The parent post didn't say he/she thought the whole Bible was just allegorical or poetic; just the creation story as found in Genesis. There are plenty of us Christians who believe that the creation story told in Genesis is simply a simplistic retelling of what happened. For example, the 6 days (+1 of rest) are not actually 24 hours or 1000 years are anything like that - they simply represent periods of time, which could have been millions or billions of years.
Where is this stated? Where in the Bible is this alternate time length mentioned? If it isn't actually mentioned, then wouldn't it be a bit of 'manipulation to fit the argument' to state otherwise?
Why, precisely, are you bending what was written to justify your belief? Or does the question answer itself?
Please don't pidgeonhole all Christians under the Creationist camp. There are many Christians that are not diametrically opposed to evolutionary theory. Rather, we see the creation story in Genesis to be allegorical and poetic, instead of trying to place it under textbook scrutiny.
So you are saying that you accept the scientific conclusion that all life on Earth has a common ancestor that can be traced back some three billion years ago with no deity involved?
"What is before you is an Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle. I do not recommend utilizing the Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle... for the results could be... unpredictable. Oh... I see that you are ignoring me and using the Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle anyway. Fine. But will the Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle... love you as I do?"
Sure it's true. It's true in the same way that you can go from California to Brazil to the UK to Japan. You're simply leaving out the travel time and stops in between, and quite often that is more important than the destinations.
However, we deny that species evolve into other species. For example, fish do not become horses and cats do not become giraffes.
Fish and horses are quite a bit more than a species apart. That doesn't just require speciation (what you Christians call "maroevolution"), but it requires the jumping of genus, family, order, perhaps more depending on your comparison.
There is not one single science paper stating that this happens. Nobody says "Fish become horses". This is a typical creationist (read: Christian) misstatement and misunderstanding. It shows you really don't know what evolution means or says.
Now I have heard an example of modern evolution that defines a new species like this: suppose you have a fish that is normally green, but occasionally a mutation occurs and a blue fish is born among the green fish. Suppose these fish live near some green coral where the green fish blend in and thus survive more than the blue fish. Then, say that several of the green and blue fish migrate away from that area several miles to where there happens to be a lot of blue coral. Now, the green fish die off and the blue fish survive. Over time these two populations no longer breed amongst each other. By my understanding, evolution defines them as two separate species and state that MACRO-evolution has occurred. I call that a convenient definition to suit evolutionist agenda. Utterly ridiculous.
That is what is known as speciation. This is when one species becomes two. Again, what you Christians call "macroevolution", or evolution of one species into another. What you have described above is evolution... you have random mutation (your blue fish), natural selection (the green coral environment and the predators within), genetic isolation (a group of these fish move to a different environment), natural selection once again (the blue coral environment and its predators), and this results in speciation (the green and blue are separate and will no longer breed with one another).
One species is now two. Evolution. Now, do this process six-hundred-million times.
I have a hard time accepting evolution in general due to the wild leaps it makes. For instance, Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins about the origins of life in the universe and the possibility of intelligent design. The best answer that a practiced scientist and atheist can give on the spot is that some higher form of life evolved and then populated the earth with life. That is, aliens evolved & put life on earth. But, the aliens themselves would have had to evolved through some natural process. THAT is his answer to intelligent design. He answered NOTHING, but merely moved the issue to another planet. It is circular reasoning. I simply do not understand this die-hard attitude towards something that many reputable scientists have abandoned and continue to abandon to this day.
Yes, that is Dawkins' answer to Intelligent Design. This is not a reference to anything pertaining to evolution. Stein asked how ID could be applied to science, and the ONLY way is if alien life (intelligent) seeded Earth (design). Why is this the only answer? Because a deity is not science. Your God is not scientifically verifiable. Therefore it (and anything pertaining to it... your Bible, creationism, cdesign proponentists, etc.) cannot be a scientific answer to anything.
And for further reference, Stein was referring to life on Earth, not life in "the universe", something that IDists do not believe in either.
Why is wireless better than a standardized docking station?
Seems to me a docking station would always be cheaper AND more efficient than a wireless setup.
