This is the point of ID. It argues that there is strong evidence suggesting a sort of design. If you look around you, you'll see it everywhere.
Jesus, do I have to disprove ANOTHER one of your theories?!
Ok, so your theory is that there is NO WAY the world could possibly have become the way it currently is without an intelligent designer to make it that way? That random chance would've never resulted in the present state of things.
I can disprove you with the Law Of Time, Cause and Effect, and "What If?". To begin with, the present is a result of the past. We can time travel back to the past, change a few things that'll affect the future, then go into the future, and, guess what? It'll still be the future! For whoever or whatever is living there, THAT will be the "amazing present". To reiterate, whatever happens in the past would, and always will be, the past. Whatever the present is, it will ALWAYS be the present. Until it becomes the past, of course. The more complex it is, the more amazed our simple minds are going to be.
I've often heard that "the Grand Canyon is such an amazing natural wonder, there's no way God couldn't have created it". The power of moving water is so amazing that there's no way a given ammount of water, with a certain force and other pre-existing conditions, COULDN'T have created the grand canyon over that much time. I'd be more amazed if water flowed over a surface for hundreds of thousands of years without changing a thing. Now, if Mt. Vesuvius floated 10 feet above ground, with nothing holding it up, I'd be fucking AMAZED. I would wonder how the hell God did that. I'd ask him to please share his technology with us so that we can make floating billboards without having to put those pesky poles up all over the place!
The fact that something amazes you DOES NOT show any evidence for design. The fact that things are the way they are (even though, no matter how things were, they'd still be "the way they are") is NOT evidence. It's not evidence in ANY form, and it's definitely not EMPIRICAL evidence. It's simply a statement that would ALWAYS be true; it's like saying "blue is blue".
Of course, the fact that you're either weakminded or a troll is evident in your attack on evolution as "just a theory". All science is just a theory. The theory of electromagnetism is JUST A THEORY. The "law" of gravity is really the theory of gravity. Actually, there are a LOT of theories on gravity. Newton had one, Einstein had more than one, and Tesla had a pretty nifty one too. Of course, nobody denies that jumping off of a large building without a parachute will result in your body impacting the ground; there's even video evidence of it. Nobody in the scientific community SERIOUSLY denies that evolution takes place. The current debate is over the specific details of it.
On top of that, intelligent design isn't even a THEORY (a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation). It's not a SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS. It's not even a HYPOTHESIS (prelude to a theory - A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.). It's a fucking ASSERTION, incapable of progressing to "hypothesis", let alone theory, because it does not meet the standards required. Then it'd still have to become an ACCEPTED THEORY before it'd be worth teaching in high schools.
Why should ID be pressed to meet challenges (e.g., falsifiability) that evolution does not? This, to me, smacks of bias. You want ID advocates to show how ID is falsifiable, but of evolution, you say, "so what if we haven't found a way to falsify it?"
He misspoke. We have found many ways to falisfy evolution. As was said earlier, a pre-cambrian homo sapien fossil would be an easy way. Another way is to simply observe and track all the species we can for a very, very long time. We're working on that, too. Falisifying evolution would be just as great of a scientific breakthrough as the original theory. What I'm sure he meant was that, so far, thousands of scientists have been unable to find any evidence that would allow them to falsify evolution. Nobody has come up with a better theory.
Does evolution explain EVERYTHING? Fuck no. But, so far, it's the best theory, it hasn't been falsified, and we haven't found any evidence that would refute it. All current evidence supports evolution. A lack of evidence supporting it further doesn't imply that it's been falsified, it merely means we haven't found all of the evidence. The current data set is overwhelmingly pro-evolution.
Most pro-ID people simply say God works through evolution. DNA is his programming language, and he is the one who effected all of the changes. This can exist with evolution, but it's not really a competing theory. It can compete with natural selection unless you say that natural selection and random mutations are god's method of effecting change. But then is this really a competing theory? Is it falsifiable? At that point you can take a random mutation and say "god did it." You can point to the environmental changes, radiation fucking with the atomic structure of DNA, anything, but you'll still get the "but yeah, that's HOW god did it. See? I'm right!" Which is fine, if that's how you want to interpret and explain the facts, I have no problem with it. I personally feel it's incorrect, but I can't prove that wrong. It's not falsifiable. It is a double standard on falsification, but it's on the ID side of the house. There is no evidence to falsify or support the ID claim. It would be impossible to do so, because we can, at the moment, only observe 3-dimensional interactions. By the very definition of god he would have to operate outside of the third dimension, and we could never observe whether or not HE was the one changing DNA, or whether HE was the one causing any of this. All we can do is point to the changes we see in our 3-dimensional world, point to what appears to be causing them, make theories about it, then observe it further and try to see if anything refutes our claim, and what other evidence supports it. Then thousands of other scientists take a look at all of the available data and try to repeat the expirement or observations on their own. If twenty different studies all show the same results, we can start saying "this looks like a good theory" and try to find more ways to test it. Most theories are eventually falsified as we gain a greater understanding of the world. Current research into quantum mechanics, string theory, etc., threatens to throw a lot of the other excellent theories out the window, but that's OK. That should be possible with all theories.
I know this is abused on slashdot, but let me make an analogy. When I was a child I observed that you could get quite a shock licking a 9-volt battery. I tried licking the + side of it, and this didn't happen. I licked the - side of it, and I didn't get shocked either. I liked them both at the same time, and all of a sudden I was shocked! Knowing nothing about how batteries worked, my theory was that the electricity in the battery only came out when you touched both + and - at the same time. This could be observed by putting it in any 9V-powered electronic device and plugging either the + or - terminal into the device. The device would only function with both terminals co
No, we carried on a full conversation for about 30 minutes after that, and my microphone remained in the desk drawer. I can't find it in the documentation anywhere, but there IS a fairly high quality microphone hidden somewhere inside my laptop.
Maybe it's just me, but an easier workaround would seem to be to get a computer that doesn't have a microphone (built-in or attached)...
