The whole thing is ridiculous. I can't think of a time when ISPs have been responsible for what their users are doing. Are we going to start suing ISPs that are providing hackers with access to the net? pedophiles? old men looking for high schoolers? political dissenters? You might as well start suing the government every time someone steals something and then escapes using a road.
My intention wasn't to be dishonest. All of the scientific research he cites was done by evolutionary scientists... so I said that his whole book is based on their research.
Hehe, you misread the first part. It's stating that a poodle is recombination of a boxer terrier. Not that it's a recombination of corn. In fact, it's saying the opposite - by forming different combinations you're selecting from among a limited number of slightly different versions of the same thing - not a whole new animal. Thus making a dog from a cat isn't a possibility.
I didn't mean to imply that mutation is simple - but that it has never been demonstrated nor has it ever been observed to create a more viable, more biologically complex organism. Whether it's simple or complex, the fact is - it doesn't make a better organism.
It seems a little strange for an evolutionist who is relying upon billions of years of time to account for the biodiversity we see today to suggest that macroevolution happens quickly. If macroevolution were a fact of life we would still being seeing that process happen today. Just because people showed up doesn't mean the rest of the world stopped functioning as it did prior to our existence. I also always find it interesting when the same fossil record that's presented as evidence for evolution is later blamed when there's no evidence of transitional species.:)
The book is great; even if you disagree with it, it will make you think. I was serious when I said that nothing I could type here would do it justice. It's like saying "tell me about string theory in a quickie slashdot post!"... you're not going to get much of an explanation! As much as I can I just try to make people think and then direct them to something they can look into on their own time. There's no way for me to recreate years of research and condense down into a post I write up in a few minutes.:)
Oh geez, anything I write here is going to vastly simplify what's written in the book and lack all of the associated citations and context that actually give the statements weight. Having said that, I can try and paraphrase something he said about organic evolution...
Organic macroevolution has never been observed. Mendel's laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations observed in living things. Mendel discovered that genes are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations product the many variations within each kind of life, such as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel's laws is that there are limits to such variation. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed these boundaries.
Some would say that mutations - rather than typical genetic reshuffling you see within dogs - explain evolution. Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution. Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment (you ever see the picture of the cow with 5 legs from Chernobyl? yeah...). Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.
[paraphrasing] Finally, if evolution is truly something that's been happening for billions of years - where are the intermediate species? Why don't we see any today? Why aren't there any in the fossil record?
Yes, I know I'm fired for not involving creation yet... but I have to get back to work. lunch is ovah!
Actually... Mormons are not Christian. Although this is a common misconception. Please, give the bible a read. Just read the gospel if you like (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). It doesn't take all that long to get through them - and once you do, I think you'll realize the difference between Mormonism and Christianity.
Please understand that I'm not trying to attack you; I'm just trying clarify something that's often misunderstood.
Regarding your first point - There is a lot of back story that you have to familiar with (Mosaic law, etc) in order for this to make sense. Check out this - http://www.albanymaranatha.org/writings/grace.shtml
Woah, regarding the temple - The money changers and other merchants were selling "holy" money and "holy" animals for Jewish sacrifice. They were charging ridiculous prices and ripping the people off. Thus turning God's "house of worship into a den of thieves". Although the Temple may have been *used* in the fashion you suggest that was *not* it's intended purpose. Even wikipedia gets the fact that this is not about communism. (Wikipedia obviously is not an authority on the bible).
It seems to me that the vents haven't really answered any questions. Ever since they've been discovered people have wondered how life got going in such an environment. Now we've got the opposite problem. Now we've got life appearing on the ocean floor, dependent upon the heat from these vents and finding its way to the rest of the world?
Origin of species - What makes you think I haven't read it? I love the assumption that all creationists must somehow be ignorant of all science - how else could we possibly still believe, right? We're all home schooled - is that it? We haven't gone through the same public schools and universities or had to participate in the same scientific processes.
