I've used Staples online rebates for a year and a half, and it is much better than mailing them in. You also have proof that you sent in the rebate, and you don't have to cut out the barcode from the package (which makes it better as a gift).
I'm not being a Microsoft fanboy here, I just wanted to make it clear that Microsoft is producing a huge market than many of us here rely on. Microsoft uses their profit for positive benefits to society as well: 1 2 3 4 These are just a few from November, 2005.
Did you know that Microsoft paid no Federal taxes in 1999? And they paid 1.8% on 21.9 billion in pretax profit for 2000-2001.
Also, Microsoft employs more than 12,000 people. These people likely buy products or use services that your employer produces.
GM is going to lay off 30,000 people. They buy products or use services that your employer produces. Better go out and buy a Chevy tonight.
You'd score more points if you didn't recommend an openly anti-religion Web site.
The talkorigins.org website is openly anti-creationist. They have no problem with Christian denominations such as the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Catholic Churches (and others) - who do not have a problem with the theory of evolution.
Of course, your creationist websites are usually anti-religious - they are strongly against any non Christian religion, and often are against many Christian denominations that differ from them in their views.
I've had a number of SGIs fail. But we run them until they die. We usually got at least 6-7 years out of the machines, and some over 10 years. We now just use them to run a few old applications.
We already have problems with DVDs and CDs going bad. From what I've read, the Blu-Ray discs may be even more fragile due to their extremely thin protective layer. If I am to pick between the two coming standards (Blu-Ray vs HD), I'll choose the more reliable one.
It would be interesting to see how many of the posters here who are defending Gore on the basis of out of context quotes would do the same for Quayle and "potatoe".
Intelligent Design is just as "scientific" as evolution. Evolution as a whole isn't scientific.
What is the scientific theory of ID?
And virtually all biologists would disagree with your opinion that evolution isn't scientific.
Indeed, evolution itself argues for the possibility, even the likelyhood of intelligent design. Do you think that of all the planets in all the stars of the galaxy, we humans are the first intelligent race to evolve?
We very well might not be the first intellegent species in the universe, but that does not make any arguement in support of ID.
Personally, I don't think that public schools should teach any origin theories. Kids don't need it. "Where do we come from?" is fundamentally a religious issue, along with "Why are we here?" Just leave it alone and let the parents explain it.
Yep, lets just not teach the scientific theory that is the foundation of modern biology.
Fossils came from the catastrophic, world wide flood described in Genesis 7:17 through 7:24. (Reference) And if you study fossilization, I believe that you would find that the catastrophic answer makes more sense (I am not a Geologist or Palentologist, however.)
No, you are obviously not a Geologist or a Palentologist. The order and uniformity of the fossil record is completely different than what you would get from a "world wide flood".
Check peer reviewed scientific journals covering the fields of geology or palentology. You will see no papers that support the idea of the fossil record created by a "world wide flood" - or for that matter, any paper supporting the idea that a "world wide flood" ever occured.
You appear not to have done very much with Solaris. It seems pretty clear that Linux cannot support very sophisticated hardware (say, more than 8 CPUs), whereas Solaris can.
If size is not an issue, don't use AAA batteries - use AA instead. The AA batteries usually have twice the capacity of similar AAA batteries at about the same price.
Sorry I haven't been able to repond before this - my wife has claimed the computer the last few days for writing her sunday school lessons, so my time online has been limited.
If the "Evolutionary Method" that you claim was the method used for the theory of evolution was true, the entire scientific community would be up in arms against the theory of evolution. You could find articles in peer reviewed scienfic journals that would be arguing the theory. But you would find.... nothing, no disagreement or debate. As an example, go to the library, and go through issues of the journal Science. You will see no debate there.
What little debate on evolution in the scientific community is on minor issues, sort of like arguing about the differences between the Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church.
from a Bible teacher who is also a scientist
Many people who are expert in one field, have only a laymans knowledge (or less) of other fields. Now, if you tried you argue creationism with my wife, you would be out of luck, because she is a biologist who does biological research, went to a methodist college, and teaches sunday school.
Newton - lived well before Darwin's theory of evolution.
To quote Pasteur:
Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely.
The "large number of creationist scientists" consists of people who lived before the theory of evolution, out of context quotes, and scientists in other fields that have no real familiarity with biology and the theory of evolution.
The Evolutionary Method seems to go like this: You make an assumption. You look at the facts for "evidence" to support your assumption. Then you discard everything that doesn't help you. (The second step must be optional since evolution today is taught as "fact" in our schools despite not having any evidence to support it.)
ROTFL. That is the creationist method.
BTW, a growing number our top scientists are rejecting evolution.
Wishful thinking on your part. Virtually no scientist that works in the areas directly related to evolution (such as biology) reject evolution.
A question for you: Why do major Christian denominations such as the Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, and others have no problem with the theory of evolution?