The only difference to the user would be that you have to line it up neatly when you lay it on the charging pad. Would that inconvenience anybody?
Come home after ten-plus hours on the job and see how enthusiastic you are about lining up your pocket fodder. I just empty my pockets onto the little table next to the door. It would be real nifty if that's all I have to do to make sure they're fully charged for the next day. One less thing I need to worry about.
As for cheap, all this would be is a coil under the surface... half of a transformer. Not too pricey and a whole lot more convenient than juggling a pile of wires.
Wireless power is only practical in short ranges anyway. With standardized cables I wouldn't have drawerfuls of power cables.
Which is precisely what they're aiming for.
A standardized cable isn't gonna help you much when your mobile phone takes 5 volts to charge and your shaver or laptop takes 9 to 18. I imagine the technology would mimic proximity cards, you'd have a flat surface (say, a tabletop) and you'd sit your PDA, mobile, laptop, portable game system, etc. on it and depending on the number of windings in the receiving device and a small rectifier circuit, it would automatically receive the proper voltage.
Retrogaming has reemerged simply due to the fact that those games weren't sold solely on mind blowing graphics and sound... the games had STAND ON THEIR OWN. Gameplay, challenge and replay value were paramount. When you had less than a megabyte (sometimes as low as 4 kilobytes) to wedge your game into, visuals and sound often took a back seat. Hell, one of my favorite games is Star Trek for the 2600 where the Enterprise is nothing more than the letters O and I next to each other, but the game is challenging and I'm always dropping that cartridge in my VCS (screw emulation, coke from a glass bottle simply tastes better).
Developers got caught up in what's popular (read: first person shooters) and forgot why people played games in the first place... to have fun.
To stick to true scientific terminology, a theory is never proven or disproven... proofs exist only in the world of mathematics. Theories are validated and invalidated. A prediction is made and a test is administered to a theory (an experiment), and this is what ultimately validates or invalidates a theory (or a portion of it). If the evidence invalidates, then the theory is revised to fit the evidence provided... rarely is the theory itself completely thrown away unless overwhelming evidence completely thrashes it to the point of it not being able to make any predictions whatsoever and it fails every test put forth to it.
This is what many cdesign proponentists fail to understand... our theories reflect all known knowledge on a subject and are being revised and updated damn near every single day. Our theories are not static, and they never will be. Textbooks will be outdated, new evidence will bring about change in our theories as well as reinforce them.
To put it simply, a theory is the logical framework built by all observed facts, data and research. To say something is "just a theory" is quite honestly an insult to the scientific community... one which many of us do not take lightly.
Maybe someone should frontpage the scandal over selling Obama's seat? Electoral process isn't geek news. It's not even interesting news. It's fucking, hundreds-of-years-old news.
News for Nerds. Stuff That Matters. Forget that particular part?
Really? What exactly is gravity's mechanism? What is used to exert this force? Mass is the reason for it, but what about mass exerts a gravitational force?
I subscribe to SiriusXM as well as riding the 3G network, and if it's radio you want... hate to tell you guys, but you're going to pay a metric assload less for satellite radio versus 3G internet access.
My XM subscription costs $130 USD per year.
My 3G access (unlimited data with unlimited tethering) is $85 USD per MONTH, which is only the data plan portion of my phone bill.
My opinion on why SiriusXM is tanking? They looked at all their combined radio stations, separated the wheat from the chaff, and gave us the goddamn chaff. The one channel I listen to the most (XM82 The System) was nixed in favor of something called Area, which in comparison, sucks. Even my wife who is not a die-hard electronica fan said that the quality went downhill. They screwed around with Chill, nixed Chrome, and I am quite certain that several other stations have been screwed around with much to the dismay of SirXM's subscribers.
They need to realize that most of us subscribe for literally a handful of stations, and if you screw with them, we get pissed.
The point is that the Wii is a fucking 8 year-old GameCube with extras!
Awww, are we getting fussy?
You're screaming about the Wii being a revved up Gamecube in a discussion over the power consumption of what the article (if you would read it) calls "the big three video game consoles", and you're calling ME the retard? Who gives a shit what the Wii is, the point of the article is its power consumption, nothing more.
