First, no one is trying to create a theocracy. That's just your own antitheistic paranoia. If you want to be paranoid, there is a plutocracy that's alive and well here in the US. Second, how the hell is raising a kid to believe whatever religion child abuse? Even if it were, raising them to be overzealous about not believing whatever religion would be just as bad. As it would seem, you wouldn't want your kids exposed to religious stuff so that they may make their own decisions, because it may be different than your own. That seems pretty abusive. You know what else seems abusive: teaching them that everything they read is correct, just because it's in a science textbook. Face it, a lot of stuff we KNOW is a fact today will be laughable in a century, and like it or not, Darwinian evolution will probably be one of them, and it probably would be on the way out already, were it not for over zealous Neo-Darwinists holding science back with their idiocy. Third, you may feel that no religion != no morality, and I know that every one of the atheists I know, as well as myself, agree with that, but not all atheists feel that way. Everyone's favorite attention whore, Richard Dawkins, seems to think that there is no such thing as morels, unless, of course he's calling religion immoral. Fourth, what's up with that 'once a child has been indoctrinated into a religious cult they have a hard time getting out'line? What century are you posting from?
Ever hear the phrase 'Lead me not into temptation?' What with all the people who rack up loads of debt on their credit cards, I wonder what something like this will do, when the key to free stuff now, and debt later, is right in your wallet at all times, and you have to carry it around.
Like bragging about their customer support, but then when you do call them up, you get some foreign person with an accent you can't understand talking over a phone connection that makes him barely audible, that you can only speak to after being redirected for a few hours, and who will then tell you your hard drive needs replaced because there's something wrong with the fan in your power supply? That may not be illegal, but it would be nice if they changed that.
We do socially, anyway. First it was the divine right of monarchy, now its the high test scores of the modern day plutocracy. High test scores, or whatever the case may be, is (wrongly) attributed to inherent aptitude, aka. genetics. Those individuals lucky enough to have been deemed genetically superior are then given the best opportunities in life. Will the passing of this law do anything about this? No. I personally doubt this law will do much of anything at all. Just because its de jure does not mean it is de facto.
Well, it's a little more difficult than that. After all, you have to figure out how many students you want, then look at the applications and decide who the best are going to be. Can we require a 4.0 GPA? Or, in order to get enough students do we have to accept 3.5 GPAs? I disagree, especially in this case. MIT will get enough students, so they can be very selective, and ever since a few classist numbers became the only way to measure an individual's worth, it basically amounts to putting people in a database and skimming a few off the top. Unless, of course, MIT has adoped a legacy clause without telling anyone, which wouldn't particularly surprise me, considering how they're one of the most elite(ist) colleges.
There's an online petition designed to get D3 out here, but the petition probably doesn't do much, since I'm pretty sure they've already got something in the works, and its pretty obvious that everyone wants another.
Every time I read one of these things that seem to mix physics and philosophy, I wonder how bored school kids in the 24th century will mock current scientific thought, although quantum entanglement would be pretty cool if an applicable use was found for it.
Oh, he's educated: he went to Yale. Of course, since America is a classless society, and the ivy league isn't elitist, he got in based purely on merit. Daddy didn't buy his way in. Nope, didn't happen. He's really smarter than all the people who get denied admission each and every year.
Would you have rather had Bush tell the truth (Putin, you're a psychopathic douche bag!) and pissed him off? I, for one, would rather Bush tell him a flattering lie than further strain relations with Russia.
Religion has nothing to do with it. Religion is rarely used in that manner in this day and age. There is, however, an entire set of values, collectively referred to as the hidden curriculum, shoved down students' throats in public school. Religion, however, does make a nice scapegoat, but it's really nothing more than a red herring.
Yep, it was the sig. That happened to me while ago. Mine said 'If you think fundamentalist religion is a cause of suffering, and atheism isn't, eugenics must not be in your vocabulary' for the purpose of stating that, while bad things have been done in the name of various religions, bad things have also been done in the name of evolution, and that the only constant was humans. I was trying to say that people will use anything to justify their actions, and that theohobes who say that religion is the cause of every bad thing under the sun basically being asses. Of course, the average Slashdotter didn't quite make the connection, and I dropped it because I didn't want to start a flamewar every time I posted. Kudos to you for managing to avoid that for six months. On a side note, you might find this of interest.
