So you will be writing security updates for Windows 2000 by yourself, or backporting them from XP? Or just hoping that firewall and antivirus are all the updates you need?
"Also the Tegra2 has an ARM7 hidden in it already."
Is it a full ARM7 chip that can process ARM7 instructions separately from the main Cortex cpu? It is not simply there to run GBA code, both chips are used simultaneously on the DS/DSi. Not meant to attack, honestly curious as this is the first I've heard of this.
In my experience, common people see Macs as a type of PC. I will give you that an iPhone is technically a PC while average people will not make that association. However, if you get rid of that strawman and replace iPhone in your example with Mac, you get this:
You: "Hey man, I got a new PC the other day." Friend: "Cool, dude! What kind did you get?" You: "An Mac Pro." Friend: "Nice."
A normal person would not be thrown off by the statement, unless they are big Mac enthusiasts, in which case they would probably throw a fit about it being compared to a PC.
Sorry, I didn't specify that I was referring to what many would call a "militant atheist", which can frankly be as bad as fundamentalists. These are atheists that feel it is their job to ridicule or attack those with religious beliefs, just as fundamentalists do to those with different beliefs from theirs. My stance is that as long as they are not trying to force me or others into their belief system, I don't care if they worship the Easter Bunny.
Also, the term atheist just means one that does not believe in any god, it has nothing to do with the reasoning behind it(although your stated reason is probably the most common and logical). I am an atheist for much the same reason you are, but I have met others with different reasons and motivations behind it.
Agreed. My point was only that I would liken the accounts in the bible to the accounts in ancient Greek and Roman texts, instead of to completely made up things from fantasy fiction. There is often at least a grain of truth to events described in ancient texts, even if the causes are often ascribed to supernatural forces.
Ranking the bible more realistic than LOTR shows religious belief to contradict with scientific thinking.
My understanding is that like many Greek and Roman texts, the bible does contain many historical accuracies and is useful to historians. Granted, just as a historian would use current understanding of the world to explain or at least ignore things attributed to mythological beings in a Greek or Roman text(i.e. this "rain of fire" was probably a volcano), they would do the same with the bible. Then again, you would probably need to be atheist to treat the bible in the same way as Greek mythology, as I would. My point is that the bible may actually be far more realistic than you are making it out to be, as long as it is taken in proper context (and with a very large grain of salt).
In order to fairly teach Creationism(at least in public school systems), it would need to be taught in some sort of general theology or mythology class, alongside of the creation myths of at least the other popular religions, including Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and many more. Otherwise, you are creating a state-sponsored religion, which goes against one of the founding principles of the US (judging by your homepage, I believe you are from Germany, I'm not sure what your country's viewpoint is on teaching religion in schools).
I have a question for you, and this is not meant to be confrontational, I'm honestly curious of your viewpoint. There is a field of science devoted to studying how life was formed (at least on Earth, although the principle may apply to other planets as well). It seems that while this is directly contradicting the Bibles assertion that God created life, it does not seem to get the public attacks that evolution does. What is your thought on biopoesis/abiogenesis, and why do you feel it does not appear to get the same attention from fundamentalists as evolution?
I believe I must have misunderstood your original question. I took your question to mean: "Since many people believe in Evolution, as if it were a god in its own right, then it is okay to kill off other species, right?"
Also, in my experience, if someone is exposed to two conflicting viewpoints, they will either actively dismiss or block out the dissenting viewpoint. This is why there are those that dismiss any science (such as evolution) that contradicts the Bible, but will continue to "believe in" and utilize scientific advances from areas that do not (such as mathematics). Many of them do not understand that many of these fields are deeply interconnected, and many advances in, for example, medicine, were discovered due to research in evolution.
Thanks for the insightful and well thought out post. It is really too bad that religion and science come to blows so often when they should remain unrelated. If computer technology somehow conflicted with the teachings of the Bible, would a fundamentalist denounce the use of them? If somehow evidence was found proving the existence of a deity, would atheists deny it, even if it were peer-reviewed and followed the scientific method? My guess, is that they probably would, and that is human nature at some of its worst.
How is it distilled? While the beers mentioned in the article are freeze distilled (and IMHO should not be considered a beer for this reason), I would assume freeze distilling removes mainly water while leaving the other components(and concentrating poisons such as methanol and fusel alchohols!), while most other distillation methods remove the alcohol from the other components. If the alcohol you mention is boiler distilled, 120 proof is no big accomplishment. You could achieve virtually 200 proof using that method.
