Maybe not as a movie, but as a sitcom? College student with lots of cute girls (mostly robot girls), with plenty of soft fanservice? Sounds better than 90% of the stuff out there.....
At most we average 1 per night. Big freaken deal! One thing I will say is that it is okay to not answer the phone if you're in the middle of a sit down dinner with your family.
Well, some of us get *alot* more calls than that.
It's a common courtesy to answer every single phone call you can.
Telemarketers don't deserve any courtesy. They are unwelcome visitors, to put it politely.
I've talked to former telemarketers and they prefer my method. It waists no time. Doing the whole, "Put me on your DNC list is a waste of time.
I really don't care what they prefer. And saying "Put me on your Do Not Call List" takes 1-2 seconds longer than saying "No". And gives you possible legal recourse.
A few years ago, I kept on getting calls from a home remodeling company. When I told them to put me on their DNC list, they didn't even know what that was. I called up the company, explaining that they were opening themselves up to many lawsuits, and they stopped calling. Today, I'd just sue them.
You betcha. We have a PS2, and the games on the Xbox are pretty much along the same lines as what you can get for the PS2, which gives no reason to want a Xbox, at least for us. But a Gamecube offers types of games not available on the other ones, and more games that are kid-friendly (myself? I'm a real perverted SOB but the console is for everyone in our family).
It's a pain in the butt to find new games that my 8 year old daughter likes for our PS2 - a Gamecube just has more of what she likes. Like El Camino SS said, it is a DUAL PURCHASE. So if I could add a machine, it would be a Gamecube. And if I didn't have any machine at all, I would probably buy a Gamecube, since it also has enough of the types of games that the PS2 and Xbox have.
Yes, but George W. Officeholder still wants Joe Public to vote (for him), and he will do his best to get Joe out of his recliner and to the polls.
And of course, how dies he get Joe Public out? By running ads, paid for using contributions to George W. Officeholder that came from various lobbying groups like the MPAA and its members.
What I am against is the advocacy that Biological Evolution is an established fact explaining the origin of life
No scientist working in the fields related to biological evolution would advocate that evolution explains the origin of life. Evolution occurs *after* life originated. The field related to the origin of life is called abiogenesis.
and apply scientific methods to supernatural explanations
Since the scientific method relies on naturalism, it cannot be used for investigating supernatural phenonoma.
"The best measurements have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year (1)." (Morris 1974, p. 152) [emphasis added]
Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He published calculations which measured the amount of nickel he collected, assumed that nickel was only present in meteoritic dust, and assumed that some percentage of meteoritic dust was nickel, to get his final figures (that first assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate).
Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million tons per year. He believed that estimate to be an over-estimate, and indicated in the paper that 5 million tons per year was a much more likely figure.
Much more accurate measurements were available, from satellite penetration data (no possibility of earthly contamination), by the time Morris published Scientific Creationism. These more accurate measurements give the value of about 18,000 to 25,000 tons per year. These measurements agree with levels of meteoritic dust levels trapped in sediments on Earth. (That is, they are verified by an independent cross-check.)
Morris chooses to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. His calculations are based on a figure that is nearly three orders of magnitude too high. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the moon is less than one foot.
There is a difference between the "faith" one has in science, and a religious "faith". I believe that I will not fall through the floor when I walk on it; I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. This is far different than a religious belief.
The author of the article underplays the effects of the corrupt telecommuncations companies. The so called boom of the late nineties was due in part to their fraudulent accounting and illegal/questionable business practices. The bust now is due in large part to the chickens coming home to roost.
So the idea that: the telecom industry was doing great in the late 90's, and so did the economy; the telecom industry is doing bad now, and so is the economy doesn't imply that fixing the telecom industry will save the economy.
The whole piece sounds too much like someone pushing for a bill to "save the economy" for some lobbying group. Back when the tauzin-dengal bill (and the opposing industry groups bill) were being debated in congress, the DC area radio stations were flooded with ads explaining how their bill will jump start the economy, and the other bill will give gloom and doom.