It would be nice to see if they can do this within a small, confined area, like onboard a small underwater craft to study microorganisms that would otherwise die if removed from the depth. There's bound to be a lot of weird stuff down there that can't currently be studied.
Ancient fossils are there to test our faith? One guy said that because he couldn't think of anything else to say. One guy proposed the Hopeful Monster theory for the same reason. It's getting old.
In short, the RIAA is as within its rights here as it is in any of its other cases. That's usually called Lawful Evil. They may be in full compliance with the law, but the whole thing's still pretty nasty.
Don't forget to add bug-eyed world leaders with nukes. to that list. I'd much rather die by way of giant volcano, meteor, or Vogon construction project than because some a handful of rich crybabies can't leave each other alone.
The religious respond by going into elaborate contortions to maintain their beliefs (see, for example, "God put the dinosaur fossils there to test us"). Before talking about religion, realize just what it is that your talking about. I'm a fundamentalist Christian, and I'm not going to deny that there are a lot of fundamentalist Christian idiots. A LOT. But let me give you a view on what the more intelligent among us think about fossils. In a nutshell, there was at one point a shell of liquid in orbit above the earth (that is no longer there due to the flood, natch)that produced a higher atmospheric pressure, as well as acted as a filter for ultraviolet rays. This made things live longer, and live healthier. As we all know, reptiles, unlike us mere mammals, have an unlimited potential for growth. Long life+superior health = big lizards. Maybe that's wrong, and the instant it is proven wrong, the intelligent fundamentalists will drop that idea like a rock. The previously mentioned retards will still believe that the fossils were put there to 'test their faith.' Keep in mind that with any large group, there will be idiots, and because most people are idiots, there will be a lot of them. If you have a logical argument against Christianity, please direct it at someone capable of giving a logical argument back, not someone who's just going to foam at the mouth and say 'God's a gonna git you!' Doing that would be like me asking my grandfather, who once told me that 'Einstein proved that man evolved from apes in his Theory of Relativity,' to explain biochemical macro-evolution, and then (falsely) assuming that all athiests were idiots.
What did scientists do? They changed their minds. Is that why someone who challenges Darwinian evolution, even if they don't believe in any form of religious doctrine, are considered crackpots? Scientists, as of late, have become very closed minded about certain topics, most notably evolution (and global warming). Sad but true, science is no longer the pursuit of the truth: its the pursuit of what looks scientific, and what sells. No matter how stupid the idea, if a theory has the word quantum in front, it will sell, while scientific arguments against Darwinian evolution get attacked. Again, in all groups there idiots; some scientists/religious people will change their views to suit the facts, most will change the facts to suit their views.
Probably not, but the assumption that anything that gives credibility to creationism was done with an agenda (so the all-powerful theocracy can maintain control, of course) is why Darwinian evolution hasn't been challenged (and had the challenge taken seriously) in a while, despite the advances biology has made since Origin of Species was published
Slashdot Mirror
First, no one is trying to create a theocracy. That's just your own antitheistic paranoia. If you want to be paranoid, there is a plutocracy that's alive and well here in the US.
Second, how the hell is raising a kid to believe whatever religion child abuse? Even if it were, raising them to be overzealous about not believing whatever religion would be just as bad. As it would seem, you wouldn't want your kids exposed to religious stuff so that they may make their own decisions, because it may be different than your own. That seems pretty abusive. You know what else seems abusive: teaching them that everything they read is correct, just because it's in a science textbook. Face it, a lot of stuff we KNOW is a fact today will be laughable in a century, and like it or not, Darwinian evolution will probably be one of them, and it probably would be on the way out already, were it not for over zealous Neo-Darwinists holding science back with their idiocy.
