The holes are indeed unanswered questions, but religion is only filling them with air. It never gives answers, it just gives fairy tailes to make people feel good. Everytime someone finds a real answer and fills a bit of those holes people will either have to admit their fairy tailes were wrong or deny the answer. Unfortunatly for most just denying is easier.
The problem is not evolution... It is a very good theory, the problem is ID, its total crap. Just because evolution might not be perfect doesn't mean a bullshit theory has any credibility.
As for your lovely quotes, there is far more nonsense in the bible than scientific facts. If the bible said apples fall down it would just mean that who ever wrote it wasn't a total nutcase and was atleast somewhat aware of his suroundings.
Not believing in any sort of higher being does not prevent one from wanting to do good. Just because some guy 2000 years ago, who might not have existed at all, said a few good things it doesn't prevent him from being crazy. Not believing in an afterlive it actually makes more sense to want to turn this world into a better place, there is no second chance if you screw up.
If you want to mention a higher power at all, the only sensible thing to say is 'according to our current knowledge no higher power is needed to explain all this'. But it would be a waste of time... its like saying that a higher power might be involved when 1 + 1 equals 2 in a math class.
Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't. There is no evolutionary intermediate form that would function so how could it have evolved?
Classic mistake.... the 'I don't know how so it is impossible without devine intervention' excuse. Science has already demonstrated that you need only a few modifications to allow normal brain tissue to become light sensitive.
And an eye with a few components still can give you an advantage over others that don't have it: -Take out the muscles that move it around, you would have to turn your head to look at different things, but it would still be usefull. -Take out the focussing stuff, you would only see a few things really clear, but when a large blob comes at you at high speed you might step aside while someone without this less usefull eye would get hit/eaten. -Take out color, black and white tigers still look dangerous enough without the yellow. -Take out the transparent stuff and place a thing layer of skin in its place, you would get even worse focusing but one could still see blobs moving around. -Remove the fluid stuff and place the retina close to the skin, you could still detect sudden changes in the lighting.
Do them all and you are very close to the simple lightsensitive braincell.
I am not saying that is the way it happened, but I could think a possible path up in a few seconds without the need to drag some higher being into the picture.
The whole 'irreducibly complex' stuff is a joke, the being that is supposed to do that sort of stuff would need to be even more complex...
I don't disbelieve evolution but neither do I blindly believe everything the scientists tell me is fact That's rather the basis of science.
As an aside: did you consider that God could, by definition he's omnipotent afterall, have forged the fossil record? I think most Christians believe he's not like that and so didn't.
Don't try to use logic and omnipotent gods in the same sentence, its to easy to logically disprove an omnipotent god.... Besides the world was created last week including evidence, such as your memories, of the past.
It exists. It is the way normal applications work. And the reason they don't crash the system is because there is an abstraction layer between them and the hardware called the kernel. This kernel needs to talk to the hardware and this is were drivers come in.
The idea is not just a formal API, but a formal API that doesn't change for a long (VERY VERY long if it is to be usefull at all) time. The problem is that you will be stuck with the mistakes for the same time. You can't improve the kernel anymore because you have to keep supporting those mistakes. You would have to add huge glue layers to your kernels to keep emulating thos mistakes. It is a bad idea. It has only advantages to those driver writers who want to stay far away from the kernel and want to keep using their crap for a long time. The kernel and the kernel writers are not going to get better from it (they only get extra work supporting lazy driver writers) why should they support it?
Linux development works very easy: do it yourself or convince someone else to do it. You can convince other people either by motivating them with proper reasoning (and/. is not the place to do it) or by throwing money at them. Nobody has been throwing enough money yet to get the kernel developpers to do it. (And very likely nobody ever will throw enough)
To make it easier to start using v3 when it is available. The problem is that you have to trust the FSF not to go nuts and do only good things with the next versions. You don't have to add that one line to your program though, you could just release it under one specific version. Only problem than is that when a new version comes out and it is good you and everyone who has contributed to it in the mean time would have to agree to the relicensing.
That would be voting about its use. No matter is nobody uses it it still won't affect the actual license. They do NOT get to vote on what is in the license.
