I've said before, creationists come in all flavors. Some are real loons, sure, but so is Stephen Jay Gould. Here's a guy who wants us to accept his interpretation of dirt and rocks and fossils from millions of years ago; but when he's presented with current economic evidence, he's a goddamn Marxist. That screams "bad judgement" to me, and predisposes me to assume his science is equally flawed.
Um. Why? He was not trained in economics, so who cares what his economic opinions were? He's just as uninformed and biased as the rest of us non-economists on the subject. Would you care if an economist believed in evolution or creationism? To me, your scepticism of evolution borders on the loony too, but I don't automatically assume that means you are incompetent at whatever job you are actually doing. Gould was trained in paleontology and biology, therefore his opinions in that area deserve some respect - judge them on their own merits.
OK, I'm not an American, but who cares what the founding fathers wanted? It's not their country any more, it's yours. The world is different now, and what was ideal/desireable/possible back then may not be now. If you think smaller government is better, fine, argue the case on its merits, but why invoke the ideals of men who died centuries ago as a justification?
The other reply got it right; there is no independent confirmation of those events. If I don't trust one part of the Bible, what makes you think I'm going to trust another part of the Bible as verification?
Wha??? If we are all unemployed, the unemployment rate will be 100%, not 0%. The unemployment "rate" is not actually a a rate of change, as you seem to be implying, it's the proportion of those looking for working expressed as a proportion of the total workforce. Or have I totally misunderstood your point here?
Oh, come now. What does this have to do with the reasons why women wear perfume today? You no longer need to be rich to buy perfume. (You could equally argue that women used to wear blush to cover up smallpox scars, and so that's why they do today. For the record, though, I think you're right about blush, just wrong about perfume.) Perhaps you've never found a woman who smelled good to you, but I assure you, it can be highly arousing, whether pheromones have anything to do with it or not!
Yawn all you like, your original point does not still stand, because the arguments you based it on were incorrect. It doesn't matter how "clear" you think it is, it's just not right. This is basic logic. What are you, like 12?
Let's try this one more time. You say people are too ready to accept new claims made by archaeologists. You say the reason why they should hesitate is because archaeologists are prone to making fantastical claims which are later found to be wrong or even fraudulent. You give as examples Piltdown, Cro-Magnon man and Lucy. Now, my retort to this is that your arguments are not relevant here: the vast majority of bogus archaeology is perpetrated by amateurs, whereas here we have qualified professionals (who are publishing in a peer-reviewed journal). Of the examples you gave, 1 was due to an amateur and the other 2 were just plain wrong. And your response is... the equivalent of "na, na, na, I'm not listening". What a rational person would do is point out where you think I'm wrong (or, God forbid, agree with me) and then I would do the same to your response, and so on. Christ, you think archaeologists are bad, at least they are willing to defend their beliefs.
And wtf is your problem with me posting at 2? Your amazingly well-argued posts were at 2 all the way along, I didn't realise I was a lesser being than you.
Go back and read what you actually wrote, eg in your original post: "Wow. Short people. Lets fly off the handle and create some totally cockamamie story. Archaeologists just love doing that". This is NOT a statement about how the general public is gullible, it's a statement about how archeologists are full of crap. Why do you make such statements and then claim you were actually talking about something else, and refuse to respond to my criticisms of things you actually wrote? Either have the guts to stand by your claims or the grace to back down.
Firstly, that may have been your original point, although that doesn't come through very clearly. But the post you are responding to spoke only about the archeologists themselves, not public reactions, and you responding by saying that archaeology is filled with mistakes and fraud. So, no, I don't accept that you were merely making a point about how the public reacts to new scientific claims at all.
And anyway, 2 out of 3 of the examples you gave are complete rubbish; that doesn't undermine your argument at all? Who cares what the general public believe? They aren't archeologists. What they should do is place some trust in the professionals who know what they are talking about. In this case, we have competent PhD archeologists making the claims, not some arkeologist who has just come back from Mt Ararat with bible in hand, so unless you know any better, you should tentatively accept the claims. I'm not saying they are therefore true, but it's hardly "the stupidest crap ever". That's completely over the top.
So, if GWTW brings and action in Australia, then they could presumably only claim Australian copyright infringment damages, and not worldwide damages.
Which of course would make the whole matter moot, since GWTW is public domain in Australia...
Actually though (and I'm not even a law student, let alone a lawyer), wouldn't the reverse apply if the principles of the precedent are being followed? Gutnick was concerned with his being damaged in Victoria by material posted overseas, so it makes some sense to restrict the damages to Victoria, but Mitchell's estate is claiming they are being damaged in the US, not Australia, so logically they could sue for damages incurred in the US. Again, IANAL.
