Why not just use texting and alerts? My Nextel phone accepts text messages the people can send through and email to me. I'm having it hooked up to my bug tracking system so network bugs labeled "URGENT" gets forwarded to me.
Also, my wife and I use the two-way radio alot. In some ways its less "impersonal" since people can hear the other side of the conversation. And people accept screaming into a walkie-talkie better then into a Cell Phone anyway.
But on the two-way radio is simply an "Alert" which simply means call me back when you get a chance.
In reality though, even though its fun to think of punishing people for thier rudeness, or shocking people into being more social the solutions are already out there. Vibrate modes, and cell phones that you don't need to yell into these days.
I don't think that we need to return to the days captured in Bugs Bunny cartoons of stopping a movie and having someone scream "Is there A Doctor (So and So) In the house?"
__________________________ OnRoad:Hacking that which costs more money and is more deadly. (Its a just car enthusiast site really)
When I do a search on gnutella, I used to get nothing but good information. Then about three months ago I started seeing files like (say I was searching for Avalanches)
Avalanches.jpg Avalanches.mpg Avalanches.mov...and so forth. Its pretty easy to avoid them, I don't think they are fooling anyone. I've never even clicked on them to see what they actually contained.
Wait, I did get snookered once. I was searching for "Camaflouge" the old Depech-mode sounding 80's band, which I haven't found a way to purchase the CD anyway. One of the files I pulled down turned out to be a really sweet rendition of "I Know that My Redeemer Lives". I suspect it was a fellow mormon reminding me of my values. But I liked the rendition so much that I kept it and play it.
(By the way, I own the Avalanches CD)
________________________ OnRoad: Hacking that which costs more money and is more deadly. (Its just a car-enthusiast site really)
The Transparent Society
on
Kiln People
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Its not unusual to see such themes as open information in his books. David Brin is active on the NPR front promoting one of the few alternate plans that attempts to stop INS detentions *and* terrorist activity in one fell swoop.
His essay "The Transparent Society" calls for open information that can be used in social policing and accountability. Much of what he models this on came from observing news groups and other (i think he calls them) militant internet movements. Linux itself is one of those movements he mentioned.
If he did use the word militant, it was more a commantary on the way these groups police themselves, and how they band together to wage information war against those they don't like. In Slashdot's case that would be the RIAA, MPAA. For Linux, it would be whatever would try to keep us from hacking our own kernel.
Whats interesting about this is its Orwellian overtones, but lack of a centralized big brother. Anyway, as far as idelogues go I probably like Brin more then say Chomsky or Kato, although they have their simularities.
_________________________ OnRoad:Hacking that which costs more and is more deadly.
I know we like to see things in a context of mortal combat: good v evil, Buccaneers v Eagles, Brazil v Portugal and so on. In fact that natural human inclination is why the 6 o'clock news can't get past politics as anything but "right v left". Just choose two sides, and let one conquer the other one.
While KDE v Gnome was fashionable, say in 1997, I don't think it holds context any more. Gnome has won contracts and support with Sun, IBM and others while KDE has won support with IBM, the EU and others. The programming resources brought to the table here are far from over-extended.
You see, I to like the GTK2 libraries a lot more then GTK. I like how they took the time to build it up with all C code. I like LGPL better then GPL (but I like Artistic better then both).
But for all that I'd switch to KDE in a second if I thought that the wierd foot was out for blood, or that KDE was circling the drain. I just don't think its a competition like that.
_____________________________ OnRoad: Hacking that which costs more and is more deadly.
I used to be an unofficial Catia administrator for a document conversion company. It did give me headaches but that was more becuase I didn't know what I was doing, and management wouldn't get me the help I needed to get things done. Well not until it was too late.
But an illegal immigrant from India came over one day (the only other person willing to work for as little as they wanted to pay) and showed us how easy it could be. For that day we were sitting pretty.
Part of the reason is becuase I want to be more tied to a machine shop is to have access to the equipment. I've taken a fancy to Automobile Engineering again lately, (I've even set up a scoop site I call OnRoad.)
I may be looking at it as greener and over the fence with rose colored glasses. For building kit cars, doing mods and building gladiator robots, theres just no substitute for knowing or working for a machine shop. So you can see why doing sys-and-CAD-admining for a machine shop would be a real cool niche.