Unfortunatly the incentive is LOTS of money.... A single request is going to be ignored as a wast of time and their money. And once this one company has said no it though luck, with open source you can find someone else to do it for a more reasonable price.
If China would charge you AND the court accepted it (which means its a pretty serious crime such as war crimes and a prosecutor thinks he has a case) you still wouldn't be sent to China as the court is not in China.
The US didn't build the internet, they came up with a number of protocols to connect different networks into one big network. They weren't the only one with that idea, just the ones with the right implementation at the right time. The US did not build my home network, they did not build the broadband network its connected to, they did not build most off the networks that together make the internet. The only reason the US has some control is because the protocol choosen had to have a single authority for distributing some numbers and registering some names. That is ALL the US has control of. (Unless you consider preemptive missile strikes on foreign network nodes:)
I know the ideas and reasoning behind stiff sentences, that doesn't mean it works. Like amputating a hand after stealing, very scary but does it actually make crime rates go down? If one isn't afraid of getting caught the sentence doesn't matter.
Please forgive me for underestimating your debating skills... The MEG principle is just flawed. The basic math behind it is flawed. The units don't even match... A basic understanding off physics would tell you such a device won't work. A basic understanding off math would tell you were the flaw is in this particular device.
Your comparisson is flawed... SUVs are normally used to drive ONE ass (or at most a few) around. Those Locomotives are pulling entire trains with assess or freight. So the total amount of pollution/work is a lot better for them than for your SUV. About the only justification for a SUV is either having a pet elefant to feed or having an incredibly big ass in which case you indeed have better things to worry about.
Slashdot Mirror
Next time you come accross that book also read the end of the WWII chapter.
The holes are indeed unanswered questions, but religion is only filling them with air.
It never gives answers, it just gives fairy tailes to make people feel good.
Everytime someone finds a real answer and fills a bit of those holes people will either have to admit their fairy tailes were wrong or deny the answer. Unfortunatly for most just denying is easier.
The problem is not evolution... It is a very good theory, the problem is ID, its total crap. Just because evolution might not be perfect doesn't mean a bullshit theory has any credibility.
As for your lovely quotes, there is far more nonsense in the bible than scientific facts.
If the bible said apples fall down it would just mean that who ever wrote it wasn't a total nutcase and was atleast somewhat aware of his suroundings.
Not believing in any sort of higher being does not prevent one from wanting to do good.
Just because some guy 2000 years ago, who might not have existed at all, said a few good things it doesn't prevent him from being crazy.
Not believing in an afterlive it actually makes more sense to want to turn this world into a better place, there is no second chance if you screw up.
Jeroen
If you want to mention a higher power at all, the only sensible thing to say is 'according to our current knowledge no higher power is needed to explain all this'. But it would be a waste of time... its like saying that a higher power might be involved when 1 + 1 equals 2 in a math class.
Why do a few chromosones make a difference?
Being ugly is not generally regarded as being terminally ill...
and don't forget the reason for the season
Some germanic tribes celebrating the days getting longer again?
Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't. There is no evolutionary intermediate form that would function so how could it have evolved?
Classic mistake.... the 'I don't know how so it is impossible without devine intervention' excuse.
Science has already demonstrated that you need only a few modifications to allow normal brain tissue to become light sensitive.
And an eye with a few components still can give you an advantage over others that don't have it:
-Take out the muscles that move it around, you would have to turn your head to look at different things, but it would still be usefull.
-Take out the focussing stuff, you would only see a few things really clear, but when a large blob comes at you at high speed you might step aside while someone without this less usefull eye would get hit/eaten.
-Take out color, black and white tigers still look dangerous enough without the yellow.
-Take out the transparent stuff and place a thing layer of skin in its place, you would get even worse focusing but one could still see blobs moving around.
-Remove the fluid stuff and place the retina close to the skin, you could still detect sudden changes in the lighting.
Do them all and you are very close to the simple lightsensitive braincell.
I am not saying that is the way it happened, but I could think a possible path up in a few seconds without the need to drag some higher being into the picture.
