I don't think anyone's saying that. The fact is, there is a class of people that tends to take advantage over the poor. Trying to fix those problems does not make one a communist, so put away the McCarthyism.
Despite what some people would have you believe, there's more to the world that just black and white partisan politics; there are middle grounds. You can have a mixed system to promote the general well being and the common good without becoming ruthless or authoritarian, which, coincidentally, is what can happen to capitalist societies if left alone. A good example is the political corruption of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. It wasn't the free market that fixed those problems, is was (the now called) socialist policies, and without those policies, life would generally suck.
Communism doesn't work (at least, it hasn't in the past), but plutocracy ain't too hot either. Think of economic policies like salt. Salt is made up of an explosive metal and a poisonous gas, but without salt, you die. Pure communism and capitalism are very bad things; we need a mixture, and sometimes the mixture needs to be adjusted. If it wasn't for having a mixture, we'd both probably be working in sweatshops right now.
I'm a 'bigot' but when a religious person tries to convert me, or tells me how I'll burn in hell (in college an evangelical girl once said she could "smell Satan's brimstone" on me), they're just being devout? That depends; do they say 'Yarg, yer gonna burn in Hell,' or do they quote a few scriptures and show genuine concern for you, regardless of whether or not you believe that you are in danger of eternal damnation, ect? There is a difference between the two; Brimstone girl seems to be the former type, but there are people who, regardless if you believe their concern is misplaced or not, honestly believe that you are in danger, and act accordingly. IMO, you're really only a bigot if you group them all together.
I doubt this will change anyone's opinion of anything because this article doesn't appear to be saying much, just that mutations in a nematode's sex organs tend to be beneficial. Really, to claim that mutations in general have a trend to be helpful after only a single study of a single part of a single organism seems to be stretching it to me.
IMO, the four corners thing is simply a pedantic argument; its just a phrase. As for the other one, I must admit I've often myself wondered what the deal with that one is. I doubt anyone thinks they can see the entire world from a mountain, so I don't really think thats what it was trying to say. Maybe someone else out there knows; I sure don't. Always kinda makes you wonder if something was lost in translation. Also, it might be worth noting that the verse in Daniel is describing a dream Nebuchadnezzar had that he wants interpreted.
Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us. Riddle me this, if the Bible advocated a flat earth, why would it use the distance between the east and the west as a metaphor for infinity? The connection between religion (even in times past) and the flat earth is hugely exaggerated. I don't care if you don't like the Pope, but please stop propagating factless myths.
I think that depends on how far you take it. In its purest form, atheism is not a religion, merely, as you say, a disbelief in God (or gods, goddesses, ect). But, you've got to admit, some people take it way too far. Just look at some of the posts here, claiming all religions/religious people are stupid, evil, and the world would be better off without them, ect. To me, it sounds pretty illogical to discredit so many people, as well as the basic beliefs that helped to craft our society. Obviously, people have done some pretty nasty things in the name of God, but does that really reflect upon all modern practitioners of a religion? Obviously, no. I also think its worth considering the times and cultures in which the majority those events occurred, but atheistic zealots rarely do that. When expressed in the manner that a certain minority of atheists choose to, atheism bears many of hallmarks that are very similar to a religion. People preach The God Delusion, they reject anything they disagree with with fervor, and declare, not that they don't believe in God, but that there can be no God, and they say so with faith. Of course, this is a minority view, and does not reflect upon all atheists.
No, they shouldn't care, but was he there to speak about physics? In that same respect, why should someone pertinent to theology care about what the people in physics think about him?
That's not the same thing. That's like saying a speaker (as in a computer speaker) and a speaker (as in someone giving a speech) are the same thing. Yes, both animal clones and apple cultivars are genetically identical, but a grafted scion and a genetically cloned animal are radically different things. The only thing they realy have in common is the word used to describe them. You can't compare scientific things based on linguistics. Just because they use the same word doesn't mean their the same things.
Same word, different meaning. Double egged yolks and plant clippings are pretty different than a cloned animal. Double egged yolks are, first off, probably unfertilized, and even if they were, they'd be twins, not clones. As for plants, all fruit we eat(except for fruit that grows quickly, like tomatoes and cucumbers) is a select strain grafted onto a rootstock. All Bartlett pears, for example, are genetically identical, and its called clonal propagation, but they're not clones in this sense.