I've been thinking the same thing, but having been in a lowly sys-admin job for a while I have a taste for something more exotic.
I would really want to get credentialed in some high-end CAD administration like Catia, Cadence or Mentor Graphics (hopefully more mechanical engineering then electrical engineering since I have a degree in ME). It would be cool to be an admin of high end 3-D software also. The ultimate would be admining a Catia shop with its own NC-Mill and other machinist tools.
There the problem seems to be chicken and egg like on a level that is more extreme then sys-admining. I need to find a job that will support me through the multi-thousand dollar seminars. But the jobs all want me to have already taken the seminars and have the experience.
Is there any admins of more specialized exotic software that can share with me how they got there? Perhaps I need to quit this job and get a lower paying ME job to get there.
Luckily there are new Best-Seller lists that are purely based on sales. Apperently, New York Times and other lists would make "editorial" changes to lower the rankings of fantasy and sci-fi books.
They were going for Source compatability binary compatability was never a real goal.
Good point. I would be very interested in if anyone ever did get Netscape to compile with lesstif.
ESR goes into netscape to speak with everyone and they ask him do we release a working netscape, or one that we've put a lot of time into and think will be releasable soon showing yet again his stunning lack of clue
Ahh yes, the exciting time of snake oil salesmen and carpet baggers.
I may have spoken to shortly, I meant GTK-Mozilla. I have no idea how much GTK mozilla uses, but its very small if anything. A GTK version of Mozilla is called Galeon, and is being ported to GTK2 right now. I only hope that Evolution has as much speed up as Galeon did moving over to GTK2.
I think their News search is downright revolutionary. Not only do I get news categorized by what people really want to see but I can instantly check out viewpoints from all sides at the same time.
Alternative browser development came to a standstill when netscape released the code.
Years from now, when documentaries are written and case studies developed I think we will see many eyes looking at that moment. It didn't come to a standstill, it took off very quickly and then something wierd happened. I remember it well...
Netscape opens the code, and in the Gtk v KDE flame wars two teams take to porting the code to their framework. the problem? It was built off of Motif, a non-free gui toolkit.
With the swiftness of the Open Source community, all of a sudden we had three "almost there" choices for a completely free Netscape. Seemingly just as quickly all were abandoned by the freedom offered by this software movement.
QT-Mozilla and the subsequent KMozilla (if I remember right) was finished in a month by porting it to the QT toolkit of the day. Not to be outdone GTK-Mozilla announced that whatever they could do, we could do better and a sole programmer began the effort, with a few joining later.
Back at the ranch, JWZ felt that it would have be far easier to pound out the last few details in "Lesstif" and link off of that. The Lesstif people were very close to binary compatibility with version 1 of Motif.
Then for all the work going on it then it seems to have run out of steam. As far as I know (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), lesstif still can't dynamically link to netscape, GTK was abandoned, and the KDE people abandoned Netscape code entirely.
So why it those three easiest paths were abandoned so quickly is the stuff that PBS is made of, and I'll probably never know until someone takes it up.
My OS course is getting a bit fuzzy already, but we were lucky enough to have a visiting professor from a real university teach it. Profesor Tsuni was one of the best teachers I had.
But back to the point, and excuse the "obviousness" of the questions. But HT sounded like a way to more efficiently use the pipelines on modern processors by allowing multiple threads to work on them.
And here is the fuzzy part, or maybe I'm just not remembering correctly. Do the multiple threads need to be in the same process? If so, I remember the linux kernel threading actually throws threads out as new full processes, and I'm unsure of how the CPU can track that. Or is the scheduler smart enough to send processes down the queue in an order where threads that can share processor time easier are sent together?
Also, if some of the posts are correct it seems that multiple processors show up in Top. Off hand I wonder if this hamper or help OpenMosix's algorithms that decide where to place processes to run.
I don't think the Mozilla guys should take Apple's decision as anything more than Apple trying to do what's best for Apple.
Although its natural to feel sad to see your work rejected in this sense, I agree. I'm pretty clueless of any political matters that could have driven this decision other then the particular technical merits of the application.
Its like watching models try out for a shoot, all of them are beautiful and you'd give your right arm to date. While the client could be looking for a particular kind of beauty expressed in "edginess" or "innocence", women walk away crying thinking it was their beauty in general that was rejected.