Sometimes you just don't know. I'm currently suffering from this with my Dell laptop. I bought it almost three years ago. I still have the original receipt and manuals for the computer, and I assure you nowhere in the manual or order does it say "Built-in hidden microphone". There IS no microphone visible when you visually inspect the laptop.
But a couple of weeks ago a friend called me on googletalk, and I typed to her, "Hold on, let me get my microphone" to which she replied, "I can hear you typing!". I was in shock. I said, out loud, "No you can't." I'm sure by now you know that she replied "Yes, I can. What the hell?" I still don't know where the microphone is, but it's disabled through software right now. I'm tempted to ask Dell for a replacement that isn't bugged.
If a hardcore computer nerd can go over two years without realizing he has a laptop that's bugged, anyone can. I wouldn't be surprised if this shit was in every laptop and they just didn't tell anyone!
I few briefings on OPSEC and you'd understand why this is.
Good to know you work in a Single Console Image Facility (SCIF), but I don't see what OPSEC has to do with policies on the handling of magnetic media in accordance with various classification guidelines. OPSEC is more like not changing your milk order for the week so your milkman won't know you're about to deploy.
The NSA has customers? How long do you think it'll be before Microsoft tries to 'aquire' them as the latest 'innovation' in computer security?:D
I know you're joking, but I believe the intelligence community generally uses that term. Either "customers" or "consumers", as opposed to "producers", of course. I know most of the government refers to other departments, agencies, and offices as their "customers".
From NSA.GOV on SIGINT: NSA's SIGINT mission provides our military leaders and policy makers with intelligence to ensure our national defense and to advance U.S. global interests. This information is specifically limited to that on foreign powers, organizations or persons and international terrorists. NSA responds to requirements levied by intelligence customers, which includes all departments and levels of the United States Executive Branch.
And on Information Assurance: NSA's Information Assurance Directorate invites government employees throughout the nation to take advantage of the products, services, and programs we offer to help you secure your critical information systems. Peruse our TEMPEST product lists and descriptions to find exactly the product you need. Discover what the IAD is doing to ensure the security of the emerging Global Information Grid. Download the latest security guides, or enlist the services of IA professionals to help you engineer secure systems or assess the security of existing systems. Learn more about national-level IA programs like those available through the Interagency OPSEC Support Staff and the Information Assurance Training and Rating Program. Or register for IA-related events and conferences to get up-to-speed on the latest IA technologies. Whatever your Information Assurance needs, the IAD is here to help.
In short, their customers include the entire military, who will receive intelligence reports that may be based on sigint information. Other customers include the state department, which might want to know if the NSA manages to get an intercepted telegram of Germany asking Mexico to declare war on America. Or maybe the president wants to know what kind of porn Usama Bin Laden likes to look at. Either way, according to their website, the NSA is tasked to do this stuff by other agencies, who then use that information to do their job. This gives them bonus points when justifying their budget, so it is the government equivalent of being directly paid to do the work. This is quite definitely a "customer".
On top of that, since the NSA knows so much about communications, networks, computer systems, and the security of these systems, the NSA is the de facto expert, hence they're also responsible for helping ensure that government computer systems are secure. They say they send advisors to help people out, and I'm sure they have some sort of responsibility for classified networks as well. It's in their best interest if the US has a well-secured communications infrastructure. I'd say it's the digital equivalent of using a sniper as a counter-sniper. But this means the entire government is also their customer. At least anyone who needs their computers to be secure.
So yes, I'd say the NSA has a lot of customers.
As for the comments about "the NSA may as well have said that you should just unplug your computer from the internet", I remember an ask.slashdot question a while ago where a guy asked for advice on securing his business computers for some classification certification. A lot of the replies basically said that the computers couldn't be on the internet, period. From my past experiences with having computers online, I'd have to agree that it's a bad idea to have a computer with sensitive data on an open network like the internet.
Given that all that is true, how does it apply to the point that MS didn't apply enough horsepower to capture all the data generated, which means there are likely culprits who weren't identified? Surely, it should have been a trivial thing for the world's preeminent (and richest) software company.
Their software is designed to send and enable spam, not to process data about where it's coming from, or really do anything to stop it. You think they can just reverse billions of dollars of spam-enabling technology overnight?
Such an action might, under the Berne Convention, give other countries just cause to reciprocally derecognize copyrights held by citizens of the Republic of Korea.
So uhh, we're giving them Windows, and they're giving us kimchi? I'm not sure which of us is getting screwed, but it doesn't seem like anyone is getting a good deal in this situation.
Wait... perhaps if America promises to keep its Windows out of Korea, Korea will promise to keep its kimchi out of America? I'd vote for that.
I doubt in 40 years time there will be even one feature that actually makes it worthwhile upgrading. They'll just keep on piling the tellytubby wigits and alpha-blended animation crap til the whole thing looks like a circus.
OOh ooh ooh! And those 3D menus! And don't forget the transparencies! I'm excited already. 40 years, you say? I don't know if I can wait that long!!! Do you think there's any way we could donate money to the Microsoft Windows 2045 In 2010 fund? 'Cause I know I'd definitely be willing to contribute anything they want as long as I can get my 3d menus and transparent windows sooner.
I think you'll find you have earned the right to a tax exemption, not the right to decide what's petty. Well not for me or anyone else other than yourself.
I agree with you! I don't think I have the right to force other people to agree with me about what's petty, but I do think I've earned the right to make a decision on it and publicly state it. People are free to listen and dismiss my beliefs on their own merits, but they should keep in mind that I have more practical experience in these matters than most of the people violently disagreeing with me.
you're the kind of person who needs to be stuck right in the middle of the guts and gore to fight for your life, as you crouch in tears and wet your pants, so you can see how "petty" war is.
I have. Minus that little part about crouching in tears and wetting my pants. If you did that, then I'm going to call you a pussy and laugh at you. If you didn't, congrats. If you haven't been there/done that, then shut your hole.
I am still CZTE this month. If you know what that means, then you'll know I've earned the right to decide what's petty, and what's more petty than something else. I'm faulting you for blaming imaginary god for this war and this president instead of the other ongoing slaughters that are much worse. You're politicizing something that's very real, and you're adding your bullshit to it in every reply.
