There are way too many issues that this can cause for me to ever want a car that can do this. Here's a few:
Hacking. What's to keep a system like this secure? What happens if some criminal organization for bribing owner to pay them to "unlock" your car? Or a crazy person or group from changing the firmware to lock the brakes when the car hits 50 mph? Or just some 9 year old kid from doing this for the hell of it. And any number of other possibilities.
What happens if the process is interrupted in the middle of re-flashing? Does the car need to be towed in and the ECU replaced?
If there's a bad update, it's a hell of a lot better for it to be discovered quickly in the first few cars that receive it. It kinda sucks if the update is bad and suddenly a million+ cars all fail at the same time.
Perhaps I don't want the update. Granted, this doesn't happen often. But there have been cars that were recalled because they had more torque than they should have. Perhaps I want to keep this feature.
How many times have programs or video cards been released sooner than the software or drivers were ready. Being able to push out updates makes it possible to release a car that is not really ready. I would like to think it wouldn't happen. But as soon as someone's bonus is dependent on making a deadline, it will. Actually this would become pretty common I think. It's not done now because it costs the manufacturer a lot of money. Pushing updates would be very cheap by automotive company standards.
What's the added cost for this going to be?
I don't drive very much as it is. How much of a drain will this type of system put on my battery?
I don't want to have to pay to fix the update system when it breaks. A car is one of the harshest environments electronics can be in.
There was an article on/. not too long ago about the automotive industry charging monthly fees for functionality. I don't want a system like this in my car that would allow for fees of any kind.
I could go on. Perhaps I'm old and set in my ways. But I don't see any real benefit to this that would outweigh the potential issues.
They also have the problem that the company will not keep the servers active forever. I'm sure this won't matter to everyone. However, my 10 year old likes to play Atari 2600 games with me every so often. If I pay for something, I don't expect to be renting it.
It always seems that when companies start trying to branch out into wildly dissimilar industries, it's a sign of trouble within the organization. Do what you do well, figure out how to do it better if things aren't going how you'd like them. Don't try making sushi if you've always sold donuts.
Yes, but it doesn't always work out so well when they simply stick to what they know. Look at Microsoft. Yes, most of their attempts to branch out recently have been costly mistakes. But their core OS business is slowly eroding away due to them being too short-sighted regarding phones and tablets. Their biggest money maker is Office, which was something they branched out into early on.
Look at oil companies. At one time they vented natural gas when they drilled a well. Now it's valuable. Some are investing in solar tech too. It big oil were to stick to just oil, they will eventually be out of business.
I can only go by what I see reported. It was my understanding that the $400 million was what they were able to get as the loan guarantee from the Department of Energy under our current president. I've read that they received money from the DOE under the Bush administration as well as other federal and state agencies. I've also read that it's going to cost close to $3.7 million to clean up all of the toxic crap they didn't dispose of properly. I suspect we'll never know the true numbers though.
The Spaghetti MREs are pretty good after three years.
I know guys who actually like MREs, and bought their own supply for hunting trips after the left the service.
Many sporting-goods stores stock MREs. Not bad compared to a lot of camping food.
I went on a field exercise in 1961 with K-Rats packed in 1943...I'd have been delighted to have MREs.
I was thinking the same thing. I've had B/C rations, and MREs are a gourmet meal in comparison. I suppose I was grateful for the cigarettes back then as I used to smoke. But there's no comparison.
Given that Solyndra is the only failure that the Obama critics can ever come up with, and given that a subsidy program for renewable energy obviously has high risks (but also high gains), Obama has a very impressive track record in this area.)
I'm all for solar and renewal energy development. But let's not kid ourselves over President Obama's track record. Here's a list of the ten largest loans to solar panel companies that went bankrupt:
Abound Solar: $790 million in tax payer funding
A123 Systems: $377 million
Ener1: $182 million
Range Fuels: $162 million
Azure Dynamics: $119 million
Energy Conversion Devices: $110 million
Evergreen Solar, Inc.: $85 million
Beacon Power: $77 million
Raser Technologies: $33 million
If we add in Solyndra at $570 million he's managed to piss away about $2.5 billion on those ten companies. If that's what you consider an impressive track record, I'd hate to see what you consider mediocre, or poor.