Why? Because I was pointing out to Fox_1 (who has a low 6 digit UID and should know better) that there is no reason to consider it amazing or impressive, given what we know about the systems.
Hey, did you know the NES uses a lot less power than a PS3?
Did you know that elephants are like, way heavier than wombats?
Sure. Did you know the NES is a bit over twenty years older? Did you know that elephants and wombats don't share an order?
Did you know the Wii, PS3 and 360 are competitors?
His point is that the Wii isn't even in the same class as an Xbox 360 or PS3. The Xbox may use ten times as much electricity, but it's also ten times as powerful. I'd even go so far as to say it's ten times as much fun.
Is this a debate of console power and available titles, or is this a debate over power consumption?
The Wii's power draw should be compared to that of the GameCube. We should see a lower power draw than the GameCube since the components have undergone a die shrink. The added features (most notably, wifi) then bring the power consumption up over the GameCube's.
The 360 and PS3 are new architectures, featuring much more powerful CPUs and GPUs than the Wii. Comparing them to the Wii is inappropriate.
Why? This isn't a comparison of processing power and features, it's a comparison of power consumption of current-gen consoles. If you want to debate processing power and reasons why the other two suck more juice than the Wii, there are other forums for that.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent post didn't say he/she thought the whole Bible was just allegorical or poetic; just the creation story as found in Genesis. There are plenty of us Christians who believe that the creation story told in Genesis is simply a simplistic retelling of what happened. For example, the 6 days (+1 of rest) are not actually 24 hours or 1000 years are anything like that - they simply represent periods of time, which could have been millions or billions of years.
Where is this stated? Where in the Bible is this alternate time length mentioned? If it isn't actually mentioned, then wouldn't it be a bit of 'manipulation to fit the argument' to state otherwise?
Why, precisely, are you bending what was written to justify your belief? Or does the question answer itself?
Please don't pidgeonhole all Christians under the Creationist camp. There are many Christians that are not diametrically opposed to evolutionary theory. Rather, we see the creation story in Genesis to be allegorical and poetic, instead of trying to place it under textbook scrutiny.
So you are saying that you accept the scientific conclusion that all life on Earth has a common ancestor that can be traced back some three billion years ago with no deity involved?
So why follow a religion?
"What is before you is an Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle. I do not recommend utilizing the Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle... for the results could be... unpredictable. Oh... I see that you are ignoring me and using the Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle anyway. Fine. But will the Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle... love you as I do?"
(non-human like, lets say a 1m cube with a penis sized hole in one side)
Companion cube, indeed.
That's actually true, isn't it? Fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> mammals.
Sure it's true. It's true in the same way that you can go from California to Brazil to the UK to Japan. You're simply leaving out the travel time and stops in between, and quite often that is more important than the destinations.
However, we deny that species evolve into other species. For example, fish do not become horses and cats do not become giraffes.
Fish and horses are quite a bit more than a species apart. That doesn't just require speciation (what you Christians call "maroevolution"), but it requires the jumping of genus, family, order, perhaps more depending on your comparison.
There is not one single science paper stating that this happens. Nobody says "Fish become horses". This is a typical creationist (read: Christian) misstatement and misunderstanding. It shows you really don't know what evolution means or says.
Now I have heard an example of modern evolution that defines a new species like this: suppose you have a fish that is normally green, but occasionally a mutation occurs and a blue fish is born among the green fish. Suppose these fish live near some green coral where the green fish blend in and thus survive more than the blue fish. Then, say that several of the green and blue fish migrate away from that area several miles to where there happens to be a lot of blue coral. Now, the green fish die off and the blue fish survive. Over time these two populations no longer breed amongst each other. By my understanding, evolution defines them as two separate species and state that MACRO-evolution has occurred. I call that a convenient definition to suit evolutionist agenda. Utterly ridiculous.