I'm faulting you, and those like you, for getting your panties in a knot over something that's relatively small, and ignoring all of the things that have a much larger impact on more people. I empathize with every motherfucker who's been injured, mutilated, or killed in this war, on both sides. I have no fucking sympathy for you fucking whiny liberals who sit around and try to call me a pussy and tell me I don't understand war. Fuck you; get your priorities straight. At this point, pulling out of Iraq would save a lot of american lives, but it'd result in one hell of a clusterfuck. If you don't understand that, it's time to get a clue. If you DO understand that, stop trying to claim the moral high ground, because you're advocating death, destruction, and suffering in the middle east to appease your fucking bleeding heart conscience. Why don't you try to take action against things you can actually do something about? Something that'd make the world a better place? Because this is political for you, nothing more. You don't have the moral high ground, and all the pictures of wounded babies in the world will not make the current "peace" movement result in a POSITIVE change for Iraq, or the middle east.
Get a clue and give up the altruistic liberal act you big geek. I wonder whether this child thinks the war in Iraq is such a big deal?
although if god was real, i would love to kick his tail for letting our fucking idiot president kill 100,000 iraqis and 2000 jar heads.
Ahh, the truth (erg, bullshit) finally comes out! I'm amazed you're more concerned about a petty war than you are about, oh, the great flu pandemic of 1918, or Vietnam, or the civil war, or world wars I/II, or the slaughter in Rwanda, or the millions dead in the Congo, or the extinction of the dodo, or the fact that the tastiest foods make you fat, or the fact that your penis is only 4 inches long.
How about being upset with this imaginary god for the entire history of humanity, which has been marked with death, destruction, and suffering in every generation since our existance? Or the nature of humanity where you have the majority of the population being swindled daily, putting all of their hope and money into BULLSHIT, religion included.
The war in Iraq is just a miniscule sore on the diseased, chronicly fatigued, malnurished, tortured, impoverished, cancer-ridden body of mankind. And you fucking political bastards have to bring this political bullshit into the mix and make THAT sound like the most fucking important problem we have? All because you think the president is stupid and looks like a monkey? Please. The bullshit from your side is slowing down progress just as much as war because, just like the fucking fundies, you get all emotional about things and try to make a big stink out of something that's really dwarfed by all of our other problems.
I respect your knowledge of the issue and corresponding laws, but I heartily disagree with your interpreation of them. Hopefully legalese will be able to evolve to a point where such arguments are impossible given the language laws are written in. Now on with the arguing.
The Constitution doesn't say that I can use a web browser, does that mean I need to wait for an amendment before I read/. ? I'm still having trouble believing you were modded +2, Insightful.
No, because the "right to use any software you choose (subject to all applicable laws)" is already outlined in Amendment #9! "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I may have misworded it, but I hope you understand that I did not mean it in this ridiculous way. I'm just too tired to form perfect sentences right now, and a little out of it from being sick.
But, you DO have that right, and all the others that aren't specifically taken away from you. The ones that you're not allowed to have are, generally, those which are seen to interfere with the rights of others. You can't take their property, you can't restrict their free speech, you can't take their right to life*. I know you already touched on the 13th amendment, but you can't own slaves. Is this because it's a LOCAL law? No, it probably isn't in your area. It's probably not even in your state constitution. But it IS specifically prohibited in the 13th Amendment, so it applies to you. As a citizen of the united states you're subject to all federal laws as well as the state that you're in. You're also subject to the laws of the state you're a resident of. On top of that, you can (upon your return) be held liable for a crime you commit while outside of the United States. This is all courtesy of federal law, which an individual cannot supersede no matter how hard he tries.
You also left out the 19th, which, in Section I, states "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
You could've possibly shot me down with the opening of the 1st amendment, stating "Congress shall make no law...", but I have every intention of fixing that loophole some day. It should be something along the lines of "The Federal Government, nor any subsidiary government or citizen thereof, shall make no law". I think it's pretty clear that the intent was NOT "we're going to leave it to the states to establish a state religion, restrict free speech, and stop people from peaceably assembling."
Also, please reference my other reply regarding the The New Jersey State Constitution, "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right."
* Possible exception is in abortion cases. That decision is still pending.
Oh, almost forgot. This was a school in New Jersey, which was the third state to ratify the constitution. The following is from the original ratification:
"Now be it known, that we, the delegates of the state of New Jersey, chosen by the people thereof, for the purpose aforesaid, having maturely deliberated on and considered the aforesaid proposed Constitution, do hereby, for and on the behalf of the people of the said state of New Jersey, agree to, ratify, and confirm, the same and every part thereof." (emphasis mine)
New Jersey, by its own ratification of the constitution, agreed to all of these terms, including the amendments which were ratified.
As if THAT wasn't enough, they doubled it up and expanded on these rights, just in case some dumbass came along and tried to misinterpret them! This is Article I, Paragraph 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey:
"Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact."
So what this says, QUITE plainly, is that "You can say whatever you want, but you will be responsible if you make false accusations against somebody. This truth will come out in court, but if we find out you were telling the truth in your mean statements about somebody else you will be acquitted."
It doesn't get any more plain than this. If this school is subject to state or federal laws they are going to lose.
And just a little tidbit to get you interested in constitutional law: Article II, Section I, Paragraph 6 of the constitution of the state of new jersey states that "No idiot or insane person shall enjoy the right of suffrage." I wonder if we could get that added into federal law somewhere? Or perhaps even the UN?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. I am not anyone else's lawyer. While my advice may be sound, it is not legal advice, and you should seek a professional if you need legal advice. Thank you.
And, the First Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with this because it is not a federal law. So, the government hasn't made a law abridging free speech.
WHAT? WHAT?! WHAT?!?!?!
You literally knocked me out of my chair with that one. I'm still having trouble believing you were modded +5, Informative.