As an aside, Brown's book happens to be far from simple "musings". He's got a PhD from MIT. His entire purpose is to present a scientific body of evidence to prove his point. At any rate, isn't the whole point of the Ben Stein movie that regardless of the veracity of Brown's statements it'll never get into the "scientific body of knowledge" because the gatekeepers disagree?
It's fascinating that you believe that the bible adds nothing to scientific insight. Particularly when the bible itself states that the earth "hangs on nothing", that is to say, it floats in space. This was written during a time when all cultures believed something had to be holding it where it was.
If, however, you are only interested in real scientific facts done by real evolutionary scientists - I'd encourage you to check out Dr. Walt Brown's book "In the Beginning". The entire book is based on research done by scientists with an evolutionary viewpoint.
It's interesting that you mention organisms next to oceanic vents. Those are discussed in Dr. Walt Brown's book "In The Beginning". You should check it out. Buy.
He presents compelling explanations for nearly everything that science is struggling to understand - sedimentary layers on mountains, lack of dust on the moon, the origin of life. Throughout his book he relies on scientific studies performed by evolutionists. He does this to prevent anyone from claiming that his facts are contrived.
ID is not a theory - there is no evidence for it, it isn't testable and it isn't falsifiable. That's interesting that you believe that. I'd encourage you to check out a book by Dr. Walt Brown titled "In The Beginning" (Buy on amazon). This man uses scientific studies done by evolutionists to prove that evolution simply is not true. He intentionally only uses studies by evolutionists so that he cannot be accused of cooking up the results.
oh come on. Persuaded it could be improved? Like he's going to admit that he was bullied into changing it. Give me a break. He may be telling the truth, but there's no proof. Until there is it just sounds like doublespeak.
At this point claiming Jesus never existed is just ridiculous. There's more evidence corroborating his existence and many of the things he did than there is for a lot of other historic people from the same time period. Yet, because they aren't nearly as controversial, everyone's perfectly happy to assume that he didn't exist and they did. (Example evidence link so save me from typing all of it here)
What's so bad about Jesus anyway? Oh no! He paid for your sins and wants to take you to heaven when you die. That *is* bad! I've never seen an atheist get pissed off about Buddha or something. I'm just curious what all the hate is about.
- Many of the algorithms in use today do not work well in massively parallel systems. As the industry moves in the direction of Sun Niagra, the importance of parallel programming will grow.
- A quantum Turing machine is definitely not the same as a classical Turing machine, forcing a different approach to algorithm design.
- Some have advanced the idea of using DNA as a computational engine. Such computing methods will not look anything like C.
That may have made a huge difference in the way things worked 20 years ago... but languages are a lot higher level now. People don't generally program in assembly. We've got.NET, Java, etc. I see a lot of parallel and threading issues getting wrapped up into the compiler / interpreter. Languages are getting higher level - not lower level.
Garbage collection used to be brutal... now it's all taken care of. You still have the option of guiding the garbage collector when you want better performance (just like you would for parallel or threading issues) but in the 95% case you don't have to do anything to take advantage of it.
Things will definitely change in the coming years, but I don't see CS getting turned on its head and everything that was useful before getting thrown out the window.
Yeah, maintaining those people's code is greeeeeaaat. You end up with the kind of stuff you see at The Daily WTF. Really nifty things like people hard coding the entire alphabet and storing it into an array just so that they can loop over it. (cause you know... incrementing the ascii number of the char would be too hard).
I'm not saying Joe Blow can't learn to code. However, a lot of good programming skills aren't necessarily intuitive. How long is it going to take for you teach them recursion? Are you ever even going to teach them recursion? I'd rather have a somewhat anti-social genius over a guy that spends half his day chatting up the receptionist and can't differentiate between a stack and a queue.
Well of course it ran like crap with 512MB of RAM. WinXP runs like crap on that much. I've got two gigs in my WinXP machine - it's just about the right amount. I definitely wouldn't consider using anything less.
