Vote for Bush because he has integrity. Integrity counts. Gore
hasn't got it.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that Clinton/Gore is the reason
that the economy is doing well. The economy is doing well because...it
does that sometimes, and Greenspan hasn't made any huge mistakes as the
chairman of the Fed.
Voting is a responsibility of the members of a democratic society.
If you enjoy the privileges of our national defense, national resources,
and society, you have the responsibility to participate in the process.
If you don't like the process, work within it to change it. People
don't vote - ostensibly out of protest, but largely due to indifference.
When the economy hits people in the wallet they become less apathetic and
choose to take part. Since the economy is doing well, fewer people
are motivated to vote. That is quite sad.
We are so affluent and self-centered as a society that we have forgotten
our roots. People died for the right to establish a government of
the people by the people, for the people. You might not like
this organizational structure, but the beauty of it is that it can be changed,
and without bloodshed.
It is awe inspiring to see the inaguration of a president from a different
party than the incumbent. In most countries when an "opposing" leader
is installed it comes when the head of the incumbnet is removed from his
neck.
Our government has lots of problems. There's definitely a disconnect
between the political process and the everyman. Warts and all, it's
the best thing out there from an governmental organizational structure.
If you have the right to vote, exercise it! Don't make the sacrifices
of previous generations be in vain.
It's interesting how modern-day Luddites invoke morality as a shield
to mask zealotry and ignorance.
I'm tired of this. Why is it that the conservatives are accused
of zealotry and so-called intolerance?
The so-called liberals who embrace modern "tolerance" of ideas and beliefs
are completely intolerant of ideas which differ from theirs.
This is exemplified by the motion brought before the USHouse of
Representatives to revoke the Federal charter of the Boy Scouts.
They did this based on the idea that the Boy Scouts rejection of
homosexual scout leader candidates was "intolerant."
What is ludicrous is that the "liberals" are intolerant of the
rights of the Boy Scouts to hold a view that differs from theirs!
Boy Scouts don't hate homosexuals, they just don't want them as role
models for their sons. Whether you agree or disagree with them, that is their constitutional right as a private organization. They don't take actions against them, they simply ask them not to be a part of their organization.
From a purely denotative meaning, they tolerate people who are different
- even teach giving respect to others - even others different from you.
Tolerating someone's differences is not the same thing as agreeing with
or promoting them!
The so-called liberal tolerance is the real-life embodiment of Orwell's
1984 - where doublespeak has become so firmly enmeshed in our culture that
in the process of stomping on the rights of a private organization, the
"enlightened" demand that the members of that private organization
think the same way they do.
This is neither liberal, nor tolerant.
</rant>
WRT violence - There is no question that the problem of violence is
a broad one, and that computer games are not solely responsible.
The answer doesn't lie simply in banning games or in warning labels for
parents.
For that matter, it doesn't lie in changing TV, music and movies to
remove violence. Finally it doesn't lie in removing the temptation
and glorification of "extreme sports."
Those things are simply the symptoms of a deeper problem - that problem
of a lack of real, intimate relationship between parents and children.
Building deeply intimate (emotionally, NOT sexually) relationships
within families will resolve many of these issues.
Can some proponent of creationism answer these questions? Thank you. I'm a Christian who believes that there is a God who created all that exists. To some of you that means that I should be summarily dismissed. I ask you only to have an open mind as you read this post.
why should only Christian theology be taught as an "alternative" to evolution? It shouldn't. I'm not talking about theology, I'm talking about real science.
does the origin of the universe depend on the population % of your local area? That's simply absurd. Of course that cannot be true, and I doubt that reasoned Christians would even suggest such a thing.
why offer "alternatives to science" only on evolution? The proposal asI understand it is not to offer an alternative to "science," but an alternative to the scientific theory that is currently entrenched. Let's be clear here: The question of origins is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.
Origins does not stand up to the scientific method. One cannot observe the origin unless one was there. As a result, the theory of life's origins based on?? (I'm making an assumption in the evolution camp. Please feel free to correct inaccuracies found here.) Based on a big bang, followed by gradual change from basic chemicals to protoplasm to homo sapien and beyond is as much a philosophical statement as is creation by God.
Whether evolution of any kind occurs is definitely a question for science. I think that it is fair to say that science clearly demonstrates that one form of evolution does occur. We see again and again that different types of animals adapt to conditions and develop different characteristics. I refer to that as "microevolution." There can be no doubt that this is scientific, evidential, and observable.
However what I call "MacroEvolution" - evolution from one species to another - is a completely different question. In fact, it takes a BIG leap of faith to believe that all life as it exists on this planet is here because of chance changes to creatures over a great period of time. We do not have evidence of this type of change. In fact, one of the biggest proponents of the idea of origins without a creator (and a brilliant man, by the way) - Steven J. Gould - says "Philetic gradualism was never seen in the rocks" As a result, he proposes a completely different theory of evolution - that creatures suddenly change from one species to another.
My point is this. Science allows us to observe things that repeat and document those things. We use evidence to back our theories, and when evidence contradicts them, we are supposed to chuck them. The problem is if we decide ahead of time that there can be no God, then we must a priori discard any theory that depends on His existence.
Is there any reason why only evolution should be presented with an alternative? The issue is that evolution is a bad theory. I have (at least) three main complaints about evolutionary theory.
1. We know that things tend to move from order to disorder. Why then is it that things which have evolved buck that trend?