They have actually gotten it over 26% with recent batches. I probably shouldn't have mentioned that I had heard it tastes awful, as I was only recalling something I read in some comment somewhere. Personal preference and all that.
1. There is no God, and evolution is how everything got here.
2. It's wrong to destroy species, etc. There's some moral/ethical/inherently-bad thing about it.
To me, there's a disconnect. #1 has some amount of backing (evolutionary theory). #2, combined with #1, seems to me to have no backing.
Evolution is not aimed to disprove God, it is a well-tested and refined theory on how life changes over generations. While many, myself included, do not believe in the existence of a deity, it is not a causal relationship with the acceptance of theories in the scientific community. Nor do I feel it necessary to conflict the two. I do have conflict with the teaching of creationism and/or "intelligent design" as science in schools, as they are not theories formed using the scientific method, but that is a different topic.
As for morality/ethics, as TheCycoONE mentions, they are not dependent on a God, so there is no inherent disconnect with your #1 and #2.
I'll bite. Stop anthropomorphizing evolution. Evolution does not care if it is the right thing to grow a second head or kill off the only food source. Evolution is a theory used to explain how organisms change with successive generations. That is all. It should not be used to moralize our actions. That is how things like eugenics get proposed. Going by your logic, because many people adhere to astronomy theories, we should not attempt to intercede if we detect a large comet on a collision course with Earth or the Moon.
My understanding is that Utopias is an actual beer and is not distilled like the "beers" discussed in the article. It is also only stored in whiskey barrels for less than a year. However, I've also heard that it tastes awful. One of the things that normally classifies a drink as a beer is that it is a result of fermentation without distilling of the end product, just like wine. Once you distill a beer, IMHO, you get liquor.
The article has a copy of the filing, and she is listed as the plaintiff directly. It also has a couple lawyers listed as "Attorneys for Plaintiff". When the insurance company filed suit on your behalf, did it do the same, or does it list them as well?
Like many Americans, extraneous letters have traumatized me at a young age(killed my parents and then raped their corpses while I was forced to watch). It is not about the difficulty in conversion but that the sight of them inspires terror. I spent a good hour screaming and sobbing uncontrollably after just reading your post. I'm sure many of my fellow Americans were similarly affected. Please refrain from posting such terrorism or I shall be forced to report you to the Department of Homeland Security.
Whats wrong with that? Even Richard Stallman's license allows this. Plus, no one is forcing you to use git for your code. If you have a problem with it, use a different vcs.
Not a very good analogy. Depending on where you live, you might be charged for failing to secure your firearms for the gun example. Even if you don't agree with gun control, leaving a weapon out is a bit more severe than having an open wifi connection.
A better analogy would be if you left your door open and someone sneaks in and used your computer to make copies of a CD or DVD. Then, since you weren't home to commit the heinous copyright infringement, they charge you with leaving your door open.
Maybe if we reformulated this into a pizza analogy...
A non-SSID-broadcasting router is like leaving a pizza from Little Caesers out on a platter with a sign saying "free pizza if you can figure out what brand it is". One taste, and after they are finished vomiting they can easily figure it out.
An SSID-broadcasting router is s like leaving a pizza from Little Caesers out on a platter with a sign saying "free pizza, just shout 'Little Caesers' and you can have some".
Of course, free wifi is something that pretty much anyone would take advantage of, but you would need to be very desperate to take some Little Caesers pizza.
This message brought to you by Little Caesers, even we agree that our pizza is shit.
A week in detention is a really harsh punishment for a single offense, but it has nothing to do with the nutrition law. The ban on hard candies and gum is due to the expense of cleaning it up from the carpets and furniture, which makes sense. Kids are messy and it is a royal pain in the ass to clean up hard candy and gum from furniture and carpet. Although, why don't they have easier to clean floors and tables in the freaking cafeteria for a grade school?
This makes a lot more sense, and I take back my bitching in a previous reply. A week in detention still seems like a ridiculous punishment for having some candy. I agree that being made to help with cleanup after lunch for a week or two is a much more fitting punishment, especially since it offers them a chance to see why the rule is there and learn from it.
Slashdot Mirror
So you will be writing security updates for Windows 2000 by yourself, or backporting them from XP? Or just hoping that firewall and antivirus are all the updates you need?
What do you mean by this?
"Also the Tegra2 has an ARM7 hidden in it already."