Woah, what? No, I don't believe it was designed to run on computers from 4 years ago anymore than Crysis was. Crysis was designed to be brutally beautiful. Even most new graphics cards have a hard time getting consistent framerates above 40. Can you play it on older hardware? yes. Does it look as good? no.
This is the exact same thing Vista is running into. Machines labeled as "Vista Capable" were "capable" but it wasn't pretty. They could run it, but you didn't get Aero and it probably wasn't lightning fast. Microsoft *knew* that Vista Capable machines weren't - but they got suckered into labeling them as such by Intel and the like.
As for features - you must not work in IT. There are gobs of new toys for IT folks. Improved security, integrated PowerShell, additional GP controls, simpler installation, etc.
Are all AC's this dumb? Wow, I was replying to the guy above me that said he never pays for music. I didn't say I support idiotic lawsuits. I said I support paying the musicians for their work.
Your logic makes no sense - the musician wasn't in your living room when he made the music so you don't have to pay? What, so should you get all software for free too? Do programmers only deserve to get paid if they're in your back room coding up something *just for you*?
Technically you can break everything down to "just information". A car is just made up of a bunch of atoms and you just have to have the right information to put them all in place. Maybe cars should be free too.
Actually, as a musician I know quite a few other musicians - some of them have "made it big" - and their goal is not to sit on their ass after making a #1 album. They love music. Their goal is to make a living making music. To tour the world and play it for people.
Sure, there may be a few lame people out there trying to make one album and then live off it but unless you get on American Idol it takes a lot of work to get there. Most lazy types get weeded out after playing in clubs for years, hauling their own gear, living off of ramen noodles, etc.
I realize you're probably being sarcastic... but that kind of attitude just leads to people not making and selling music anymore. Musicians get tired of being both a musician and a waiter / garbageman / oil changer / whatever. They put a lot of time into making a song. Give 'em some money. Do you work for free? Sheesh. (I'm talking average musician here - obviously doesn't apply to Britney or whatever but she's the 1 in 1,000,000 case).
Slashdot Mirror
The whole thing is ridiculous. I can't think of a time when ISPs have been responsible for what their users are doing. Are we going to start suing ISPs that are providing hackers with access to the net? pedophiles? old men looking for high schoolers? political dissenters? You might as well start suing the government every time someone steals something and then escapes using a road.
My intention wasn't to be dishonest. All of the scientific research he cites was done by evolutionary scientists... so I said that his whole book is based on their research.
Hehe, you misread the first part. It's stating that a poodle is recombination of a boxer terrier. Not that it's a recombination of corn. In fact, it's saying the opposite - by forming different combinations you're selecting from among a limited number of slightly different versions of the same thing - not a whole new animal. Thus making a dog from a cat isn't a possibility.
:)
:)
I didn't mean to imply that mutation is simple - but that it has never been demonstrated nor has it ever been observed to create a more viable, more biologically complex organism. Whether it's simple or complex, the fact is - it doesn't make a better organism.
It seems a little strange for an evolutionist who is relying upon billions of years of time to account for the biodiversity we see today to suggest that macroevolution happens quickly. If macroevolution were a fact of life we would still being seeing that process happen today. Just because people showed up doesn't mean the rest of the world stopped functioning as it did prior to our existence. I also always find it interesting when the same fossil record that's presented as evidence for evolution is later blamed when there's no evidence of transitional species.
The book is great; even if you disagree with it, it will make you think. I was serious when I said that nothing I could type here would do it justice. It's like saying "tell me about string theory in a quickie slashdot post!"... you're not going to get much of an explanation! As much as I can I just try to make people think and then direct them to something they can look into on their own time. There's no way for me to recreate years of research and condense down into a post I write up in a few minutes.
Oh geez, anything I write here is going to vastly simplify what's written in the book and lack all of the associated citations and context that actually give the statements weight. Having said that, I can try and paraphrase something he said about organic evolution...
Organic macroevolution has never been observed. Mendel's laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations observed in living things. Mendel discovered that genes are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations product the many variations within each kind of life, such as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel's laws is that there are limits to such variation. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed these boundaries.