2. Intelligent design is missing in the idea of random change. This is the issue that Behe refers to in Darwin's Black Box in which he talks about the idea of "irreducable complexity" This concept says that a mouse trap can be simplified only so far before it ceases to be a functional mousetrap. As a result, all of the pieces must be pulled together in a specific order for the mousetrap to work. Someone above this post mentioned the problem of the human eye. The eye is incredibly complex and requires many systems to be in place in order for it to function. It does not follow that these pieces would have simultaneously evolved. What makes sense is that an intelligent designer planned it all to work together.
3. Lack of evidence of transitional forms. Like it or not, the evidence simply is not there.
After all, nobody has gone to the center of the earth or the sun and REALLY proved what's there; they are merely theories speculated upon by scientists, and they often turn out to be wrong. Bingo. That's an excellent point. Scientists are not perfect, nor are they unbiased. The question is not "bias or no bias?" but rather "Which bias makes the most sense?" For me, the evidence points to an intelligent designer who planned and built it from the start.
So, to provide a succint summary, the issue is not one of "religious belief" but rather one of actually examining the evidence and allowing competing theories to be critically evaluated on their merits. There are reasonable alternative theories to the one commonly espoused by metaphysical naturalists. These theories can exist devoid of philosophical overtones. Shouldn't reasoned men be able in the public forum to debate such things? Isn't that what science is about?
If anyone would like to invest time in an honest and open minded discussion on this issue, please email me at "tom_cooper at bigfoot.com"
While I freely admit my Christianity, my philosophical beliefs don't change the fact that moral relativism is problematic. It's objectively true that when two relativists disagree they have nothing on which to base an appeal about which opinion is true.
It's not me saying what it right or wrong, but my objective moral base that determines it.
By the way, I should mention here that God loves you and wants a relationship with you.
You're making an appeal to morality. Morality on the basis of what? One of the key problems with our culture's attachment to postmodenism is that there is an acceptance of moral relativism.
The problem with moral relativism is that there is no objective basis for determining right and wrong. This means that there is nothing to which you can philosophically appeal for making a judgement of what is right (or wrong.)
Ideas have consequences, people!
The outcome of our rejection of moral absolutes provides us with no compass when it comes to making decisions about genetic engineering, abortion, and all other issues.
Keep on failing to think through your philosophies and their consequenses. "When they came for the Jews I did not stand up and fight, because I was not a Jew.....when they came for me, there was no one left to fight for me." The issue in that illustration demonstrates that there is a RIGHT and a WRONG. Moral relativism provides no basis for knowing right and wrong.
Our culture has been sliding down the slippery slope for 50 years. Just a few more years of this trend before we collapse under the weight of our thoughtlessness and selfishness.
Cling to morality with a solid foundation and you will have a basis for hope!
Over the last two years, I've made a serious attempt to rid my home of Redmond software. At this point, I've really only got one application that demands a MS OS. MS Money. I wish it wasn't so, but nothing else does what I want - e banking with direct downloads to my PC from my bank. (Don't get me started on Intuit. GnuCash shows promise. In a couple of years I may be able to purge my home completely.)
I've looked at a few different applications for my environment, and Ihave a few comments:
SOis pretty good, unless you want to use Outlook calendaring functions, which are not an option, dang it.
My wife adapted to Gnome (and briefly to KDE) very well. My wife is a very smart woman, and quite tech savvy, although she vehemently opposes being called a "geek." (She's a library geek.)
You can use any font you want, as long as it's PS. Unfortunately, although there are some hacks to provide X renderings for TTF, PS is it. (This is not a major problem until you add Windows apps with TTF typefaces. ) This means that even though you may see TTF on the screen, you won't necessarily see it that way on the printout.
Non-PSprinters are generally supported well, except for WinPrinters (which are coming along)
File formats are a challenge. I really don't like being locked in to ANY vendor's formatting. I can't wait to see many people REALLY implement XML. HTML is not good enough for my document-processing needs. XML offers the promise of portability between document processors. I hope it makes it.
File conversion is dicey because of issues related to fonts and formatting within files. Generally "true" file portability between suites is generally impossible. There are too many layout-specific things. Just try to create a special size document in one application and move it to the other without reformatting.
MSmakes clip art easy. Clip art is not as plentiful, or as organized for other platforms as it is for MS. This has been an issue for my wife who likes to make postcards, letters with graphics, etc
Custom documents - like expense reports don't convert well
There's no conversion of macros from one platform to the other. This is generally bad, but sometimes is quite good. (ILOVEYOU)
In general, I think that it is quite doable. You simply need to be forewarned about some of the challenges that you will face with this type of project. Hope it works! R, Anomaly
With all due respect Mr. Moderator, you might as well moderate this down right away, because I'm far on the unpopular side of this issue.
Look, I appreciate free speech rights. I'm not a "book burner" who opposes ideas and free expression. I think that the free exchange of ideas is critical for our survival as a nation. However, since when is SEX a political statement? I'm sick of people who claim to be for "free speech" by default feeling obligated to defend any speech at all - even if it's not speech but rather people having illicit sex - or enticing you to do so.
I can hear you saying, "Oh dear, another wacko who is trying to limit me." Or, "look at him trying to impose his values on me." say that if you will, but I feel strongly about what follows:
Pornography is not an issue of people simply being unclothed. It's far more insidious than that. The people who produce pornography are quite happy to do the necessary research to figure out what will motivate you to want to keep looking at it. You are being manipulated, and so are the women who pose for the pictures. This ultimately hurts our society.
