Your friends are being stupid, deliberately or not. There is no distinction in nature between microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution is just larger quantities of macroevolution over much longer times.
No, they aren't. They're drawing a distinction between what is experimentally observable and what isn't. Something science used to do, as I recall...
OK, I'm lost. What are we razzing parents for this time?:)
They shouldn't complain about commercials, because it is their job to monitor their children 100% at all times? Oops, wait, no, this is Slashdot, they should never monitor their children at all. So then we can razz them for being negligent, for not monitoring their own children. Er... {head explodes}
The United States, it seems, is the only country in the world that prefers to use the name football to refer to a game that doesn't actually use the feet.
All we ask is that you please call the biggest sport in the world by its commonly accepted name!:)
Thanks in advance,
Rest of World
Until now, I thought the lamest, most pathetic expression of inferiority complex I had ever seen was facing the bass speakers in your car outward. But I think this tops it:)
>Law is a social mechanism to make a society/nation state >work smoothly and to keep the status quo for those in power.
>It has nothing to do with the human condition or morality.
I'll repeat my earlier comment from the "online bullying" story.
==
Why? Really, by what justification do they regulate *anything else*?
It's immoral to sell tainted food, that's why it's illegal.
It's immoral to rape somebody, that's why it's illegal.
It's immoral to kill somebody, that's why it's illegal.
There had darn well *better* be some *moral* reasons these people can regulate me, or they can take their uniformed guys with guns and the guys in black robes who tell the guys with guns what to do and shove 'em.
>The government cannot regulate morals, at least they *shouldn't*.
Why? Really, by what justification do they regulate *anything else*?
It's immoral to sell tainted food, that's why it's illegal.
It's immoral to rape somebody, that's why it's illegal.
It's immoral to kill somebody, that's why it's illegal.
There had darn well *better* be some *moral* reasons these people can regulate me, or they can take their uniformed guys with guns and the guys in black robes who tell the guys with guns what to do and shove 'em.
I think the truth of it is that people (of all religions) need to realize that no one lives without fault/sin/whatever they call it, and be ready for the real brutal truth of all a person's dirty secrets.
There is in fact one religion that realizes that no one lives without sin. That tells people that they can't perfect themselves. That they need forgiveness. That they can't please God with their own actions.
Three months (closer to four) is how long it took every CF bulb in the house to stop working. These things are supposed to last longer than regular light bulbs (LASTS OVER FIVE YEARS!!!!1 the packaging said) - but in my experience, they were vastly more likely to die during a power surge, power outage, or other form of "electrical event" than traditional bulbs.
I keep reading this on Slashdot, and I don't disbelieve you, but I'm scratching my head. I've been using CFs for years now, and they *do* last years. Granted I haven't been living in a war zone or anything, but I wouldn't call the power real steady or reliable, either.
Heck, I'd prefer them even if they didn't save money, just because I hate having to change light bulbs. *Especially* because I've been living in older houses, with older fixtures, I want to minimize wear. One of these times the bulb is going to seize in there, or the fixture is going to come apart - no point hastening that day.
But save electricity they do, as well. My current house is wired all screwy, with most of the upper floor hanging off one circuit. I put a microwave in, but it didn't look like I was going to be able to use it. Replace all the bulbs with CFs, and wala, no more tripping the breaker.
Well, I read your comment, and I confess I'm not seeing how you address the problems.
One purely "secular" problem is: where can morality be for evolved animals with evolved behaviors? How can a behavior be "wrong" (or "right", for that matter) if it merely arises because it provides evolutionary advantage? If replication of genes is the highest good - or rather, if there is no "good", but just "what happens", then whence morality?
Now doctrinally, the problems are many. The events of creation are treated as real, not allegorical, by the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. The characters of parables do not climb out of the parables and, say, father every person on Earth.
But even more importantly, our problem as humans is that we have rebelled against God, in sinning with Adam, and God justly cursed us and all of creation. Jesus is the solution to that problem - He (though sinless) died on the cross to take the just punishment for our sins so that we can be reconciled to God.
Doesn't make sense with the evolution-based story of human origin. In that story, humans were sinning (murder, fornication, adultery, theft, etc.) even before we were human. And if this sin is just the evolved behavior of self-replicating gene carriers, then surely we can't really be responsible for the behavior.
>They hate the fact that evolution justifies everything they hate, >from moral relativism to sexual promiscuity.
Glad to hear you admit the linkage between evolution and justifying such stuff.
Seriously, I appreciate it. As a creationist, I actually respect your position and honesty much more than the "no, really, there's no conflict!" position.
I think he has the right to live however he wishes, and his house is a silly issue to focus on, but it does underscore a lack of congruity.