I'm not sure if it's worse that these people believe that astrology is a science. Or that they were too stupid to not know the difference between astrology and astronomy. It's one thing if a few people got confused. But for so many to not know the difference is a little frightening.
Perhaps more importantly, why would the category 'interactive movie' even get to exist when the category 'game' already does?
I don't know if "interactive movie" is the correct term. But I think there is a difference between that and a game. I don't have time to play games like I did in my youth. But I did enjoy the Mass Effect series. I was surprised with the third Mass Effect game in that it had not only the typical easy, medium, and difficult settings. But it also had one in which you could go through all of the dialog but not have to shoot or do any of the things that typically make up a game. I think it's a significant difference from what I would consider a game.
In the past the story was usually a bunch of cine images that you wanted to skip through as quickly as possible so you could get down to shooting stuff. For me, this actually changed when I played Dues Ex. The game play was fun in that game. But all of the character interactions really made the game a lot of fun. Plus there was a ton of dialog that I found really interesting that didn't have any effect on the game play at all, but was just really in line with the story.
Right on point! Over population is the cause of most of our current misery and very few people are even capable of thinking it out. Pollution is a result of human activity by definition. Nature does not pollute itself.
The greater the population the higher the level of pollution. The need to feed the mutitudes has reduced our oceans to near death. Our lands are exhausted and loaded with the chemicals required to feed the population. It is a spiral staircase to doom or hell on Earth.
Hyperbole much?
Yet over population will not be halted by individuals being self regulating. It can only be controlled by vigorous legal sanctions. Yet no politician can touch anything resembling the idea of population control by law and regulation as political doom would be heaped upon him.
Perhaps. The real problem is that humans have become just too damn good at surviving. To the point where even the weaker of us survive and reproduce. We have no real predators to thin the herd. We ardently defend the weaker among us. Which some find to be noble, while others think it's a waste of resources. Because of our inventiveness and ability to create societal groups, we can easily defend against even the most top shelf predators on the planet.
Essentially the situation acts as a proof that democracy can not exist and is self extinguishing as a political philosophy. We can see Joe Stalin as a butcher yet we do not see the problem of allowing personal freedom in reproduction to be far more deadly to far more people than Stalin could ever have been.
Only time will tell for sure. As I'm sure you are aware, as a country becomes more industrialized the population tends to increase at a slower rate and appears it will reach an equilibrium at some point. As technology advances we seem to be looking for ways to produce cleaner energy too. Just look at how long it's been since the industrial revolution started. It wasn't until the late 1960's that anyone gave a thought about pollution. Look at how much has been done since then. It's not perfect, but it's moving in the right direction. I suppose I may be overly optimistic. But I'd like to think we'll get it right in the next couple of decades. Even if we do get it right. Mother Nature can be a cruel bitch. One good solar flare or super volcano eruption and mankind could be reduced to less than 10% of the current population in no time at all.
Ooooh, if all our cars were powered by Woman's Scorn they would be quick like Lambos and sound even meaner!
And they'd be much better for the environment because we'd all drive less. Can you imagine if every time you stepped on the accelerator you heard, "ARE YOU EVEN LISTEN TO ME!" I'd walk or bike to anything less than 100 miles.
Um, let's compare to the US, shall we? Germany, 2013, 810 million tons CO2, 607 million MW h / yr. US, 2010, 5,369 million tons CO2, 3,886 million MW h / yr. Germany is more efficient in power per CO2 emissions.
Don't feel bad, though, because whoever wrote the summary is also ignorant -- it is the north, not the south, that is most industrial.
I don't know where you got your numbers, but here's what is on Wikipedia for CO2 And GWh generated. Let's at least compare the same year for each country.
US: CO2 6,750,000 / 4,256,100 GWh=1.59 tons of CO2 per GWh
Germany: CO2-810,000 / 617,600 GWh=1.31 tons of CO2 per GWh
It's certainly better than the US, but considering this big push the Germany is in for clean energy and the US is only half-ass moving in that direction, I'm a little surprised it is as close as it is.
France is on the better side of this by far at: CO2-370,000 / 560,500 GWh=0.66 tons of CO2 per GWh
On the other side of the scale you have India: CO2-7,440,000 / 1,053,900 GWh= 7.06 tones of CO2 per GWh.
