Even if I disagree with it, at least I have a voice in the process. I DO have a problem with federal courts arbitrarily reading their own values into the Constitution and overriding the decisions of even state supermajorities.
Shame. The reason we have a Constitution, a separation of powers, and a representative legislature is to protect the rest of us from people like you.
Finally I have to say if you've played the 1st two games even on Expert this game is just way too easy. I tried to challenge myself, but even though I didn't set off 1 single alarm nor get seen by guards the game was just too easy.
I must just suck then, because I've found it harder than the first two. The guards seem to be able to see you if your light meter is one tick about pitch black, and they all apparently have cybernetic hearing.
he says precisely what I have just said, then uses logic very effectively to show why he believes in a Young Earth -- from the fossil data
You're missing the point. Throw away the fossil data if you like. There is still overwhelming evidence from other sources that point to a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth.
However, while I will defend another's rights be exercised in that manner, I also consider it about the most offensive thing one can do, considering how many died fighting for the ideals it represents
And one of those ideals is the freedom to say that you think the government sucks; and there's few ways to do that better than burning the symbol of that government.
-- surely there must be a better way to protest a present government:
The age of the cloth is what's in contention here. It was carbon dated to the 1300s. But regardless, if the cloth is older than the 1300s, so what? That hardly proves it's not fake. It just shows that if it is a fake, the fakers used old cloth.
Does it use a pigment that was available in the 1300's? No.
Unproven, as far as I know.
Are the threads of a weave used in 1300? No.
I have read it is also not the weave used in 33 AD.
It FAILS the test of counterfeit.
No, it doesn't. Sorry.
As I said... don't test the shroud, repeat the experiment of the genius who faked it.
As I said... repeat the miracle that you say created it.:)
Why didn't the forger paint the top of the head? Why did he paint the fingers elongated. Why didn't he smear the blood?
Maybe he was relying on the credulity of True Believers, who will overlook any inconsistency that contradicts their pre-conceived notions of the Truth? Anyway, if it's real, you have to explain those things, unless you are simply going to propose a miracle; and if you are going to do that, there's no point in debating the issue.
Let's see the Geek community do the science and repeat the experiment whose result was the Shroud of Turin. Be sure to produce at least these characteristics: Sorry, the burden of proof is on the believers. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Try this: Have someone crucified, wait for them to die, take them down, wrap a cloth around them, wait for them to be resurrected, and see if you get an image on the cloth. Keep us posted.:D
Some questions for the believers: why is there no image of the top of the head or the sides of the body? Why does the image appear as if the cloth were stretched over the body? Did the divine radiation from the Resurrection only emanate perpendicularly from the front and back of the body? Why do the fingers of one of the hands appear to be elongated? Why did the "blood" not smear? Why is there no record of the Shroud before it was first displayed in the 1350s, which, oddly enough, is about he age the carbon dating tests suggested)?
while atomic theory, gravitational theory, and germ theory can be tested, evolutionary theory cannot.
Yes, it can, and has. If we found human remains in Precambrian strata, or if human DNA wasn't similar to the DNA of the other great apes, or if a cat ever gave birth to a dog, then evolution would be in trouble.
So far, it's passed all the tests.
When a new species has been observed to have evolved, you can remove the stickers (we're discussing only macro-evolution).
Can you site sources that prove that evolution is a fact?
Sure. Evolution just means that species change over time. Since this has been observed to happen, evolution is a fact. There are a few competing theories that attempt to explain how this change happens, but no one disputes that it does.
I'm wondering, though, why just because something is impossible to disprove that it must be immediately dismissed.It's not dismissed as impossible, it's dismissed as being scientifically pointless.
If the background temperature wasn't right, the theory would be refined to accomodate the changes.
Yes, but it would be a different Big Bang theory.:)
I may be wrong about the disprovability of the Big Bang,
You are. If it wasn't disprovable, scientists wouldn't be bothering with it.
