional children. Concerning her daughter (whom I believe was also sterilized), Stephen Gould wrote:
She was an [average student], neither particularly outstanding nor much troubled. In those days before grade inflation, when C meant "good, 81-87" (as defined on her report card) rather than barely scraping by, Vivian Dobbs received As and Bs for deportment and Cs for all academic subjects but mathematics (which was always difficult for her, and where she scored a D) during her first term in Grade 1A, from September 1930 to January 1931. She improved during her second term in 1B, meriting an A in deportment, C in mathematics, and B in all other academic subjects; she was on the honor roll in April 1931. Promoted to 2A, she had trouble during the fall term of 1931, failing mathematics and spelling but receiving an A in deportment, B in reading, and C in writing and English. She was "retained in 2A" for the next term -- or "left back" as we used to say, and scarcely a sign of imbecility as I remember all my buddies who suffered a similar fate. In any case, she again did well in her final term, with B in deportment, reading, and spelling, and C in writing, English, and mathematics during her last month in school. This offspring of "lewd and immoral" women excelled in deportment and performed adequately, although not brilliantly, in her academic subjects. So, no, it don't think it was successful at all, since they just went around sterilizing anyone who happened to appear stupid, usually (and by usually, I mean the vast majority) due to social/educational causes.
By the way, the reason they considered Carrie Buck 'feeble-minded' and the basis they had for her sterilization was because she got pregnant at age 17. She was raped.
Note to Bill, its been tried at least twice in the past 100 years and they were called communism and socialism. Not necessarily. About a hundred years ago, it was called progressivism, and, in America, it worked. It didn't change the whole capitalist system, but it improved it, and generally made life better. I find it unfortunate that nowadays people have to use loaded labels like socialist or communist whenever someone wants to improve the system, which is better now than is was, but could still be improved while retaining capitalist principles.
It WAS the free market that achieved the good things that people generally attribute to unions and socialism. No, actually, it wasn't. Do you think the people in charge of all those businesses that were exploiting workers suddenly decided that they made enough money and can now start treating the workers fairly? Guess what, that didn't happen. It called the Gilded Age for a reason. Sure, we had massive economic growth that turned the US from a backwater farming nation to a world power, but only a small group was actually reaping the benefits. People like the AFL and the Wobblies, as well as various regulations and protection laws, are what channeled the economic growth to form the middle class and produce a decent standard of living.
What is capitalism but freedom? How about the freedom to exploit, the freedom to collusion, the freedom to blacklist, the freedom to form cartels? Sugarcoat it all you want, but those are the realities of pure capitalism. Not pretty. But don't take my word for it, read a history book. If you want the freedom to succeed or fail based on your own merit, the first thing you need is an even playing field. We don't have that now, not by a long shot, but if it weren't for the mixed economic system we have now, it'd be even worse. Pure capitalism is the same as communism in that it only works the way its supposed to on paper. You enjoy a better life today because your grandparents and their parents had the courage to take a stand and say that they were people, not tools, and that they demand to be treated like it. Before that, people were just that, tools. Replaceable, expendable.
They had the ability to look beyond themselves to the future and that is something that is becoming lost in America today. What? You can't be serious. Ever take a sick day? Enjoy a safe workplace? Get paid overtime? Do you get lunch breaks? Health care? Retirement package? Do you think you deserve that? Of course you do. You're not forced to do more at less pay just to keep your job, you don't have to endure hazardous conditions because they're cheaper, you're not fired because you looked at the boss funny. Why is that? The free market? Don't make me laugh. Your knowledge of history is severely lacking. People decided that they weren't going to put up with it anymore, and changed things. Not because they were socialists, communists, or whatever little loaded label you care to use, but because they were fixing the free market for the better.
What really gets me about your comment is the part about it 'becoming lost in America today.' That just smacks of elitism. Maybe when your job is sent overseas because you can't afford to live on the $2 per hour your job is worth in India, you'll realize that the mystical free market doesn't give a damn if you and your family have enough to survive. Maybe the thought of living in poverty so that some fat cat can live in moderately higher wealth sounds good to you, but I'll take my chances with a mixed economy. Sure, I don't have the right to treat people like cogs in a machine, but at least I'll have the economic freedom that exists only in pure capitalism theory and mixed economy reality.
Slashdot Mirror
They used an ornamental pepper and a pothos? They're simple, just water them every week or so. What would be impressive is if they worked a system for a hard plant, like a Pseudolithos, that would take humidity, time of year, soil type, ect. into consideration when telling you when to water.
No one mentioned atheism. The 'slit their throats in the night' guy's attitude is what causes radicalism. Unless, of course, you're trying to associate rationality/atheism with genocide, and judging by the false dichotomy you set up, that wouldn't surprise me.
About 150 years ago, in an age when most scientists believed that God created the universe, it was believed that black people were inferior to white people for biblical reasons. Some believed that God made the races separately, some believed that blacks were affected by Lot's curse. Either way, due to religious reasons, they said blacks were inferior.
Fast forward to post Darwin days. Now that evolution was widely accepted, the theory was that blacks are closer to monkeys than whites, and that since they were less evolved, they were inferior.
Do you see a difference here? I don't. Despite using two radically different ideas, one religious and one scientific, people came to the exact same conclusion. So, ask yourself, why is that? Do religion, AND science, really breed racism, or were they merely justifications? Either science is racist, or religion (and science, and any other ideas people care to warp for political reasons), is, for the most part, simply abused by a select few to control the masses. At the end of the day, it is not the justification, but the usually harder to see root cause, that is the problem. In this particular situation, racism was the root cause, religion and science were merely justifications. Notice how they were interchangeable. It is foolhardy to blame the justifications and ignore the root cause. Religion is also a large part of the reason for suppression of knowledge, increases in fear and the idea that "ideas are dangerous." Is that why, at one point, the Middle East became the technological center of the world under Islam? Is that why ideas flourished during the Renaissance in Europe, a more or less Christian period? I call BS. Religion does not affect ideas near as much as the political climate.