That is what is known as speciation. This is when one species becomes two. Again, what you Christians call "macroevolution", or evolution of one species into another. What you have described above is evolution... you have random mutation (your blue fish), natural selection (the green coral environment and the predators within), genetic isolation (a group of these fish move to a different environment), natural selection once again (the blue coral environment and its predators), and this results in speciation (the green and blue are separate and will no longer breed with one another).
One species is now two. Evolution. Now, do this process six-hundred-million times.
I have a hard time accepting evolution in general due to the wild leaps it makes. For instance, Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins about the origins of life in the universe and the possibility of intelligent design. The best answer that a practiced scientist and atheist can give on the spot is that some higher form of life evolved and then populated the earth with life. That is, aliens evolved & put life on earth. But, the aliens themselves would have had to evolved through some natural process. THAT is his answer to intelligent design. He answered NOTHING, but merely moved the issue to another planet. It is circular reasoning. I simply do not understand this die-hard attitude towards something that many reputable scientists have abandoned and continue to abandon to this day.
Yes, that is Dawkins' answer to Intelligent Design. This is not a reference to anything pertaining to evolution. Stein asked how ID could be applied to science, and the ONLY way is if alien life (intelligent) seeded Earth (design). Why is this the only answer? Because a deity is not science. Your God is not scientifically verifiable. Therefore it (and anything pertaining to it... your Bible, creationism, cdesign proponentists, etc.) cannot be a scientific answer to anything.
And for further reference, Stein was referring to life on Earth, not life in "the universe", something that IDists do not believe in either.
It's a perversion of justice for the profit of the state, but right now the judges let it pass constitutional muster.
That's just because nobody bothered to do the the same trick with the correct government or state official plates.
Specifically emergency vehicles... they DO run red lights rather often.
Then, when a workaround is put in place to make the machines ignore emergency vehicles, exploit that.
That's the hidden number three.
Why is wireless better than a standardized docking station?
Seems to me a docking station would always be cheaper AND more efficient than a wireless setup.
The only difference to the user would be that you have to line it up neatly when you lay it on the charging pad. Would that inconvenience anybody?
Come home after ten-plus hours on the job and see how enthusiastic you are about lining up your pocket fodder. I just empty my pockets onto the little table next to the door. It would be real nifty if that's all I have to do to make sure they're fully charged for the next day. One less thing I need to worry about.
As for cheap, all this would be is a coil under the surface... half of a transformer. Not too pricey and a whole lot more convenient than juggling a pile of wires.
Wireless power is only practical in short ranges anyway. With standardized cables I wouldn't have drawerfuls of power cables.
Which is precisely what they're aiming for.
A standardized cable isn't gonna help you much when your mobile phone takes 5 volts to charge and your shaver or laptop takes 9 to 18. I imagine the technology would mimic proximity cards, you'd have a flat surface (say, a tabletop) and you'd sit your PDA, mobile, laptop, portable game system, etc. on it and depending on the number of windings in the receiving device and a small rectifier circuit, it would automatically receive the proper voltage.
AC electricity is fun.
Retrogaming has reemerged simply due to the fact that those games weren't sold solely on mind blowing graphics and sound... the games had STAND ON THEIR OWN. Gameplay, challenge and replay value were paramount. When you had less than a megabyte (sometimes as low as 4 kilobytes) to wedge your game into, visuals and sound often took a back seat. Hell, one of my favorite games is Star Trek for the 2600 where the Enterprise is nothing more than the letters O and I next to each other, but the game is challenging and I'm always dropping that cartridge in my VCS (screw emulation, coke from a glass bottle simply tastes better).
Developers got caught up in what's popular (read: first person shooters) and forgot why people played games in the first place... to have fun.
I wouldn't, because it's a piece of shit of a spacecraft.
And your other choices for multi-passenger, multi-ton payload carrying orbiters would be...
You're quite welcome for the post :)
To stick to true scientific terminology, a theory is never proven or disproven... proofs exist only in the world of mathematics. Theories are validated and invalidated. A prediction is made and a test is administered to a theory (an experiment), and this is what ultimately validates or invalidates a theory (or a portion of it). If the evidence invalidates, then the theory is revised to fit the evidence provided... rarely is the theory itself completely thrown away unless overwhelming evidence completely thrashes it to the point of it not being able to make any predictions whatsoever and it fails every test put forth to it.
