Right, because if there's anything a legislator will give a damn about, it's a form letter written and delivered via a web page any random person outside of New York can access.
But it'll make people feel like they've participated in the political process, and that's what matters most, right?
Not that I don't see your point, but I'd imagine some moderately sheltered and pasty spammer would be more intimidated by the thought of six months in prison than your typical veteran urban drug dealer would be by the thought of six years in it.
At least one (that I directly know of) and probably several things like rape survivors' support groups/blogs got nailed in this because they had the word 'rape' in their interests list. It was right next to "rape prevention," but that didn't stop 6A from nuking the account.
Because, of course, discussing something must mean actively encouraging and promoting it, right? If the context of the post/account/community says otherwise clearly enough that anyone without anencephaly could figure it out, why, that could be a ruse and we shouldn't take chances!
(God, won't someone please stop thinking of the children?)
Yeah, it reminds me of those guys who started printing "phone books" that list someone's name *and* address in them. I mean, you could find where someone lived simply by knowing their name and hometown!
Really, now. Who's the bastard who came up with that bright idea?
Well, I suppose this is interesting if just for the fact that we now have evidence that (+5, Troll) exists in places other than buggy Slashdot posts...
What I do know is that standard evolutionist propaganda
... Generally speaking, using the term "evolutionist" is another useful way to out yourself as a creationist and/or ID type. Frankly, belonging to either of those camps necessitates having an understanding only of a dumbed-down, strawman version of what evolution entails, or at least a "no mere fact can convince me" shield of deliberate misunderstanding.
("Propaganda," by the way? To what end? Can't have propaganda without a Nefarious Goal, remember!)
is to present some theory that requires a PhD in biology to understand
And yet, strangely enough, I had a decent grasp of it well before earning my undergraduate degree in history. The whole "reading" thing is highly underrated.
The core theory of evolution is very simple: Humans mutated from apes, which mutated from whatever, etc... etc... etc..., which mutated from a single-celled organism that formed because some chemicals found their way together.
A few problems here.
First, evolutionary science does not address biogenesis at all, any more than computer science or architecture or basket weaving or calligraphy do. The reason for this is simple: it is not and never was intended to explore that question. There's whole other areas which study biogenesis seperately - which they should, because it's a far more theoretical topic. Anybody who says that evolution somehow explains biogenesis, or is "flawed" because it doesn't explain biogenesis, has demonstrably failed to understand evolution.
Second, you're claiming that evolution's progressive, that it's defined in terms of the blob becoming the fish crawling out of the sea to become (etc etc etc) which becomes a shrew which becomes an ape which becomes a human, as though the whole thing was meant to arrive at that point. That idea's "true" enough in intelligent design, and was at some past point standard among "evolutionists" as you call them, but folks know better. Evolution is a reactive process; it responds to pressure from the environment (different climates, new predators on the block, etc) and is not some internally-driven debugging program coaxing life towards a specific point. If you cleaned off the Earth and tried things again, the broad strokes would be the same (Australia once had an ecosystem of creatures about as varied as any in Afroeurasia or the Americas, with marsupials filling almost every niche!), but the end points would probably be considerably different.
Third, evolutionary theory is not as concerned with whether this happened - that is absolute fact, verifiable in myriads of different ways - as it is with how it happened. Mutation and speciation rates, effects of various pressures, tendencies towards certain changes (eyes evolved independently dozens of times, for instance, and true flight at least four), etc. The system has been directly observed working by now; the interesting (and useful) part is determining what makes it tick.
Given its length, and the presumably large number of people that could be on it at a time, I presume it would be a potential target for terrorists
Ahhh, you mean like all those other major suspension bridges that have been easily attacked and destroyed by the omnipresent Terrorist in the past few years.
But rather than collaborating and sending 7 or 8 different nationalities in one ship, we're each going to redesign the damn wheel, and spend billions of dollars in a new space race because no one country will play nice in the sandbox with the other countries.
Personally, I have no problem with most of the major powers in the world having the capability to do moonshots or more. I'd much prefer that over a single project which any one of them could veto or otherwise hamstring by whim or incompetence. The more people who are able to do things like this, the more who could potentially take the initiative to do something more than a prestige shot.
I'm perfectly cool with that. If it costs more money to get it off the ground, then it's worth it.