The best example I know of this is Microsoft. Billions of dollars have been lost due to their buggy and insecure products. And how much money has been collected from them?
I'm a southern baptist and I can tell you that any denomination that rejects the worldwide flood are not in line Biblical orthodoxy and are flat out wrong
No, they just reject that there was a global flood, and take it as being a very bad local flood. If you are worried about Biblical orthodoxy, you should be bothered that Genesis 1 and 2 don't agree exactly, or the two different ways Judas died.
Evolution fails to explain the cambrian explosion, how dinosaurs made the leap to birds, how small mammals became mammoths. It fails to explain, scientifically, the transition periods between species. There are no clear transitional forms and without those evolution can not stand real scientific scrutiny because evolution is supposed to explain those transitions which we have yet to come across.
Sorry, despite some creationist claims, there are no problems with the cambrian explosion. To quote Chris Nedin:
What most people think of as the "Cambrian Explosion" is, in actual fact, not a sudden burst of life, but a rapid increase in the number of fossils found in the fossil record. This is because around this time organisms started to mineralize their exoskeletons using the abundant calcium and carbonate from the surrounding seawater. Previously to this, organisms had entirely organic exoskeletons similar to many insects today. This type of exoskeleton is not easily preserved and usually decays too rapidly to survive as a fossil. The much tougher mineralized exoskeletons preserved far better, resulting in a large increase in the number of fossils.
The second claim usually made about the "Cambrian Explosion" is that most if not all of the major animal groups came into existance at this time. This claim is not correct. It is almost certain that such major groups as annelids (worms), cnidarian (corals and jellyfish), gastropods (snails) and probably arthropods have a pre-Cambrian history. It should be pointed out that almost all pre-Cambrian fossils have no hard parts such as mineralized exoskeletons, and as such they are very unlikely to be preserved.
While there was a rapid (over a 5-10 million year period) diversification of animal life during the "Cambrian Explosion", this was a diversification from an already existing stem stock of organisms, which were soft bodied and thus underrepresented in the fossil record.
What we see in the fossil record are representatives of all the major groups which possess mineralized body parts. This record funnels back to the Early Cambrian where most of the groups apparently disappear. This disappearance does not represent the origin of the group, as some would suggest, but the origin of mineralized hard parts. The groups continue to exist below their occurrence in the fossil record, but they appear to be absent because they have no hard parts and are not fossilised.
The "Cambrian Explosion" represents what we call a taphanomic boundary, that is, it represents a large increase in the chances of organisms to be fossilised (by having hard parts) and hence appear in the fossil record. It does not represent the origin of those groups.
As far as transitional forms, here is URL to a FAQ on it: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h tml It also covers transitions from reptiles to mammals, and reptiles to birds. Again, evolution has no problems with transitional forms.
Why is it that my child has to learn about an ill-proven at an age where they aren't making the distinction between theory and hard scientific fact....teach them the fundamentals first and save the theories until they can make an accurate discernment...and always teach it as theory....
Well, the evidence shows that species evolved. There is no theory there. Now the theory explains how and why they evolved, and makes predictions - the theory makes the facts far more valuable than a set of datapoints.
Then likewise the religion of "evolution" should also be regulated, and banned from our education system. I for one do not wish for my children to be indoctrinated at an early age with such cock-eyed ideas as the world took billions of years to form. Especially since the great majority of modern school text books contain "facts" regarding our planet's evolution that have been disproven in the scientific community.
No, the theory of evolution is not a "religion".
It is a scientific theory that explains the evidence, just like the theory of gravity explains the evidence. The thoery of evolution is one of the best supported theories in science, and is the foundation of biology. So it should be taught in a science class.
That the world took billions of years to form is supported by physics, geology, and astronomy.
It should be noted that most of the major Christian denominations have no problem with evolution, or that the earth is billions of years old.
explain to me why every major faith remembers a world-wide flood.