I'll continue to use Mozilla, if it makes the developers happy!
Or Galeon, in my case. I was using Galeon 2 until it required some development libraries in Gnome but I loved it while I was using it. I hope Evolution 2 gets simular speed increases from gtk2.
I personally think Mozilla is past the age of wondering if it will survive or not. Using its modular approach, and gaining the branches it did has ensured quite the likelihood of survival.
It looks like the creationists (or, at least, trolls pretending to be creationists) haven't come out of the woodwork yet.
Indeed.
God created the laws of nature
So you had to be the first creationist to speak up.
To me creationism is a form of denial
But then you deride it.
I guess my problem is still, that creationism simply means that God created heavens and earth.
I realize you probably have had some difficult times with other creationists in the past. I think everyone has. But it really looks to me like your trying to have you're cake and eat it too. Your trying to deride creationists, yet still hold on to a belief that God created the earth and the stuff on it.
Perhaps this is better reconsiled by categorizing certain creationist doctrines that you do not espouse. Like me, I am a creationist, but not a Young Earth creationist. Well, even then I agree with some things, but do not think everything was created 6000 some odd years ago plus six days. I don't even think that view is biblicaly sound.
This compartmentalizing needs to happen with the evolutionists also. For instance I agree that evolution happens if you are simply saying that things change over time, and changes that don't work don't propegate.
But I don't agree that we can replace God with "randomness," or that evolution left to its own devices would make anything more complicated then a Macro Phage.
We talk about the laws of physics, but has anyone learned the laws of genetic coding yet? I think that when we do we will find out why such things as a ball and socket hip joint (as used by bipeds) keeps getting killed off but coming back in exactly the same shape many years later. I think when we do, we will see the same craftsmanship in its laws that Einstien saw in physics and call such a fingerprint as belonging to "God".
But between now and then, we'll find out that great fundamental building blocks that we relied on as part of evolutionary theory were only scaffolding for bigger better concepts (much like the mystery of the "cone" in its sections for planetary orbits was replaced with gravitational laws that allowed for interactions with more then one body at a time, and were therefore much more accurate.)
In closing, there is simply too much going on to try to make umbrellas out of the words "evolution" and "creation". Neither of them are developed very well yet.
Make a rat the ringbearer by gluing the One Ring to the back of a rat.
And then watch that rat, under control of the ring run straight to Sauron when you let it out of the bag. Or even worse, the ring slips onto the fingers of the person doing the glue job. Oh oh!
Remember that the Eagles reached Mount Doom from the Black Gate in time to pick up Frodo before the lava crushes him.
True...
This means in under five minutes.
Give or take a half an hour.
Now measure how far this is on the map. This means they can cross the entire world in under an hour.
I never knew that JRRT drew a map of the entire world. Of course you don't mean the map of "middle" earth, that didn't include much of the north, south, east or west.
They would have been invincible to all weapons based purely on their altitude.
That sounds like you are writing the rest of the story. He had explosives, and projectiles so your "rest of the story" isn't even very plausible.
against 10,000 elven archers mounted on Eagles.
Mounted? Eagles always carried and were never ridden. Of all people that understood that, it would be the eldar.
The only option is that Gandalf was suicidal or an agent of darkness.
How do you get this? It may be true, but you'd never know it from your monday-morning quarterbacking.
The trilogy of "Mad Max" pictures, for all their iconic value, amounted to a rather slender box office, grossing only $69 million in total domestically. That's partly because the 1979 original, released by Village Roadshow, Orion Pictures and AIP, was hardly seen Stateside at all. The franchise only grew significant with "Mad Max: The Road Warrior."
I don't think he's arguing that it is not said my friend. Behold, this very doctrine was denounced by Paul...
Corinthians 15: 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
Verily, John the beloved did speak of "A", thus we need not imagine to ourselves for we know of a surety that it was spoken.
John 5: 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
The time did come, and was again spoken of by Peter.
Peter 3: 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
Peter 4:
5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
Tone down the zealousness my friend, I actually happen to be more in the middle of the road. Its very unbecoming a scholar of science to start posting hate-lists.
Another practice that is very unseemly is to mix rhetorical grandstand pronouncements with science's more humble and sensible approach. A good example of this is how you use the quote above.