Hold on, let me go get some real world empirical data... okay, I just asked my 15 year old daughter how many of her friends believe in astrology. Her response: "What's astrology?"
I see the problem with your data. The poll was for 18-25 year olds. Your daughter still has three more years of stupid to absorb from school before she can have an opinion.
You miss my point entirely. Evolution is a scientific (hypothesis based on observations and testable) theory. Creationism is not based on observations, it's based on a book (or books) and a very few observations which are made which "fit" the story written in the book(s). Creationism is not open to debate or revision (God said it, I believe it and that's that). That's not science, it's religion. If you can't see the difference, it's not important.
No, I understood your point. If you read my entire post you would see that I also agree with you.
What I didn't agree with was you narrow minded definition of creationism. You continue to show a complete lack of understanding with your post above as well. There is no single text which creationism comes from as you stated in your initial post.
For the most part the words used to explain creationism (in what ever form) are from someones observations. In many cases "visions". These may have been drug induced, "gifts from god(s)", or whatever. While most religions state these texts are the word of god, I've yet to see one that has claimed that the divine being him/her(self) went through the menial task of physically penning these things to paper (papyrus, stone). It's accepted by even the most rigid believers that there is room for interpretation as the human writer could have been ambiguous in their choice of phrasing. Or changes in language over time, translational errors, etc.
There are scholars for all major religions and they don't all agree. It's not "God said it, I believe it and that's that" Creationism is a hotly debated topic in many religious circles. As I stated, It is not a topic that has any place with physics, and biology. It belongs in a philosophy class. However I think that evolution and natural selection should also be added into that mix. Unfortunately you are in too much of a fervor over how unquestioning religious people must be, you failed to comprehend what I was saying to begin with.
Creationism is based on what's written in a single book (which some consider "the word of God" and others consider a fairy tale), as "interpreted" by those who can't even agree among themselves. It also conflicts (young earth) with geologic observations.
I'm not going to argue the merits of creationism vs. evolution. But it is rather obvious that you have failed to look at both sides with any sort of objectivity or even at all for that matter. Which is perfectly fine in and of itself. But please don't pretend to act like there is only one text in the world that teaches creationism, It is in the Torah and the christian bible. You can make a case for the old testament and Torah being the same or similar. Mormons believe the earth was created by the coalescence from existing matter and that god once lived on another planet with an even higher god. The Quran also indicates that god created the universe. Chinese mythology states that the universe came into existence through the coalescence of chaos into the cosmic egg. The Babylonians had the seven tablets of creation in which Marduk slays Tiamat and uses her corpse to create the earth and sky. Hinduism has the universe on a 4 billion year big bang cycle in which everything is recreated and destroyed over and over again. Buddhists believe that there are essentially an infinite number of universes at any given time and they are all influenced by our karma as to whether or not they exist(or not) at the present moment.
The "young earth theory" is often trotted out definitive proof of how stupid creationism is. The funny thing the only people I have ever known to bring it up are atheists or people who need to show anyone of faith just how stupid they are. It was based on flawed assumptions from a very long time ago. How about we take a look at what science had to say from back in those times? It would be just as stupid. That being said, I'm sure you can find some crazy person claiming to be a christian who believes in the young earth. But I could just as easily find someone claiming to be a Pagan who worships a tennis ball and claims it's the all mighty creator of life the universe and everything too. There are plenty of quacks (and frauds) who claim to be scientists. That doesn't mean that anyone in a lab coat is batshit crazy, does it?
Regardless, this belongs in a philosophy class at best. And all creationism beliefs should be discussed. Not simply the Judeo/Christian ones. Including natural selection/evolution in this type of setting would make sense to me. But not in the same context as biology, chemistry, physics, etc. It's rather sad to see this type of thing occurring, and does not bode well for South Carolina in my opinion.
and targets a SIM card belonging to a terror suspect,
So someone could take a box with a dozen or so of the SIM cards and place it in a mosque, wedding, or other gathering of completely innocent people. Suddenly it's a meeting place with many "high value" targets and a bunch of innocents die, known SIM cards get destroyed and the bad guys need to get new phones. Or SIM card anyhow. So this harmless metadata, or so the NSA says, is enough information to fire missiles at people. But it's not something that I should be concerned with being tracked if it's from my phone?