Um. The point of the joke is not that oral sex is bad, it's that the relationship between George Bush and John Howard is all one way - Howard gives Bush everything he wants, and gets nothing in return. Everyone else seems to get this...
If you'd actually read anything about the history of fraud in archeology, you'd realise that it's overwhelmingly amateurs and dilletantes who perpetrate it, not the professionals. People of Scandinavian descent who want to prove that the Vikings explored Minnesota, or those like Joseph Smith trying to start a new religion. The likely perpetrator of the Piltdown hoax, Dawson, was a lawyer, and only hunted fossils in his spare time. Your suggestion that Lucy is a fraud is shared only by creationists, and I've never heard that Cro-Magnon man is somehow false.
I think I understand the sentiment, but I have no idea what that stupid equation is supposed to prove.
Re:The whole one-button mouse thing has to go...
on
Jef Raskin On The Mac
·
· Score: 1
You clearly don't know a big enough sample of Mac users. I'm an IT manager, we have easily 70 Macs in the department, and I've never seen anyone ditch their one-button mouse - including myself - ever. It's a non-issue, because most people who buy Macs just don't care. Those few who do can buy another mouse. I understand that this is irritating, and there's no real reason why Apple couldn't be more accomodating on this, but is it really such a big deal?
Either the other advantages of the Mac outweigh the disadvantage of having to buy an extra mouse, or they don't. If the former, you're still winning. If the latter, buy a PC and stop whining.
Actually, the distinction (for once!) is not between the US and the rest of the world, but more between English and non-English speaking countries (and possibly only European ones, not sure). Here in Australia 10,243 has always meant 10243, same in the UK etc.
Um, Kerry is right not to recognise a non-existent threat. On what basis do you predict a caliphate in the US? Some Islamic terrorists bring down the twin towers, therefore the end of American civilisation as you know it is coming? The idea that Islam will take over from within is even more absurd than a frontal assault; Islam is a tiny minority religion in the US - in 2001, 1.1 million adherents out of an adult population of 208 million, according to this (table 79). What is it about you guys that want to bomb the crap out of the rest of the planet - you are so gung-ho and yet so afraid of your own shadow? Get a grip, learn some history and stop being such a baby.
The cliche you are looking for is that the Sun never sets on the British empire, and that wasn't so much a reference to its lasting forever but to its spanning the globe, ie the Sun was always shining on part of the Empire; there was a posession in every time zone. I assume you are talking about Queen Victoria but the phrase is not particularly associated with her.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, except nobody is suggesting that it's in a liquid form, but rather as ice.
Perhaps not, but you are still right!
Um. Why? He was not trained in economics, so who cares what his economic opinions were? He's just as uninformed and biased as the rest of us non-economists on the subject. Would you care if an economist believed in evolution or creationism? To me, your scepticism of evolution borders on the loony too, but I don't automatically assume that means you are incompetent at whatever job you are actually doing. Gould was trained in paleontology and biology, therefore his opinions in that area deserve some respect - judge them on their own merits.
OK, I'm not an American, but who cares what the founding fathers wanted? It's not their country any more, it's yours. The world is different now, and what was ideal/desireable/possible back then may not be now. If you think smaller government is better, fine, argue the case on its merits, but why invoke the ideals of men who died centuries ago as a justification?
Here's the theory for you!
The other reply got it right; there is no independent confirmation of those events. If I don't trust one part of the Bible, what makes you think I'm going to trust another part of the Bible as verification?
Mmmm, nicely done :) +1, Sticking it right up them.
Wha??? If we are all unemployed, the unemployment rate will be 100%, not 0%. The unemployment "rate" is not actually a a rate of change, as you seem to be implying, it's the proportion of those looking for working expressed as a proportion of the total workforce. Or have I totally misunderstood your point here?
Oh, come now. What does this have to do with the reasons why women wear perfume today? You no longer need to be rich to buy perfume. (You could equally argue that women used to wear blush to cover up smallpox scars, and so that's why they do today. For the record, though, I think you're right about blush, just wrong about perfume.) Perhaps you've never found a woman who smelled good to you, but I assure you, it can be highly arousing, whether pheromones have anything to do with it or not!
It's Hohmann, not Holmann. Says I, an ex-astrophysics student named Holman :)
Heh, good point. There would have been a few other miscellaneous things though, like the containers for the soil samples.