Some would say that mutations - rather than typical genetic reshuffling you see within dogs - explain evolution. Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution. Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment (you ever see the picture of the cow with 5 legs from Chernobyl? yeah...). Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.
[paraphrasing] Finally, if evolution is truly something that's been happening for billions of years - where are the intermediate species? Why don't we see any today? Why aren't there any in the fossil record?
Yes, I know I'm fired for not involving creation yet... but I have to get back to work. lunch is ovah!
My bad, I meant to include a link to the bible - you can read it for free on the Internet - This starts you at Matthew
Actually... Mormons are not Christian. Although this is a common misconception. Please, give the bible a read. Just read the gospel if you like (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). It doesn't take all that long to get through them - and once you do, I think you'll realize the difference between Mormonism and Christianity.
Please understand that I'm not trying to attack you; I'm just trying clarify something that's often misunderstood.
Regarding your first point - There is a lot of back story that you have to familiar with (Mosaic law, etc) in order for this to make sense. Check out this - http://www.albanymaranatha.org/writings/grace.shtml
Woah, regarding the temple - The money changers and other merchants were selling "holy" money and "holy" animals for Jewish sacrifice. They were charging ridiculous prices and ripping the people off. Thus turning God's "house of worship into a den of thieves". Although the Temple may have been *used* in the fashion you suggest that was *not* it's intended purpose. Even wikipedia gets the fact that this is not about communism. (Wikipedia obviously is not an authority on the bible).
That's addressed in this book. He has opposing theories for many of the commonly held, but poorly supported, evolution-centric theories.
It seems to me that the vents haven't really answered any questions. Ever since they've been discovered people have wondered how life got going in such an environment. Now we've got the opposite problem. Now we've got life appearing on the ocean floor, dependent upon the heat from these vents and finding its way to the rest of the world?
Origin of species - What makes you think I haven't read it? I love the assumption that all creationists must somehow be ignorant of all science - how else could we possibly still believe, right? We're all home schooled - is that it? We haven't gone through the same public schools and universities or had to participate in the same scientific processes.
As an aside, Brown's book happens to be far from simple "musings". He's got a PhD from MIT. His entire purpose is to present a scientific body of evidence to prove his point. At any rate, isn't the whole point of the Ben Stein movie that regardless of the veracity of Brown's statements it'll never get into the "scientific body of knowledge" because the gatekeepers disagree?
It's fascinating that you believe that the bible adds nothing to scientific insight. Particularly when the bible itself states that the earth "hangs on nothing", that is to say, it floats in space. This was written during a time when all cultures believed something had to be holding it where it was .
If, however, you are only interested in real scientific facts done by real evolutionary scientists - I'd encourage you to check out Dr. Walt Brown's book "In the Beginning". The entire book is based on research done by scientists with an evolutionary viewpoint.
It's interesting that you mention organisms next to oceanic vents. Those are discussed in Dr. Walt Brown's book "In The Beginning". You should check it out. Buy.
He presents compelling explanations for nearly everything that science is struggling to understand - sedimentary layers on mountains, lack of dust on the moon, the origin of life. Throughout his book he relies on scientific studies performed by evolutionists. He does this to prevent anyone from claiming that his facts are contrived.
oh come on. Persuaded it could be improved? Like he's going to admit that he was bullied into changing it. Give me a break. He may be telling the truth, but there's no proof. Until there is it just sounds like doublespeak.
At this point claiming Jesus never existed is just ridiculous. There's more evidence corroborating his existence and many of the things he did than there is for a lot of other historic people from the same time period. Yet, because they aren't nearly as controversial, everyone's perfectly happy to assume that he didn't exist and they did. (Example evidence link so save me from typing all of it here)
What's so bad about Jesus anyway? Oh no! He paid for your sins and wants to take you to heaven when you die. That *is* bad! I've never seen an atheist get pissed off about Buddha or something. I'm just curious what all the hate is about.