How can you say that an amendment to the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES is not a federal law? Unless you were talking about, say, canadian federal law. The constitution is the federal "law" that grants power to the congress to pass laws. The constitution is the document that grants power to the president to sign bills into law. The constitution (or at least the principle of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison) is the document that grants the supreme court the power to rule on them. And before you say that that only applies to federal laws, go look up Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (Justice Story ruled that section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 applied). By its very definition it is THE Federal Law! Without it there is no federal government, at least not one UNDER the constitution.
An amendment is, by all intents and purposes, the equivalent of being an original article in the constitution. Any federal law that violates anything in the amendment will be struck down in court, and congressmen should be held accountable for knowingly passing laws that directly violate the constitution! Any state law that violates a federal law will be struck down in court, or, as seen in the Californian medical marijuana case, the perpetrators will still be hunted down by the feds for breaking such laws. All states are subject to all laws in the constitution, with very few half-exceptions (such as those outlined in the annexation of the Republic of Texas). All local laws and governments must abide by the constitutions of their state and federal government, and they must also abide by all state and federal laws. I challenge you to find a license to operate that exempts any business or organization from federal, state, or local laws.
If somebody wants to do something that the constitution prohibits or does not allow for, they will have to amend the constitution in order for it to be legal. That's what this whole stink about teaching religion in public schools is about. That's why the fundies want to pass an AMENDMENT to define marriage; states will be unable to do anything that contradicts that definition, nor will any other federal law.
As per your "Not unless you think the Federal government gets to review and approve all school rules, employee handbooks and shopping mall rules." comment, my answer is: Why yes, yes I do. If a plaintiff brings suit against a local school saying they interfered with his right to vote, and, for some reason, the suit ends up being appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, then yes, yes I do believe that the supreme court will decide whether they will hear the case or not. Either way, you can be sure the church/school won't be the ones to decide whether the supreme court is allowed to hear the case. This may not have been the case in the early 1800s, but it certainly is today.
A PII 450? I think you mean a PIII. Anyhow, I've got a few laying around for a much more reasonable price.
Sorry, but you're mistaken. Intel did make a Pentium II 450. What you're confusing is that Intel overlapped clockspeeds when they released the Pentium III "Katmai" chip in 450 and 500MHz. The only real differences were SSE and an improved L1 cache controller. The 550+ MHz Pentium IIIs didn't come until later, although it seems like it's been such a long time now that I've had a > 1GHz machine for years!
Intel actually has a nifty little historical reference of all of their processors.
"creating simple life forms" = "brutal experiments on animals" = "brutal experiments on people" = "holocaust" = "apocalypse"
Gotcha. You have proven my ignorance. Now let's return to the personal insults since you're so keen on them.
Congratulations, you are the biggest ignorant idiot that has ever responded to one of my post. Do try and get some basics of education before you respond to matters of which you lack anything in the way of knowledge of.
You're putting way too much effort into this whole "eloquence" thing. Using a thesaurus and decent grammar might help.
Unless you're telling me you were part of the medical experiments in the holocaust (but then that'd be a lot longer than 20 years now) I have to question your claim of "being in that community". I haven't seen a single hint of any logic or specific examples of experiments in your post. Having read all of your previous posts, I haven't read a single logical statement, nor have I seen any technical details to back up any of your claims. You appear to be a fearmonger giganticus, constantly spouting that every "scientific experiment is going to bring the world to an end". Gotta love direct quotes! I have serious doubts about you working in any science-related field, except for maybe in holistic medicine. Not that I'm saying holistic medicine is science; they're just related in the same way life and death are. If your profession DOES have anything to do with this community, my guess would be that you're part of some non-profit like PETA or Earth First!, or, even worse, one of the churches, which opposes almost all scientific experiment on "moral" grounds.
Scientists are extremely good at seeing the future, you're simply upset that they don't see it in the same way as you. All those good things you have: the medicine, the technology, that nifty computer, your realistic ejaculating buttplug - they're all because scientists sat down and said "You know, if we can figure out how to do this, then we could do this and have that!" and, hallelujah, those nifty scientific advances and products came around a while later! It's really amazing how those scientists could make such gigantic strides in the improvement of the quality of living of mankind when they can't even see five feet in front of their noses, let alone the result of their actions!
All of your previous posts appear to be either blatant trolling, promotion of christianity and judgement upon others, or unfounded claims about how science is going to destroy the world.
I'm pleased that an enlightened person such as yourself would call me the biggest ignorant idiot to ever respond to one of your post(sic) . Now why don't you go back to asking your congressman to stop these terrible scientists before they discover your kind is wrong about something else? Or you could start posting meaningful posts, filled with details that people in various nerd communities could use to, oh, I don't know, actually help them in making the world a better place for chum like you?
Every time we play god we end up getting shown just how little we really know about what we are doing as a species. No, I'm not trolling, just an observation of historical facts to this point.
Facts. Riiiight....
So the last time we "played God" was?
Nevermind, I remember, everytime we expand our horizons technologically, scientifically, or really in any other way not sanctioned by the currently standing religion we're "Playing God". Astrology? Yup, playing God. Same thing with fortunetelling. Remember the disastrous effects that had? We literally had to shove the demons back inside the earth and bury them with GIANT LANDFILLS! But then trash disposal should've been the work of God too, right? And look how terribly we fucked all of that up. I mean I'm sure some landfill somewhere is poisoning some water supply and killing people, and that's playing god too! 'Cause that's God's job to kill people. Man isn't allowed to do that, only God.
Now we've got all these people going around, playing god by using condoms, by FLYING, by observing stars, trying to figure out all sorts of physics, math, and biology problems... What the fuck are these people thinking!? Don't they know that everytime somebody accuses you of playing god it'll be because something bad happened?!
Every time you do something you're Playing God (TM). Every time something bad happens, you're DEFINITELY Playing God When Only HE Should Do That (TM).
