The scant scientific theory of evolution of the Earth's creatures extends that theory to encompass the creation of the ecosystem, planets, solar system and the entire universe - something Darwin never advocated. And these teachings are taught as scientific fact, not the theory that they are.
Creationism is not science to the same degree that evolution is not religion. However, evolution is usually taught as a secular religion, and for the most part, the people pushing for creationism to be taught alongside it want nothing more than parity for the two philosophical beliefs.
Of course, the "open minded" evolutionists want the other side muzzled, marginalized, fired and otherwise silenced. People knowing the true meaning of a "liberal" education can only shake their heads.
True, problems always happen, but "Apple has yet to respond" is the usual tactic for them. They always attempt a cover-up (no comment, deleting forum posts, etc.) and then, magically, the problem is acknowledged once a fix appears. That their customers are left in the dark seems of little interest to them.
I bought three Rios when they came out (after the injunction was lifted). Gave one to a friend, played with one, and still have the other in the unopened box. What do I win?
Buying the game would cost many millions. You are paying a fee for a license. And that license (like every other) has rights and limitations.
Your "patch" would invalidate your license, so in the eyes of the company (and the law), you then have no license and no rights to the game. So why bother paying for the game if you're going to crack it?
And to the many that feel that evolution as currently taught also crosses the line from science into philosophy, the question becomes which is better: Ban both or teach both. Banning one is clearly wrong.
This is not apparently what most people think. It presses a lot of people's hot buttons, and many here are presuming that these "letters" are wiretaps or requests for private information. They are not.
It says 97% of them are requests to take down information that is already public.
Is this censorship? No, as long as the government simply requests the takedown, with no legal force behind it. Every ISP has its own TOS, and it's completely within the law for them to make some arbitrary limitations on your "free speech". As a private entity, they have that right, and if the government (or any other entity) points out a TOS violation and the ISP pulls the offending material down, there's no violation of law or free speech rights.
Yeah, but I forgive you for making an ass of yourself. Put aside your petty biases and you'll see that the reason that you don't want forced religion (which this is not), which is a legitimate concern, is the same concern that creationists have for wanting to mitigate the forces that institute their own anti-God religion.
And since there is no such K-12 course as "history of science", "Creationism" belongs side by side with "Evolutionaryism" as long as the modest theory of evolution has been co-opted by those with an anti- religious agenda.
Funny how it's the left who is so against having the other side heard, e.g. lawsuits against ID, Gore's "settled issue" of his global warming theory, Barack's intimidation of journalists, siccing his minions to harass stations carrying an ad that he disagrees with...
1. Evolution as promoted today has plenty to say about the planet's origins. It says that it was an accident.
2. Only fundamentalists believe that the earth is 6000 years old. The vast majority of theists and ID proponents have no problem with a billions-of-years old universe. Teaching Creationism requires no more than a few minutes of discussion, yet the rabid supporters of an atheist world demand that their (anti)religious theory be the only one to be mentioned by the state.
3. Evolutionary theory has been co-opted by rabid atheists who twist and strech basic Darwinian theory in order to "prove" the non-existence of God, and label anyone who disagrees as irrational. Darwin himself said that the archaeological record does not support his theory, and this is still the case.
Oversimplifying, Darwin made two broad statements. One is unequivocally true and has no conflict with religious belief: Survival of the fittest causes adaptation within a species. The other theory is an unproven (and probably unprovable) theory that is at odds with both the archaeological record, common sense, and (when extended by the zealots) monotheistic religion. This says that species can change from one to another through a continuous process of gradual change. There is no record of this ever occurring (except by evolutionists who have misinterpreted the fossil record). Instead, the history of the earth shows periodic explosions of diversity, followed by fast and slow extinctions.
Look up the Cambrian Explosion and the Burgess Shale for a more accurate view of the formation of life on this planet, and you'll see how at odds it is with this broader "theory" of evolution that is widely promoted.