Silly? His political wing wants us to all live in crowded cities and use public transportation all the time. He's against "urban sprawl" in the sense that he doesn't want you and me to have any space because it might "sprawl" towards his splendid wilderness vistas in his huge, private country living space.
His house is not so silly of an issue, if you ask me.
Read that again. This is what we hear when you mourn over our existence. This is what we hear when you pray for a cure. This is what we know, when you tell us of your fondest hopes and dreams for us: that your greatest wish is that one day we will cease to be, and strangers you can love will move in behind our faces.
I hear you. My son was born without any arms and legs.
My favorite of his doctors and therapists are those who are enthusiastic and pragmatic about finding ways for him to do things he wants to do (including, for some tasks, prosthetics he wears for limited periods of time).
My least favorite of his doctors and therapists are those who keep saying how great it will be when these bionic limbs they see on NOVA and at their seminars become available. I don't think he's going to want any such thing. They'll be hot (he has a big problem with losing heat fast enough) and heavy (I don't care how good they are, they aren't going to be self supporting against gravity like real limbs). But this other set of professionals can't seem to see him as anything but broken and needing fixing, rather than somebody who just needs a different set of tools available.
...that every single move taken by the tobacco industry in the last 15 years is going to be repeated in exact fashion by the oil industry?...
There are plenty of other examples of the pattern being repeated, but I'm too tired to write them all out. Short version, the only thing that's changed is the product
Well, that and the fact that everybody, including you, is going to be hating life if we can't use petroleum. It won't just be another case of making oneself feel all righteous by taking away stuff that only those uncool lower class people use.
>The knowledgable terrorist will doubtless package his >payload in a fashionable briefcase now that he has been >alerted to this penchant.
Of course, because terrorists are omnipotent and unstoppable. All countermeasures and vigilance are useless against them. They are also harmless, so we shouldn't be afraid of them. Er, wait, um...
Hold on; I'm getting my Slashdot talking points all mixed up...
Hormonal, pubescent adolescents will seek out and obtain porn and actual sex, regardless and often in direct proportion to your attempts to prevent them from doing so. Welcome to humanity.
Ah, that explains the Girls Gone Wild of the 1800s. I was wondering about that.
OK, I'm called a "Web Programmer" or "Web Developer", but I design the data tables, develop the stored procedures, program the web pages, change the server settings (or ask the supposed box admin to), and just generally figure stuff out and make stuff work.
I get layouts from Marketing, but the roughly 50% of the time they forget to specify enough, I pretty much make that up too.
Mind you, we're not Amazon or anything. But I doubt Amazon *ever* had a "webmaster".
The "9/11" terrorists could have been caught without PATRIOT, without mandatory ID requirements or any of the other shenanigans.
OK.
That incident happened because dozens of agencies simply dropped the ball.
OK. Have they picked up the ball since then?
Nothing has been done since that actually fixes the problem to the slightest degree.
Oh, I guess not, according to you. Why hasn't there been a repeat, then?
They are all actions done under the guise of fixing them but are simply misdirections to make people think something is being done.
OK. Then why hasn't there been a repeat? Something must be working.
Where are these invincible unstoppable terrorists who also somehow don't exist (and are thus "FUD")? If it's not much of a threat, then why can't *any* reasonable measures help, according to you guys? If, on the other hand, it's an near-omnipotent threat, then why is it called "FUD" not to be feared at all?
The bill was worded very specifically to make sure that only if you were paid to have an opinion (and only if you reached more than 500ppl), would you then have to register - just like if you are paid to have an opinion & print something in a magazine, in a newspaper, etc - all of those paid for by notices on the bottom of the TV adds - that's what it was about.
That's still no good, from a free speech standpoint.
What if I have an opinion, and somebody pays me to express it? Would Molly Ivins suddenly become more untrustworthy if the Democrats paid her? And in any case, where's this exception in the 1st amendment for "speech that you think is untrustworthy"?
Newspaper opinion columnists are paid, aren't they? Would they have to register? Does the newspaper have a website? Do they allow comments on stories? Why isn't that a blog?
Slashdot Mirror
... is say that it was just a "social experiment" to see how many people he could fool.
That would make everything A-OK.
Not.
And since this is preliminary research there are no control groups or investigation into feral bees as to weather or not they are having this issue.
:)
You mean, like, natural ones?
Your friends are being stupid, deliberately or not. There is no distinction in nature between microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution is just larger quantities of macroevolution over much longer times.
...
No, they aren't. They're drawing a distinction between what is experimentally observable and what isn't. Something science used to do, as I recall
>It is actually the biggest one, Ontario, with 12,000,000+ people.
... pot? Meet kettle? :)
>Surely *some* of you 'Murkins must have heard of it.