Probably because most cities are along bodies of water. BTW, most Christian denominations don't believe that there was a "worldwide" flood. That was disproven 200 years ago, ironically by geologists out to prove the flood.
if you weren't there then you can't prove it
Can you disprove that the world was created Wednesday, and that all of our memories of the past, etc were also created? You can't.
evolution is a faith built on smoke, mirrors or bad ideas and assumptions about how we think things should work.
No evolution is not a "faith" in the religious sense. The theory of evolution explains the evidence, and makes predictions. Just like any scientific theory. It also is the foundation of biology.
It's illegal to teach anything that contradicts with Evolution and I'm not just talking about Creation here (research this if you are interested).
In science, you have data, and you have theories that explain the data.
Evolution has occured; we know this from observing it in nature and from the fossel record. The theory of evolution explains the data. Just like we have observation of the effects of gravity, and we have a theory of gravity that explain the data.
The theory of evolution is a well supported scientific theory, and is the foundation of modern biology. So it should be taught in a science class.
Are you implying that Intelegent Design should be taught in a classroom? It's creationism with "God" edited out and replaced with an "intellegent designer" (wink,wink). Creationism isn't a scientific theory, and therefore shouldn't be taught in a science class. You could teach it in a religious class.
It means that the other divisions at Sony operated at a loss, so the total profit at Sony was less than the profit generated by the Playstation related items.
THe real reason why Microsoft is doing this is they want to be the DRM gatekeeper. All digital media will end up going through them, and they will come up with new standards and schemes to get a percentage on all of this information. Look at the new Mpeg 4 standard - they are planning to charge for the data stream. It's where MS wants to go today.
Closed source programs are typically not free. If a bug shows up in it, will you have to wait until the next release for the fix, and will you have to pay for it it you don't have maintainence?
Not to sound cheap, but sometimes it can be a PITA to grab some funds & do the usual hoop jumping to get a purchase order cut. And it can take a *long* time, depending on the approval channels.
With Apache, I had our webserver updated in a few minutes of reading the announcement of the fix.
I kind of suspected you were operating from a different planet. I strongly suggest starting with the actual names, `Darwinian Evolution' and `Social Darwinism' and see if you can draw at least the tiniest smidgeon of commonality from them.
This reminds me of an article in the newspapers a few years ago, about a church called "The Church of Jesus Christ and Arian Nation". Are you saying that if someone hijacks a term and perverts it, that it then reflects on the original? Once again I have to ask you: I find both uses wrong; how about you?
-asb
Re:Social Darwinism (long)
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 1
It's probably important for your understanding to point out that `Roman Catholic' and `Christian' are concepts which overlap in places but are most definitely not identity.
ROTFL. Trying to rewrite the rules as far as who are Christians. Why am I not surprised?
If he were speaking from a Roman Catholic perspective, his conclusion could match in one of several ways. The Roman Catholic Church supported Adolf up to the point where it became obvious that he was going to lose, then they shafted him.
Amazing. You and your buddies are really off the deep end.
BTW, compared with how he treated other peoples, Hitler wasn't actually that hard on the Jews. The six-million figure often quoted is clearly bullshit (population figures can't possibly support it), it was likely of the order of a million. He killed more Czeks than that.
A holocost revisionist, too.
In summary of all of the above, I don't believe Adolf to have been misapplying Darwinism. Darwin himself used Darwinism that way, regarding Negroes as biologically inferior and destined one day to fade away, the victims of natural selection. It's an inescapable conclusion of any reasoning which starts with natural selection as a base.
Once again, you are wrong. "Social Darwinism" is a policy to let the weak and unfit to die. That's not the theory of evolution. I doubt that Darwin would think that Negroes wuld fade away; rather he would think that they were well adapted for their enviroment. Darwin was also liberal about race for his time, and was anti-slavery. Don't forget that at the time he proposed his theory, 1859, there were many slaveholders and their supporters in the US using the bible in an attempt to show that slavery was right.