Is it a full ARM7 chip that can process ARM7 instructions separately from the main Cortex cpu? It is not simply there to run GBA code, both chips are used simultaneously on the DS/DSi. Not meant to attack, honestly curious as this is the first I've heard of this.
In my experience, common people see Macs as a type of PC. I will give you that an iPhone is technically a PC while average people will not make that association. However, if you get rid of that strawman and replace iPhone in your example with Mac, you get this:
You: "Hey man, I got a new PC the other day."
Friend: "Cool, dude! What kind did you get?"
You: "An Mac Pro."
Friend: "Nice."
A normal person would not be thrown off by the statement, unless they are big Mac enthusiasts, in which case they would probably throw a fit about it being compared to a PC.
Sorry, I didn't specify that I was referring to what many would call a "militant atheist", which can frankly be as bad as fundamentalists. These are atheists that feel it is their job to ridicule or attack those with religious beliefs, just as fundamentalists do to those with different beliefs from theirs. My stance is that as long as they are not trying to force me or others into their belief system, I don't care if they worship the Easter Bunny.
Also, the term atheist just means one that does not believe in any god, it has nothing to do with the reasoning behind it(although your stated reason is probably the most common and logical). I am an atheist for much the same reason you are, but I have met others with different reasons and motivations behind it.
Agreed. My point was only that I would liken the accounts in the bible to the accounts in ancient Greek and Roman texts, instead of to completely made up things from fantasy fiction. There is often at least a grain of truth to events described in ancient texts, even if the causes are often ascribed to supernatural forces.
Ranking the bible more realistic than LOTR shows religious belief to contradict with scientific thinking.
My understanding is that like many Greek and Roman texts, the bible does contain many historical accuracies and is useful to historians. Granted, just as a historian would use current understanding of the world to explain or at least ignore things attributed to mythological beings in a Greek or Roman text(i.e. this "rain of fire" was probably a volcano), they would do the same with the bible. Then again, you would probably need to be atheist to treat the bible in the same way as Greek mythology, as I would. My point is that the bible may actually be far more realistic than you are making it out to be, as long as it is taken in proper context (and with a very large grain of salt).
In order to fairly teach Creationism(at least in public school systems), it would need to be taught in some sort of general theology or mythology class, alongside of the creation myths of at least the other popular religions, including Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and many more. Otherwise, you are creating a state-sponsored religion, which goes against one of the founding principles of the US (judging by your homepage, I believe you are from Germany, I'm not sure what your country's viewpoint is on teaching religion in schools).
I have a question for you, and this is not meant to be confrontational, I'm honestly curious of your viewpoint. There is a field of science devoted to studying how life was formed (at least on Earth, although the principle may apply to other planets as well). It seems that while this is directly contradicting the Bibles assertion that God created life, it does not seem to get the public attacks that evolution does. What is your thought on biopoesis/abiogenesis, and why do you feel it does not appear to get the same attention from fundamentalists as evolution?
I believe I must have misunderstood your original question. I took your question to mean: "Since many people believe in Evolution, as if it were a god in its own right, then it is okay to kill off other species, right?"
Also, in my experience, if someone is exposed to two conflicting viewpoints, they will either actively dismiss or block out the dissenting viewpoint. This is why there are those that dismiss any science (such as evolution) that contradicts the Bible, but will continue to "believe in" and utilize scientific advances from areas that do not (such as mathematics). Many of them do not understand that many of these fields are deeply interconnected, and many advances in, for example, medicine, were discovered due to research in evolution.
Thanks for the insightful and well thought out post. It is really too bad that religion and science come to blows so often when they should remain unrelated. If computer technology somehow conflicted with the teachings of the Bible, would a fundamentalist denounce the use of them? If somehow evidence was found proving the existence of a deity, would atheists deny it, even if it were peer-reviewed and followed the scientific method? My guess, is that they probably would, and that is human nature at some of its worst.
Thanks, yours is a more apt comparison.
How is it distilled? While the beers mentioned in the article are freeze distilled (and IMHO should not be considered a beer for this reason), I would assume freeze distilling removes mainly water while leaving the other components(and concentrating poisons such as methanol and fusel alchohols!), while most other distillation methods remove the alcohol from the other components. If the alcohol you mention is boiler distilled, 120 proof is no big accomplishment. You could achieve virtually 200 proof using that method.
They have actually gotten it over 26% with recent batches. I probably shouldn't have mentioned that I had heard it tastes awful, as I was only recalling something I read in some comment somewhere. Personal preference and all that.