This is what many cdesign proponentists fail to understand... our theories reflect all known knowledge on a subject and are being revised and updated damn near every single day. Our theories are not static, and they never will be. Textbooks will be outdated, new evidence will bring about change in our theories as well as reinforce them.
To put it simply, a theory is the logical framework built by all observed facts, data and research. To say something is "just a theory" is quite honestly an insult to the scientific community... one which many of us do not take lightly.
Maybe someone should frontpage the scandal over selling Obama's seat? Electoral process isn't geek news. It's not even interesting news. It's fucking, hundreds-of-years-old news.
News for Nerds. Stuff That Matters. Forget that particular part?
Really? What exactly is gravity's mechanism? What is used to exert this force? Mass is the reason for it, but what about mass exerts a gravitational force?
Unless there is an upset or irrational event on such an "important" event, the mechanics of the US political infrastructure do not matter.
I always wondered how this handbasket we're all in reached its final destination...
I subscribe to SiriusXM as well as riding the 3G network, and if it's radio you want... hate to tell you guys, but you're going to pay a metric assload less for satellite radio versus 3G internet access.
My XM subscription costs $130 USD per year.
My 3G access (unlimited data with unlimited tethering) is $85 USD per MONTH, which is only the data plan portion of my phone bill.
My opinion on why SiriusXM is tanking? They looked at all their combined radio stations, separated the wheat from the chaff, and gave us the goddamn chaff. The one channel I listen to the most (XM82 The System) was nixed in favor of something called Area, which in comparison, sucks. Even my wife who is not a die-hard electronica fan said that the quality went downhill. They screwed around with Chill, nixed Chrome, and I am quite certain that several other stations have been screwed around with much to the dismay of SirXM's subscribers.
They need to realize that most of us subscribe for literally a handful of stations, and if you screw with them, we get pissed.
Here's the trick: The Saturn V can launch manned craft beyond LEO. The Shuttle cannot.
Video games are no more responsible for violence than guns are responsible for killing.
Man, you're a retard.
The point is that the Wii is a fucking 8 year-old GameCube with extras!
Awww, are we getting fussy?
You're screaming about the Wii being a revved up Gamecube in a discussion over the power consumption of what the article (if you would read it) calls "the big three video game consoles", and you're calling ME the retard? Who gives a shit what the Wii is, the point of the article is its power consumption, nothing more.
RT-FUCKING-A.
Why? Because I was pointing out to Fox_1 (who has a low 6 digit UID and should know better) that there is no reason to consider it amazing or impressive, given what we know about the systems.
Hey, did you know the NES uses a lot less power than a PS3?
Did you know that elephants are like, way heavier than wombats?
Sure. Did you know the NES is a bit over twenty years older? Did you know that elephants and wombats don't share an order?
Did you know the Wii, PS3 and 360 are competitors?
His point is that the Wii isn't even in the same class as an Xbox 360 or PS3. The Xbox may use ten times as much electricity, but it's also ten times as powerful. I'd even go so far as to say it's ten times as much fun.
Is this a debate of console power and available titles, or is this a debate over power consumption?
...
The Wii's power draw should be compared to that of the GameCube. We should see a lower power draw than the GameCube since the components have undergone a die shrink. The added features (most notably, wifi) then bring the power consumption up over the GameCube's.
The 360 and PS3 are new architectures, featuring much more powerful CPUs and GPUs than the Wii. Comparing them to the Wii is inappropriate.
Why? This isn't a comparison of processing power and features, it's a comparison of power consumption of current-gen consoles. If you want to debate processing power and reasons why the other two suck more juice than the Wii, there are other forums for that.
You do know that the Wii is a die-shrunk GameCube with more RAM, Wifi, bluetooth, and a SD card slot, right?
Price of tea in China... what's that got to do with it?
I can see that you have given this matter altogether too much consideration.
He's given it the right amount of consideration... he has a plan which just might succeed.
Forty-two.