Adolf was misusing the theory of evolution as much as he was misusing Christianity - history has shown that the bible is open to "interesting" interpretations, This includes creationism, which is plain bad theology. And that is why most, if not all of the major Christian denominations do not have any problems with the theory of evolution. But hey, I won't be surprised if you think that they really aren't "Christian", too.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe not as a movie, but as a sitcom? College student with lots of cute girls (mostly robot girls), with plenty of soft fanservice? Sounds better than 90% of the stuff out there.....
-asb
At most we average 1 per night. Big freaken deal! One thing I will say is that it is okay to not answer the phone if you're in the middle of a sit down dinner with your family.
Well, some of us get *alot* more calls than that.
It's a common courtesy to answer every single phone call you can.
Telemarketers don't deserve any courtesy. They are unwelcome visitors, to put it politely.
I've talked to former telemarketers and they prefer my method. It waists no time. Doing the whole, "Put me on your DNC list is a waste of time.
I really don't care what they prefer. And saying "Put me on your Do Not Call List" takes 1-2 seconds longer than saying "No". And gives you possible legal recourse.
A few years ago, I kept on getting calls from a home remodeling company. When I told them to put me on their DNC list, they didn't even know what that was. I called up the company, explaining that they were opening themselves up to many lawsuits, and they stopped calling. Today, I'd just sue them.
-asb
You betcha. We have a PS2, and the games on the Xbox are pretty much along the same lines as what you can get for the PS2, which gives no reason to want a Xbox, at least for us. But a Gamecube offers types of games not available on the other ones, and more games that are kid-friendly (myself? I'm a real perverted SOB but the console is for everyone in our family).
It's a pain in the butt to find new games that my 8 year old daughter likes for our PS2 - a Gamecube just has more of what she likes. Like El Camino SS said, it is a DUAL PURCHASE. So if I could add a machine, it would be a Gamecube. And if I didn't have any machine at all, I would probably buy a Gamecube, since it also has enough of the types of games that the PS2 and Xbox have.
-asb
Yes, but George W. Officeholder still wants Joe Public to vote (for him), and he will do his best to get Joe out of his recliner and to the polls.
And of course, how dies he get Joe Public out? By running ads, paid for using contributions to George W. Officeholder that came from various lobbying groups like the MPAA and its members.
-asb
The real question is:
Why does software suck so much?
-asb
Well, I was getting 840kBps here - each ISO took less than 15 minutes to download. While surfing, too.
-asb
I interpret what he said refers to current products. The current version of windows isn't dos based anymore.
-asb
If you read about the experiences of the Samba team, you get the impression that Microsoft products are slapped together.
-asb
What I am against is the advocacy that Biological Evolution is an established fact explaining the origin of life
No scientist working in the fields related to biological evolution would advocate that evolution explains the origin of life. Evolution occurs *after* life originated. The field related to the origin of life is called abiogenesis.
and apply scientific methods to supernatural explanations
Since the scientific method relies on naturalism, it cannot be used for investigating supernatural phenonoma.
-asp
From the talkorigins.org website:
(Morris is a well known creationist)
Morris says, regarding the dust influx rate:
"The best measurements have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year (1)." (Morris 1974, p. 152) [emphasis added]
Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He published calculations which measured the amount of nickel he collected, assumed that nickel was only present in meteoritic dust, and assumed that some percentage of meteoritic dust was nickel, to get his final figures (that first assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate).
Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million tons per year. He believed that estimate to be an over-estimate, and indicated in the paper that 5 million tons per year was a much more likely figure.
Much more accurate measurements were available, from satellite penetration data (no possibility of earthly contamination), by the time Morris published Scientific Creationism. These more accurate measurements give the value of about 18,000 to 25,000 tons per year. These measurements agree with levels of meteoritic dust levels trapped in sediments on Earth. (That is, they are verified by an independent cross-check.)