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which uses a conservative methodology to track drone strikes, estimates that at least 2,400 people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been killed by unmanned aerial assaults under the Obama administration.
That's considerably more than I would have thought the total of all drone strikes ever. As scary as the cold war was, this "war on terror", or what ever it's called these days, is far creepier to me.
2.) My dog isn't from a puppy mill; she's from a reputable breeder
You previously stated your dog had worms. If this is the case, then it's not a reputable breeder. Or perhaps you have found a crappy vet. It can't hurt to go to another for a second opinion. At least you'll know.
Wrong. Most puppies, no matter where or how they are born, have roundworms. They are fairly endemic in small numbers and transmitted by the mother in the womb. It's normal, and not a big deal to treat. You can leave it alone and hope your puppy manages to gets enough nutrition to thrive and fight them off, or you can spend a bit and deworm. But why anyone would want to get a new puppy and play survival of the fittest with it is beyond me (and pretty horrible). Not to mention roundworms can potentially spread to people is it worth a bit of money to *you* not to get worms?:)
I didn't say that they didn't have worms at any point. A reputable breeder will have wormed them already and have detailed records of this and all vaccinations and a vet schedule and records for the parents as well. . I've never heard of any good breeder that would send puppies home that have not been wormed. You sure as hell aren't going to take a dog home from a good breeder and have to go to a vet to discover it has worms.
I only use pet meds that have been tested on human prisoners.
I work in the medical field. The joke about new drugs and procedures is that they get tested on Europeans first, then dogs. It's mostly a way to alleviate the frustration of how many things the FDA won't allow to be used in the US for what ever stupid reasons they have. But it makes me chuckle when I hear a doctor say it.
Slashdot Mirror
There are way too many issues that this can cause for me to ever want a car that can do this. Here's a few:
Hacking. What's to keep a system like this secure? What happens if some criminal organization for bribing owner to pay them to "unlock" your car? Or a crazy person or group from changing the firmware to lock the brakes when the car hits 50 mph? Or just some 9 year old kid from doing this for the hell of it. And any number of other possibilities.
What happens if the process is interrupted in the middle of re-flashing? Does the car need to be towed in and the ECU replaced?
If there's a bad update, it's a hell of a lot better for it to be discovered quickly in the first few cars that receive it. It kinda sucks if the update is bad and suddenly a million+ cars all fail at the same time.
Perhaps I don't want the update. Granted, this doesn't happen often. But there have been cars that were recalled because they had more torque than they should have. Perhaps I want to keep this feature.
How many times have programs or video cards been released sooner than the software or drivers were ready. Being able to push out updates makes it possible to release a car that is not really ready. I would like to think it wouldn't happen. But as soon as someone's bonus is dependent on making a deadline, it will. Actually this would become pretty common I think. It's not done now because it costs the manufacturer a lot of money. Pushing updates would be very cheap by automotive company standards.
What's the added cost for this going to be?
I don't drive very much as it is. How much of a drain will this type of system put on my battery?
I don't want to have to pay to fix the update system when it breaks. A car is one of the harshest environments electronics can be in.
There was an article on /. not too long ago about the automotive industry charging monthly fees for functionality. I don't want a system like this in my car that would allow for fees of any kind.
I could go on. Perhaps I'm old and set in my ways. But I don't see any real benefit to this that would outweigh the potential issues.
They also have the problem that the company will not keep the servers active forever. I'm sure this won't matter to everyone. However, my 10 year old likes to play Atari 2600 games with me every so often. If I pay for something, I don't expect to be renting it.
Apple has a ridiculous amount of money at their disposal. It makes sense they try to do something with it.
This is also the approach that Samsung has been taking for the last few years. They've started making MRI scanners even.
It always seems that when companies start trying to branch out into wildly dissimilar industries, it's a sign of trouble within the organization. Do what you do well, figure out how to do it better if things aren't going how you'd like them. Don't try making sushi if you've always sold donuts.