John Wilkins correctly colors his language in the realm of possibility. You in turn pronounce it as having "refuted" IR. I take little issue with John Wilkins imagionation because he clearly labels it as such. I do take issue with your choice of words when you say it "refuted" IR. Perhaps you should have also used the word "dispute".
refute
tr.v.refuted,refuting,refutes
To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.
Thats a pretty strong word. If John Wilkins was really refuting it rather then disputing it, he would have used stronger terminology then "One way that functions can be added to irreducibly complex systems...so it can replace the older IR system if necessary".
Essentially avoiding the cruxt of the arguement in my opinion with plausible science fiction, but at least he shows his reasoning as being possible. Indeed I do not dispute or refute its plausibility, some transpositions of genetic code suggest that there might be such a mechanism at work. But then there might not, and it has a long way to go before it is as accepted as evolution itself.
I am a creationist in that I believe God made the heavens and the earth. If that really annoys you as a christian then I might I suggest more self-reflection is in order to reconsile that contradiction as well as the practice of posting hate-lists while following a man that said "turn the other cheek" and "if a man compels thee to walk a mile, go with him twain".
1) You still don't seem to know the difference between "debunk" and "dispute".
2) I'm now the focus of name-calling. I can see why you leave the real debate to others.
3) You can't carry context if you had a dump-truck. The link was not to defend an idea, it was to allow a fair representation of an idea that was incorrectly called a "creationist myth". That it occurs might be a myth, but the concept is not. Whats worse is taking some small point among many, and vaguely linking to where it is disputed and call it "often debunked" as if to invalidate the premise entirely.
Disputing with ambigious authority grabs like "this is frequently debunked on talk.origions" is probably the single most frequently attempted evolutionist arguement.
Notice, lurkers, that the topic of "irriducible complexity" and its ramifications to Dariwn's theory is not answered at all in that post, nor attempted. All we have is a vain nitpick of a small example as if "disputed" means "debunked".
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just use texting and alerts? My Nextel phone accepts text messages the people can send through and email to me. I'm having it hooked up to my bug tracking system so network bugs labeled "URGENT" gets forwarded to me.
Also, my wife and I use the two-way radio alot. In some ways its less "impersonal" since people can hear the other side of the conversation. And people accept screaming into a walkie-talkie better then into a Cell Phone anyway.
But on the two-way radio is simply an "Alert" which simply means call me back when you get a chance.
In reality though, even though its fun to think of punishing people for thier rudeness, or shocking people into being more social the solutions are already out there. Vibrate modes, and cell phones that you don't need to yell into these days.
I don't think that we need to return to the days captured in Bugs Bunny cartoons of stopping a movie and having someone scream "Is there A Doctor (So and So) In the house?"
__________________________
OnRoad:Hacking that which costs more money and is more deadly. (Its a just car enthusiast site really)
When I do a search on gnutella, I used to get nothing but good information. Then about three months ago I started seeing files like (say I was searching for Avalanches)
...and so forth. Its pretty easy to avoid them, I don't think they are fooling anyone. I've never even clicked on them to see what they actually contained.
Avalanches.jpg
Avalanches.mpg
Avalanches.mov
Wait, I did get snookered once. I was searching for "Camaflouge" the old Depech-mode sounding 80's band, which I haven't found a way to purchase the CD anyway. One of the files I pulled down turned out to be a really sweet rendition of "I Know that My Redeemer Lives". I suspect it was a fellow mormon reminding me of my values. But I liked the rendition so much that I kept it and play it.
(By the way, I own the Avalanches CD)
________________________
OnRoad: Hacking that which costs more money and is more deadly. (Its just a car-enthusiast site really)
Its not unusual to see such themes as open information in his books. David Brin is active on the NPR front promoting one of the few alternate plans that attempts to stop INS detentions *and* terrorist activity in one fell swoop.
His essay "The Transparent Society" calls for open information that can be used in social policing and accountability. Much of what he models this on came from observing news groups and other (i think he calls them) militant internet movements. Linux itself is one of those movements he mentioned.
If he did use the word militant, it was more a commantary on the way these groups police themselves, and how they band together to wage information war against those they don't like. In Slashdot's case that would be the RIAA, MPAA. For Linux, it would be whatever would try to keep us from hacking our own kernel.