This is not the same thing as saying "don't contradict the government, or leaders." It's not. Pornography is a not-so-subtle attack on you, on women, and our culture.
Filtering is not (supposed to be) about limiting access to ideas. I know that filtering software has problems. I know that nothing is perfect. This is not a simple issue. Don't expect a simple answer. The truth is that much filtering of other media occurs today. Librarians decide what to spend public money on. Publishers decide what is worthy of publishing. Bookstores decide what materials they will carry. Newspapers decide which books will be reviewed. In the print medium, restrictions exist. They should exist in some form in the electronic world, too.
Filtering is supposed to be about blocking matterial that is not appropriate, or that is destructive. Don't fall prey to the idea that all information is good information. Children are not simply little adults. Some information is harmful to all of us. Information that might not be destructive for you as an adult might be very destructive to a child.
I support the first amendment, but this is NOTa free speech issue.
My response is actually to your.sig "Violence on TV only affects children whose parents act like TV personalities"
This is a rediculous statement. We are influenced by the things that we see on TV, and everywhere in our culture.
The idea that information has no impact on the people who hear it is an example of the "big lie" that is propaganda. The biggest success that those promoting propaganda can have is for us to believe that information does not affect us?
If you don't believe that the media has impact, ask yourself this question: Can you complete the statement "Drop the _______!" from a recent advertising campaign? How about "My baloney has a first name, it's _ _ _ _ _, my bloney has a second name it's _ _ _ _ _"
Information affects all of us. It shapes the way that we think about things, and there is always an impact. This does not excuse me from behaviour . I can't say:"I'm not to blame - it's the TV"
Each of us is responsible for what we take in and the choices we make.
This is a different issue from whether children should see certain kinds of information. Chilren are NOT little adults. They are developmentally different from full grown humans, and they are impacted differently than we are.
This, however, is an entirely different issue than the sociological impact of pornography, or sexualy-explicit images, sounds, etc. There's tremendous impact of that, too. On those who view it, as well as those who produce it, and those who participate in it.
Ah, so if I'm reading this correctly, Katz indicates that this book describes scientists as PEOPLE!
People are all biased based on their answers to the following questions:
1. Where did we come from and who are we?
2. What went wrong with the world?
3. How do we fix it?
These questions describe your "world view" and that affects all aspects of how you make decisions.
So, the issue in the ongoing "debate" about religion and science is not about "those biased religious people" versus these "unbiased scientists" but rather biased religious people versus biased scientists.
When it comes to the question of origins (universal) the question that you have to answer is not "Who is biased?" it is instead "Which bias makes the most sense?"
Re:A Christian's perspective
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
Please accept my humble apologies for the error in my posting above.
I believe you when you tell me that I am mistaken about the use of mature aborted children in the process of genetic research. I agree with you that it makes sense to check my facts before making a posting.
That having been said, while I will allow that your asserion about fetal tissue is correct, it does not change the thrust of my point. Christians are not all opposed to research, technology, and science. Some are, and are mistaken in their fear of knowledge.
I should have said "through unconcionable activity like abortion." That would have been accurate and would have made my point, although it is certainly offensive to more people to state it that way.
With respect to your comment about not excluding myself, where exactly is it that I should make that exclusion known? I believe that my posting does indicate that I don't stand with the so-called loudmouths.
Respectfully, Tom Cooper
A Christian's perspective
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 2
I'm not sure how all of the ethical issues play out on this one, but in general, Christians have no need to fear technology.
We've been attacked as being closed-minded, and unwilling to let science to it's job - that of exploring knowledge.
It's not rational to object to technology simply because it brings us to the unknown, or because it challenges long-held beliefs. God gives us the capabilty to gather knowledge about the universe in which we live, and that's a GoodThing TM.
There are areas of genetic reseach that are rationally opposed. For example, fetal tissue research that gets it's raw material through unconscionable activites like partial birth abortion. The only way to get to the start of that sort of research involves killing babies. That's a Bad ThingTM.
Let's no longer be associated with those who would suppress Copernicus. Let's look to gather knowledge about the universe in which we live!
BTW - I'm a "fundamentalist" in that I believe in the fundamental truths of Christianity. I belive that evolution as origin of species is irrational, and as much a religion as Christianity. I also believe that the earth was created in seven days by an all powerful Creator.
Merry Christ mas Jesus is the Reason for this Season!
I wrote to the folks at LMCO and asked for more information. Please see their response below.
R, Tom Cooper
-----Original Message----- From: Madden, Thad [mailto:thad.madden@lmco.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 4:47 PM To: 'tom_cooper@bigfoot.com' Subject: question about the PCL system
Tom,
Tom Kuba asked me to get back to you regarding your question about PCL technology. To answer your question, Lockheed Martin does not have a contract or an agreement to provide the technology/system you reference to the Chinese government, nor do we anticipate one. We were not a source of information for that news article you refer to. > ---------- > From: Tom Cooper[SMTP:tom_cooper@bigfoot.com] > Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 10:46 AM > To: tom.kuba@lmco.com > Cc: tom_cooper@bigfoot.com > Subject: question about the PCL system > > Tom, > I picked up your email address from the following URL: > http://silentsentry.external.lmco.com/proj/nonsecu re/sentry/benefits.htm > > I was reading an article on a portal this morning about China's new > defense > system, and it appears that they may have been able to purchase a system > from a US company that would help them overcome our military's efforts at > stealth. > > Can you allay those fears? Will the PCL help China identify the F117 and > other stealth planes? > > > Thanks for the response. > > Regards, > Tom Cooper > > BTW - the story I was reading is available at: > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/11/28/172323 0&mode=thread > This message reflects the personal views and opinions of the author only, > and not necessarily those of any organizaion to which the author is > related. > >
A response from a believer's point of view: I believe that I have summarized your points clearly - they are numbered, and my response follows:
1. Christians must abandon rational thought - that's just "wrong"
God expects me to use the gifts that He has given me - rational though is one of them - I'd better use it! Faith is not the antithesis of rational thought. If you think so, you are mistaken.