Alas, you'd hear the slicey Foom of the whole thing, but the actual strummed note would probably be more in terms of cycles per week instead of cycles per second.;)
A lot of the objections to using the word "refugee" to describe the Katrina refugees seem to boil down to the idea that Americans can't be refugees, since refugees are those other people. It's pride, not grammar, which is at stake.
While I've seen some people with legitimate objections (even though I don't really buy the validity of a highly politically-motivated redefinition of a word which has been in use for a long time indeed), most of the complaints I've heard about the word really do boil down to that. It's not objection to the word; it's denial that it's being applied to us, something which feels like an insult when it really isn't anything more than a simple statement of fact.
Lots of people think they're better than others though. It's just an opinion. The important question is whether you think that you should be allowed to make people's choices for them. Do you?
Actually, in some situations, yes, I do. Not terribly many, as I'm well aware of my fairly limited qualifications so far, but I also believe other people are allowed that same power to make decisions as well, depending on what they're capable of.
I'm certain you do too, unless you've never been in anything resembling a position of authority or responsibility, which I tend to find hard to believe coming from anyone online these days able to post in complete sentences. Of course some people are allowed to make choices for others; it's why we not only have things like safety standards for medication, food and architecture, but why we also largely benefit from it. I hardly consider "you need to do this or Bad Things will happen" to be tyrannical, although I assume you think otherwise. The fact is, people who Know Better exist, and condemning or ignoring that fact is silly.
As the other respondent to your comment here says, the every-man-for-himself age of the Wild West or human precivilization is gone, gone, gone. Humans have responsibilities and obligations alongside their rights, unless they're hermits or residents of sunny Mogadishu or some silliness like that.
If it comes down to people being shunted towards some kind of sustainable future - even by the evils of someone else telling them to do it! - on the one hand, and human societies suddenly running into brick walls and Easter Islanding themselves on the other, I know what I'd pick.
Unlike a lot of people (who, other than you so far, seem only able to respond with personal attacks, something I find kinda funny), I don't consider the burning-out of entire societies to be an acceptable price tag for the "right" to act as though "après moi, le déluge" is a good thing to believe.
One of those questionable historical figures said that one too, by the way.
(If that's not good enough for you, then freedom really isn't your thing. You're more into tyranny -- making peoples' choices for them, because you've decided you're better than them.)
Actually, yeah. When it comes to people who see the idea of any obligations to anything other than themselves as evil, I do consider myself better than them.
Most of those people seem to have trouble realizing that there is such a thing as cost aside from what they pull out of their wallet. And yet they continue to make their glorious, "free" decisions, despite happily fettering themselves in their own ignorance, something which seems to be the rage these days.
'Cause, see, thinking of anything other than yourself (like, for example, the neighbors, or your grandchildren's ability to hit middle age in their forties rather than their twenties) must be tyrannical communistic doom, false dichotomies also being the rage these days. If it involves any sense of non-personal responsibility, it's bad bad bad!
Do I have contempt for that attitude? Yes, I do. Am I better than people who trumpet it? Yes, I am.
I'm confused why only 46% of christians believe that aliens exist.
The "reason" that I've heard most often is "if there were extraterrestrials, the Bible would have mentioned them." If it isn't mentioned in the Good Book, then it isn't there to be mentioned, save possibly as a demonic plot.
Nevermind that it says nothing about nuclear fission, radio, or the correct number of male ribs, but those all seem to exist.
Here is the actual text of one of John Paul II's statements on the Church and evolution, if anyone's curious. It's an address on the matter he made in 1996 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
Nonsense, wikipedia isn't "controlled by editors", it's controlled by whatever the general consensus is on a topic, subject to their NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) rules.
And of course, the general consensus of a bunch of laymen on a highly complex topic qualifies as somehow reliable...
While this is a great advancement for the Indians I just can't get excited. Been there, done that. Landers, orbiters, impacters... Who cares!!! We had PEOPLE on the moon 35 years ago!
And the sad thing is that if the US, China and India all decided they wanted to do another manned moon-shot program, starting Right Now, I wouldn't know which one to bet on. Between a mix of apathy and atrophy, you might want to keep in mind that the US isn't terribly far ahead of other spacefaring countries anymore.
