This site may help you. There is ample reading on the subject concerning my viewpoint. I'll go ahead and look at answersingenesis.org per your advice in another thread.
Evolution being true, or creation being true, it doesn't matter - both will dramatically change the way you live. It can't help but affect every facet of your life.
You clearly believe this, which betrays your reliance on creationism being true for confirming your faith.
If the entire theory of evolution could be shown to be so flawed that it had to be discarded, then a new, better defined model would simply take its place -- nobody would tremble at the thought (except those scientists who had build their careers believing it -- e.g. in physics: Einstein and his troubles with Quantum Mechanics) -- and it certainly would not "dramatically" affect anything. Only creationists appear to have "something to gain or lose from this topic."
And that is the key difference here: you seem to have put all your eggs in the creationism basket, as it were. Scientists -- who rely on scientific method -- have a long history of challenging, modifying and discarding theories. That's what science is all about.
Discarding evolution should not shake anyone's faith because evolution has nothing to do with faith, it has to do with objective observation, hypothesis and experimentation. Evolutionists don't care about the reason for existence or the definition of right and wrong -- those are philosophical questions outside the realm of science -- they simply want to figure out how life works. And our current micro/macro evolutionary models seems to answer this question better than any other scientific models right now.
I'm curious to know when exactly you think that these thousands of scientists are daily studying evolution - because I'm betting they're only studying those portions of evolutionary theory that also are a part of the creationist model.
You are confused -- there is no creationist model. If you choose to believe the words written by men in an ancient text have some bearing on reality (or truth), and then attempt to buttress your faith by accepting only that science that supports your position (as opposed to relying only on scientific method), then that is certainly your right -- but I think it is people like yourself that have a lot to learn about how proper scientific study is conducted.
Evolutionary science is not a means to "prove" the nonexistence of God; there is no reason to fear it.
Exactly. Why is this news? If you publish -- in any form -- you are beholden to laws (or in the firing case, beholden to the codes of conduct of your employer) -- and Luskin has the right to bring a course of action here. Whether he prevails or not is up to the courts.
It's just that few really question it or trace down the who picture.
I don't think this is true at all. There are thousands of biolgists, anthropologists and other scientists who study evolution much more carefully that I gather you or I have. If they had come to your same conclusion, then evolution would have been severy redefined or abandonded by now -- instead, evolution is widely accepted.
Unless you think these scientists are either purposefully engaged in a conspiracy to "trick" the world or "hide" support for the Biblical creation?
If that's the case, then there's really nothing anyone could say that would persuade you otherwise.
so i assume then that it's now scientifically established that the big bang happened...
No, it's been scientifically accepted that the Big Bang happened. Scientists trust models that best explain experimental obeservation, and the Big Bang model has been doing pretty well.
well... what was there before it...
Time and space were created at the Big Bang, so your question doesn't make any sense. You may as well ask "What is North of the North Pole?"
and where does god come into the picture...
Anywhere you like. There are scientists who feel that the Big Bang was a divine act (i.e. "why" the Big Bang occurred is a philosophical question and believing that "God" created the universe via the Big Bang does not contradict the theory -- nor does it contradict one's faith).
The whole point of a theory is to address accurate "holes" (not the creation sceience "facts" postulated by EVOLUTION CRUNCHER) and then modify the theory appropriately. Scientists are constantly testing theories (big bang, relativity, evolution) and re-evaluting their hypotheses. If enough contradictory evidence if found, theories may be abandoned -- but evolution is currently our best model for the formation of life -- which is why it is such a strongly accepted theory.
This is point many people seem to miss -- scientists don't blindly accept theory (it is not faith) -- they simply believe in models that best survive experimental challenges. And these models can (and do) change all the time.
The very idea that you can patent the idea of putting something that used to appear in a new window embedded in the original window instead is just absurd beyond belief.
