The original theory of evolution -that all those bones in the ground implied the existence of evolution is easily shown to be false. Put the skeleton of a chihuahua next to that of a beagle next to that of a great dane. The theory would argue that this shows a historical track of evolution.
That is not correct. Please re-read the chapters on evolution, natural selection and the scientific method.
Indeed. Dawkins, like Chomsky, uses language very precisely. When Dawkins uses words like 'deluded' and 'unsophisticated' a great many people take them as insults rather than interpreting them based on their dictionary definitions.
...he states that unless you agree with his narrow understanding of reality and truth itself your must be both a deluded and unintelligent individual.
Dawkins makes a case for building our understanding of the the Universe on logic and reason. Is this the 'narrow understanding of reality and truth' of which you speak?
Dawkins does not say that religious people are unintelligent. In fact he takes the time to point out that lots of intelligent people are religious. He DOES say that they are deluded.
Dawkins is only advocating a religion if you consider logic and reason a religion. If you think he was advocating religious faith in evolution, newtonian or quantum physics then you misunderstood and might want to re-read his books.
I want a neutral net. We don't need regulation to have it.
What we need is to break the retail Internet service monopolies.
All we need to do is build a fiber-optic last-mile network as public infrastructure and all of a sudden you will have 50+ Internet service providers to choose from instead of 1 or 2.
Where there IS competition (at datacentres and public Internet exchanges like TORIX) there is no such thing as a 'bandwidth crunch' or 'traffic management' BS. You can buy whatever amount of bandwidth you want and you get what you pay for. No BS.
I was not joking. Back when I was young we didn't have the LUXURY of http headers. Hypertext... pfft. what is this? the future? We made do with regular text. We didn't even have fancy guaranteed delivery protocols like TCP, we hand-crafted IP packets and hoped they arrived. You should hear the Mnemonic I came up with for doing x-modem compression in my head! If we were lucky enough to get a byte through we considered ourselves lucky! we'd print it out and share it with our neighbours. kids these days are spoiled.
That is not a very useful method of categorizing medical conditions.
Was it Genetic or was it generally caused by you own choices?
I choose to drive. Do I get treatment for a back injury if I am involved in a collision?
Heart disease? preventable? SOME contributing factors to heart disease are known. I have never heard of any test to determine if you 'deserved' it or not.
How about AIDS? if I get aids do I get treatment? or do I have to prove to you that I didn't have unprotected sex and must have received a tainted blood transfusion?
No no, I'm sure there is a segment that thinks that way but they are just the crackpot fringe.
The rational argument against engineering our children focuses on the potential for a reduction of genetic diversity in our species. Less diversity weakens our species giving rise to the threat of significant or even catastrophic hardship in the distant future.
I can think of no reasonable argument against an individual selecting which genes they want in their child. The problem only arises when a significant fraction of the population is doing this and (we can presume) making essentially the same genetic choices for their children.
That is the heart of the matter. The best choice for the individual in this case may be the worst choice for the community in the long term.
We do not want to turn ourselves into the bananas of the animal kingdom.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, people here were debating on whether or not the theory of...
Remove the 'on' after 'debating'.
But on the average, we are pretty backward.
Remove the 'the' preceding 'average'.
What would the Internet do without me?
srsly.
Send kdawson to fark where he belongs!
Keep trying, you'll construct a coherent sentence sooner or later.
EDITORS, DO YOUR JOBS. If there is a fallacy in the summary, either correct it, or DO NOT POST THE STORY.
oh you crazy idealist.
I want to live in THAT world.
Really? What I took from the article was that the author did not understand anything the researchers were telling them.
I think that what they meant was: "I have no idea what I'm talking about. Teh science dudes are using too many big words!"
"French Police Save Millions Switching To Ubuntu."
Jesus Christ! Windows was killing millions of people in France?!?!
Ok, so all I need is 20 DC vacuum cleaners, 19 friends, lots of extension cords and I'll be able to clean my house in 10 seconds right?
The original theory of evolution -that all those bones in the ground implied the existence of evolution is easily shown to be false. Put the skeleton of a chihuahua next to that of a beagle next to that of a great dane. The theory would argue that this shows a historical track of evolution.
That is not correct.
Please re-read the chapters on evolution, natural selection and the scientific method.