Yes, but it doesn't always work out so well when they simply stick to what they know. Look at Microsoft. Yes, most of their attempts to branch out recently have been costly mistakes. But their core OS business is slowly eroding away due to them being too short-sighted regarding phones and tablets. Their biggest money maker is Office, which was something they branched out into early on.
Look at oil companies. At one time they vented natural gas when they drilled a well. Now it's valuable. Some are investing in solar tech too. It big oil were to stick to just oil, they will eventually be out of business.
I can only go by what I see reported. It was my understanding that the $400 million was what they were able to get as the loan guarantee from the Department of Energy under our current president. I've read that they received money from the DOE under the Bush administration as well as other federal and state agencies. I've also read that it's going to cost close to $3.7 million to clean up all of the toxic crap they didn't dispose of properly. I suspect we'll never know the true numbers though.
The Spaghetti MREs are pretty good after three years.
I know guys who actually like MREs, and bought their own supply for hunting trips after the left the service.
Many sporting-goods stores stock MREs. Not bad compared to a lot of camping food.
I went on a field exercise in 1961 with K-Rats packed in 1943...I'd have been delighted to have MREs.
I was thinking the same thing. I've had B/C rations, and MREs are a gourmet meal in comparison. I suppose I was grateful for the cigarettes back then as I used to smoke. But there's no comparison.
Given that Solyndra is the only failure that the Obama critics can ever come up with, and given that a subsidy program for renewable energy obviously has high risks (but also high gains), Obama has a very impressive track record in this area.)
I'm all for solar and renewal energy development. But let's not kid ourselves over President Obama's track record. Here's a list of the ten largest loans to solar panel companies that went bankrupt:
If we add in Solyndra at $570 million he's managed to piss away about $2.5 billion on those ten companies. If that's what you consider an impressive track record, I'd hate to see what you consider mediocre, or poor.
And fire the laser from an airplane to heat the house.
I'm not sure if it's worse that these people believe that astrology is a science. Or that they were too stupid to not know the difference between astrology and astronomy. It's one thing if a few people got confused. But for so many to not know the difference is a little frightening.
Perhaps more importantly, why would the category 'interactive movie' even get to exist when the category 'game' already does?
I don't know if "interactive movie" is the correct term. But I think there is a difference between that and a game. I don't have time to play games like I did in my youth. But I did enjoy the Mass Effect series. I was surprised with the third Mass Effect game in that it had not only the typical easy, medium, and difficult settings. But it also had one in which you could go through all of the dialog but not have to shoot or do any of the things that typically make up a game. I think it's a significant difference from what I would consider a game.
In the past the story was usually a bunch of cine images that you wanted to skip through as quickly as possible so you could get down to shooting stuff. For me, this actually changed when I played Dues Ex. The game play was fun in that game. But all of the character interactions really made the game a lot of fun. Plus there was a ton of dialog that I found really interesting that didn't have any effect on the game play at all, but was just really in line with the story.
Right on point! Over population is the cause of most of our current misery and very few people are even capable of thinking it out. Pollution is a result of human activity by definition. Nature does not pollute itself.
http://abstrusegoose.com/strip...
The greater the population the higher the level of pollution. The need to feed the mutitudes has reduced our oceans to near death. Our lands are exhausted and loaded with the chemicals required to feed the population. It is a spiral staircase to doom or hell on Earth.
Hyperbole much?
Yet over population will not be halted by individuals being self regulating. It can only be controlled by vigorous legal sanctions. Yet no politician can touch anything resembling the idea of population control by law and regulation as political doom would be heaped upon him.
Perhaps. The real problem is that humans have become just too damn good at surviving. To the point where even the weaker of us survive and reproduce. We have no real predators to thin the herd. We ardently defend the weaker among us. Which some find to be noble, while others think it's a waste of resources. Because of our inventiveness and ability to create societal groups, we can easily defend against even the most top shelf predators on the planet.
Essentially the situation acts as a proof that democracy can not exist and is self extinguishing as a political philosophy. We can see Joe Stalin as a butcher yet we do not see the problem of allowing personal freedom in reproduction to be far more deadly to far more people than Stalin could ever have been.