>Sorry, but surely such condescending summaries
>aren't warranted here...
Um
OK, I'm lost. What are we razzing parents for this time? :)
... {head explodes}
They shouldn't complain about commercials, because it is their job to monitor their children 100% at all times? Oops, wait, no, this is Slashdot, they should never monitor their children at all. So then we can razz them for being negligent, for not monitoring their own children. Er
The United States, it seems, is the only country in the world that prefers to use the name football to refer to a game that doesn't actually use the feet.
:)
:)
All we ask is that you please call the biggest sport in the world by its commonly accepted name!
Thanks in advance,
Rest of World
Until now, I thought the lamest, most pathetic expression of inferiority complex I had ever seen was facing the bass speakers in your car outward. But I think this tops it
>Law is a social mechanism to make a society/nation state
>work smoothly and to keep the status quo for those in power.
>It has nothing to do with the human condition or morality.
I'll repeat my earlier comment from the "online bullying" story.
==
Why? Really, by what justification do they regulate *anything
else*?
It's immoral to sell tainted food, that's why it's illegal.
It's immoral to rape somebody, that's why it's illegal.
It's immoral to kill somebody, that's why it's illegal.
There had darn well *better* be some *moral* reasons
these people can regulate me, or they can take their uniformed
guys with guns and the guys in black robes who tell the
guys with guns what to do and shove 'em.
>The government cannot regulate morals, at least they *shouldn't*.
Why? Really, by what justification do they regulate *anything
else*?
It's immoral to sell tainted food, that's why it's illegal.
It's immoral to rape somebody, that's why it's illegal.
It's immoral to kill somebody, that's why it's illegal.
There had darn well *better* be some *moral* reasons
these people can regulate me, or they can take their uniformed
guys with guns and the guys in black robes who tell the
guys with guns what to do and shove 'em.
Coincidentally, this broadcast today is pretty much right on target on that topic.
I think the truth of it is that people (of all religions) need to realize that no one lives without fault/sin/whatever they call it, and be ready for the real brutal truth of all a person's dirty secrets.
There is in fact one religion that realizes that no one lives without sin. That tells people that they can't perfect themselves. That they need forgiveness. That they can't please God with their own actions.
Just sayin.
Three months (closer to four) is how long it took every CF bulb in the house to stop working. These things are supposed to last longer than regular light bulbs (LASTS OVER FIVE YEARS!!!!1 the packaging said) - but in my experience, they were vastly more likely to die during a power surge, power outage, or other form of "electrical event" than traditional bulbs.
I keep reading this on Slashdot, and I don't disbelieve you, but I'm scratching my head. I've been using CFs for years now, and they *do* last years. Granted I haven't been living in a war zone or anything, but I wouldn't call the power real steady or reliable, either.
Heck, I'd prefer them even if they didn't save money, just because I hate having to change light bulbs. *Especially* because I've been living in older houses, with older fixtures, I want to minimize wear. One of these times the bulb is going to seize in there, or the fixture is going to come apart - no point hastening that day.
But save electricity they do, as well. My current house is wired all screwy, with most of the upper floor hanging off one circuit. I put a microwave in, but it didn't look like I was going to be able to use it. Replace all the bulbs with CFs, and wala, no more tripping the breaker.
... my driveway.
:)]
...]
[Northern US is currently experiencing unusual cold and snow. It's funny. Laugh
[{cricket chirp} {cricket chirp}]
[OK, I'll keep my day job
Well, I read your comment, and I confess I'm not seeing how you address the problems.
One purely "secular" problem is: where can morality be for evolved animals with evolved behaviors? How can a behavior be "wrong" (or "right", for that matter) if it merely arises because it provides evolutionary advantage? If replication of genes is the highest good - or rather, if there is no "good", but just "what happens", then whence morality?
Now doctrinally, the problems are many. The events of creation are treated as real, not allegorical, by the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. The characters of parables do not climb out of the parables and, say, father every person on Earth.
But even more importantly, our problem as humans is that we have rebelled against God, in sinning with Adam, and God justly cursed us and all of creation. Jesus is the solution to that problem - He (though sinless) died on the cross to take the just punishment for our sins so that we can be reconciled to God.
Doesn't make sense with the evolution-based story of human origin. In that story, humans were sinning (murder, fornication, adultery, theft, etc.) even before we were human. And if this sin is just the evolved behavior of self-replicating gene carriers, then surely we can't really be responsible for the behavior.
>They hate the fact that evolution justifies everything they hate,
>from moral relativism to sexual promiscuity.
Glad to hear you admit the linkage between evolution and justifying such stuff.