What? Really, they can prove it? I call bullshit. No, fuck you. Ok then produce me an APE and make it into a man. Oh, you can't. HAHA.
Um, dude. Humans are apes.
Humans belong to the kingdom Animalia, phylum Chordata, subphylum Vertebrata, class Mammalia, order Primates, family Hominidae, species Homo sapiens. Other members of the family Hominidae include gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans.
considering that both the Big Bang and the existence of God are both entirely unprovable and impossible to disprove?
First off, you don't prove anything in science. The best you can ever say is that a theory appears to be true, given what we currently know. Second, the Big Bang is disprovable. If the microwave background radiation didn't have the right temperature, or the relative abundance of elements wasn't correct, or the universe wasn't expanding, the Big Bang theory would be in trouble. The existence of God, on the other hand, is impossible to disprove, because there's no way to test the hypothesis. What experiment would we run to look for God?
Slashdot Mirror
Shame. The reason we have a Constitution, a separation of powers, and a representative legislature is to protect the rest of us from people like you.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Except that there wasn't any water at all for at least several million years, since oxygen wasn't built yet.
I must just suck then, because I've found it harder than the first two. The guards seem to be able to see you if your light meter is one tick about pitch black, and they all apparently have cybernetic hearing.
Duane Gish, PhD
Duane Gish is a known crackpot. Sorry.
he says precisely what I have just said, then uses logic very effectively to show why he believes in a Young Earth -- from the fossil data
You're missing the point. Throw away the fossil data if you like. There is still overwhelming evidence from other sources that point to a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth.
If facts were food, answersingenesis would starve.
And the T. rex's blood cries out from the ground, "How could Evolutionism survive so long?"
Because it's true.
Grrr, you named the algorithm that must not be named!
Let's not be prejudiced. Bubblesort is often faster than the fancier algorithms on "small" datasets.
Drivers and programmers do make mistakes and that's why we need safety mechanisms in both cases. C provides none.
:)
Au contraire. Speaking as a C programmer, C can provide all the safety mechanisms you could ever need. You just have to code them yourself.
However, while I will defend another's rights be exercised in that manner, I also consider it about the most offensive thing one can do, considering how many died fighting for the ideals it represents
And one of those ideals is the freedom to say that you think the government sucks; and there's few ways to do that better than burning the symbol of that government.
-- surely there must be a better way to protest a present government:
Doubtful.
Was the cloth made in the 1300's. No.
:)
The age of the cloth is what's in contention here. It was carbon dated to the 1300s. But regardless, if the cloth is older than the 1300s, so what? That hardly proves it's not fake. It just shows that if it is a fake, the fakers used old cloth.
Does it use a pigment that was available in the 1300's? No.
Unproven, as far as I know.
Are the threads of a weave used in 1300? No.
I have read it is also not the weave used in 33 AD.
It FAILS the test of counterfeit.
No, it doesn't. Sorry.
As I said... don't test the shroud, repeat the experiment of the genius who faked it.
As I said... repeat the miracle that you say created it.
Why didn't the forger paint the top of the head? Why did he paint the fingers elongated. Why didn't he smear the blood?
Maybe he was relying on the credulity of True Believers, who will overlook any inconsistency that contradicts their pre-conceived notions of the Truth? Anyway, if it's real, you have to explain those things, unless you are simply going to propose a miracle; and if you are going to do that, there's no point in debating the issue.
Let's see the Geek community do the science and repeat the experiment whose result was the Shroud of Turin. Be sure to produce at least these characteristics: :D
Sorry, the burden of proof is on the believers. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Try this: Have someone crucified, wait for them to die, take them down, wrap a cloth around them, wait for them to be resurrected, and see if you get an image on the cloth. Keep us posted.
Some questions for the believers: why is there no image of the top of the head or the sides of the body? Why does the image appear as if the cloth were stretched over the body? Did the divine radiation from the Resurrection only emanate perpendicularly from the front and back of the body? Why do the fingers of one of the hands appear to be elongated? Why did the "blood" not smear? Why is there no record of the Shroud before it was first displayed in the 1350s, which, oddly enough, is about he age the carbon dating tests suggested)?