Whats interesting about this is its Orwellian overtones, but lack of a centralized big brother. Anyway, as far as idelogues go I probably like Brin more then say Chomsky or Kato, although they have their simularities.
_________________________
OnRoad:Hacking that which costs more and is more deadly.
I know we like to see things in a context of mortal combat: good v evil, Buccaneers v Eagles, Brazil v Portugal and so on. In fact that natural human inclination is why the 6 o'clock news can't get past politics as anything but "right v left". Just choose two sides, and let one conquer the other one.
While KDE v Gnome was fashionable, say in 1997, I don't think it holds context any more. Gnome has won contracts and support with Sun, IBM and others while KDE has won support with IBM, the EU and others. The programming resources brought to the table here are far from over-extended.
You see, I to like the GTK2 libraries a lot more then GTK. I like how they took the time to build it up with all C code. I like LGPL better then GPL (but I like Artistic better then both).
But for all that I'd switch to KDE in a second if I thought that the wierd foot was out for blood, or that KDE was circling the drain. I just don't think its a competition like that.
_____________________________
OnRoad: Hacking that which costs more and is more deadly.
I used to be an unofficial Catia administrator for a document conversion company. It did give me headaches but that was more becuase I didn't know what I was doing, and management wouldn't get me the help I needed to get things done. Well not until it was too late.
But an illegal immigrant from India came over one day (the only other person willing to work for as little as they wanted to pay) and showed us how easy it could be. For that day we were sitting pretty.
Part of the reason is becuase I want to be more tied to a machine shop is to have access to the equipment. I've taken a fancy to Automobile Engineering again lately, (I've even set up a scoop site I call OnRoad.)
I may be looking at it as greener and over the fence with rose colored glasses. For building kit cars, doing mods and building gladiator robots, theres just no substitute for knowing or working for a machine shop. So you can see why doing sys-and-CAD-admining for a machine shop would be a real cool niche.
when i worked for PTC they hired a ton of MEs
PTC? Is that an outsourcing company or an ME shop?
I've been thinking the same thing, but having been in a lowly sys-admin job for a while I have a taste for something more exotic.
I would really want to get credentialed in some high-end CAD administration like Catia, Cadence or Mentor Graphics (hopefully more mechanical engineering then electrical engineering since I have a degree in ME). It would be cool to be an admin of high end 3-D software also. The ultimate would be admining a Catia shop with its own NC-Mill and other machinist tools.
There the problem seems to be chicken and egg like on a level that is more extreme then sys-admining. I need to find a job that will support me through the multi-thousand dollar seminars. But the jobs all want me to have already taken the seminars and have the experience.
Is there any admins of more specialized exotic software that can share with me how they got there? Perhaps I need to quit this job and get a lower paying ME job to get there.
Luckily there are new Best-Seller lists that are purely based on sales. Apperently, New York Times and other lists would make "editorial" changes to lower the rankings of fantasy and sci-fi books.
Well, actually maybe that isn't good after all...
They were going for Source compatability binary compatability was never a real goal.
Good point. I would be very interested in if anyone ever did get Netscape to compile with lesstif.
ESR goes into netscape to speak with everyone and they ask him do we release a working netscape, or one that we've put a lot of time into and think will be releasable soon showing yet again his stunning lack of clue
Ahh yes, the exciting time of snake oil salesmen and carpet baggers.
Current releases of Mozilla use GTK, IIRC.
I may have spoken to shortly, I meant GTK-Mozilla. I have no idea how much GTK mozilla uses, but its very small if anything. A GTK version of Mozilla is called Galeon, and is being ported to GTK2 right now. I only hope that Evolution has as much speed up as Galeon did moving over to GTK2.
I think their News search is downright revolutionary. Not only do I get news categorized by what people really want to see but I can instantly check out viewpoints from all sides at the same time.
Its now my primary news source.
Its just one of many ways that Anthrax is like The Cure.
Alternative browser development came to a standstill when netscape released the code.
Years from now, when documentaries are written and case studies developed I think we will see many eyes looking at that moment. It didn't come to a standstill, it took off very quickly and then something wierd happened. I remember it well...