Evolution used as an excuse to discredit a belief in creation is no less a "religion", and in the interest of fairness, all most people believing in creation wish to do is put both beliefs out there. But the evolutionists want the other side silenced and marginalized.
Or you have multiple personalities and one email address as in: BradAndJulie@aol.com. These people also have the annoying tendency of not signing their emails, leaving you uncertain who to respond to. Is it Brad? Is it Julie? Is it some DNA hybrid of Brad and Julie, reminiscent of Jeff Goldblum in The Fly? Or does this person have the unfortunate name of Bradand Julie (or perhaps (Brad Andjulie)?
Efficiency only matters when comparing similar substrates. This one uses glass rather than silicon, so the cost savings per watt trump watts/cm2 efficiency. For large scale implementation, the best solution would be a solar cell that is manufactured on site by the acre. There's plenty of space for them, so the efficiency per unit area is not very important. Using a cheap substrate and thin layers of the rare earth compounds is a much better formula.
Let's not get carried away here. A very small vial of his ashes was sent upward. A token amount. There's plenty left over to try again dozens of times.
What extra traffic? Your typical user will be accessing email or web pages over the tethered connection. Without the tether, he'd probably be doing close to the same thing, only on the iPhone.
Not everyone prefers to use the iPhone's tiny screen for web browsing and its relatively lame email client when their laptop is directly at hand.
Progress bars are notorious liars as well. The early versions of Internet Explorer had a file progress bar that roughly indicated incoming html data on page loads. These were the modem days, so it mattered. It often took a few seconds for the data to start, so you often sat staring at a non-moving status bar, wondering if the site was going to time out.
But then an upgrade "improved" the status bar by always showing "progress" even when no data was coming in. The site would still time out if it was down, but the whole time the status bar would be chugging away, falsely reassuring you that the data was flowing.
Of course Apple is Steve Jobs. Nothing major comes out of Apple without Jobs' supervision and guidance. He's known within the ranks as a demanding and cranky boss, which helps create high quality products (as long as the auroa holds out).
And having an anointed "visionary" at the helm has allowed Apple to switch gears like no other company. And if they find a profitable segment (music players: yes, tablets: so far, no), they then exploit it. Only Google stands as the only other large technology company that has the freedom and ability to branch off in different directions. And in Apple's case, that's due to Jobs.
Actually, it's Gore an his minions who have unilaterally declared the debate "settled science", and labeled any opposition as nutcases and/or enemies of society.
The ad hominem arguments against Gore don't advance the debate over the issues, but pointing out his hypocrisies (e.g. his own profligate energy usage) and his profit motives in the carbon credits business (reported at 100 million dollars for him so far) are all fair game.
It's a valid critique of differing design philosophies. Russian spacecraft, since 1957, have had a heavy bias towards autonomous operation. Even their early manned capsules gave little manual control to the astronaut. This gave them an advantage in robotic missions, and it manifests itself in the autonomous docking systems that we are discussing here. It's valid to discuss whether a "more automatic" Russian-influenced design is more desirable than a "more flexible" American-influenced design.
Flawlessly? It almost destroyed the ISS in October, 2004. The automatic system unexpectedly accelerated the Soyuz TMA toward the ISS and the only thing that saved the ships was disabling the automatic docking system and taking manual control.
And lest you think manual docking is safe, don't forget the incident where an ISS crewman took manual control of the docking of a Russian cargo ship and ended up smashing it into the station, fortunately at low enough delta-v to cause only superficial damage.
Um, not being able to transfer your music to another computer IS losing access to your music. It should just be a matter of hours before the first class-action suit is filed.
Slashdot Mirror
Right-o Matey: Borland Sidekick! Preceded GUIs. Preceded the Mac! Jobs should be keelhauled.