Only time will tell for sure. As I'm sure you are aware, as a country becomes more industrialized the population tends to increase at a slower rate and appears it will reach an equilibrium at some point. As technology advances we seem to be looking for ways to produce cleaner energy too. Just look at how long it's been since the industrial revolution started. It wasn't until the late 1960's that anyone gave a thought about pollution. Look at how much has been done since then. It's not perfect, but it's moving in the right direction. I suppose I may be overly optimistic. But I'd like to think we'll get it right in the next couple of decades. Even if we do get it right. Mother Nature can be a cruel bitch. One good solar flare or super volcano eruption and mankind could be reduced to less than 10% of the current population in no time at all.
Ooooh, if all our cars were powered by Woman's Scorn they would be quick like Lambos and sound even meaner!
And they'd be much better for the environment because we'd all drive less. Can you imagine if every time you stepped on the accelerator you heard, "ARE YOU EVEN LISTEN TO ME!" I'd walk or bike to anything less than 100 miles.
Um, let's compare to the US, shall we? Germany, 2013, 810 million tons CO2, 607 million MW h / yr. US, 2010, 5,369 million tons CO2, 3,886 million MW h / yr. Germany is more efficient in power per CO2 emissions.
Don't feel bad, though, because whoever wrote the summary is also ignorant -- it is the north, not the south, that is most industrial.
I don't know where you got your numbers, but here's what is on Wikipedia for CO2 And GWh generated. Let's at least compare the same year for each country.
It's certainly better than the US, but considering this big push the Germany is in for clean energy and the US is only half-ass moving in that direction, I'm a little surprised it is as close as it is.
France is on the better side of this by far at: CO2-370,000 / 560,500 GWh=0.66 tons of CO2 per GWh
On the other side of the scale you have India: CO2-7,440,000 / 1,053,900 GWh= 7.06 tones of CO2 per GWh.
"alot" is a word. Not the one he thinks though, it's a verb with similar meaning to allocate.
No, it isn't. The word you are thinking of is, "allot".
Beta is here to stay!
It lost out to VHS years ago. Are you some kind of diehard Sony fanboy or something?
Fortunately we can use the LHC to create a black hole to dump this in if things go wrong.
Hold on, let me go get some real world empirical data ... okay, I just asked my 15 year old daughter how many of her friends believe in astrology. Her response: "What's astrology?"
I see the problem with your data. The poll was for 18-25 year olds. Your daughter still has three more years of stupid to absorb from school before she can have an opinion.
Majority of young Americans would like Beta, if they ever came here in the first place.
The majority of young Americans don't even know what VHS is these days, let alone Beta. ;-)
You miss my point entirely. Evolution is a scientific (hypothesis based on observations and testable) theory. Creationism is not based on observations, it's based on a book (or books) and a very few observations which are made which "fit" the story written in the book(s). Creationism is not open to debate or revision (God said it, I believe it and that's that). That's not science, it's religion. If you can't see the difference, it's not important.
No, I understood your point. If you read my entire post you would see that I also agree with you.
What I didn't agree with was you narrow minded definition of creationism. You continue to show a complete lack of understanding with your post above as well. There is no single text which creationism comes from as you stated in your initial post.
For the most part the words used to explain creationism (in what ever form) are from someones observations. In many cases "visions". These may have been drug induced, "gifts from god(s)", or whatever. While most religions state these texts are the word of god, I've yet to see one that has claimed that the divine being him/her(self) went through the menial task of physically penning these things to paper (papyrus, stone). It's accepted by even the most rigid believers that there is room for interpretation as the human writer could have been ambiguous in their choice of phrasing. Or changes in language over time, translational errors, etc.
There are scholars for all major religions and they don't all agree. It's not "God said it, I believe it and that's that" Creationism is a hotly debated topic in many religious circles. As I stated, It is not a topic that has any place with physics, and biology. It belongs in a philosophy class. However I think that evolution and natural selection should also be added into that mix. Unfortunately you are in too much of a fervor over how unquestioning religious people must be, you failed to comprehend what I was saying to begin with.
Creationism is based on what's written in a single book (which some consider "the word of God" and others consider a fairy tale), as "interpreted" by those who can't even agree among themselves. It also conflicts (young earth) with geologic observations.