2. The message of Christianity has been communicated through people, and people cannot even get through the "telephone game" without destroying the message:
If you are speaking of something that is a) generated by human thought, and b) transmitted by human power, then your theory is correct.
If, however, it is generated by One with transcendant power, and transmitted with His guidance and control, it's another matter. The Bible is an amazing book - it's far more than you make it out to be.
3. "Being good" is a selfish motive for salvation. Shouldn't God reward those who are not selfish?
You miss the central teaching of Christianity. This is no small surprise, given that our culture and televangelists make it seem to be "being good." The message of Christianity is: a) You are not perfect (and God is) [Romans 3:23] b) Jesus Christ came to earth and died for your imperfections. [Romans 5:8] c) You can be saved through faith in Him. [Ephesians 2:8-9]
It's not about being good! You cannot be good enough to make up for your imperfections! Only a perfect person is worthy of a great reward.
4. If there's a God, why is it so hard to know what Truth is? (There are lots of religions.)
God has made it easy enough to understand, but, quite simply, we do not want to, because we'd rather do our own thing. [John 3:19]
5. It's not nice to scare people, and some Christians are really annoying!
If the Bible is true, then someone telling the truth about what will happen is quite loving. (Many people are not kind or compassionate in communicating with others. That is wrong. BTW - I find many so-called Christians annoying, too.)
But to get to the central point, if you were going to drink hemlock, thinking it would be refreshing, wouldn't it be loving of me to tell you that it's reall poison?
I wrote to DH Brown, and here's their reply
on
WSJ Says Linux Lags
·
· Score: 2
-----Original Message----- From: dhbrown.com Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 1999 1:02 PM To: tcooper Subject: Re: Feedback
Tom,
The report carefully defines its terms and conclusions, summarized briefly in a free summary on our website at www.dhbrown.com.
The news report you cited is indeed somewhat inaccurate (it is a paraphrase rather than a quote). Linux does "run simultaneously on many processors" if many equals, say 4 to 14. Our report however does also look at systems that have proven performance in both production and industry-standard benchmarks up to 64-way SMP. Linux has not yet reached that level. In fact, we were mildly shocked that, despite reading various kernel lists and talking to various Linux vendors, there is currently no really good publicly verifyable benchmark evidence of Linux's scalability even on 2-way or 4-way workloads (although I would be surprised if we didn't see some in 6 months). It boots on a 14-way as David Miller demonstrates, but the scalability claims are still a little in the air. I wouldn't make a claim that Linux doesn't scale. I would make the claim that Linux advocates have yet to reasonably demonstrate that it does.
"Keeping a log" is a similar over-simplification. I believe the reference was to "event management" facilities just now becoming available in UNIX where all the system logs can be accessed from a single console in a consistent manner. Managing various logs in UNIX has long been more painful than it needs to be.
Thanks for your respectful feedback.
Regards, Greg Weiss Research Analyst, Systems Software D.H. Brown Associates
tcooper on 04/06/99 11:41:00 AM
To: DHBA Systemsw/DHBA cc: tom_cooper@bigfoot.com Subject: Feedback
According to http://www.msnbc.com/news/256197.asp Your study claims that "Linux currently lacks some of the features demanded by corporations that intend to run their entire business on computers. Among them are the ability to run simultaneously on many processors in a single computer and to keep a log of what the computer has done."
What sources can you cite for this assertion? Linux is multi-processor scalable, and does provide logs that are at least as detailed as anything that you can retrieve from an NT box.
Well, while I'll agree that Libertarianism does make SOME sense, I'm fairly geeky, and definitely NOT a liberal.
I know that the parent article makes good flame bait, but I'm pretty disgusted with the whole thing.
1. Just because someone identifies themselves as a Christian doesn't mean that all other Christians agree with them.
2. Whether Falwell is a kook or not, our culture is completely sex-saturated. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see that. Those messages DO go into much of the so-called entertainment programming, including children's programming.
3. Christianity is not a check-your-brain-at-the-door religion, it's a thinking man's religion that involves a personal relationship with the God who spoke, and the universe leapt into existance. You ought to look at it critically before dismissing evangelicals as wackos.
Just my.02
Send flames to/dev/nul and save me the time, serious inquiries: tom_cooper@bigfoot.com
Slashdot Mirror
Don't make the mistake of thinking that Clinton/Gore is the reason that the economy is doing well. The economy is doing well because...it does that sometimes, and Greenspan hasn't made any huge mistakes as the chairman of the Fed.
Just my .02
If you don't like the process, work within it to change it. People don't vote - ostensibly out of protest, but largely due to indifference. When the economy hits people in the wallet they become less apathetic and choose to take part. Since the economy is doing well, fewer people are motivated to vote. That is quite sad.