Of course, the quote by Darwin is taken out of context. Darwin then describes how the eye might evolve by gradual steps. From eye complexity,
1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
* photosensitive cell
* aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
* an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
* pigment cells forming a small depression
* pigment cells forming a deeper depression
* the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
* muscles allowing the lens to adjust
All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
What is the scientific theory of intellegent design? In the court case in Ohio a few years ago the IDers couldn't come up with one.
If you want to be honest with yourself and examine the origins of the universe based on purely factual knowledge, we, as a human race, know absolutely nothing about how the universe was formed.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe. It only is about the changes in a population of living things.
your opinion is based on mostly faith.
There is a big difference between religious faith (belief in the absence of facts), and belief in scientific theories that are based on facts.
The point is, it's very hypocritical to promote the teaching of evolution while denying intelligent design.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, "intellegent design" is not. So ID should not be taught in a science class.
Personally, I think ID should stand for "Idiot Design" - if someone designed us, why did they screw up so badly on so many things?
What is the scientific theory of creationism? Only science should be taught in the science class.
And if you want to have a separate class to teach creationism in, then which creationism? Hint: there are many religions that have their own creation story. Many of them have the same amount of evidence.
And most major Christian denominations have no problem with the theory of evolution - such as the Catholic church, Methodist church, Presbyterian chuch, etc.
After all, Atheists like Mao and Stalin have been directly responsible for far more deaths than even the Inquisition in its heyday.
Or would you care to re-think your argument? (-:
A poor arguement. People were tortured and killed by the Inquisition because of their religious beliefs, while people were tortured and killed by Mao and Stalin because they were percieved as possible threats to their power.
What the evidence says in geology is that an awful lot of rock was emplaced and removed very rapidly, essentially in a single operation in most cases.
What the evidence says in paleontology is that the nice fossil sequences don't always occur, sometimes the'yre reversed without evidence of intrusion, reworking or en-bloc inversion. Sometimes they're essentially random. Outside materialist assumptions, there is no evidence that paraconformities exist. There are also alternative explanations for fossil ordering which make much more empirical sense than gradual deposition, but which are canonically discarded out of respect for the same materialist assumptions.
Slashdot Mirror
I've used Staples online rebates for a year and a half, and it is much better than mailing them in. You also have proof that you sent in the rebate, and you don't have to cut out the barcode from the package (which makes it better as a gift).
The easiest way is to edit your "hosts" file
/etc/hosts
Unix/Linux:
Win XP: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\ETC\HOSTS
Win 2K: C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\ETC\HOSTS
and add this entry:
127.0.0.1 slashdot.org
I'm not being a Microsoft fanboy here, I just wanted to make it clear that Microsoft is producing a huge market than many of us here rely on. Microsoft uses their profit for positive benefits to society as well: 1 2 3 4 These are just a few from November, 2005.
Did you know that Microsoft paid no Federal taxes in 1999? And they paid 1.8% on 21.9 billion in pretax profit for 2000-2001.
Also, Microsoft employs more than 12,000 people. These people likely buy products or use services that your employer produces.
GM is going to lay off 30,000 people. They buy products or use services that your employer produces. Better go out and buy a Chevy tonight.
You'd score more points if you didn't recommend an openly anti-religion Web site.
The talkorigins.org website is openly anti-creationist. They have no problem with Christian denominations such as the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Catholic Churches (and others) - who do not have a problem with the theory of evolution.
Of course, your creationist websites are usually anti-religious - they are strongly against any non Christian religion, and often are against many Christian denominations that differ from them in their views.
You disgust me. You're a bigot and a fool.
says the foolish bigot.
I've had a number of SGIs fail. But we run them until they die. We usually got at least 6-7 years out of the machines, and some over 10 years. We now just use them to run a few old applications.
Disney's contract with Ghibli prohibit them from editing the movies.
We already have problems with DVDs and CDs going bad. From what I've read, the Blu-Ray discs may be even more fragile due to their extremely thin protective layer. If I am to pick between the two coming standards (Blu-Ray vs HD), I'll choose the more reliable one.
It would be interesting to see how many of the posters here who are defending Gore on the basis of out of context quotes would do the same for Quayle and "potatoe".
Intelligent Design is just as "scientific" as evolution. Evolution as a whole isn't scientific.
What is the scientific theory of ID?
And virtually all biologists would disagree with your opinion that evolution isn't scientific.
Indeed, evolution itself argues for the possibility, even the likelyhood of intelligent design. Do you think that of all the planets in all the stars of the galaxy, we humans are the first intelligent race to evolve?
We very well might not be the first intellegent species in the universe, but that does not make any arguement in support of ID.
Personally, I don't think that public schools should teach any origin theories. Kids don't need it. "Where do we come from?" is fundamentally a religious issue, along with "Why are we here?" Just leave it alone and let the parents explain it.
Yep, lets just not teach the scientific theory that is the foundation of modern biology.
But only science should be taught in the science class. And Intellegent Design is not a scientific theory.