- - Many of the algorithms in use today do not work well in massively parallel systems. As the industry moves in the direction of Sun Niagra, the importance of parallel programming will grow.
- - A quantum Turing machine is definitely not the same as a classical Turing machine, forcing a different approach to algorithm design.
- - Some have advanced the idea of using DNA as a computational engine. Such computing methods will not look anything like C.
That may have made a huge difference in the way things worked 20 years ago... but languages are a lot higher level now. People don't generally program in assembly. We've gotGarbage collection used to be brutal... now it's all taken care of. You still have the option of guiding the garbage collector when you want better performance (just like you would for parallel or threading issues) but in the 95% case you don't have to do anything to take advantage of it.
Things will definitely change in the coming years, but I don't see CS getting turned on its head and everything that was useful before getting thrown out the window.
Yeah, maintaining those people's code is greeeeeaaat. You end up with the kind of stuff you see at The Daily WTF. Really nifty things like people hard coding the entire alphabet and storing it into an array just so that they can loop over it. (cause you know... incrementing the ascii number of the char would be too hard).
I'm not saying Joe Blow can't learn to code. However, a lot of good programming skills aren't necessarily intuitive. How long is it going to take for you teach them recursion? Are you ever even going to teach them recursion? I'd rather have a somewhat anti-social genius over a guy that spends half his day chatting up the receptionist and can't differentiate between a stack and a queue.
Well of course it ran like crap with 512MB of RAM. WinXP runs like crap on that much. I've got two gigs in my WinXP machine - it's just about the right amount. I definitely wouldn't consider using anything less.
Woah, what? No, I don't believe it was designed to run on computers from 4 years ago anymore than Crysis was. Crysis was designed to be brutally beautiful. Even most new graphics cards have a hard time getting consistent framerates above 40. Can you play it on older hardware? yes. Does it look as good? no.
This is the exact same thing Vista is running into. Machines labeled as "Vista Capable" were "capable" but it wasn't pretty. They could run it, but you didn't get Aero and it probably wasn't lightning fast. Microsoft *knew* that Vista Capable machines weren't - but they got suckered into labeling them as such by Intel and the like.
As for features - you must not work in IT. There are gobs of new toys for IT folks. Improved security, integrated PowerShell, additional GP controls, simpler installation, etc.
Sounds to me like George Foreman and Steve Jobs need to get together...
New - MacBook Teflon! Convenient non-stick surface makes cleanup easy!
Just posting to remove my moderation. I fat-fingered it and chose overrated instead of funny... not quite the same thing!
Riiiight... because fortune 500 companies don't have hardware firewalls.
Are all AC's this dumb? Wow, I was replying to the guy above me that said he never pays for music. I didn't say I support idiotic lawsuits. I said I support paying the musicians for their work.
Your logic makes no sense - the musician wasn't in your living room when he made the music so you don't have to pay? What, so should you get all software for free too? Do programmers only deserve to get paid if they're in your back room coding up something *just for you*?
Technically you can break everything down to "just information". A car is just made up of a bunch of atoms and you just have to have the right information to put them all in place. Maybe cars should be free too.
Actually, as a musician I know quite a few other musicians - some of them have "made it big" - and their goal is not to sit on their ass after making a #1 album. They love music. Their goal is to make a living making music. To tour the world and play it for people.
Sure, there may be a few lame people out there trying to make one album and then live off it but unless you get on American Idol it takes a lot of work to get there. Most lazy types get weeded out after playing in clubs for years, hauling their own gear, living off of ramen noodles, etc.
Well, in the case of the Sony Rootkit I'd say it's a device to crush your PC's will to live.
I realize you're probably being sarcastic... but that kind of attitude just leads to people not making and selling music anymore. Musicians get tired of being both a musician and a waiter / garbageman / oil changer / whatever. They put a lot of time into making a song. Give 'em some money. Do you work for free? Sheesh. (I'm talking average musician here - obviously doesn't apply to Britney or whatever but she's the 1 in 1,000,000 case).