We are so affluent and self-centered as a society that we have forgotten our roots. People died for the right to establish a government of the people by the people, for the people. You might not like this organizational structure, but the beauty of it is that it can be changed, and without bloodshed.
It is awe inspiring to see the inaguration of a president from a different party than the incumbent. In most countries when an "opposing" leader is installed it comes when the head of the incumbnet is removed from his neck.
Our government has lots of problems. There's definitely a disconnect between the political process and the everyman. Warts and all, it's the best thing out there from an governmental organizational structure.
If you have the right to vote, exercise it! Don't make the sacrifices of previous generations be in vain.
It's up to you. Are you willing to take a stand?
It's interesting how modern-day Luddites invoke morality as a shield to mask zealotry and ignorance.
I'm tired of this. Why is it that the conservatives are accused of zealotry and so-called intolerance?
The so-called liberals who embrace modern "tolerance" of ideas and beliefs are completely intolerant of ideas which differ from theirs.
This is exemplified by the motion brought before the USHouse of Representatives to revoke the Federal charter of the Boy Scouts. They did this based on the idea that the Boy Scouts rejection of homosexual scout leader candidates was "intolerant."
What is ludicrous is that the "liberals" are intolerant of the rights of the Boy Scouts to hold a view that differs from theirs!
Boy Scouts don't hate homosexuals, they just don't want them as role models for their sons. Whether you agree or disagree with them, that is their constitutional right as a private organization. They don't take actions against them, they simply ask them not to be a part of their organization. From a purely denotative meaning, they tolerate people who are different - even teach giving respect to others - even others different from you. Tolerating someone's differences is not the same thing as agreeing with or promoting them!
The so-called liberal tolerance is the real-life embodiment of Orwell's 1984 - where doublespeak has become so firmly enmeshed in our culture that in the process of stomping on the rights of a private organization, the "enlightened" demand that the members of that private organization think the same way they do.
This is neither liberal, nor tolerant.
</rant>
WRT violence - There is no question that the problem of violence is a broad one, and that computer games are not solely responsible. The answer doesn't lie simply in banning games or in warning labels for parents.
For that matter, it doesn't lie in changing TV, music and movies to remove violence. Finally it doesn't lie in removing the temptation and glorification of "extreme sports."
Those things are simply the symptoms of a deeper problem - that problem of a lack of real, intimate relationship between parents and children.
Building deeply intimate (emotionally, NOT sexually) relationships within families will resolve many of these issues.
I don't have a choice in running NT for a workstation.
Now you do!
I work for a company that is totally MS-based, but I run Linux and '98 on my PC.
(shameless plug follows)
I love VMWare!
I'm a Christian who believes that there is a God who created all that exists. To some of you that means that I should be summarily dismissed. I ask you only to have an open mind as you read this post.
why should only Christian theology be taught as an "alternative" to evolution?
It shouldn't. I'm not talking about theology, I'm talking about real science.
does the origin of the universe depend on the population % of your local area?
That's simply absurd. Of course that cannot be true, and I doubt that reasoned Christians would even suggest such a thing.
why offer "alternatives to science" only on evolution?
The proposal asI understand it is not to offer an alternative to "science," but an alternative to the scientific theory that is currently entrenched.
Let's be clear here: The question of origins is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.
Origins does not stand up to the scientific method. One cannot observe the origin unless one was there. As a result, the theory of life's origins based on?? (I'm making an assumption in the evolution camp. Please feel free to correct inaccuracies found here.) Based on a big bang, followed by gradual change from basic chemicals to protoplasm to homo sapien and beyond is as much a philosophical statement as is creation by God.
Whether evolution of any kind occurs is definitely a question for science. I think that it is fair to say that science clearly demonstrates that one form of evolution does occur. We see again and again that different types of animals adapt to conditions and develop different characteristics. I refer to that as "microevolution." There can be no doubt that this is scientific, evidential, and observable.
However what I call "MacroEvolution" - evolution from one species to another - is a completely different question. In fact, it takes a BIG leap of faith to believe that all life as it exists on this planet is here because of chance changes to creatures over a great period of time. We do not have evidence of this type of change. In fact, one of the biggest proponents of the idea of origins without a creator (and a brilliant man, by the way) - Steven J. Gould - says "Philetic gradualism was never seen in the rocks" As a result, he proposes a completely different theory of evolution - that creatures suddenly change from one species to another.
My point is this. Science allows us to observe things that repeat and document those things. We use evidence to back our theories, and when evidence contradicts them, we are supposed to chuck them. The problem is if we decide ahead of time that there can be no God, then we must a priori discard any theory that depends on His existence.
Is there any reason why only evolution should be presented with an alternative?
The issue is that evolution is a bad theory. I have (at least) three main complaints about evolutionary theory.
1. We know that things tend to move from order to disorder. Why then is it that things which have evolved buck that trend?
2. Intelligent design is missing in the idea of random change. This is the issue that Behe refers to in Darwin's Black Box in which he talks about the idea of "irreducable complexity" This concept says that a mouse trap can be simplified only so far before it ceases to be a functional mousetrap. As a result, all of the pieces must be pulled together in a specific order for the mousetrap to work. Someone above this post mentioned the problem of the human eye. The eye is incredibly complex and requires many systems to be in place in order for it to function. It does not follow that these pieces would have simultaneously evolved. What makes sense is that an intelligent designer planned it all to work together.