I'm not going to argue the merits of creationism vs. evolution. But it is rather obvious that you have failed to look at both sides with any sort of objectivity or even at all for that matter. Which is perfectly fine in and of itself. But please don't pretend to act like there is only one text in the world that teaches creationism, It is in the Torah and the christian bible. You can make a case for the old testament and Torah being the same or similar. Mormons believe the earth was created by the coalescence from existing matter and that god once lived on another planet with an even higher god. The Quran also indicates that god created the universe. Chinese mythology states that the universe came into existence through the coalescence of chaos into the cosmic egg. The Babylonians had the seven tablets of creation in which Marduk slays Tiamat and uses her corpse to create the earth and sky. Hinduism has the universe on a 4 billion year big bang cycle in which everything is recreated and destroyed over and over again. Buddhists believe that there are essentially an infinite number of universes at any given time and they are all influenced by our karma as to whether or not they exist(or not) at the present moment.
The "young earth theory" is often trotted out definitive proof of how stupid creationism is. The funny thing the only people I have ever known to bring it up are atheists or people who need to show anyone of faith just how stupid they are. It was based on flawed assumptions from a very long time ago. How about we take a look at what science had to say from back in those times? It would be just as stupid. That being said, I'm sure you can find some crazy person claiming to be a christian who believes in the young earth. But I could just as easily find someone claiming to be a Pagan who worships a tennis ball and claims it's the all mighty creator of life the universe and everything too. There are plenty of quacks (and frauds) who claim to be scientists. That doesn't mean that anyone in a lab coat is batshit crazy, does it?
Regardless, this belongs in a philosophy class at best. And all creationism beliefs should be discussed. Not simply the Judeo/Christian ones. Including natural selection/evolution in this type of setting would make sense to me. But not in the same context as biology, chemistry, physics, etc. It's rather sad to see this type of thing occurring, and does not bode well for South Carolina in my opinion.
Thank you for posting this. It's certainly the most enlightening thing I've read on /. today.
Yeah. Can't wait to see the scars left by the huge strip-mining operation.
As long as we can clearly see "CHA" from the earth when they are done, I'm cool with it.
and targets a SIM card belonging to a terror suspect,
So someone could take a box with a dozen or so of the SIM cards and place it in a mosque, wedding, or other gathering of completely innocent people. Suddenly it's a meeting place with many "high value" targets and a bunch of innocents die, known SIM cards get destroyed and the bad guys need to get new phones. Or SIM card anyhow. So this harmless metadata, or so the NSA says, is enough information to fire missiles at people. But it's not something that I should be concerned with being tracked if it's from my phone?
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which uses a conservative methodology to track drone strikes, estimates that at least 2,400 people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been killed by unmanned aerial assaults under the Obama administration.
That's considerably more than I would have thought the total of all drone strikes ever. As scary as the cold war was, this "war on terror", or what ever it's called these days, is far creepier to me.
takes full responsibility for it.
That phrase doesn't seem to mean what it used to.
2.) My dog isn't from a puppy mill; she's from a reputable breeder
You previously stated your dog had worms. If this is the case, then it's not a reputable breeder. Or perhaps you have found a crappy vet. It can't hurt to go to another for a second opinion. At least you'll know.
Wrong. Most puppies, no matter where or how they are born, have roundworms. They are fairly endemic in small numbers and transmitted by the mother in the womb. It's normal, and not a big deal to treat. You can leave it alone and hope your puppy manages to gets enough nutrition to thrive and fight them off, or you can spend a bit and deworm. But why anyone would want to get a new puppy and play survival of the fittest with it is beyond me (and pretty horrible). Not to mention roundworms can potentially spread to people is it worth a bit of money to *you* not to get worms? :)
I didn't say that they didn't have worms at any point. A reputable breeder will have wormed them already and have detailed records of this and all vaccinations and a vet schedule and records for the parents as well. . I've never heard of any good breeder that would send puppies home that have not been wormed. You sure as hell aren't going to take a dog home from a good breeder and have to go to a vet to discover it has worms.
I only use pet meds that have been tested on human prisoners.
I work in the medical field. The joke about new drugs and procedures is that they get tested on Europeans first, then dogs. It's mostly a way to alleviate the frustration of how many things the FDA won't allow to be used in the US for what ever stupid reasons they have. But it makes me chuckle when I hear a doctor say it.