I think what I'm trying to say is, your argument is bullshit. First, you have to prove that God exists. Then you have to prove what God did or didn't do and establish his job description based on sketchy records (at best). Unless you're claiming that everything done by Man is inadvertenly done by God. But, if you claim that, you'll have to say that these scientists are doing God's work for him. You might also have to admit that, if that's true, He's a lazy God and His job could easily be outsourced. But then if they're not doing God's work, but God does exist, whose work are they doing? You could bring up the devil, but that argument just doesn't make a lot of sense. And isn't apocalypse supposed to be a part of God's grand master plan? So, even if they're bringing about the apocalypse, they're still doing The Lord's Work, right? Because that's His plan! Of course you could blame the devil, but that one's already been used against every scholar living in a theocracy. It's rather unoriginal, and will cause any logical person to just ignore you.
That's all that I was saying. It has nothing to do with whether or not I eat animals, though, I would submit that if God didn't want us eating animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.
And I submit that if the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't want us eating meatballs he wouldn't wrap them in his noodly appendages!
Furthermore I'd like to be the first to say that I am about to release a study (which will support my legal claim against the US Military) that active radar dishes are the primary cause of the near extinction of pink unicorns. I suggest they switch to optical aircraft tracking systems before this goes to court, because I'm here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and I'm all out of gum!
Yep, if all the private-sector motivation is removed we'll all just sit here and die. It would never occur to us to group together as citizens in a country, choose a small group of people to run the country (maybe give them a name such as a "government"), instruct them to do what we want, such as putting the necessary research into something which could save the lives of great numbers of us, and giving them the financial means (via taxes) to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus, do I have to disprove ANOTHER one of your theories?!
Ok, so your theory is that there is NO WAY the world could possibly have become the way it currently is without an intelligent designer to make it that way? That random chance would've never resulted in the present state of things.
I can disprove you with the Law Of Time, Cause and Effect, and "What If?". To begin with, the present is a result of the past. We can time travel back to the past, change a few things that'll affect the future, then go into the future, and, guess what? It'll still be the future! For whoever or whatever is living there, THAT will be the "amazing present". To reiterate, whatever happens in the past would, and always will be, the past. Whatever the present is, it will ALWAYS be the present. Until it becomes the past, of course. The more complex it is, the more amazed our simple minds are going to be.
I've often heard that "the Grand Canyon is such an amazing natural wonder, there's no way God couldn't have created it". The power of moving water is so amazing that there's no way a given ammount of water, with a certain force and other pre-existing conditions, COULDN'T have created the grand canyon over that much time. I'd be more amazed if water flowed over a surface for hundreds of thousands of years without changing a thing. Now, if Mt. Vesuvius floated 10 feet above ground, with nothing holding it up, I'd be fucking AMAZED. I would wonder how the hell God did that. I'd ask him to please share his technology with us so that we can make floating billboards without having to put those pesky poles up all over the place!
The fact that something amazes you DOES NOT show any evidence for design. The fact that things are the way they are (even though, no matter how things were, they'd still be "the way they are") is NOT evidence. It's not evidence in ANY form, and it's definitely not EMPIRICAL evidence. It's simply a statement that would ALWAYS be true; it's like saying "blue is blue".
Of course, the fact that you're either weakminded or a troll is evident in your attack on evolution as "just a theory". All science is just a theory. The theory of electromagnetism is JUST A THEORY. The "law" of gravity is really the theory of gravity. Actually, there are a LOT of theories on gravity. Newton had one, Einstein had more than one, and Tesla had a pretty nifty one too. Of course, nobody denies that jumping off of a large building without a parachute will result in your body impacting the ground; there's even video evidence of it. Nobody in the scientific community SERIOUSLY denies that evolution takes place. The current debate is over the specific details of it.
On top of that, intelligent design isn't even a THEORY (a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation). It's not a SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS. It's not even a HYPOTHESIS (prelude to a theory - A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.). It's a fucking ASSERTION, incapable of progressing to "hypothesis", let alone theory, because it does not meet the standards required. Then it'd still have to become an ACCEPTED THEORY before it'd be worth teaching in high schools.
He misspoke. We have found many ways to falisfy evolution. As was said earlier, a pre-cambrian homo sapien fossil would be an easy way. Another way is to simply observe and track all the species we can for a very, very long time. We're working on that, too. Falisifying evolution would be just as great of a scientific breakthrough as the original theory. What I'm sure he meant was that, so far, thousands of scientists have been unable to find any evidence that would allow them to falsify evolution. Nobody has come up with a better theory.
Does evolution explain EVERYTHING? Fuck no. But, so far, it's the best theory, it hasn't been falsified, and we haven't found any evidence that would refute it. All current evidence supports evolution. A lack of evidence supporting it further doesn't imply that it's been falsified, it merely means we haven't found all of the evidence. The current data set is overwhelmingly pro-evolution.
Most pro-ID people simply say God works through evolution. DNA is his programming language, and he is the one who effected all of the changes. This can exist with evolution, but it's not really a competing theory. It can compete with natural selection unless you say that natural selection and random mutations are god's method of effecting change. But then is this really a competing theory? Is it falsifiable? At that point you can take a random mutation and say "god did it." You can point to the environmental changes, radiation fucking with the atomic structure of DNA, anything, but you'll still get the "but yeah, that's HOW god did it. See? I'm right!" Which is fine, if that's how you want to interpret and explain the facts, I have no problem with it. I personally feel it's incorrect, but I can't prove that wrong. It's not falsifiable. It is a double standard on falsification, but it's on the ID side of the house. There is no evidence to falsify or support the ID claim. It would be impossible to do so, because we can, at the moment, only observe 3-dimensional interactions. By the very definition of god he would have to operate outside of the third dimension, and we could never observe whether or not HE was the one changing DNA, or whether HE was the one causing any of this. All we can do is point to the changes we see in our 3-dimensional world, point to what appears to be causing them, make theories about it, then observe it further and try to see if anything refutes our claim, and what other evidence supports it. Then thousands of other scientists take a look at all of the available data and try to repeat the expirement or observations on their own. If twenty different studies all show the same results, we can start saying "this looks like a good theory" and try to find more ways to test it. Most theories are eventually falsified as we gain a greater understanding of the world. Current research into quantum mechanics, string theory, etc., threatens to throw a lot of the other excellent theories out the window, but that's OK. That should be possible with all theories.
