You can also download DAVE 3 for free today which will let you connect to shared Windows volumes.
http://www.thursby.com/support/dave3x.html
This should hold everyone over until Apple integrates the feature into their OS;-)
By your own admission, only *most* religions are based on the acceptance of certain ideas w/o evidence. Science must therefore be a religion that does not fit with *most*.
This complete non sequitur is pretty much in line with the BS apologist "science = religion" crowd. I can't believe they keep attempting to teach that in high school. The problem is that the whole point is to question what people tell you (in this case, science). The problem is that they're telling you to question a process that has this introspection built into it, and they aren't allowed to tell you to take a closer look at your faith-based beliefs and question those.
Basing your religion on truth doesn't make it science. ALL religions that I know of take a leap of faith at some point. They use explanations for factual occurences that cannot be tested or proven. Even worse, they will sometimes bend facts around to prove their religious conclusion. This is in direct contradiction with science. If you want to speak in scientific terms, think of it this way:
- Science starts with a hypothesis, examines evidence, and creates a best possible conclusion based on the evidence. Experiments must be repeatable to be credible.
- Religion starts with a question, gives a conclusion, and then either creates evidence or jams known evidence into the conclusion. Creationism is a good example of this when religion and science conflict. It's astoundingly disgusting how disingenuous creationist leaders are in manipulating laypeople into believing that claptrap. All they do is tell half-truths and lies about existing evidence to convince people of their conclusion. Science should never work like this! (Now, whether people manipulate what is ostensibly science into smoke and mirrors and lies is another issue;-)
A good example of this is when creationists use the second law of thermodynamics as an argument for creationism. Basically the argument is: entropy must always increase, therefore life is impossible without a deity. In fact, planets and any other organization MUST be due to a higher power. Of course, they don't mention that entropy must increase "in a closed system" because that would ruin their entire point. The big old decaying sun is dumping out way more energy than is used on earth to maintain life and complexity. It's sad, but I've even heard creationist professional scientists use this flimsy argument. They should know better.
There are a lot of people who give this "science = religion" nonsense because they're trying to make peace with religious people. Guess what, you don't have to equate the two to believe in one or the other or BOTH. Just stop apologising and confusing people about the whole issue. The comparison is only useful in that people who follow science should be careful not to blindly follow it as if it were a religion -- you've got to question everything you hear/learn, especially with today's media. This really applies to anything, but often students are taught to choke down science without questioning it. I wish that they were taught HOW to question science so that they could easily tell good science from the bad. Instead they usually only get the message that "science is just a religion and you can believe it if you choose to, or not, there's no inherent value to it". Oh well. Then they come to slashdot;-)
Re:Attention Shoppers: Special Today -- Iceland's
on
Who Owns Your Body?
·
· Score: 1
Well, the government can license the data to another company and/or retract the license of deCode "for the good of the people". Remember, the gov't has the data -- deCode is just licensing it.
So you're implying that a 'profit-driven corporation' (duh) is 'screwing you over' by spending millions of their own dollars curing diseases. All you had to do was sign a consent form saying that's ok. Not like you were going to go discover the damn chemical. It's funny how nobody cares what happens until money comes into the picture. "Oh look, now they're making money off something that was in my body which I gave them consent to take and commercialize... maybe I can get some of that!!!" You say 'profit-driven' like it's an epithet, but it's obvious that you are 'profit-driven' since that's all you'd get out of this... the only difference is that you want money for nothing.
Re:Attention Shoppers: Special Today -- Iceland's
on
Who Owns Your Body?
·
· Score: 1
You don't think that if the company with this exclusive license (DeCode) started abusing its position, that the government wouldn't just revoke the license? It's not like a company can break a goverment to its will or something. The Icelandic gov't undoubtedly sees value in giving this company exclusive rights...
You're suggesting that 1.4 million tapes/CD-Rs with Metallica's music are traded every 48 hours? Or 1.4 million tapes/CDs with any musician/composer? There's a huge difference.
Slashdot Mirror
You can also download DAVE 3 for free today which will let you connect to shared Windows volumes. http://www.thursby.com/support/dave3x.html This should hold everyone over until Apple integrates the feature into their OS ;-)
This complete non sequitur is pretty much in line with the BS apologist "science = religion" crowd. I can't believe they keep attempting to teach that in high school. The problem is that the whole point is to question what people tell you (in this case, science). The problem is that they're telling you to question a process that has this introspection built into it, and they aren't allowed to tell you to take a closer look at your faith-based beliefs and question those.
Basing your religion on truth doesn't make it science. ALL religions that I know of take a leap of faith at some point. They use explanations for factual occurences that cannot be tested or proven. Even worse, they will sometimes bend facts around to prove their religious conclusion. This is in direct contradiction with science. If you want to speak in scientific terms, think of it this way: ;-)
- Science starts with a hypothesis, examines evidence, and creates a best possible conclusion based on the evidence. Experiments must be repeatable to be credible.
- Religion starts with a question, gives a conclusion, and then either creates evidence or jams known evidence into the conclusion. Creationism is a good example of this when religion and science conflict. It's astoundingly disgusting how disingenuous creationist leaders are in manipulating laypeople into believing that claptrap. All they do is tell half-truths and lies about existing evidence to convince people of their conclusion. Science should never work like this! (Now, whether people manipulate what is ostensibly science into smoke and mirrors and lies is another issue
A good example of this is when creationists use the second law of thermodynamics as an argument for creationism. Basically the argument is: entropy must always increase, therefore life is impossible without a deity. In fact, planets and any other organization MUST be due to a higher power. Of course, they don't mention that entropy must increase "in a closed system" because that would ruin their entire point. The big old decaying sun is dumping out way more energy than is used on earth to maintain life and complexity. It's sad, but I've even heard creationist professional scientists use this flimsy argument. They should know better.
There are a lot of people who give this "science = religion" nonsense because they're trying to make peace with religious people. Guess what, you don't have to equate the two to believe in one or the other or BOTH. Just stop apologising and confusing people about the whole issue. The comparison is only useful in that people who follow science should be careful not to blindly follow it as if it were a religion -- you've got to question everything you hear/learn, especially with today's media. This really applies to anything, but often students are taught to choke down science without questioning it. I wish that they were taught HOW to question science so that they could easily tell good science from the bad. Instead they usually only get the message that "science is just a religion and you can believe it if you choose to, or not, there's no inherent value to it". Oh well. Then they come to slashdot ;-)
Well, the government can license the data to another company and/or retract the license of deCode "for the good of the people". Remember, the gov't has the data -- deCode is just licensing it.
So you're implying that a 'profit-driven corporation' (duh) is 'screwing you over' by spending millions of their own dollars curing diseases. All you had to do was sign a consent form saying that's ok. Not like you were going to go discover the damn chemical. It's funny how nobody cares what happens until money comes into the picture. "Oh look, now they're making money off something that was in my body which I gave them consent to take and commercialize... maybe I can get some of that!!!" You say 'profit-driven' like it's an epithet, but it's obvious that you are 'profit-driven' since that's all you'd get out of this... the only difference is that you want money for nothing.
You don't think that if the company with this exclusive license (DeCode) started abusing its position, that the government wouldn't just revoke the license? It's not like a company can break a goverment to its will or something. The Icelandic gov't undoubtedly sees value in giving this company exclusive rights...
P is also the phosphate in the DNA/RNA "backbone".
You're suggesting that 1.4 million tapes/CD-Rs with Metallica's music are traded every 48 hours? Or 1.4 million tapes/CDs with any musician/composer? There's a huge difference.