I'm not saying I fear meat cloned in this way, in fact, it is probably for the best because now we can have genetically superior strains of cow/chicken/pig/whatever that have been selected for specific traits (like flavor, immune system, growth rate, ect) just like we pick select cultivars of plants. I'm just saying that asexually propagated plant clones and animal clones are different types of clones.
Wow, that came out of left field. So now we're doing 6000 year jokes and spewing religious insults with articles that don't even involve the earth's age. Interesting.
Time to repeal the drinking age. How far through did you think that? The fact is, if you remove the legal barrier between booze and eighteen year olds, your going to have a whole lot of bodies to clean up. Not everyone will do something stupid like go on a binge drinking spree, hell, 99% of them will probably be fine, but there will still be one dead minority (the young, stupid, and generally childlike). Anyone want to back that? And before you tell me that they reap the consequences of their actions, what about the pedestrians they flatten and other drivers they hit?
If the only way anyone found out about the drinking was looking at Facebook after the fact, then how was it harmful? Because the next time it happens, it they might find out about it in the obituaries. Bad things don't happen every time someone gets drunk, they obviously didn't happen this time, but its not uncommon. Someone there was dumb enough to take pictures of an illegal activity (and post them on the internet no less), do you really think that guy would be smart enough to not drive home after downing a few? A car full of drunk teens is always only one tree and 60 mph away from a funeral service. No, it won't happen to all of them, but it will happen.
Maybe in a different time or place you'd be right, but consider the mentality toward alcohol here in the States. In Europe, for example, alcohol isn't that big of a deal because they don't have our laws, but because of the different attitude here in the US, they're pretty much necessary now. You can complain about the establishment all you want, but this is one of those laws that does serve a purpose. And just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm not one those pro-institution fanatics, I'm not some sort of morality crusader, I personally don't even see anything wrong with legalizing marijuana; I'm just saying use your head. You lower the drinking age, and its going to get ugly pretty damn fast.
It seems like a one question sanity test. I've devised a better one question sanity test: If you feel that evolution is such a huge political issue that it alone can discredit a candidate, you fail.
That's interesting; I did not know that. If I lived in the UK, I'm not sure I'd like that aspect of the political system much. Here in the States, if you don't vote, I suppose its like you don't exist in the political world, so non-voters don't have any (direct) sway.
I can't remember if it was Plato or Aristotle who said it, but one of the two said that the people who want to be rulers are more often than not just in it for their own glory, not to advance the civilization, and are generally the last people you'd want in power. He said that the most qualified people should be forced into positions of power, even if they don't want the position. I don't know how qualified Colbert would be (likely better than some political leaders I won't name), or even if its a good idea or not, but I always think of that sentiment whenever the topic of Colbert's campaign comes up.
I've often considered starting an online political movement known as 'The Apathy Party.' I would advocate a party for the apathetic, by the apathetic, and by that I mean me. Everyone able to vote who didn't would automatically be considered of a member of the Apathetic Party, therefore I'd get their vote. If that's legal, I'd win the election for sure. If its not, well, I suppose maybe it would convince a few people to get out there, read up on the candidates, and vote.
From the article about the bus driver:
Wisconsin state law generally prohibits the disclosure of intercepted conversations, leaving the appeals court in a bit of a tight spot. Why is it wrong to use such evidence? Provided the jury can tell nothing is being taken out of context, why can evidence like that be so easily dismissed?
don't think the word "randomness" means what you think it means. If you are talking about evolution, it certainly does not progress at random. Actually, I think the parent poster was talking about randomness on a more basic, physical level, not a biological level, that is, that atoms have the ability to conveniently come together together in a way to form proteins, water (with its myriad interesting properties), ect. that make up life. That sort of thing.
Whenever I hear about video games being a menace to society, I always think of the book Don Quixote. There's a part in the book where the priest goes through Don Quixote's romantic knight novels, and declares that they are the reason he went loopy and took off to play knight. Hundreds of years later, it's the same story, just a different medium. Just something to think about.
Hawking has Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, aka Lou Gehrig's. It actually is thought to be mostly genetic, not something you just catch, so Hawking is a perfect example. From Wikipedia, emphasis mine.
Two major forms of ALS are known: familial and sporadic. Familial ALS accounts for about 10% of all ALS cases. As the name suggests, familial ALS is believed to be caused by the inheritance of one or more faulty genes. About 15% of families with this type of ALS have mutations in the gene for SOD-1. SOD-1 gene defects are dominant, meaning only one gene copy is needed to develop the disease. Therefore, a parent with the faulty gene has a 50% chance of passing the gene along to a child.