I know this is abused on slashdot, but let me make an analogy. When I was a child I observed that you could get quite a shock licking a 9-volt battery. I tried licking the + side of it, and this didn't happen. I licked the - side of it, and I didn't get shocked either. I liked them both at the same time, and all of a sudden I was shocked! Knowing nothing about how batteries worked, my theory was that the electricity in the battery only came out when you touched both + and - at the same time. This could be observed by putting it in any 9V-powered electronic device and plugging either the + or - terminal into the device. The device would only function with both terminals co
No, we carried on a full conversation for about 30 minutes after that, and my microphone remained in the desk drawer. I can't find it in the documentation anywhere, but there IS a fairly high quality microphone hidden somewhere inside my laptop.
Sometimes you just don't know. I'm currently suffering from this with my Dell laptop. I bought it almost three years ago. I still have the original receipt and manuals for the computer, and I assure you nowhere in the manual or order does it say "Built-in hidden microphone". There IS no microphone visible when you visually inspect the laptop.
But a couple of weeks ago a friend called me on googletalk, and I typed to her, "Hold on, let me get my microphone" to which she replied, "I can hear you typing!". I was in shock. I said, out loud, "No you can't." I'm sure by now you know that she replied "Yes, I can. What the hell?" I still don't know where the microphone is, but it's disabled through software right now. I'm tempted to ask Dell for a replacement that isn't bugged.
If a hardcore computer nerd can go over two years without realizing he has a laptop that's bugged, anyone can. I wouldn't be surprised if this shit was in every laptop and they just didn't tell anyone!
Good to know you work in a Single Console Image Facility (SCIF), but I don't see what OPSEC has to do with policies on the handling of magnetic media in accordance with various classification guidelines. OPSEC is more like not changing your milk order for the week so your milkman won't know you're about to deploy.
They could do a bake sale, though. Or do those dirty congressmen take that money too?!?!
I know you're joking, but I believe the intelligence community generally uses that term. Either "customers" or "consumers", as opposed to "producers", of course. I know most of the government refers to other departments, agencies, and offices as their "customers".
From NSA.GOV on SIGINT:
NSA's SIGINT mission provides our military leaders and policy makers with intelligence to ensure our national defense and to advance U.S. global interests. This information is specifically limited to that on foreign powers, organizations or persons and international terrorists. NSA responds to requirements levied by intelligence customers, which includes all departments and levels of the United States Executive Branch.
And on Information Assurance:
NSA's Information Assurance Directorate invites government employees throughout the nation to take advantage of the products, services, and programs we offer to help you secure your critical information systems. Peruse our TEMPEST product lists and descriptions to find exactly the product you need. Discover what the IAD is doing to ensure the security of the emerging Global Information Grid. Download the latest security guides, or enlist the services of IA professionals to help you engineer secure systems or assess the security of existing systems. Learn more about national-level IA programs like those available through the Interagency OPSEC Support Staff and the Information Assurance Training and Rating Program. Or register for IA-related events and conferences to get up-to-speed on the latest IA technologies. Whatever your Information Assurance needs, the IAD is here to help.
In short, their customers include the entire military, who will receive intelligence reports that may be based on sigint information. Other customers include the state department, which might want to know if the NSA manages to get an intercepted telegram of Germany asking Mexico to declare war on America. Or maybe the president wants to know what kind of porn Usama Bin Laden likes to look at. Either way, according to their website, the NSA is tasked to do this stuff by other agencies, who then use that information to do their job. This gives them bonus points when justifying their budget, so it is the government equivalent of being directly paid to do the work. This is quite definitely a "customer".
On top of that, since the NSA knows so much about communications, networks, computer systems, and the security of these systems, the NSA is the de facto expert, hence they're also responsible for helping ensure that government computer systems are secure. They say they send advisors to help people out, and I'm sure they have some sort of responsibility for classified networks as well. It's in their best interest if the US has a well-secured communications infrastructure. I'd say it's the digital equivalent of using a sniper as a counter-sniper. But this means the entire government is also their customer. At least anyone who needs their computers to be secure.
So yes, I'd say the NSA has a lot of customers.
As for the comments about "the NSA may as well have said that you should just unplug your computer from the internet", I remember an ask.slashdot question a while ago where a guy asked for advice on securing his business computers for some classification certification. A lot of the replies basically said that the computers couldn't be on the internet, period. From my past experiences with having computers online, I'd have to agree that it's a bad idea to have a computer with sensitive data on an open network like the internet.
Found this gem just the other day: ballmer quotes. I'll leave the animation and game to someone else.
Their software is designed to send and enable spam, not to process data about where it's coming from, or really do anything to stop it. You think they can just reverse billions of dollars of spam-enabling technology overnight?
So uhh, we're giving them Windows, and they're giving us kimchi? I'm not sure which of us is getting screwed, but it doesn't seem like anyone is getting a good deal in this situation.
Wait... perhaps if America promises to keep its Windows out of Korea, Korea will promise to keep its kimchi out of America? I'd vote for that.
OOh ooh ooh! And those 3D menus! And don't forget the transparencies! I'm excited already. 40 years, you say? I don't know if I can wait that long!!! Do you think there's any way we could donate money to the Microsoft Windows 2045 In 2010 fund? 'Cause I know I'd definitely be willing to contribute anything they want as long as I can get my 3d menus and transparent windows sooner.
I agree with you! I don't think I have the right to force other people to agree with me about what's petty, but I do think I've earned the right to make a decision on it and publicly state it. People are free to listen and dismiss my beliefs on their own merits, but they should keep in mind that I have more practical experience in these matters than most of the people violently disagreeing with me.
I have. Minus that little part about crouching in tears and wetting my pants. If you did that, then I'm going to call you a pussy and laugh at you. If you didn't, congrats. If you haven't been there/done that, then shut your hole.