You're right -- that notion is absurd -- but if you'd actually bother to read the patent, you'd notice that your gross oversimplification isn't anywhere close to what Eolas actually claims.
Valid roof of prior art is the only way to defeat this patent.
This type of editorializing is pathetic in that its only purpose is to stir up the masses. Gee...now let's take a look shall we? 20% of the comments are "patents suck" or "isn't this some example prior art"?
This story is about a new feature people...it's not about a patent. Wipe the froth from your mouths and comment on the merits (of lack of) the feature...not on a completely fabricated hypothetical comment meant to incite you into a frenzy.
b) x10 also "stole their technology and business model," and started using it on their own. This was also part of the lawsuit, and deserves to be laughed out of court.
And how is this a patent issue?
Tell you what: why don't you go ahead reference the patent in question at the USPTO site...oh, you can't you say? Is it perhaps because there is no patent in question?
Granted, there is a valid debate on the merits of this so-called "proprietary" technology, but this has nothing to do with patents.
It would be interesting to know what the trends are like on the Mac side. Were the Mac users downloading a million songs a week? If so, then the Windows users didn't download any -- that's probably no more accurate or meaningful than the "million downloads, million songs" correlation.
From the stats up to September, Mac iTunes users were averaging 500K songs per week and Steve Jobs indicated during the iTunes for Windows announcement that the average since then has been moving up towards 600K.
So, if we assume 600K/wk, then the 3.5 day period should have yielded 300K of sales. Given that 1 million songs were sold, it looks like 700K of those were to Windows users. Of course, all the hoopla (and simultaneous release of a new version of iTunes for the Mac) may have led Mac users to ramp up their buying a bit.
I'd guess at least 500K songs were sold to Windows users.
And where is your algorithm (or "simple" program) that can read your manipulated image and produce the exact ASCII represented by the resulting image? Go ahead...provide one.
Regardless of what you may think, CAPTCHA defeating programs are difficult to write and are never are 100% effective.
Thus, it hardly seems appropriate to label this sample "stupid."
Stupid for you, but hard for a program. That's the whole point!
what stops a computer program from filtering out everything of the wavy background by just eliminating everything non-black?
Stupid? Well, then...go ahead: Provide an algorithm that not only correctly extracts this antialiased text out of three-channel color (hint: filtering out the wavy background is not mathematically easy), and then also can do an OCR regognition on the remaining distorted bitmap.
Can it be done? Sure -- but it certainly isn't trivial. Coming up with a mathematical method (and hence a computer algorithm) to solve what you think is "stupid" is much, much tougher than you appear to believe.
...in every market segment EXCEPT word processing, spreadsheets, multimedia presentations, Internet surfing, and of course, the OS (!) -- how convenient for Redmond!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what you are saying in this post
This site may help you. There is ample reading on the subject concerning my viewpoint. I'll go ahead and look at answersingenesis.org per your advice in another thread.
Evolution being true, or creation being true, it doesn't matter - both will dramatically change the way you live. It can't help but affect every facet of your life.
You clearly believe this, which betrays your reliance on creationism being true for confirming your faith.
If the entire theory of evolution could be shown to be so flawed that it had to be discarded, then a new, better defined model would simply take its place -- nobody would tremble at the thought (except those scientists who had build their careers believing it -- e.g. in physics: Einstein and his troubles with Quantum Mechanics) -- and it certainly would not "dramatically" affect anything. Only creationists appear to have "something to gain or lose from this topic."
And that is the key difference here: you seem to have put all your eggs in the creationism basket, as it were. Scientists -- who rely on scientific method -- have a long history of challenging, modifying and discarding theories. That's what science is all about.
Discarding evolution should not shake anyone's faith because evolution has nothing to do with faith, it has to do with objective observation, hypothesis and experimentation. Evolutionists don't care about the reason for existence or the definition of right and wrong -- those are philosophical questions outside the realm of science -- they simply want to figure out how life works. And our current micro/macro evolutionary models seems to answer this question better than any other scientific models right now.