Sporadic ALS has no known cause. While many environmental toxins have been suggested as causes, to date no research has confirmed any of the candidates investigated, including aluminum and mercury and lead from dental fillings. As research progresses, it is likely that many cases of sporadic ALS will be shown to have a genetic basis as well.
Just because people aren't making full use of their intelligence doesn't mean it's diminishing with time. I highly doubt either scenario will become reality. Get to know the people you speak of; I've spent a good deal of time around 'stupid' people, and you may be surprised to know that real idiots are rare. They really aren't stupid, the main problem I saw is that they thought they were. It's a classic self fulfilling prophecy; they are uneducated because they think they're dumb, and it's just not the truth. A lot of it is just bad upbringing leading to poor decisions leading to low education. Then they grow up, have kids, it starts anew. It's a nasty sociological cycle, but one that can be broken with education. Knowledge!=intelligence, and classifying people as innately and genetically stupid isn't helping any.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone's saying that. The fact is, there is a class of people that tends to take advantage over the poor. Trying to fix those problems does not make one a communist, so put away the McCarthyism.
Despite what some people would have you believe, there's more to the world that just black and white partisan politics; there are middle grounds. You can have a mixed system to promote the general well being and the common good without becoming ruthless or authoritarian, which, coincidentally, is what can happen to capitalist societies if left alone. A good example is the political corruption of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. It wasn't the free market that fixed those problems, is was (the now called) socialist policies, and without those policies, life would generally suck.
Communism doesn't work (at least, it hasn't in the past), but plutocracy ain't too hot either. Think of economic policies like salt. Salt is made up of an explosive metal and a poisonous gas, but without salt, you die. Pure communism and capitalism are very bad things; we need a mixture, and sometimes the mixture needs to be adjusted. If it wasn't for having a mixture, we'd both probably be working in sweatshops right now.
False dichotomy. Just because you don't support the corporatocracy doesn't mean you're a communist.
- creationism vs. evolution
- abstinence-only sex education
- the war on drugs, which emphasizes prohibition (based mostly on dogma) over harm reduction (based on empiricism--"what works")
So, other than you not liking them, what do Creationism, abstinence-only sex ed, or the war on drugs have to do with science and engineering?You should go to the AOL message boards. The 13 year olds there can't go five minutes without making the same type of flamebait remark, either.
Stuff that starts pointless flamewars between thirteen year old idiots about how religion is teh stupid in order to get hits that generate ad revenue.
I doubt this will change anyone's opinion of anything because this article doesn't appear to be saying much, just that mutations in a nematode's sex organs tend to be beneficial. Really, to claim that mutations in general have a trend to be helpful after only a single study of a single part of a single organism seems to be stretching it to me.
IMO, the four corners thing is simply a pedantic argument; its just a phrase. As for the other one, I must admit I've often myself wondered what the deal with that one is. I doubt anyone thinks they can see the entire world from a mountain, so I don't really think thats what it was trying to say. Maybe someone else out there knows; I sure don't. Always kinda makes you wonder if something was lost in translation. Also, it might be worth noting that the verse in Daniel is describing a dream Nebuchadnezzar had that he wants interpreted.
Personally, I don't think it's worthwhile to play the select verses game, because anyone can always cherrypick ad nauseum stuff like Job 38:16 (undersea vents), Revelation 11:9-11 (TV), Job 36:27-29 (watercycle), Ecclesiastes 1:6 (movement of air), Job 28:25 (air having mass), Isaiah 43:16 (ocean currents), Job 26:7 (floating earth), 1 Corinthians 15:41 (uniques of stars), ect.
I think that depends on how far you take it. In its purest form, atheism is not a religion, merely, as you say, a disbelief in God (or gods, goddesses, ect). But, you've got to admit, some people take it way too far. Just look at some of the posts here, claiming all religions/religious people are stupid, evil, and the world would be better off without them, ect. To me, it sounds pretty illogical to discredit so many people, as well as the basic beliefs that helped to craft our society. Obviously, people have done some pretty nasty things in the name of God, but does that really reflect upon all modern practitioners of a religion? Obviously, no. I also think its worth considering the times and cultures in which the majority those events occurred, but atheistic zealots rarely do that. When expressed in the manner that a certain minority of atheists choose to, atheism bears many of hallmarks that are very similar to a religion. People preach The God Delusion, they reject anything they disagree with with fervor, and declare, not that they don't believe in God, but that there can be no God, and they say so with faith. Of course, this is a minority view, and does not reflect upon all atheists.