A little Googling will bring up many examples. But for the lazy:
http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-as-Religion-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278333
http://www.icr.org/article/455/
http://www.evolutionfantasy.org/
The scant scientific theory of evolution of the Earth's creatures extends that theory to encompass the creation of the ecosystem, planets, solar system and the entire universe - something Darwin never advocated. And these teachings are taught as scientific fact, not the theory that they are.
Creationism is not science to the same degree that evolution is not religion. However, evolution is usually taught as a secular religion, and for the most part, the people pushing for creationism to be taught alongside it want nothing more than parity for the two philosophical beliefs.
Of course, the "open minded" evolutionists want the other side muzzled, marginalized, fired and otherwise silenced. People knowing the true meaning of a "liberal" education can only shake their heads.
And the more we reduce the barriers to entry, the greater proportion of "junk" software is produced.
True, problems always happen, but "Apple has yet to respond" is the usual tactic for them. They always attempt a cover-up (no comment, deleting forum posts, etc.) and then, magically, the problem is acknowledged once a fix appears. That their customers are left in the dark seems of little interest to them.
I bought three Rios when they came out (after the injunction was lifted). Gave one to a friend, played with one, and still have the other in the unopened box. What do I win?
Buying the game would cost many millions. You are paying a fee for a license. And that license (like every other) has rights and limitations.
Your "patch" would invalidate your license, so in the eyes of the company (and the law), you then have no license and no rights to the game. So why bother paying for the game if you're going to crack it?
And to the many that feel that evolution as currently taught also crosses the line from science into philosophy, the question becomes which is better: Ban both or teach both. Banning one is clearly wrong.
This is not apparently what most people think. It presses a lot of people's hot buttons, and many here are presuming that these "letters" are wiretaps or requests for private information. They are not.
It says 97% of them are requests to take down information that is already public.
Is this censorship? No, as long as the government simply requests the takedown, with no legal force behind it. Every ISP has its own TOS, and it's completely within the law for them to make some arbitrary limitations on your "free speech". As a private entity, they have that right, and if the government (or any other entity) points out a TOS violation and the ISP pulls the offending material down, there's no violation of law or free speech rights.
Let's keep the fight for the right times.
Yeah, but I forgive you for making an ass of yourself. Put aside your petty biases and you'll see that the reason that you don't want forced religion (which this is not), which is a legitimate concern, is the same concern that creationists have for wanting to mitigate the forces that institute their own anti-God religion.
And since there is no such K-12 course as "history of science", "Creationism" belongs side by side with "Evolutionaryism" as long as the modest theory of evolution has been co-opted by those with an anti- religious agenda.
Funny how it's the left who is so against having the other side heard, e.g. lawsuits against ID, Gore's "settled issue" of his global warming theory, Barack's intimidation of journalists, siccing his minions to harass stations carrying an ad that he disagrees with...
1. Evolution as promoted today has plenty to say about the planet's origins. It says that it was an accident.
2. Only fundamentalists believe that the earth is 6000 years old. The vast majority of theists and ID proponents have no problem with a billions-of-years old universe. Teaching Creationism requires no more than a few minutes of discussion, yet the rabid supporters of an atheist world demand that their (anti)religious theory be the only one to be mentioned by the state.
3. Evolutionary theory has been co-opted by rabid atheists who twist and strech basic Darwinian theory in order to "prove" the non-existence of God, and label anyone who disagrees as irrational. Darwin himself said that the archaeological record does not support his theory, and this is still the case. Oversimplifying, Darwin made two broad statements. One is unequivocally true and has no conflict with religious belief: Survival of the fittest causes adaptation within a species. The other theory is an unproven (and probably unprovable) theory that is at odds with both the archaeological record, common sense, and (when extended by the zealots) monotheistic religion. This says that species can change from one to another through a continuous process of gradual change. There is no record of this ever occurring (except by evolutionists who have misinterpreted the fossil record). Instead, the history of the earth shows periodic explosions of diversity, followed by fast and slow extinctions.
Look up the Cambrian Explosion and the Burgess Shale for a more accurate view of the formation of life on this planet, and you'll see how at odds it is with this broader "theory" of evolution that is widely promoted.