Morris chooses to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. His calculations are based on a figure that is nearly three orders of magnitude too high. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the moon is less than one foot.
-asb
There is a difference between the "faith" one has in science, and a religious "faith". I believe that I will not fall through the floor when I walk on it; I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. This is far different than a religious belief.
-asb
The author of the article underplays the effects of the corrupt telecommuncations companies. The so called boom of the late nineties was due in part to their fraudulent accounting and illegal/questionable business practices. The bust now is due in large part to the chickens coming home to roost.
So the idea that: the telecom industry was doing great in the late 90's, and so did the economy; the telecom industry is doing bad now, and so is the economy doesn't imply that fixing the telecom industry will save the economy.
The whole piece sounds too much like someone pushing for a bill to "save the economy" for some lobbying group. Back when the tauzin-dengal bill (and the opposing industry groups bill) were being debated in congress, the DC area radio stations were flooded with ads explaining how their bill will jump start the economy, and the other bill will give gloom and doom.
-asb
The best example I know of this is Microsoft. Billions of dollars have been lost due to their buggy and insecure products. And how much money has been collected from them?
-asb
There is a massive rift between humans and every other species on this planet that no amount of evolution can account for.
We have enough fossils to have a pretty good idea of the transition from a common ancestor with the apes, to modern humans.
-asb
I'm a southern baptist and I can tell you that any denomination that rejects the worldwide flood are not in line Biblical orthodoxy and are flat out wrong
No, they just reject that there was a global flood, and take it as being a very bad local flood. If you are worried about Biblical orthodoxy, you should be bothered that Genesis 1 and 2 don't agree exactly, or the two different ways Judas died.
Evolution fails to explain the cambrian explosion, how dinosaurs made the leap to birds, how small mammals became mammoths. It fails to explain, scientifically, the transition periods between species. There are no clear transitional forms and without those evolution can not stand real scientific scrutiny because evolution is supposed to explain those transitions which we have yet to come across.
Sorry, despite some creationist claims, there are no problems with the cambrian explosion. To quote
Chris Nedin:
As far as transitional forms, here is URL to a FAQ on it: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.
Why is it that my child has to learn about an ill-proven at an age where they aren't making the distinction between theory and hard scientific fact....teach them the fundamentals first and save the theories until they can make an accurate discernment...and always teach it as theory....
Well, the evidence shows that species evolved. There is no theory there. Now the theory explains how and why they evolved, and makes predictions - the theory makes the facts far more valuable than a set of datapoints.
-asb
Then likewise the religion of "evolution" should also be regulated, and banned from our education system. I for one do not wish for my children to be indoctrinated at an early age with such cock-eyed ideas as the world took billions of years to form. Especially since the great majority of modern school text books contain "facts" regarding our planet's evolution that have been disproven in the scientific community.
No, the theory of evolution is not a "religion".
It is a scientific theory that explains the evidence, just like the theory of gravity explains the evidence. The thoery of evolution is one of the best supported theories in science, and is the foundation of biology. So it should be taught in a science class.
That the world took billions of years to form is supported by physics, geology, and astronomy.
It should be noted that most of the major Christian denominations have no problem with evolution, or that the earth is billions of years old.
-asb
>The "creator" is evolution.
A religion in-and-of-itself.
Sigh. Yet another on who doesn't understand science, the scientific method, and scientific theories.
-asb
explain to me why every major faith remembers a world-wide flood.
Probably because most cities are along bodies of water. BTW, most Christian denominations don't believe that there was a "worldwide" flood. That was disproven 200 years ago, ironically by geologists out to prove the flood.
if you weren't there then you can't prove it
Can you disprove that the world was created Wednesday, and that all of our memories of the past, etc were also created? You can't.
evolution is a faith built on smoke, mirrors or bad ideas and assumptions about how we think things should work.
No evolution is not a "faith" in the religious sense. The theory of evolution explains the evidence, and makes predictions. Just like any scientific theory. It also is the foundation of biology.