Fossils came from the catastrophic, world wide flood described in Genesis 7:17 through 7:24. (Reference) And if you study fossilization, I believe that you would find that the catastrophic answer makes more sense (I am not a Geologist or Palentologist, however.)
No, you are obviously not a Geologist or a Palentologist. The order and uniformity of the fossil record is completely different than what you would get from a "world wide flood".
Check peer reviewed scientific journals covering the fields of geology or palentology. You will see no papers that support the idea of the fossil record created by a "world wide flood" - or for that matter, any paper supporting the idea that a "world wide flood" ever occured.
You appear not to have done very much with Solaris. It seems pretty clear that Linux cannot support very sophisticated hardware (say, more than 8 CPUs), whereas Solaris can.
SGI Altix. Up to 256 processors. OS? Linux.
If size is not an issue, don't use AAA batteries - use AA instead. The AA batteries usually have twice the capacity of similar AAA batteries at about the same price.
Sorry I haven't been able to repond before this - my wife has claimed the computer the last few days for writing her sunday school lessons, so my time online has been limited.
.... nothing, no disagreement or debate. As an example, go to the library, and go through issues of the journal Science. You will see no debate there.
If the "Evolutionary Method" that you claim was the method used for the theory of evolution was true, the entire scientific community would be up in arms against the theory of evolution. You could find articles in peer reviewed scienfic journals that would be arguing the theory. But you would find
What little debate on evolution in the scientific community is on minor issues, sort of like arguing about the differences between the Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church.
from a Bible teacher who is also a scientist
Many people who are expert in one field, have only a laymans knowledge (or less) of other fields. Now, if you tried you argue creationism with my wife, you would be out of luck, because she is a biologist who does biological research, went to a methodist college, and teaches sunday school.
Newton - lived well before Darwin's theory of evolution.
To quote Pasteur:
Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely.
The "large number of creationist scientists" consists of people who lived before the theory of evolution, out of context quotes, and scientists in other fields that have no real familiarity with biology and the theory of evolution.
The Evolutionary Method seems to go like this: You make an assumption. You look at the facts for "evidence" to support your assumption. Then you discard everything that doesn't help you. (The second step must be optional since evolution today is taught as "fact" in our schools despite not having any evidence to support it.)
ROTFL. That is the creationist method.
BTW, a growing number our top scientists are rejecting evolution.
Wishful thinking on your part. Virtually no scientist that works in the areas directly related to evolution (such as biology) reject evolution.
A question for you: Why do major Christian denominations such as the Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, and others have no problem with the theory of evolution?
Of course, the quote by Darwin is taken out of context. Darwin then describes how the eye might evolve by gradual steps. From eye complexity,
1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
* photosensitive cell
* aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
* an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
* pigment cells forming a small depression
* pigment cells forming a deeper depression
* the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
* muscles allowing the lens to adjust
All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
What is the scientific theory of intellegent design? In the court case in Ohio a few years ago the IDers couldn't come up with one.
If you want to be honest with yourself and examine the origins of the universe based on purely factual knowledge, we, as a human race, know absolutely nothing about how the universe was formed.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe. It only is about the changes in a population of living things.
your opinion is based on mostly faith.
There is a big difference between religious faith (belief in the absence of facts), and belief in scientific theories that are based on facts.
The point is, it's very hypocritical to promote the teaching of evolution while denying intelligent design.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, "intellegent design" is not. So ID should not be taught in a science class.
Personally, I think ID should stand for "Idiot Design" - if someone designed us, why did they screw up so badly on so many things?
What is the scientific theory of creationism? Only science should be taught in the science class.
And if you want to have a separate class to teach creationism in, then which creationism? Hint: there are many religions that have their own creation story. Many of them have the same amount of evidence.
And most major Christian denominations have no problem with the theory of evolution - such as the Catholic church, Methodist church, Presbyterian chuch, etc.
Just do a search on EDS and "NMCI" - the Navy - Marine Corps Intranet. Fucked up (and is still fucking up) big on that.
The only reason I can figure that it's been banned would be if there is a Taiwanese team as an option.
This thread doesn't have an icon. You need to get an "evil" icon for topics like these. Until then, just use the Microsoft or SCO icon.
Oh well, others probably to follow suit.
Canon sells a couple of SD card cameras, including my PowerShot SD100.
-asb
Or would you care to re-think your argument? (-:
A poor arguement. People were tortured and killed by the Inquisition because of their religious beliefs, while people were tortured and killed by Mao and Stalin because they were percieved as possible threats to their power.
What the evidence says in paleontology is that the nice fossil sequences don't always occur, sometimes the'yre reversed without evidence of intrusion, reworking or en-bloc inversion. Sometimes they're essentially random. Outside materialist assumptions, there is no evidence that paraconformities exist. There are also alternative explanations for fossil ordering which make much more empirical sense than gradual deposition, but which are canonically discarded out of respect for the same materialist assumptions.
Sounds like you are claiming "the great flood".
-asb