Netscape opens the code, and in the Gtk v KDE flame wars two teams take to porting the code to their framework. the problem? It was built off of Motif, a non-free gui toolkit.
With the swiftness of the Open Source community, all of a sudden we had three "almost there" choices for a completely free Netscape. Seemingly just as quickly all were abandoned by the freedom offered by this software movement.
QT-Mozilla and the subsequent KMozilla (if I remember right) was finished in a month by porting it to the QT toolkit of the day. Not to be outdone GTK-Mozilla announced that whatever they could do, we could do better and a sole programmer began the effort, with a few joining later.
Back at the ranch, JWZ felt that it would have be far easier to pound out the last few details in "Lesstif" and link off of that. The Lesstif people were very close to binary compatibility with version 1 of Motif.
Then for all the work going on it then it seems to have run out of steam. As far as I know (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), lesstif still can't dynamically link to netscape, GTK was abandoned, and the KDE people abandoned Netscape code entirely.
So why it those three easiest paths were abandoned so quickly is the stuff that PBS is made of, and I'll probably never know until someone takes it up.
My OS course is getting a bit fuzzy already, but we were lucky enough to have a visiting professor from a real university teach it. Profesor Tsuni was one of the best teachers I had.
But back to the point, and excuse the "obviousness" of the questions. But HT sounded like a way to more efficiently use the pipelines on modern processors by allowing multiple threads to work on them.
And here is the fuzzy part, or maybe I'm just not remembering correctly. Do the multiple threads need to be in the same process? If so, I remember the linux kernel threading actually throws threads out as new full processes, and I'm unsure of how the CPU can track that. Or is the scheduler smart enough to send processes down the queue in an order where threads that can share processor time easier are sent together?
Also, if some of the posts are correct it seems that multiple processors show up in Top. Off hand I wonder if this hamper or help OpenMosix's algorithms that decide where to place processes to run.
I don't think the Mozilla guys should take Apple's decision as anything more than Apple trying to do what's best for Apple.
Although its natural to feel sad to see your work rejected in this sense, I agree. I'm pretty clueless of any political matters that could have driven this decision other then the particular technical merits of the application.
Its like watching models try out for a shoot, all of them are beautiful and you'd give your right arm to date. While the client could be looking for a particular kind of beauty expressed in "edginess" or "innocence", women walk away crying thinking it was their beauty in general that was rejected.
I'll continue to use Mozilla, if it makes the developers happy!
Or Galeon, in my case. I was using Galeon 2 until it required some development libraries in Gnome but I loved it while I was using it. I hope Evolution 2 gets simular speed increases from gtk2.
I personally think Mozilla is past the age of wondering if it will survive or not. Using its modular approach, and gaining the branches it did has ensured quite the likelihood of survival.
It looks like the creationists (or, at least, trolls pretending to be creationists) haven't come out of the woodwork yet.
Indeed.
God created the laws of nature
So you had to be the first creationist to speak up.
To me creationism is a form of denial
But then you deride it.
I guess my problem is still, that creationism simply means that God created heavens and earth.
I realize you probably have had some difficult times with other creationists in the past. I think everyone has. But it really looks to me like your trying to have you're cake and eat it too. Your trying to deride creationists, yet still hold on to a belief that God created the earth and the stuff on it.
Perhaps this is better reconsiled by categorizing certain creationist doctrines that you do not espouse. Like me, I am a creationist, but not a Young Earth creationist. Well, even then I agree with some things, but do not think everything was created 6000 some odd years ago plus six days. I don't even think that view is biblicaly sound.
This compartmentalizing needs to happen with the evolutionists also. For instance I agree that evolution happens if you are simply saying that things change over time, and changes that don't work don't propegate.
But I don't agree that we can replace God with "randomness," or that evolution left to its own devices would make anything more complicated then a Macro Phage.
We talk about the laws of physics, but has anyone learned the laws of genetic coding yet? I think that when we do we will find out why such things as a ball and socket hip joint (as used by bipeds) keeps getting killed off but coming back in exactly the same shape many years later. I think when we do, we will see the same craftsmanship in its laws that Einstien saw in physics and call such a fingerprint as belonging to "God".