No, they shouldn't care, but was he there to speak about physics? In that same respect, why should someone pertinent to theology care about what the people in physics think about him?
That's not the same thing. That's like saying a speaker (as in a computer speaker) and a speaker (as in someone giving a speech) are the same thing. Yes, both animal clones and apple cultivars are genetically identical, but a grafted scion and a genetically cloned animal are radically different things. The only thing they realy have in common is the word used to describe them. You can't compare scientific things based on linguistics. Just because they use the same word doesn't mean their the same things.
Same word, different meaning. Double egged yolks and plant clippings are pretty different than a cloned animal. Double egged yolks are, first off, probably unfertilized, and even if they were, they'd be twins, not clones. As for plants, all fruit we eat(except for fruit that grows quickly, like tomatoes and cucumbers) is a select strain grafted onto a rootstock. All Bartlett pears, for example, are genetically identical, and its called clonal propagation, but they're not clones in this sense.
I'm not saying I fear meat cloned in this way, in fact, it is probably for the best because now we can have genetically superior strains of cow/chicken/pig/whatever that have been selected for specific traits (like flavor, immune system, growth rate, ect) just like we pick select cultivars of plants. I'm just saying that asexually propagated plant clones and animal clones are different types of clones.
Wow, that came out of left field. So now we're doing 6000 year jokes and spewing religious insults with articles that don't even involve the earth's age. Interesting.
Maybe in a different time or place you'd be right, but consider the mentality toward alcohol here in the States. In Europe, for example, alcohol isn't that big of a deal because they don't have our laws, but because of the different attitude here in the US, they're pretty much necessary now. You can complain about the establishment all you want, but this is one of those laws that does serve a purpose. And just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm not one those pro-institution fanatics, I'm not some sort of morality crusader, I personally don't even see anything wrong with legalizing marijuana; I'm just saying use your head. You lower the drinking age, and its going to get ugly pretty damn fast.
That's interesting; I did not know that. If I lived in the UK, I'm not sure I'd like that aspect of the political system much. Here in the States, if you don't vote, I suppose its like you don't exist in the political world, so non-voters don't have any (direct) sway.
I can't remember if it was Plato or Aristotle who said it, but one of the two said that the people who want to be rulers are more often than not just in it for their own glory, not to advance the civilization, and are generally the last people you'd want in power. He said that the most qualified people should be forced into positions of power, even if they don't want the position. I don't know how qualified Colbert would be (likely better than some political leaders I won't name), or even if its a good idea or not, but I always think of that sentiment whenever the topic of Colbert's campaign comes up.
I've often considered starting an online political movement known as 'The Apathy Party.' I would advocate a party for the apathetic, by the apathetic, and by that I mean me. Everyone able to vote who didn't would automatically be considered of a member of the Apathetic Party, therefore I'd get their vote. If that's legal, I'd win the election for sure. If its not, well, I suppose maybe it would convince a few people to get out there, read up on the candidates, and vote.
I'm curious, where does it say that?
Whenever I hear about video games being a menace to society, I always think of the book Don Quixote. There's a part in the book where the priest goes through Don Quixote's romantic knight novels, and declares that they are the reason he went loopy and took off to play knight. Hundreds of years later, it's the same story, just a different medium. Just something to think about.
Sporadic ALS has no known cause. While many environmental toxins have been suggested as causes, to date no research has confirmed any of the candidates investigated, including aluminum and mercury and lead from dental fillings. As research progresses, it is likely that many cases of sporadic ALS will be shown to have a genetic basis as well.
Just because people aren't making full use of their intelligence doesn't mean it's diminishing with time. I highly doubt either scenario will become reality. Get to know the people you speak of; I've spent a good deal of time around 'stupid' people, and you may be surprised to know that real idiots are rare. They really aren't stupid, the main problem I saw is that they thought they were. It's a classic self fulfilling prophecy; they are uneducated because they think they're dumb, and it's just not the truth. A lot of it is just bad upbringing leading to poor decisions leading to low education. Then they grow up, have kids, it starts anew. It's a nasty sociological cycle, but one that can be broken with education. Knowledge!=intelligence, and classifying people as innately and genetically stupid isn't helping any.