3. Lack of evidence of transitional forms. Like it or not, the evidence simply is not there.
After all, nobody has gone to the center of the earth or the sun and REALLY proved what's there; they are merely theories speculated upon by scientists, and they often turn out to be wrong.
Bingo. That's an excellent point. Scientists are not perfect, nor are they unbiased. The question is not "bias or no bias?" but rather "Which bias makes the most sense?" For me, the evidence points to an intelligent designer who planned and built it from the start.
So, to provide a succint summary, the issue is not one of "religious belief" but rather one of actually examining the evidence and allowing competing theories to be critically evaluated on their merits. There are reasonable alternative theories to the one commonly espoused by metaphysical naturalists. These theories can exist devoid of philosophical overtones. Shouldn't reasoned men be able in the public forum to debate such things? Isn't that what science is about?
If anyone would like to invest time in an honest and open minded discussion on this issue, please email me at "tom_cooper at bigfoot.com"
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper (anomaly)
OK, so if I understand you correctly, you are saying that there are no moral absolutes.
You then seem to say that the statement "there are no moral absolutes" is not a moral statement. What kind of stament is it?
What is morality, then?
Related to that:
What is your philosophy based on? Are you a rationalist? a naturalist? a secular humanist?
I'd be happy to take this discussion off line, if you are willing to continue it.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Are you saying that there are no moral absolutes?
Is that statement absolutely true?
My point is this: Just because you don't like a particular moral absolute doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that _you_ don't like it.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
While I freely admit my Christianity, my philosophical beliefs don't change
the fact that moral relativism is problematic. It's objectively
true that when two relativists disagree they have nothing on which to base
an appeal about which opinion is true.
It's not me saying what it right or wrong, but my objective moral
base that determines it.
By the way, I should mention here that God loves you and wants a relationship
with you.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Jon,
You're making an appeal to morality. Morality on the basis
of what? One of the key problems with our culture's attachment
to postmodenism is that there is an acceptance of moral relativism.
The problem with moral relativism is that there is no objective basis
for determining right and wrong. This means that there is nothing
to which you can philosophically appeal for making a judgement of what
is right (or wrong.)
Ideas have consequences, people!
The outcome of our rejection of moral absolutes provides us with no
compass when it comes to making decisions about genetic engineering,
abortion, and all other issues.
Keep on failing to think through your philosophies and their consequenses.
"When they came for the Jews I did not stand up and fight, because I was
not a Jew.....when they came for me, there was no one left to fight for
me." The issue in that illustration demonstrates that there is a
RIGHT and a WRONG. Moral relativism provides no basis for knowing
right and wrong.
Our culture has been sliding down the slippery slope for 50 years.
Just a few more years of this trend before we collapse under the weight
of our thoughtlessness and selfishness.
Cling to morality with a solid foundation and you will have a basis for hope!
Respectfully,
Anomaly.
At this point, I've really only got one application that demands a MS OS. MS Money. I wish it wasn't so, but nothing else does what I want - e banking with direct downloads to my PC from my bank. (Don't get me started on Intuit. GnuCash shows promise. In a couple of years I may be able to purge my home completely.)
I've looked at a few different applications for my environment, and Ihave a few comments:
- SOis pretty good, unless you want to use Outlook calendaring functions, which are not an option, dang it.
- My wife adapted to Gnome (and briefly to KDE) very well. My wife is a very smart woman, and quite tech savvy, although she vehemently opposes being called a "geek." (She's a library geek.)
- You can use any font you want, as long as it's PS. Unfortunately, although there are some hacks to provide X renderings for TTF, PS is it. (This is not a major problem until you add Windows apps with TTF typefaces. ) This means that even though you may see TTF on the screen, you won't necessarily see it that way on the printout.
- Non-PSprinters are generally supported well, except for WinPrinters (which are coming along)
- File formats are a challenge. I really don't like being locked in to ANY vendor's formatting. I can't wait to see many people REALLY implement XML. HTML is not good enough for my document-processing needs. XML offers the promise of portability between document processors. I hope it makes it.
- File conversion is dicey because of issues related to fonts and formatting within files. Generally "true" file portability between suites is generally impossible. There are too many layout-specific things. Just try to create a special size document in one application and move it to the other without reformatting.
- MSmakes clip art easy. Clip art is not as plentiful, or as organized for other platforms as it is for MS. This has been an issue for my wife who likes to make postcards, letters with graphics, etc
- Custom documents - like expense reports don't convert well
- There's no conversion of macros from one platform to the other. This is generally bad, but sometimes is quite good. (ILOVEYOU)
In general, I think that it is quite doable. You simply need to be forewarned about some of the challenges that you will face with this type of project.Hope it works!
R,
Anomaly
Look, I appreciate free speech rights. I'm not a "book burner" who opposes ideas and free expression. I think that the free exchange of ideas is critical for our survival as a nation. However, since when is SEX a political statement? I'm sick of people who claim to be for "free speech" by default feeling obligated to defend any speech at all - even if it's not speech but rather people having illicit sex - or enticing you to do so.
I can hear you saying, "Oh dear, another wacko who is trying to limit me." Or, "look at him trying to impose his values on me." say that if you will, but I feel strongly about what follows:
Pornography is not an issue of people simply being unclothed. It's far more insidious than that. The people who produce pornography are quite happy to do the necessary research to figure out what will motivate you to want to keep looking at it. You are being manipulated, and so are the women who pose for the pictures. This ultimately hurts our society.