Accomplishments are all well and good, but the US got dumped back into the sixties with regard to their space technology lately. The fact that the Apollo Program happened is rather outweighed by the fact that the capability to do that again no longer exists - so you're simply cutting another country down for doing something you guys threw away the skills for twenty years ago. Nice.
Why can't we have concerts on board these flights, maybe a small club-like atmosphere in the upper decks, make the whole thing a little more interesting.. maybe airline companies could have the "House Flight To Sydney" DJ linueup, or something. Virgin could tie in their rock-star factor and have some *real* entertainment on-board, perhaps?
I dunno, I kinda like my airline tickets only costing an arm as opposed to an arm and both legs. If you're that bored, take another book along or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because if there's anything a legislator will give a damn about, it's a form letter written and delivered via a web page any random person outside of New York can access.
But it'll make people feel like they've participated in the political process, and that's what matters most, right?
Not that I don't see your point, but I'd imagine some moderately sheltered and pasty spammer would be more intimidated by the thought of six months in prison than your typical veteran urban drug dealer would be by the thought of six years in it.
At least one (that I directly know of) and probably several things like rape survivors' support groups/blogs got nailed in this because they had the word 'rape' in their interests list. It was right next to "rape prevention," but that didn't stop 6A from nuking the account.
Because, of course, discussing something must mean actively encouraging and promoting it, right? If the context of the post/account/community says otherwise clearly enough that anyone without anencephaly could figure it out, why, that could be a ruse and we shouldn't take chances!
(God, won't someone please stop thinking of the children?)
Really, now. Who's the bastard who came up with that bright idea?
-PS
Which professors? Which students? If it's direct, then obviously they're clearly identifiable..
-PS
I'm going out on a limb and assuming you fall into one of those camps based on your replies elsewhere in this thread, but I feel like some futility this lovely afternoon. If you want some additional reading material, here's a more-or-less comprehensive refutation of all creationist arguments.
("Propaganda," by the way? To what end? Can't have propaganda without a Nefarious Goal, remember!)
is to present some theory that requires a PhD in biology to understand
And yet, strangely enough, I had a decent grasp of it well before earning my undergraduate degree in history. The whole "reading" thing is highly underrated.
The core theory of evolution is very simple: Humans mutated from apes, which mutated from whatever, etc... etc... etc..., which mutated from a single-celled organism that formed because some chemicals found their way together.
A few problems here.
First, evolutionary science does not address biogenesis at all, any more than computer science or architecture or basket weaving or calligraphy do. The reason for this is simple: it is not and never was intended to explore that question. There's whole other areas which study biogenesis seperately - which they should, because it's a far more theoretical topic. Anybody who says that evolution somehow explains biogenesis, or is "flawed" because it doesn't explain biogenesis, has demonstrably failed to understand evolution.
Second, you're claiming that evolution's progressive, that it's defined in terms of the blob becoming the fish crawling out of the sea to become (etc etc etc) which becomes a shrew which becomes an ape which becomes a human, as though the whole thing was meant to arrive at that point. That idea's "true" enough in intelligent design, and was at some past point standard among "evolutionists" as you call them, but folks know better. Evolution is a reactive process; it responds to pressure from the environment (different climates, new predators on the block, etc) and is not some internally-driven debugging program coaxing life towards a specific point. If you cleaned off the Earth and tried things again, the broad strokes would be the same (Australia once had an ecosystem of creatures about as varied as any in Afroeurasia or the Americas, with marsupials filling almost every niche!), but the end points would probably be considerably different.
Third, evolutionary theory is not as concerned with whether this happened - that is absolute fact, verifiable in myriads of different ways - as it is with how it happened. Mutation and speciation rates, effects of various pressures, tendencies towards certain changes (eyes evolved independently dozens of times, for instance, and true flight at least four), etc. The system has been directly observed working by now; the interesting (and useful) part is determining what makes it tick.
-PS
And this differs from the Web at large how, exactly?
-PS
Ahhh, you mean like all those other major suspension bridges that have been easily attacked and destroyed by the omnipresent Terrorist in the past few years.
Oh, wait.
-PS
Personally, I have no problem with most of the major powers in the world having the capability to do moonshots or more. I'd much prefer that over a single project which any one of them could veto or otherwise hamstring by whim or incompetence. The more people who are able to do things like this, the more who could potentially take the initiative to do something more than a prestige shot.