But between now and then, we'll find out that great fundamental building blocks that we relied on as part of evolutionary theory were only scaffolding for bigger better concepts (much like the mystery of the "cone" in its sections for planetary orbits was replaced with gravitational laws that allowed for interactions with more then one body at a time, and were therefore much more accurate.)
In closing, there is simply too much going on to try to make umbrellas out of the words "evolution" and "creation". Neither of them are developed very well yet.
Make a rat the ringbearer by gluing the One Ring to the back of a rat.
And then watch that rat, under control of the ring run straight to Sauron when you let it out of the bag. Or even worse, the ring slips onto the fingers of the person doing the glue job. Oh oh!
Didn't think this one out very far did you?
Remember that the Eagles reached Mount Doom from the Black Gate in time to pick up Frodo before the lava crushes him.
True...
This means in under five minutes.
Give or take a half an hour.
Now measure how far this is on the map. This means they can cross the entire world in under an hour.
I never knew that JRRT drew a map of the entire world. Of course you don't mean the map of "middle" earth, that didn't include much of the north, south, east or west.
They would have been invincible to all weapons based purely on their altitude.
That sounds like you are writing the rest of the story. He had explosives, and projectiles so your "rest of the story" isn't even very plausible.
against 10,000 elven archers mounted on Eagles.
Mounted? Eagles always carried and were never ridden. Of all people that understood that, it would be the eldar.
The only option is that Gandalf was suicidal or an agent of darkness.
How do you get this? It may be true, but you'd never know it from your monday-morning quarterbacking.
From an email I recieved this morning...
The trilogy of "Mad Max" pictures, for all their iconic value, amounted to a rather slender box office, grossing only $69 million in total domestically. That's partly because the 1979 original, released by Village Roadshow, Orion
Pictures and AIP, was hardly seen Stateside at all. The franchise only grew significant with "Mad Max: The Road Warrior."
I don't think he's arguing that it is not said my friend. Behold, this very doctrine was denounced by Paul...
Corinthians 15:
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
Verily, John the beloved did speak of "A", thus we need not imagine to ourselves for we know of a surety that it was spoken.
John 5:
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
The time did come, and was again spoken of by Peter.
Peter 3:
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
Peter 4:
5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
I have to give that a "here-here".
I've completely enjoyed the two episodes I watched.
How Frederick Jackson Turner-ian of you,
Kudos...
Another practice that is very unseemly is to mix rhetorical grandstand pronouncements with science's more humble and sensible approach. A good example of this is how you use the quote above.
John Wilkins correctly colors his language in the realm of possibility. You in turn pronounce it as having "refuted" IR. I take little issue with John Wilkins imagionation because he clearly labels it as such. I do take issue with your choice of words when you say it "refuted" IR. Perhaps you should have also used the word "dispute".
Thats a pretty strong word. If John Wilkins was really refuting it rather then disputing it, he would have used stronger terminology then "One way that functions can be added to irreducibly complex systems...so it can replace the older IR system if necessary".
Essentially avoiding the cruxt of the arguement in my opinion with plausible science fiction, but at least he shows his reasoning as being possible. Indeed I do not dispute or refute its plausibility, some transpositions of genetic code suggest that there might be such a mechanism at work. But then there might not, and it has a long way to go before it is as accepted as evolution itself.
I am a creationist in that I believe God made the heavens and the earth. If that really annoys you as a christian then I might I suggest more self-reflection is in order to reconsile that contradiction as well as the practice of posting hate-lists while following a man that said "turn the other cheek" and "if a man compels thee to walk a mile, go with him twain".
1) You still don't seem to know the difference between "debunk" and "dispute".
2) I'm now the focus of name-calling. I can see why you leave the real debate to others.
3) You can't carry context if you had a dump-truck. The link was not to defend an idea, it was to allow a fair representation of an idea that was incorrectly called a "creationist myth". That it occurs might be a myth, but the concept is not. Whats worse is taking some small point among many, and vaguely linking to where it is disputed and call it "often debunked" as if to invalidate the premise entirely.
Disputing with ambigious authority grabs like "this is frequently debunked on talk.origions" is probably the single most frequently attempted evolutionist arguement.
Notice, lurkers, that the topic of "irriducible complexity" and its ramifications to Dariwn's theory is not answered at all in that post, nor attempted. All we have is a vain nitpick of a small example as if "disputed" means "debunked".