Yeah, and Richard Dawkins was raised in an Angelician household. What's your point?
It appearers religion also prevents us from seeing the real problems. Believing that religion causes all that stuff is as wacko as Jack Thompson believing that video games cause people to commit murder. I'm not denying that people use religion to justify various nasty deeds, but odds are crazies will go crazy anyway. You remove religion, they'll just find some other reason to go nuts, like race, nationality, economic system, ect.
If I may ask a dumb question, what sort of prerequisite knowledge would you recommend learning before reading this book?
Fact: global temperature is rising.
Hypothesis: this change is man made.
Personally, I think that the change is, at least in part, but not necessarily entirely, man made. However, judging by how crazy some GW advocates act (Eek! We're all gonna die unless you buy those swirly light bulbs!), it's not hard to imagine how one might dismiss the entire thing as a scam. Which is unfortunate because, climate change aside, energy efficient technology really is something that should see more use.
Regardless of the false dichotomy you'd like to paint, belief in/mention of God makes one neither a Christian Supremacist nor christofascist.
I also find it interesting how the article kept talking about how biofuels were responsible for rainforest destruction, when they need not be, and they weren't talking about the most efficient biofuel methods. Also, of course, biofuel techniques are far from perfected at the moment, so even if it really is worse right now, I don't think the technology's potential shouldn't underestimated.
Correct. For example, in pre-Darwinian days, it was believed that God had created blacks separately than whites (or that blacks were the result of Lot's curse, or some curse), therefore blacks were inferior. Post-Darwin, however, blacks were closer to monkeys and whites were more evolved, therefore blacks were inferior.
It's funny how completely different justifications can so swiftly act as substitutes, but do you blame the emotion behind it or the ideas that have been twisted into a justification? I'd say the former, because regardless of justification, the results are the same. Just something to think about.
Apologies for the hypocrite accusations, then. I happen to agree with what you say in this post, Israel could exercise lot more tact in their military operations (killing civilians is both morally wrong [and that's an understatement] and tactically erroneous [because, even if you are struck first, you've become 'the bad guy' in the minds of the other nation's common people]), and they could (and should) try harder to establish peace. It's the common people, on both sides, who should be protected, and attacking them, which all parties are guilty of, is a tragedy.
Overrated, for all those times when you're just too stupid to post a reply. I know it's lame to whine about moderation, but if I'm wrong, please correct me. Modding overrated just proves that I'm correct, and someone who doesn't like it can't counter my points.
I win.
Well, religion is important in American politics because bullshit is one of the main things people are looking at. We can't be distracted with the real issues when there's petty bullshit to focus on.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that the cure had the potential to be worse than the disease in this case, and I really wish people would consider better solutions that don't mess with the entire food chain, I'm just saying that if I, or mostly anyone, were in the position to be affected by this, we'd probably take our chances. Its not a crude revenge, its living by any means necessary.
I call them hypocrites because, in order to sustain the average modern lifestyle, a lot of nature must be sacrificed. Think of all the water required, pollutants produced, and forests logged in the process of making all the goods, necessary and otherwise, that we all use everyday. Unless they grow their own food, make their own clothes, and live without electricity, they're hypocrites. What right do we have to talk about the environment when someone else wants to do the same thing we do in excess every day to save themselves?
What gets me is these people saying, 'Well, if you support this, you don't like the environment.' Bullshit, I love nature, I'm just not a hypocrite, and unless these people doing something equivalent to dying of malaria for the environment (and obviously they're not, because electronic devices like computers contribute to the destruction of the environment), then that's all they are, hypocrites.
Wow, I can't believe some of the replies to this post. I guarantee all the people moaning about how this will harm the environment have never left their cozy little post industrial countries and seen the human suffering these diseases are causing. If they cared so much, they'd stop using energy hogging computers and other electronic devices, stop driving gas guzzling cars, stop wearing clothing produced in a country with virtually no environmental protection regulations, stop using products made from old growth forests, stop wasting water with all the unnecessary uses it has, and the list goes on and on.
But they won't, because that would inconvenience them, and once something causes them to step out of their comfort zone, they give up. Its OK for the environment to take one for the team when their high tech, comfortable, modern lifestyle's on the line, but when they see some poor bastard in some third world hellhole is dying, what do they say? Fuck them, fixing THEIR PROBLEM might hurt the environment, ensuring that their kids don't die might screw up the ecosystem. Its fine and dandy for them to bulldoze a forest to put up a new strip mall, but God forbid someone want to not die so bad that they take the chance of maybe harming the environment. You know, I bet every one of them would kill every bug, bird, and rodent within a hundred mile radius if it was their lives on the line. Hypocrites.
By the way, the reason they considered Carrie Buck 'feeble-minded' and the basis they had for her sterilization was because she got pregnant at age 17. She was raped.
What really gets me about your comment is the part about it 'becoming lost in America today.' That just smacks of elitism. Maybe when your job is sent overseas because you can't afford to live on the $2 per hour your job is worth in India, you'll realize that the mystical free market doesn't give a damn if you and your family have enough to survive. Maybe the thought of living in poverty so that some fat cat can live in moderately higher wealth sounds good to you, but I'll take my chances with a mixed economy. Sure, I don't have the right to treat people like cogs in a machine, but at least I'll have the economic freedom that exists only in pure capitalism theory and mixed economy reality.