-asb
It's illegal to teach anything that contradicts with Evolution and I'm not just talking about Creation here (research this if you are interested).
In science, you have data, and you have theories that explain the data.
Evolution has occured; we know this from observing it in nature and from the fossel record. The theory of evolution explains the data. Just like we have observation of the effects of gravity, and we have a theory of gravity that explain the data.
The theory of evolution is a well supported scientific theory, and is the foundation of modern biology. So it should be taught in a science class.
Are you implying that Intelegent Design should be taught in a classroom? It's creationism with "God" edited out and replaced with an "intellegent designer" (wink,wink). Creationism isn't a scientific theory, and therefore shouldn't be taught in a science class. You could teach it in a religious class.
-asb
It means that the other divisions at Sony operated at a loss, so the total profit at Sony was less than the profit generated by the Playstation related items.
-asb
Back in the old days, Caldera's first product was Redhat 2.0.2 with a GUI desktop (Looking Glass). This was about 5 years or so ago.
-asb
THe real reason why Microsoft is doing this is they want to be the DRM gatekeeper. All digital media will end up going through them, and they will come up with new standards and schemes to get a percentage on all of this information. Look at the new Mpeg 4 standard - they are planning to charge for the data stream. It's where MS wants to go today.
Killing Linux and the GPL is an added benefit.
-asb
Closed source programs are typically not free. If a bug shows up in it, will you have to wait until the next release for the fix, and will you have to pay for it it you don't have maintainence?
Not to sound cheap, but sometimes it can be a PITA to grab some funds & do the usual hoop jumping to get a purchase order cut. And it
can take a *long* time, depending on the approval channels.
With Apache, I had our webserver updated in a few minutes of reading the announcement of the fix.
-asb
I kind of suspected you were operating from a different planet. I strongly suggest starting with the actual names, `Darwinian Evolution' and `Social Darwinism' and see if you can draw at least the tiniest smidgeon of commonality from them.
This reminds me of an article in the newspapers a few years ago, about a church called "The Church of Jesus Christ and Arian Nation". Are you saying that if someone hijacks a term and perverts it, that it then reflects on the original? Once again I have to ask you: I find both uses wrong; how about you?
-asb
It's probably important for your understanding to point out that `Roman Catholic' and `Christian' are concepts which overlap in places but are most definitely not identity.
ROTFL. Trying to rewrite the rules as far as who are Christians. Why am I not surprised?
If he were speaking from a Roman Catholic perspective, his conclusion could match in one of several ways. The Roman Catholic Church supported Adolf up to the point where it became obvious that he was going to lose, then they shafted him.
Amazing. You and your buddies are really off the deep end.
BTW, compared with how he treated other peoples, Hitler wasn't actually that hard on the Jews. The six-million figure often quoted is clearly bullshit (population figures can't possibly support it), it was likely of the order of a million. He killed more Czeks than that.
A holocost revisionist, too.
In summary of all of the above, I don't believe Adolf to have been misapplying Darwinism. Darwin himself used Darwinism that way, regarding Negroes as biologically inferior and destined one day to fade away, the victims of natural selection. It's an inescapable conclusion of any reasoning which starts with natural selection as a base.
Once again, you are wrong. "Social Darwinism" is a policy to let the weak and unfit to die. That's not the theory of evolution. I doubt that Darwin would think that Negroes wuld fade away; rather he would think that they were well adapted for their enviroment. Darwin was also liberal about race for his time, and was anti-slavery. Don't forget that at the time he proposed his theory, 1859, there were many slaveholders and their supporters in the US using the bible in an attempt to show that slavery was right.
Adolf was misusing the theory of evolution as much as he was misusing Christianity - history has shown that the bible is open to "interesting" interpretations, This includes creationism, which is plain bad theology. And that is why most, if not all of the major Christian denominations do not have any problems with the theory of evolution. But hey, I won't be surprised if you think that they really aren't "Christian", too.
-asb