This is not the same thing as saying "don't contradict the government, or leaders." It's not. Pornography is a not-so-subtle attack on you, on women, and our culture.
Filtering is not (supposed to be) about limiting access to ideas. I know that filtering software has problems. I know that nothing is perfect. This is not a simple issue. Don't expect a simple answer. The truth is that much filtering of other media occurs today. Librarians decide what to spend public money on. Publishers decide what is worthy of publishing. Bookstores decide what materials they will carry. Newspapers decide which books will be reviewed. In the print medium, restrictions exist. They should exist in some form in the electronic world, too.
Filtering is supposed to be about blocking matterial that is not appropriate, or that is destructive. Don't fall prey to the idea that all information is good information. Children are not simply little adults. Some information is harmful to all of us. Information that might not be destructive for you as an adult might be very destructive to a child.
I support the first amendment, but this is NOTa free speech issue.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
anomaly
"Violence on TV only affects children whose parents act like TV personalities"
This is a rediculous statement. We are influenced by the things that we see on TV, and everywhere in our culture.
The idea that information has no impact on the people who hear it is an example of the "big lie" that is propaganda. The biggest success that those promoting propaganda can have is for us to believe that information does not affect us?
If you don't believe that the media has impact, ask yourself this question: Can you complete the statement "Drop the _______!" from a recent advertising campaign? How about "My baloney has a first name, it's _ _ _ _ _, my bloney has a second name it's _ _ _ _ _"
Information affects all of us. It shapes the way that we think about things, and there is always an impact. This does not excuse me from behaviour . I can't say:"I'm not to blame - it's the TV"
Each of us is responsible for what we take in and the choices we make.
This is a different issue from whether children should see certain kinds of information. Chilren are NOT little adults. They are developmentally different from full grown humans, and they are impacted differently than we are.
This, however, is an entirely different issue than the sociological impact of pornography, or sexualy-explicit images, sounds, etc. There's tremendous impact of that, too. On those who view it, as well as those who produce it, and those who participate in it.
Lots of area for discussion.
Bring on the flamethrowers.
Regards,
Tom Cooper
Ah, so if I'm reading this correctly, Katz indicates that this book describes scientists as PEOPLE!
People are all biased based on their answers to the following questions:
1. Where did we come from and who are we?
2. What went wrong with the world?
3. How do we fix it?
These questions describe your "world view" and that affects all aspects of how you make decisions.
So, the issue in the ongoing "debate" about religion and science is not about "those biased religious people" versus these "unbiased scientists" but rather biased religious people versus biased scientists.
When it comes to the question of origins (universal) the question that you have to answer is not "Who is biased?" it is instead "Which bias makes the most sense?"
I believe you when you tell me that I am mistaken about the use of mature aborted children in the process of genetic research. I agree with you that it makes sense to check my facts before making a posting.
That having been said, while I will allow that your asserion about fetal tissue is correct, it does not change the thrust of my point. Christians are not all opposed to research, technology, and science. Some are, and are mistaken in their fear of knowledge.
I should have said "through unconcionable activity like abortion." That would have been accurate and would have made my point, although it is certainly offensive to more people to state it that way.
With respect to your comment about not excluding myself, where exactly is it that I should make that exclusion known? I believe that my posting does indicate that I don't stand with the so-called loudmouths.
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
We've been attacked as being closed-minded, and unwilling to let science to it's job - that of exploring knowledge.
It's not rational to object to technology simply because it brings us to the unknown, or because it challenges long-held beliefs. God gives us the capabilty to gather knowledge about the universe in which we live, and that's a GoodThing TM.
There are areas of genetic reseach that are rationally opposed. For example, fetal tissue research that gets it's raw material through unconscionable activites like partial birth abortion. The only way to get to the start of that sort of research involves killing babies. That's a Bad ThingTM.
Let's no longer be associated with those who would suppress Copernicus. Let's look to gather knowledge about the universe in which we live!
BTW - I'm a "fundamentalist" in that I believe in the fundamental truths of Christianity. I belive that evolution as origin of species is irrational, and as much a religion as Christianity. I also believe that the earth was created in seven days by an all powerful Creator.
Merry Christ mas
Jesus is the Reason for this Season!
I wrote to the folks at LMCO and asked for more information. Please see their response below.
u re/sentry/benefits.htm 3 0&mode=thread
R,
Tom Cooper
-----Original Message-----
From: Madden, Thad [mailto:thad.madden@lmco.com]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 4:47 PM
To: 'tom_cooper@bigfoot.com'
Subject: question about the PCL system
Tom,
Tom Kuba asked me to get back to you regarding your question about PCL
technology. To answer your question, Lockheed Martin does not have a
contract or an agreement to provide the technology/system you reference to
the Chinese government, nor do we anticipate one. We were not a source of
information for that news article you refer to.
> ----------
> From: Tom Cooper[SMTP:tom_cooper@bigfoot.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 10:46 AM
> To: tom.kuba@lmco.com
> Cc: tom_cooper@bigfoot.com
> Subject: question about the PCL system
>
> Tom,
> I picked up your email address from the following URL:
> http://silentsentry.external.lmco.com/proj/nonsec
>
> I was reading an article on a portal this morning about China's new
> defense
> system, and it appears that they may have been able to purchase a system
> from a US company that would help them overcome our military's efforts at
> stealth.