When she said, "You're a horse's ass", you might have misunderstood her meaning.
As an engineer watching this debate
I'm an engineer too. So what?
it'd be whether you agree with my distinction between a rational method and a scientific method.
Yes. However you are incorrect about evolution being analyzed by rational methods.
Saturn has 35 moons! And two rings!
Saturn has a lot more than two rings.
Half-creationist? Is that like having vegitarian tendancies because you only eat chicken?
Maybe he's a transitional form.
while atomic theory, gravitational theory, and germ theory can be tested, evolutionary theory cannot.
m l
Yes, it can, and has. If we found human remains in Precambrian strata, or if human DNA wasn't similar to the DNA of the other great apes, or if a cat ever gave birth to a dog, then evolution would be in trouble.
So far, it's passed all the tests.
When a new species has been observed to have evolved, you can remove the stickers (we're discussing only macro-evolution).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.ht
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Can you site sources that prove that evolution is a fact?
Sure. Evolution just means that species change over time. Since this has been observed to happen, evolution is a fact. There are a few competing theories that attempt to explain how this change happens, but no one disputes that it does.
But if it ever did happen, we would be diggin up skeletons of fish with legs, and animals that are between species.
We are.
Do I need to go on?
No, because you've missed the point.
Well, for a start there are no buffer length limits.
The code in question is how you implement a strcpy(). There are no buffer length limits because strcpy() doesn't have them.
Secondly there was nothing wrong with strncpy all along.
We all know about strncpy(). The point of the code is to implement strcpy().
Thirdly I've always hated the "testing the result of an operator =" thing because it always looks like a operator == gone wrong."
That's your problem. It's a standard idiom in C.
Fourth, it has no comments.
Jesus Christ, he didn't post a complete program, just a single line of code.
Fifth, if it's some wanker showing off because they can write l33t fast C code...
I think it's someone showing that they know how the language works.
and you'd get a talking-to if you were one of my programmers and actually checked in code that looked like that.
Why? It's straight out of K&R.
I'm wondering, though, why just because something is impossible to disprove that it must be immediately dismissed.It's not dismissed as impossible, it's dismissed as being scientifically pointless.
:)
If the background temperature wasn't right, the theory would be refined to accomodate the changes.
Yes, but it would be a different Big Bang theory.
I may be wrong about the disprovability of the Big Bang,
You are. If it wasn't disprovable, scientists wouldn't be bothering with it.
I have a Master's in physics. I try to be careful to apply the scientific method when dealing with unknown subjects. Frankly, homeopathy works.
Please tell us what University you obtained your degree from. I have a letter I would like to write to the Dean.
Thanks!
What? Really, they can prove it? I call bullshit. No, fuck you. Ok then produce me an APE and make it into a man. Oh, you can't. HAHA.
Um, dude. Humans are apes.
Humans belong to the kingdom Animalia, phylum Chordata, subphylum Vertebrata, class Mammalia, order Primates, family Hominidae, species Homo sapiens. Other members of the family Hominidae include gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans.
considering that both the Big Bang and the existence of God are both entirely unprovable and impossible to disprove?
First off, you don't prove anything in science. The best you can ever say is that a theory appears to be true, given what we currently know. Second, the Big Bang is disprovable. If the microwave background radiation didn't have the right temperature, or the relative abundance of elements wasn't correct, or the universe wasn't expanding, the Big Bang theory would be in trouble. The existence of God, on the other hand, is impossible to disprove, because there's no way to test the hypothesis. What experiment would we run to look for God?
Note that I do not take Scientology on faith. In it I've seen many repeated examples of corporate abuse of people.
And you haven't seen examples of abuse in the name of Christianity? Or numerous other religions?
What are some popular MUDs?
You can go to www.mudconnector.com and search for a MUD with features you might like. Personally, I'm partial to Discworld.