I'm perfectly cool with that. If it costs more money to get it off the ground, then it's worth it.
-PS
-PS
The plane does, while strumming the lowest note ever played in human history in the process.
-PS
I love the tendency to run from "I don't understand this" to "you don't either" whenever this kind of topic comes up.
-PS
Now, now, Indymedia has two purposes. The other one is to lie about why they got their asses kicked after the fact so they can appear martyred.
-PS
While I've seen some people with legitimate objections (even though I don't really buy the validity of a highly politically-motivated redefinition of a word which has been in use for a long time indeed), most of the complaints I've heard about the word really do boil down to that. It's not objection to the word; it's denial that it's being applied to us, something which feels like an insult when it really isn't anything more than a simple statement of fact.
-PS
f that.
Actually, in some situations, yes, I do. Not terribly many, as I'm well aware of my fairly limited qualifications so far, but I also believe other people are allowed that same power to make decisions as well, depending on what they're capable of.
I'm certain you do too, unless you've never been in anything resembling a position of authority or responsibility, which I tend to find hard to believe coming from anyone online these days able to post in complete sentences. Of course some people are allowed to make choices for others; it's why we not only have things like safety standards for medication, food and architecture, but why we also largely benefit from it. I hardly consider "you need to do this or Bad Things will happen" to be tyrannical, although I assume you think otherwise. The fact is, people who Know Better exist, and condemning or ignoring that fact is silly.
As the other respondent to your comment here says, the every-man-for-himself age of the Wild West or human precivilization is gone, gone, gone. Humans have responsibilities and obligations alongside their rights, unless they're hermits or residents of sunny Mogadishu or some silliness like that.
If it comes down to people being shunted towards some kind of sustainable future - even by the evils of someone else telling them to do it! - on the one hand, and human societies suddenly running into brick walls and Easter Islanding themselves on the other, I know what I'd pick.
Unlike a lot of people (who, other than you so far, seem only able to respond with personal attacks, something I find kinda funny), I don't consider the burning-out of entire societies to be an acceptable price tag for the "right" to act as though "après moi, le déluge" is a good thing to believe.
One of those questionable historical figures said that one too, by the way.
-PS
Others' best interests are mine in many cases, and they're yours too. Humans aren't solitary creatures, and didn't evolve as such.
-PS
Actually, yeah. When it comes to people who see the idea of any obligations to anything other than themselves as evil, I do consider myself better than them.
Most of those people seem to have trouble realizing that there is such a thing as cost aside from what they pull out of their wallet. And yet they continue to make their glorious, "free" decisions, despite happily fettering themselves in their own ignorance, something which seems to be the rage these days.
'Cause, see, thinking of anything other than yourself (like, for example, the neighbors, or your grandchildren's ability to hit middle age in their forties rather than their twenties) must be tyrannical communistic doom, false dichotomies also being the rage these days. If it involves any sense of non-personal responsibility, it's bad bad bad!
Do I have contempt for that attitude? Yes, I do. Am I better than people who trumpet it? Yes, I am.
-PS
-PS
The "reason" that I've heard most often is "if there were extraterrestrials, the Bible would have mentioned them." If it isn't mentioned in the Good Book, then it isn't there to be mentioned, save possibly as a demonic plot.
Nevermind that it says nothing about nuclear fission, radio, or the correct number of male ribs, but those all seem to exist.
("But that's different!" "No, it's not.")
-PS
-PS
And of course, the general consensus of a bunch of laymen on a highly complex topic qualifies as somehow reliable...
-PS
And the sad thing is that if the US, China and India all decided they wanted to do another manned moon-shot program, starting Right Now, I wouldn't know which one to bet on. Between a mix of apathy and atrophy, you might want to keep in mind that the US isn't terribly far ahead of other spacefaring countries anymore.
Accomplishments are all well and good, but the US got dumped back into the sixties with regard to their space technology lately. The fact that the Apollo Program happened is rather outweighed by the fact that the capability to do that again no longer exists - so you're simply cutting another country down for doing something you guys threw away the skills for twenty years ago. Nice.
-PS
I dunno, I kinda like my airline tickets only costing an arm as opposed to an arm and both legs. If you're that bored, take another book along or something.
-PS