I am still CZTE this month. If you know what that means, then you'll know I've earned the right to decide what's petty, and what's more petty than something else. I'm faulting you for blaming imaginary god for this war and this president instead of the other ongoing slaughters that are much worse. You're politicizing something that's very real, and you're adding your bullshit to it in every reply.
I'm faulting you, and those like you, for getting your panties in a knot over something that's relatively small, and ignoring all of the things that have a much larger impact on more people. I empathize with every motherfucker who's been injured, mutilated, or killed in this war, on both sides. I have no fucking sympathy for you fucking whiny liberals who sit around and try to call me a pussy and tell me I don't understand war. Fuck you; get your priorities straight. At this point, pulling out of Iraq would save a lot of american lives, but it'd result in one hell of a clusterfuck. If you don't understand that, it's time to get a clue. If you DO understand that, stop trying to claim the moral high ground, because you're advocating death, destruction, and suffering in the middle east to appease your fucking bleeding heart conscience. Why don't you try to take action against things you can actually do something about? Something that'd make the world a better place? Because this is political for you, nothing more. You don't have the moral high ground, and all the pictures of wounded babies in the world will not make the current "peace" movement result in a POSITIVE change for Iraq, or the middle east.
Get a clue and give up the altruistic liberal act you big geek. I wonder whether this child thinks the war in Iraq is such a big deal?
Ahh, the truth (erg, bullshit) finally comes out! I'm amazed you're more concerned about a petty war than you are about, oh, the great flu pandemic of 1918, or Vietnam, or the civil war, or world wars I/II, or the slaughter in Rwanda, or the millions dead in the Congo, or the extinction of the dodo, or the fact that the tastiest foods make you fat, or the fact that your penis is only 4 inches long.
How about being upset with this imaginary god for the entire history of humanity, which has been marked with death, destruction, and suffering in every generation since our existance? Or the nature of humanity where you have the majority of the population being swindled daily, putting all of their hope and money into BULLSHIT, religion included.
The war in Iraq is just a miniscule sore on the diseased, chronicly fatigued, malnurished, tortured, impoverished, cancer-ridden body of mankind. And you fucking political bastards have to bring this political bullshit into the mix and make THAT sound like the most fucking important problem we have? All because you think the president is stupid and looks like a monkey? Please. The bullshit from your side is slowing down progress just as much as war because, just like the fucking fundies, you get all emotional about things and try to make a big stink out of something that's really dwarfed by all of our other problems.
No, because the "right to use any software you choose (subject to all applicable laws)" is already outlined in Amendment #9!
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I may have misworded it, but I hope you understand that I did not mean it in this ridiculous way. I'm just too tired to form perfect sentences right now, and a little out of it from being sick.
But, you DO have that right, and all the others that aren't specifically taken away from you. The ones that you're not allowed to have are, generally, those which are seen to interfere with the rights of others. You can't take their property, you can't restrict their free speech, you can't take their right to life*. I know you already touched on the 13th amendment, but you can't own slaves. Is this because it's a LOCAL law? No, it probably isn't in your area. It's probably not even in your state constitution. But it IS specifically prohibited in the 13th Amendment, so it applies to you. As a citizen of the united states you're subject to all federal laws as well as the state that you're in. You're also subject to the laws of the state you're a resident of. On top of that, you can (upon your return) be held liable for a crime you commit while outside of the United States. This is all courtesy of federal law, which an individual cannot supersede no matter how hard he tries.
You also left out the 19th, which, in Section I, states "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
You could've possibly shot me down with the opening of the 1st amendment, stating "Congress shall make no law
Also, please reference my other reply regarding the The New Jersey State Constitution, "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right."
* Possible exception is in abortion cases. That decision is still pending.
Oh, almost forgot. This was a school in New Jersey, which was the third state to ratify the constitution. The following is from the original ratification:
"Now be it known, that we, the delegates of the state of New Jersey, chosen by the people thereof, for the purpose aforesaid, having maturely deliberated on and considered the aforesaid proposed Constitution, do hereby, for and on the behalf of the people of the said state of New Jersey, agree to, ratify, and confirm, the same and every part thereof." (emphasis mine)
New Jersey, by its own ratification of the constitution, agreed to all of these terms, including the amendments which were ratified.
As if THAT wasn't enough, they doubled it up and expanded on these rights, just in case some dumbass came along and tried to misinterpret them! This is Article I, Paragraph 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey:
" Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact."
So what this says, QUITE plainly, is that "You can say whatever you want, but you will be responsible if you make false accusations against somebody. This truth will come out in court, but if we find out you were telling the truth in your mean statements about somebody else you will be acquitted."
It doesn't get any more plain than this. If this school is subject to state or federal laws they are going to lose.
And just a little tidbit to get you interested in constitutional law: Article II, Section I, Paragraph 6 of the constitution of the state of new jersey states that "No idiot or insane person shall enjoy the right of suffrage." I wonder if we could get that added into federal law somewhere? Or perhaps even the UN?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. I am not anyone else's lawyer. While my advice may be sound, it is not legal advice, and you should seek a professional if you need legal advice. Thank you.
WHAT? WHAT?! WHAT?!?!?!
You literally knocked me out of my chair with that one. I'm still having trouble believing you were modded +5, Informative.
How can you say that an amendment to the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES is not a federal law? Unless you were talking about, say, canadian federal law. The constitution is the federal "law" that grants power to the congress to pass laws. The constitution is the document that grants power to the president to sign bills into law. The constitution (or at least the principle of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison) is the document that grants the supreme court the power to rule on them. And before you say that that only applies to federal laws, go look up Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (Justice Story ruled that section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 applied). By its very definition it is THE Federal Law! Without it there is no federal government, at least not one UNDER the constitution.
An amendment is, by all intents and purposes, the equivalent of being an original article in the constitution. Any federal law that violates anything in the amendment will be struck down in court, and congressmen should be held accountable for knowingly passing laws that directly violate the constitution! Any state law that violates a federal law will be struck down in court, or, as seen in the Californian medical marijuana case, the perpetrators will still be hunted down by the feds for breaking such laws. All states are subject to all laws in the constitution, with very few half-exceptions (such as those outlined in the annexation of the Republic of Texas). All local laws and governments must abide by the constitutions of their state and federal government, and they must also abide by all state and federal laws. I challenge you to find a license to operate that exempts any business or organization from federal, state, or local laws.