It's always irritating to hear people say things like "his science has become his religion". That's absurd on the face of it.
Ah, but it is only absurd if you consider logic and reason to be paramount.
If you don't require your ideas to be logically correct then you can call science a religion.
Indeed. Dawkins, like Chomsky, uses language very precisely.
When Dawkins uses words like 'deluded' and 'unsophisticated' a great many people take them as insults rather than interpreting them based on their dictionary definitions.
true, there's a whole lot of screwing immobile objects going on.
...he states that unless you agree with his narrow understanding of reality and truth itself your must be both a deluded and unintelligent individual.
Dawkins makes a case for building our understanding of the the Universe on logic and reason.
Is this the 'narrow understanding of reality and truth' of which you speak?
Dawkins does not say that religious people are unintelligent. In fact he takes the time to point out that lots of intelligent people are religious. He DOES say that they are deluded.
Dawkins is only advocating a religion if you consider logic and reason a religion.
If you think he was advocating religious faith in evolution, newtonian or quantum physics then you misunderstood and might want to re-read his books.
The "fallacies" put forth in that Guardian article all appear to actually be 'reading'-comprehension failures by the Guardian author.
Damn right.
I want a neutral net.
We don't need regulation to have it.
What we need is to break the retail Internet service monopolies.
All we need to do is build a fiber-optic last-mile network as public infrastructure and all of a sudden you will have 50+ Internet service providers to choose from instead of 1 or 2.
Where there IS competition (at datacentres and public Internet exchanges like TORIX) there is no such thing as a 'bandwidth crunch' or 'traffic management' BS.
You can buy whatever amount of bandwidth you want and you get what you pay for. No BS.
Star Trek: Fragrances
Janeway is back on earth and has been fired from starfleet for 'shocking incompetence' and has opened a perfume shoppe.
I was not joking.
Back when I was young we didn't have the LUXURY of http headers. Hypertext... pfft. what is this? the future? We made do with regular text. We didn't even have fancy guaranteed delivery protocols like TCP, we hand-crafted IP packets and hoped they arrived.
You should hear the Mnemonic I came up with for doing x-modem compression in my head!
If we were lucky enough to get a byte through we considered ourselves lucky! we'd print it out and share it with our neighbours.
kids these days are spoiled.
That is not a very useful method of categorizing medical conditions.
Was it Genetic or was it generally caused by you own choices?
I choose to drive.
Do I get treatment for a back injury if I am involved in a collision?
Heart disease? preventable?
SOME contributing factors to heart disease are known. I have never heard of any test to determine if you 'deserved' it or not.
How about AIDS?
if I get aids do I get treatment? or do I have to prove to you that I didn't have unprotected sex and must have received a tainted blood transfusion?
oh ya? well I'm serving a million hits per day from my OLPC over a 56k modem! (and it's uphill both ways)
No no, I'm sure there is a segment that thinks that way but they are just the crackpot fringe.
The rational argument against engineering our children focuses on the potential for a reduction of genetic diversity in our species. Less diversity weakens our species giving rise to the threat of significant or even catastrophic hardship in the distant future.
I can think of no reasonable argument against an individual selecting which genes they want in their child. The problem only arises when a significant fraction of the population is doing this and (we can presume) making essentially the same genetic choices for their children.
That is the heart of the matter. The best choice for the individual in this case may be the worst choice for the community in the long term.
We do not want to turn ourselves into the bananas of the animal kingdom.
That is one of my top-10 wisdom of Picard quotes.
The whole speech is quite good.
furthermore, there are FOUR lights!
Then again, an audio-recording device that recorded keystrokes or...
indeed, and you get the audio by shining one of those nifty 'laser-mics' on the 20th floor executive office window from across town.
I'm saddened by this not because ...
... of what you have tried to say but because of how you have written it.
Precedence is not he word for which you are looking.
You want the plural of precedent: precedents
Furthermore, one does not 'set a precedent on' someone. The result of a trial can set a precedent *for* the adjudication of something.
You're welcome.
Somewhere I read them called social demons, they are essentially scapegoats for society to blame abnormal behavior on.
Tell me a bit about your life and I'll pick some aspect of it to blame for your grammar.
so what?
The implication is that American companies should only hire Americans, not foreigners.
Nationalism: The last form of racism that is openly accepted.