Third, you may feel that no religion != no morality, and I know that every one of the atheists I know, as well as myself, agree with that, but not all atheists feel that way. Everyone's favorite attention whore, Richard Dawkins, seems to think that there is no such thing as morels, unless, of course he's calling religion immoral.
Fourth, what's up with that 'once a child has been indoctrinated into a religious cult they have a hard time getting out'line? What century are you posting from?
Damn, is that ever getting old.
And yet, only a handfull of people will have the brains to realize that.
That kid might have stolen the show, but who stole the From the---Dept.?
Ever hear the phrase 'Lead me not into temptation?' What with all the people who rack up loads of debt on their credit cards, I wonder what something like this will do, when the key to free stuff now, and debt later, is right in your wallet at all times, and you have to carry it around.
Like bragging about their customer support, but then when you do call them up, you get some foreign person with an accent you can't understand talking over a phone connection that makes him barely audible, that you can only speak to after being redirected for a few hours, and who will then tell you your hard drive needs replaced because there's something wrong with the fan in your power supply? That may not be illegal, but it would be nice if they changed that.
Hence the theory that monkeys evolved from Slashdotters.
The only thing older than that star are the creationist jokes on Slashdot.
We do socially, anyway. First it was the divine right of monarchy, now its the high test scores of the modern day plutocracy. High test scores, or whatever the case may be, is (wrongly) attributed to inherent aptitude, aka. genetics. Those individuals lucky enough to have been deemed genetically superior are then given the best opportunities in life. Will the passing of this law do anything about this? No. I personally doubt this law will do much of anything at all. Just because its de jure does not mean it is de facto.
There's an online petition designed to get D3 out here, but the petition probably doesn't do much, since I'm pretty sure they've already got something in the works, and its pretty obvious that everyone wants another.
Every time I read one of these things that seem to mix physics and philosophy, I wonder how bored school kids in the 24th century will mock current scientific thought, although quantum entanglement would be pretty cool if an applicable use was found for it.
Oh, he's educated: he went to Yale. Of course, since America is a classless society, and the ivy league isn't elitist, he got in based purely on merit. Daddy didn't buy his way in. Nope, didn't happen. He's really smarter than all the people who get denied admission each and every year.
Would you have rather had Bush tell the truth (Putin, you're a psychopathic douche bag!) and pissed him off? I, for one, would rather Bush tell him a flattering lie than further strain relations with Russia.
Religion has nothing to do with it. Religion is rarely used in that manner in this day and age. There is, however, an entire set of values, collectively referred to as the hidden curriculum, shoved down students' throats in public school. Religion, however, does make a nice scapegoat, but it's really nothing more than a red herring.
How long has laboratory been a verb?
I want Cerebro! Now there's an interface.
Yep, it was the sig. That happened to me while ago. Mine said 'If you think fundamentalist religion is a cause of suffering, and atheism isn't, eugenics must not be in your vocabulary' for the purpose of stating that, while bad things have been done in the name of various religions, bad things have also been done in the name of evolution, and that the only constant was humans. I was trying to say that people will use anything to justify their actions, and that theohobes who say that religion is the cause of every bad thing under the sun basically being asses. Of course, the average Slashdotter didn't quite make the connection, and I dropped it because I didn't want to start a flamewar every time I posted. Kudos to you for managing to avoid that for six months. On a side note, you might find this of interest.
It would be nice to see if they can do this within a small, confined area, like onboard a small underwater craft to study microorganisms that would otherwise die if removed from the depth. There's bound to be a lot of weird stuff down there that can't currently be studied.
Don't forget to add bug-eyed world leaders with nukes. to that list. I'd much rather die by way of giant volcano, meteor, or Vogon construction project than because some a handful of rich crybabies can't leave each other alone.
I propose two-tone yellow in the front and brown in the back underwear so that no one notices all those times I thought it was just a fart.
Probably not, but the assumption that anything that gives credibility to creationism was done with an agenda (so the all-powerful theocracy can maintain control, of course) is why Darwinian evolution hasn't been challenged (and had the challenge taken seriously) in a while, despite the advances biology has made since Origin of Species was published