Seriously, I appreciate it. As a creationist, I actually respect your position and honesty much more than the "no, really, there's no conflict!" position.
and cell phone-billing software could charge peak rates at off-peak hours
Aiyeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think he has the right to live however he wishes, and his house is a silly issue to focus on, but it does underscore a lack of congruity.
Silly? His political wing wants us to all live in crowded cities and use public transportation all the time. He's against "urban sprawl" in the sense that he doesn't want you and me to have any space because it might "sprawl" towards his splendid wilderness vistas in his huge, private country living space.
His house is not so silly of an issue, if you ask me.
... and a stupid new buzzword is stopped in it's tracks! ;)
Read that again. This is what we hear when you mourn over our existence. This is what we hear when you pray for a cure. This is what we know, when you tell us of your fondest hopes and dreams for us: that your greatest wish is that one day we will cease to be, and strangers you can love will move in behind our faces.
I hear you. My son was born without any arms and legs.
My favorite of his doctors and therapists are those who are enthusiastic and pragmatic about finding ways for him to do things he wants to do (including, for some tasks, prosthetics he wears for limited periods of time).
My least favorite of his doctors and therapists are those who keep saying how great it will be when these bionic limbs they see on NOVA and at their seminars become available. I don't think he's going to want any such thing. They'll be hot (he has a big problem with losing heat fast enough) and heavy (I don't care how good they are, they aren't going to be self supporting against gravity like real limbs). But this other set of professionals can't seem to see him as anything but broken and needing fixing, rather than somebody who just needs a different set of tools available.
...that every single move taken by the tobacco industry in the last 15 years is going to be repeated in exact fashion by the oil industry? ...
There are plenty of other examples of the pattern being repeated, but I'm too tired to write them all out. Short version, the only thing that's changed is the product
Well, that and the fact that everybody, including you, is going to be hating life if we can't use petroleum. It won't just be another case of making oneself feel all righteous by taking away stuff that only those uncool lower class people use.
>The knowledgable terrorist will doubtless package his
...
...
>payload in a fashionable briefcase now that he has been
>alerted to this penchant.
Of course, because terrorists are omnipotent and unstoppable.
All countermeasures and vigilance are useless against them.
They are also harmless, so we shouldn't be afraid of them. Er,
wait, um
Hold on; I'm getting my Slashdot talking points all mixed up
Hormonal, pubescent adolescents will seek out and obtain porn and actual sex, regardless and often in direct proportion to your attempts to prevent them from doing so. Welcome to humanity.
Ah, that explains the Girls Gone Wild of the 1800s. I was wondering about that.
OK, I'm called a "Web Programmer" or "Web Developer", but I design the data tables, develop the stored procedures, program the web pages, change the server settings (or ask the supposed box admin to), and just generally figure stuff out and make stuff work.
I get layouts from Marketing, but the roughly 50% of the time they forget to specify enough, I pretty much make that up too.
Mind you, we're not Amazon or anything. But I doubt Amazon *ever* had a "webmaster".
The "9/11" terrorists could have been caught without PATRIOT, without mandatory ID requirements or any of the other shenanigans.
OK.
That incident happened because dozens of agencies simply dropped the ball.
OK. Have they picked up the ball since then?
Nothing has been done since that actually fixes the problem to the slightest degree.
Oh, I guess not, according to you. Why hasn't there been a repeat, then?
They are all actions done under the guise of fixing them but are simply misdirections to make people think something is being done.
OK. Then why hasn't there been a repeat? Something must be working.
Where are these invincible unstoppable terrorists who also somehow don't exist (and are thus "FUD")? If it's not much of a threat, then why can't *any* reasonable measures help, according to you guys? If, on the other hand, it's an near-omnipotent threat, then why is it called "FUD" not to be feared at all?
>Also, your phobia of the words 'toilet' and 'shit' is humourous.
:)
It's not a "phobia", it's just (a degree of) class.
Life is not made any more enjoyable by everyone using
the earthiest words that they can think of all the time
and in all circumstances.
And it's hardly cool or rebellious anymore - if you want
to be a rebel these days, clean up your speech
The bill was worded very specifically to make sure that only if you were paid to have an opinion (and only if you reached more than 500ppl), would you then have to register - just like if you are paid to have an opinion & print something in a magazine, in a newspaper, etc - all of those paid for by notices on the bottom of the TV adds - that's what it was about.
That's still no good, from a free speech standpoint.
What if I have an opinion, and somebody pays me to express it? Would Molly Ivins suddenly become more untrustworthy if the Democrats paid her? And in any case, where's this exception in the 1st amendment for "speech that you think is untrustworthy"?
Newspaper opinion columnists are paid, aren't they? Would they have to register? Does the newspaper have a website? Do they allow comments on stories? Why isn't that a blog?