Evolution used as an excuse to discredit a belief in creation is no less a "religion", and in the interest of fairness, all most people believing in creation wish to do is put both beliefs out there. But the evolutionists want the other side silenced and marginalized.
You can get the DNC live feed via streaming Flash at http://foxnews.com./
naaah, mac users dont use capital letters or proper punctuation..........
Or you have multiple personalities and one email address as in: BradAndJulie@aol.com. These people also have the annoying tendency of not signing their emails, leaving you uncertain who to respond to. Is it Brad? Is it Julie? Is it some DNA hybrid of Brad and Julie, reminiscent of Jeff Goldblum in The Fly? Or does this person have the unfortunate name of Bradand Julie (or perhaps (Brad Andjulie)?
Efficiency only matters when comparing similar substrates. This one uses glass rather than silicon, so the cost savings per watt trump watts/cm2 efficiency. For large scale implementation, the best solution would be a solar cell that is manufactured on site by the acre. There's plenty of space for them, so the efficiency per unit area is not very important. Using a cheap substrate and thin layers of the rare earth compounds is a much better formula.
Let's not get carried away here. A very small vial of his ashes was sent upward. A token amount. There's plenty left over to try again dozens of times.
What extra traffic? Your typical user will be accessing email or web pages over the tethered connection. Without the tether, he'd probably be doing close to the same thing, only on the iPhone.
Not everyone prefers to use the iPhone's tiny screen for web browsing and its relatively lame email client when their laptop is directly at hand.
Progress bars are notorious liars as well. The early versions of Internet Explorer had a file progress bar that roughly indicated incoming html data on page loads. These were the modem days, so it mattered. It often took a few seconds for the data to start, so you often sat staring at a non-moving status bar, wondering if the site was going to time out.
But then an upgrade "improved" the status bar by always showing "progress" even when no data was coming in. The site would still time out if it was down, but the whole time the status bar would be chugging away, falsely reassuring you that the data was flowing.
Of course Apple is Steve Jobs. Nothing major comes out of Apple without Jobs' supervision and guidance. He's known within the ranks as a demanding and cranky boss, which helps create high quality products (as long as the auroa holds out).
And having an anointed "visionary" at the helm has allowed Apple to switch gears like no other company. And if they find a profitable segment (music players: yes, tablets: so far, no), they then exploit it. Only Google stands as the only other large technology company that has the freedom and ability to branch off in different directions. And in Apple's case, that's due to Jobs.
Actually, it's Gore an his minions who have unilaterally declared the debate "settled science", and labeled any opposition as nutcases and/or enemies of society.
The ad hominem arguments against Gore don't advance the debate over the issues, but pointing out his hypocrisies (e.g. his own profligate energy usage) and his profit motives in the carbon credits business (reported at 100 million dollars for him so far) are all fair game.
And he is a pompous ass. So there.
It's a valid critique of differing design philosophies. Russian spacecraft, since 1957, have had a heavy bias towards autonomous operation. Even their early manned capsules gave little manual control to the astronaut. This gave them an advantage in robotic missions, and it manifests itself in the autonomous docking systems that we are discussing here. It's valid to discuss whether a "more automatic" Russian-influenced design is more desirable than a "more flexible" American-influenced design.
There's already an open source Lunar-X project. Look up FredNet.
Flawlessly? It almost destroyed the ISS in October, 2004. The automatic system unexpectedly accelerated the Soyuz TMA toward the ISS and the only thing that saved the ships was disabling the automatic docking system and taking manual control.
And lest you think manual docking is safe, don't forget the incident where an ISS crewman took manual control of the docking of a Russian cargo ship and ended up smashing it into the station, fortunately at low enough delta-v to cause only superficial damage.
Um, not being able to transfer your music to another computer IS losing access to your music. It should just be a matter of hours before the first class-action suit is filed.