Let's try this one more time. You say people are too ready to accept new claims made by archaeologists. You say the reason why they should hesitate is because archaeologists are prone to making fantastical claims which are later found to be wrong or even fraudulent. You give as examples Piltdown, Cro-Magnon man and Lucy. Now, my retort to this is that your arguments are not relevant here: the vast majority of bogus archaeology is perpetrated by amateurs, whereas here we have qualified professionals (who are publishing in a peer-reviewed journal). Of the examples you gave, 1 was due to an amateur and the other 2 were just plain wrong. And your response is ... the equivalent of "na, na, na, I'm not listening". What a rational person would do is point out where you think I'm wrong (or, God forbid, agree with me) and then I would do the same to your response, and so on. Christ, you think archaeologists are bad, at least they are willing to defend their beliefs.
And wtf is your problem with me posting at 2? Your amazingly well-argued posts were at 2 all the way along, I didn't realise I was a lesser being than you.
Go back and read what you actually wrote, eg in your original post: "Wow. Short people. Lets fly off the handle and create some totally cockamamie story. Archaeologists just love doing that". This is NOT a statement about how the general public is gullible, it's a statement about how archeologists are full of crap. Why do you make such statements and then claim you were actually talking about something else, and refuse to respond to my criticisms of things you actually wrote? Either have the guts to stand by your claims or the grace to back down.
And anyway, 2 out of 3 of the examples you gave are complete rubbish; that doesn't undermine your argument at all? Who cares what the general public believe? They aren't archeologists. What they should do is place some trust in the professionals who know what they are talking about. In this case, we have competent PhD archeologists making the claims, not some arkeologist who has just come back from Mt Ararat with bible in hand, so unless you know any better, you should tentatively accept the claims. I'm not saying they are therefore true, but it's hardly "the stupidest crap ever". That's completely over the top.
Which of course would make the whole matter moot, since GWTW is public domain in Australia ...
Actually though (and I'm not even a law student, let alone a lawyer), wouldn't the reverse apply if the principles of the precedent are being followed? Gutnick was concerned with his being damaged in Victoria by material posted overseas, so it makes some sense to restrict the damages to Victoria, but Mitchell's estate is claiming they are being damaged in the US, not Australia, so logically they could sue for damages incurred in the US. Again, IANAL.
I, for one, welcome our new Jovian God-emperor overlord!
Sorry ...
Um. The point of the joke is not that oral sex is bad, it's that the relationship between George Bush and John Howard is all one way - Howard gives Bush everything he wants, and gets nothing in return. Everyone else seems to get this ...
Perhaps you meant "You'd be surprised at what creationists believe a worldwide flood can do to plate tectonics", although I for one would not be.
If you'd actually read anything about the history of fraud in archeology, you'd realise that it's overwhelmingly amateurs and dilletantes who perpetrate it, not the professionals. People of Scandinavian descent who want to prove that the Vikings explored Minnesota, or those like Joseph Smith trying to start a new religion. The likely perpetrator of the Piltdown hoax, Dawson, was a lawyer, and only hunted fossils in his spare time. Your suggestion that Lucy is a fraud is shared only by creationists, and I've never heard that Cro-Magnon man is somehow false.
I think I understand the sentiment, but I have no idea what that stupid equation is supposed to prove.
You clearly don't know a big enough sample of Mac users. I'm an IT manager, we have easily 70 Macs in the department, and I've never seen anyone ditch their one-button mouse - including myself - ever. It's a non-issue, because most people who buy Macs just don't care. Those few who do can buy another mouse. I understand that this is irritating, and there's no real reason why Apple couldn't be more accomodating on this, but is it really such a big deal? Either the other advantages of the Mac outweigh the disadvantage of having to buy an extra mouse, or they don't. If the former, you're still winning. If the latter, buy a PC and stop whining.
Actually, the distinction (for once!) is not between the US and the rest of the world, but more between English and non-English speaking countries (and possibly only European ones, not sure). Here in Australia 10,243 has always meant 10243, same in the UK etc.
OK, hands up, who modded this Insightful instead of Funny?
Um, Kerry is right not to recognise a non-existent threat. On what basis do you predict a caliphate in the US? Some Islamic terrorists bring down the twin towers, therefore the end of American civilisation as you know it is coming? The idea that Islam will take over from within is even more absurd than a frontal assault; Islam is a tiny minority religion in the US - in 2001, 1.1 million adherents out of an adult population of 208 million, according to this (table 79). What is it about you guys that want to bomb the crap out of the rest of the planet - you are so gung-ho and yet so afraid of your own shadow? Get a grip, learn some history and stop being such a baby.
The cliche you are looking for is that the Sun never sets on the British empire, and that wasn't so much a reference to its lasting forever but to its spanning the globe, ie the Sun was always shining on part of the Empire; there was a posession in every time zone. I assume you are talking about Queen Victoria but the phrase is not particularly associated with her.