The whole 'irreducibly complex' stuff is a joke, the being that is supposed to do that sort of stuff would need to be even more complex...
I don't disbelieve evolution but neither do I blindly believe everything the scientists tell me is fact That's rather the basis of science.
As an aside: did you consider that God could, by definition he's omnipotent afterall, have forged the fossil record? I think most Christians believe he's not like that and so didn't.
Don't try to use logic and omnipotent gods in the same sentence, its to easy to logically disprove an omnipotent god....
Besides the world was created last week including evidence, such as your memories, of the past.
Jeroen
Do you actually expect those idiots to be capable of counting?
It exists. It is the way normal applications work. And the reason they don't crash the system is because there is an abstraction layer between them and the hardware called the kernel. This kernel needs to talk to the hardware and this is were drivers come in.
The problem here is that the hw manufacturers stopping with whining still doesn't make the idea a good one :)
The idea is not just a formal API, but a formal API that doesn't change for a long (VERY VERY long if it is to be usefull at all) time.
/. is not the place to do it) or by throwing money at them.
The problem is that you will be stuck with the mistakes for the same time.
You can't improve the kernel anymore because you have to keep supporting those mistakes.
You would have to add huge glue layers to your kernels to keep emulating thos mistakes.
It is a bad idea. It has only advantages to those driver writers who want to stay far away from the kernel and want to keep using their crap for a long time. The kernel and the kernel writers are not going to get better from it (they only get extra work supporting lazy driver writers) why should they support it?
Linux development works very easy: do it yourself or convince someone else to do it.
You can convince other people either by motivating them with proper reasoning (and
Nobody has been throwing enough money yet to get the kernel developpers to do it. (And very likely nobody ever will throw enough)
Jeroen
To make it easier to start using v3 when it is available.
The problem is that you have to trust the FSF not to go nuts and do only good things with the next versions.
You don't have to add that one line to your program though, you could just release it under one specific version. Only problem than is that when a new version comes out and it is good you and everyone who has contributed to it in the mean time would have to agree to the relicensing.
Jeroen
That would be voting about its use. No matter is nobody uses it it still won't affect the actual license.
They do NOT get to vote on what is in the license.
In this model, UFO's,* ghosts, etc. exist in this aspect of us and are a part of the human condition.
Its called imagination...
just to be pedantic:
150 * 7 = 1050
Unfortunatly the incentive is LOTS of money....
A single request is going to be ignored as a wast of time and their money.
And once this one company has said no it though luck, with open source you can find someone else to do it for a more reasonable price.
Jeroen
BS
If China would charge you AND the court accepted it (which means its a pretty serious crime such as war crimes and a prosecutor thinks he has a case) you still wouldn't be sent to China as the court is not in China.
The US didn't build the internet, they came up with a number of protocols to connect different networks into one big network. :)
They weren't the only one with that idea, just the ones with the right implementation at the right time.
The US did not build my home network, they did not build the broadband network its connected to, they did not build most off the networks that together make the internet.
The only reason the US has some control is because the protocol choosen had to have a single authority for distributing some numbers and registering some names.
That is ALL the US has control of. (Unless you consider preemptive missile strikes on foreign network nodes
Jeroen
Wouldn't the high chance of getting caught be enough of a deterent?
I know the ideas and reasoning behind stiff sentences, that doesn't mean it works.
Like amputating a hand after stealing, very scary but does it actually make crime rates go down?
If one isn't afraid of getting caught the sentence doesn't matter.
Because real studies have shown that stiff sentences do wonders besides making the pitchfork carying mob happy?
Please forgive me for underestimating your debating skills...
The MEG principle is just flawed. The basic math behind it is flawed. The units don't even match...
A basic understanding off physics would tell you such a device won't work.
A basic understanding off math would tell you were the flaw is in this particular device.
Jeroen
Your comparisson is flawed...
SUVs are normally used to drive ONE ass (or at most a few) around. Those Locomotives are pulling entire trains with assess or freight.
So the total amount of pollution/work is a lot better for them than for your SUV.
About the only justification for a SUV is either having a pet elefant to feed or having an incredibly big ass in which case you indeed have better things to worry about.
Jeroen