If somebody wants to do something that the constitution prohibits or does not allow for, they will have to amend the constitution in order for it to be legal. That's what this whole stink about teaching religion in public schools is about. That's why the fundies want to pass an AMENDMENT to define marriage; states will be unable to do anything that contradicts that definition, nor will any other federal law.
As per your "Not unless you think the Federal government gets to review and approve all school rules, employee handbooks and shopping mall rules." comment, my answer is: Why yes, yes I do. If a plaintiff brings suit against a local school saying they interfered with his right to vote, and, for some reason, the suit ends up being appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, then yes, yes I do believe that the supreme court will decide whether they will hear the case or not. Either way, you can be sure the church/school won't be the ones to decide whether the supreme court is allowed to hear the case. This may not have been the case in the early 1800s, but it certainly is today.
Sorry, but you're mistaken. Intel did make a Pentium II 450. What you're confusing is that Intel overlapped clockspeeds when they released the Pentium III "Katmai" chip in 450 and 500MHz. The only real differences were SSE and an improved L1 cache controller. The 550+ MHz Pentium IIIs didn't come until later, although it seems like it's been such a long time now that I've had a > 1GHz machine for years!
Intel actually has a nifty little historical reference of all of their processors.
No.
...and who made him so tempting?
Although I guess evolution could explain it. I mean, how long would a devil who wasn't very tempting live?
Their art department is still over budget from that whole moon landing hoax. But I'll agree, even the moon landing was rather unoriginal.
"creating simple life forms" = "brutal experiments on animals" = "brutal experiments on people" = "holocaust" = "apocalypse"
Gotcha. You have proven my ignorance. Now let's return to the personal insults since you're so keen on them.
You're putting way too much effort into this whole "eloquence" thing. Using a thesaurus and decent grammar might help.
Unless you're telling me you were part of the medical experiments in the holocaust (but then that'd be a lot longer than 20 years now) I have to question your claim of "being in that community". I haven't seen a single hint of any logic or specific examples of experiments in your post. Having read all of your previous posts, I haven't read a single logical statement, nor have I seen any technical details to back up any of your claims. You appear to be a fearmonger giganticus, constantly spouting that every "scientific experiment is going to bring the world to an end". Gotta love direct quotes! I have serious doubts about you working in any science-related field, except for maybe in holistic medicine. Not that I'm saying holistic medicine is science; they're just related in the same way life and death are. If your profession DOES have anything to do with this community, my guess would be that you're part of some non-profit like PETA or Earth First!, or, even worse, one of the churches, which opposes almost all scientific experiment on "moral" grounds.
Scientists are extremely good at seeing the future, you're simply upset that they don't see it in the same way as you. All those good things you have: the medicine, the technology, that nifty computer, your realistic ejaculating buttplug - they're all because scientists sat down and said "You know, if we can figure out how to do this, then we could do this and have that!" and, hallelujah, those nifty scientific advances and products came around a while later! It's really amazing how those scientists could make such gigantic strides in the improvement of the quality of living of mankind when they can't even see five feet in front of their noses, let alone the result of their actions!
All of your previous posts appear to be either blatant trolling, promotion of christianity and judgement upon others, or unfounded claims about how science is going to destroy the world.
I'm pleased that an enlightened person such as yourself would call me the biggest ignorant idiot to ever respond to one of your post(sic) . Now why don't you go back to asking your congressman to stop these terrible scientists before they discover your kind is wrong about something else? Or you could start posting meaningful posts, filled with details that people in various nerd communities could use to, oh, I don't know, actually help them in making the world a better place for chum like you?
Facts. Riiiight....
So the last time we "played God" was?
Nevermind, I remember, everytime we expand our horizons technologically, scientifically, or really in any other way not sanctioned by the currently standing religion we're "Playing God". Astrology? Yup, playing God. Same thing with fortunetelling. Remember the disastrous effects that had? We literally had to shove the demons back inside the earth and bury them with GIANT LANDFILLS! But then trash disposal should've been the work of God too, right? And look how terribly we fucked all of that up. I mean I'm sure some landfill somewhere is poisoning some water supply and killing people, and that's playing god too! 'Cause that's God's job to kill people. Man isn't allowed to do that, only God.
Now we've got all these people going around, playing god by using condoms, by FLYING, by observing stars, trying to figure out all sorts of physics, math, and biology problems... What the fuck are these people thinking!? Don't they know that everytime somebody accuses you of playing god it'll be because something bad happened?!
Every time you do something you're Playing God (TM). Every time something bad happens, you're DEFINITELY Playing God When Only HE Should Do That (TM).
I think what I'm trying to say is, your argument is bullshit. First, you have to prove that God exists. Then you have to prove what God did or didn't do and establish his job description based on sketchy records (at best). Unless you're claiming that everything done by Man is inadvertenly done by God. But, if you claim that, you'll have to say that these scientists are doing God's work for him. You might also have to admit that, if that's true, He's a lazy God and His job could easily be outsourced. But then if they're not doing God's work, but God does exist, whose work are they doing? You could bring up the devil, but that argument just doesn't make a lot of sense. And isn't apocalypse supposed to be a part of God's grand master plan? So, even if they're bringing about the apocalypse, they're still doing The Lord's Work, right? Because that's His plan! Of course you could blame the devil, but that one's already been used against every scholar living in a theocracy. It's rather unoriginal, and will cause any logical person to just ignore you.
And I submit that if the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't want us eating meatballs he wouldn't wrap them in his noodly appendages!
Furthermore I'd like to be the first to say that I am about to release a study (which will support my legal claim against the US Military) that active radar dishes are the primary cause of the near extinction of pink unicorns. I suggest they switch to optical aircraft tracking systems before this goes to court, because I'm here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and I'm all out of gum!
Uhh... uhh... ummm...
FUCKING COMMUNIST!