>
> Can you allay those fears? Will the PCL help China identify the F117 and
> other stealth planes?
>
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> Regards,
> Tom Cooper
>
> BTW - the story I was reading is available at:
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/11/28/17232
> This message reflects the personal views and opinions of the author only,
> and not necessarily those of any organizaion to which the author is
> related.
>
>
A response from a believer's point of view:
I believe that I have summarized your points clearly - they are numbered, and my response follows:
1. Christians must abandon rational thought - that's just "wrong"
God expects me to use the gifts that He has given me - rational though is one of them - I'd better use it! Faith is not the antithesis of rational thought. If you think so, you are mistaken.
2. The message of Christianity has been communicated through people, and people cannot even get through the "telephone game" without destroying the message:
If you are speaking of something that is
a) generated by human thought, and
b) transmitted by human power, then your theory is correct.
If, however, it is generated by One with transcendant power, and transmitted with His guidance and control, it's another matter. The Bible is an amazing book - it's far more than you make it out to be.
3. "Being good" is a selfish motive for salvation. Shouldn't God reward those who are not selfish?
You miss the central teaching of Christianity. This is no small surprise, given that our culture and televangelists make it seem to be "being good." The message of Christianity is:
a) You are not perfect (and God is) [Romans 3:23]
b) Jesus Christ came to earth and died for your imperfections. [Romans 5:8]
c) You can be saved through faith in Him. [Ephesians 2:8-9]
It's not about being good! You cannot be good enough to make up for your imperfections!
Only a perfect person is worthy of a great reward.
4. If there's a God, why is it so hard to know what Truth is? (There are lots of religions.)
God has made it easy enough to understand, but, quite simply, we do not want to, because we'd rather do our own thing. [John 3:19]
5. It's not nice to scare people, and some Christians are really annoying!
If the Bible is true, then someone telling the truth about what will happen is quite loving. (Many people are not kind or compassionate in communicating with others. That is wrong. BTW - I find many so-called Christians annoying, too.)
But to get to the central point, if you were going to drink hemlock, thinking it would be refreshing, wouldn't it be loving of me to tell you that it's reall poison?
-----Original Message-----
From: dhbrown.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 1999 1:02 PM
To: tcooper
Subject: Re: Feedback
Tom,
The report carefully defines its terms and conclusions,
summarized briefly in a free summary on our website at
www.dhbrown.com.
The news report you cited is indeed somewhat inaccurate
(it is a paraphrase rather than a quote). Linux
does "run simultaneously on many processors" if
many equals, say 4 to 14. Our report however does
also look at systems that have proven performance in
both production and industry-standard benchmarks up
to 64-way SMP. Linux has not yet reached that level.
In fact, we were mildly shocked that, despite reading
various kernel lists and talking to various Linux
vendors, there is currently no really good publicly
verifyable benchmark evidence of Linux's scalability
even on 2-way or 4-way workloads (although I would be
surprised if we didn't see some in 6 months). It boots
on a 14-way as David Miller demonstrates, but the
scalability claims are still a little in the air.
I wouldn't make a claim that Linux doesn't scale.
I would make the claim that Linux advocates have yet
to reasonably demonstrate that it does.
"Keeping a log" is a similar over-simplification. I believe
the reference was to "event management" facilities just
now becoming available in UNIX where all the system
logs can be accessed from a single console in a consistent
manner. Managing various logs in UNIX has long been
more painful than it needs to be.
Thanks for your respectful feedback.
Regards,
Greg Weiss
Research Analyst, Systems Software
D.H. Brown Associates
tcooper on 04/06/99 11:41:00 AM
To: DHBA Systemsw/DHBA
cc: tom_cooper@bigfoot.com
Subject: Feedback
According to http://www.msnbc.com/news/256197.asp Your study claims
that
"Linux currently lacks some of the features demanded by corporations
that intend to run their entire business on computers. Among them are
the ability to run simultaneously on many processors in a single
computer and to keep a log of what the computer has done."
What sources can you cite for this assertion? Linux is multi-processor
scalable, and does provide logs that are at least as detailed as
anything that you can retrieve from an NT box.
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
Well, while I'll agree that Libertarianism does make SOME sense, I'm fairly geeky, and definitely NOT a liberal.
.02
/dev/nul and save me the time,
I know that the parent article makes good flame bait, but I'm pretty disgusted with the whole thing.
1. Just because someone identifies themselves as a Christian doesn't mean that all other Christians agree with them.
2. Whether Falwell is a kook or not, our culture is completely sex-saturated. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see that. Those messages DO go into much of the so-called entertainment programming, including children's programming.
3. Christianity is not a check-your-brain-at-the-door religion, it's a thinking man's religion that involves a personal relationship with the God who spoke, and the universe leapt into existance. You ought to look at it critically before dismissing evangelicals as wackos.
Just my
Send flames to
serious inquiries: tom_cooper@bigfoot.com
What does this have to do with CORBA?
Why do Sengan's opinions have any bearing on news postings?
BTW Sengan: That's a broad statement. Do you use flatware? That could be considered a "weapon" against your dinner - even if you don't eat animals.
And isn't it arguable that living as a member of a society made possible by the effective use of weapons is tanamount to supporting their use?
Please keep your opinions to yourself, unless you're in a forum appropriate for expressing opinions.....