1. There is no God, and evolution is how everything got here.
2. It's wrong to destroy species, etc. There's some moral/ethical/inherently-bad thing about it.
To me, there's a disconnect. #1 has some amount of backing (evolutionary theory). #2, combined with #1, seems to me to have no backing.
Evolution is not aimed to disprove God, it is a well-tested and refined theory on how life changes over generations. While many, myself included, do not believe in the existence of a deity, it is not a causal relationship with the acceptance of theories in the scientific community. Nor do I feel it necessary to conflict the two. I do have conflict with the teaching of creationism and/or "intelligent design" as science in schools, as they are not theories formed using the scientific method, but that is a different topic.
As for morality/ethics, as TheCycoONE mentions, they are not dependent on a God, so there is no inherent disconnect with your #1 and #2.
If you knew this, why did you pose the question in the first place?
Also, see ElectricTurtle's answer to your question on morality, I don't think I have anything to add to it.
I'll bite. Stop anthropomorphizing evolution. Evolution does not care if it is the right thing to grow a second head or kill off the only food source. Evolution is a theory used to explain how organisms change with successive generations. That is all. It should not be used to moralize our actions. That is how things like eugenics get proposed. Going by your logic, because many people adhere to astronomy theories, we should not attempt to intercede if we detect a large comet on a collision course with Earth or the Moon.
My understanding is that Utopias is an actual beer and is not distilled like the "beers" discussed in the article. It is also only stored in whiskey barrels for less than a year. However, I've also heard that it tastes awful. One of the things that normally classifies a drink as a beer is that it is a result of fermentation without distilling of the end product, just like wine. Once you distill a beer, IMHO, you get liquor.
Uninsured drivers are more common than you might think. At least, if this study by the "Insurance Research Council" can be believed.
The article has a copy of the filing, and she is listed as the plaintiff directly. It also has a couple lawyers listed as "Attorneys for Plaintiff". When the insurance company filed suit on your behalf, did it do the same, or does it list them as well?
What about 1 decimeter? She will be thinking "Sounds a lot like decimator, must be HUGE!"
... or humor to humour.
Like many Americans, extraneous letters have traumatized me at a young age(killed my parents and then raped their corpses while I was forced to watch). It is not about the difficulty in conversion but that the sight of them inspires terror. I spent a good hour screaming and sobbing uncontrollably after just reading your post. I'm sure many of my fellow Americans were similarly affected. Please refrain from posting such terrorism or I shall be forced to report you to the Department of Homeland Security.
Whats wrong with that? Even Richard Stallman's license allows this. Plus, no one is forcing you to use git for your code. If you have a problem with it, use a different vcs.
Not a very good analogy. Depending on where you live, you might be charged for failing to secure your firearms for the gun example. Even if you don't agree with gun control, leaving a weapon out is a bit more severe than having an open wifi connection.
A better analogy would be if you left your door open and someone sneaks in and used your computer to make copies of a CD or DVD. Then, since you weren't home to commit the heinous copyright infringement, they charge you with leaving your door open.
Maybe if we reformulated this into a pizza analogy...
A non-SSID-broadcasting router is like leaving a pizza from Little Caesers out on a platter with a sign saying "free pizza if you can figure out what brand it is". One taste, and after they are finished vomiting they can easily figure it out.
An SSID-broadcasting router is s like leaving a pizza from Little Caesers out on a platter with a sign saying "free pizza, just shout 'Little Caesers' and you can have some".
Of course, free wifi is something that pretty much anyone would take advantage of, but you would need to be very desperate to take some Little Caesers pizza.
This message brought to you by Little Caesers, even we agree that our pizza is shit.
In another comment, natehoy pointed out another article that finds this has nothing to do with the nutritional policy:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html
A week in detention is a really harsh punishment for a single offense, but it has nothing to do with the nutrition law. The ban on hard candies and gum is due to the expense of cleaning it up from the carpets and furniture, which makes sense. Kids are messy and it is a royal pain in the ass to clean up hard candy and gum from furniture and carpet. Although, why don't they have easier to clean floors and tables in the freaking cafeteria for a grade school?
This makes a lot more sense, and I take back my bitching in a previous reply. A week in detention still seems like a ridiculous punishment for having some candy. I agree that being made to help with cleanup after lunch for a week or two is a much more fitting punishment, especially since it offers them a chance to see why the rule is there and learn from it.