I'm curious to know when exactly you think that these thousands of scientists are daily studying evolution - because I'm betting they're only studying those portions of evolutionary theory that also are a part of the creationist model.
You are confused -- there is no creationist model. If you choose to believe the words written by men in an ancient text have some bearing on reality (or truth), and then attempt to buttress your faith by accepting only that science that supports your position (as opposed to relying only on scientific method), then that is certainly your right -- but I think it is people like yourself that have a lot to learn about how proper scientific study is conducted.
Evolutionary science is not a means to "prove" the nonexistence of God; there is no reason to fear it.
"Table 6 needs two beers and fifteen iced teas..."
This article helps put this FUD into perspective. Apple bashers need not read it, since they've already made up their minds.
thought all this time opinions were like a**holes, everybody has one. Now people are suing over them?
Uh, last I checked, the laws -- and lawsuits -- concerning slander and libel have been around a long, long time. What do you mean by "now?"
What ever happened to free speech?
Are you serious? Free speech has always been subject to slander (or in this case, libel).
Free speech is just where it's always been.
Exactly. Why is this news? If you publish -- in any form -- you are beholden to laws (or in the firing case, beholden to the codes of conduct of your employer) -- and Luskin has the right to bring a course of action here. Whether he prevails or not is up to the courts.
My goodness, now if anyone says anything that makes you look bad, you're gonna sue them.
IMHO, libel and slander have always been valid reasons to pursue restitution in the courts.
Why should blogging should not have any more protection than other forms of publishing (or speaking publicly for that matter)?
It's just that few really question it or trace down the who picture.
I don't think this is true at all. There are thousands of biolgists, anthropologists and other scientists who study evolution much more carefully that I gather you or I have. If they had come to your same conclusion, then evolution would have been severy redefined or abandonded by now -- instead, evolution is widely accepted.
Unless you think these scientists are either purposefully engaged in a conspiracy to "trick" the world or "hide" support for the Biblical creation?
If that's the case, then there's really nothing anyone could say that would persuade you otherwise.
so i assume then that it's now scientifically established that the big bang happened...
No, it's been scientifically accepted that the Big Bang happened. Scientists trust models that best explain experimental obeservation, and the Big Bang model has been doing pretty well.
well... what was there before it...
Time and space were created at the Big Bang, so your question doesn't make any sense. You may as well ask "What is North of the North Pole?"
and where does god come into the picture...
Anywhere you like. There are scientists who feel that the Big Bang was a divine act (i.e. "why" the Big Bang occurred is a philosophical question and believing that "God" created the universe via the Big Bang does not contradict the theory -- nor does it contradict one's faith).
The whole point of a theory is to address accurate "holes" (not the creation sceience "facts" postulated by EVOLUTION CRUNCHER) and then modify the theory appropriately. Scientists are constantly testing theories (big bang, relativity, evolution) and re-evaluting their hypotheses. If enough contradictory evidence if found, theories may be abandoned -- but evolution is currently our best model for the formation of life -- which is why it is such a strongly accepted theory.
This is point many people seem to miss -- scientists don't blindly accept theory (it is not faith) -- they simply believe in models that best survive experimental challenges. And these models can (and do) change all the time.
The very idea that you can patent the idea of putting something that used to appear in a new window embedded in the original window instead is just absurd beyond belief.
You're right -- that notion is absurd -- but if you'd actually bother to read the patent, you'd notice that your gross oversimplification isn't anywhere close to what Eolas actually claims.
Valid roof of prior art is the only way to defeat this patent.
MP3=legal,sharing MP3=illegal
Or if a patent is already owned.
This type of editorializing is pathetic in that its only purpose is to stir up the masses. Gee...now let's take a look shall we? 20% of the comments are "patents suck" or "isn't this some example prior art"?
This story is about a new feature people...it's not about a patent. Wipe the froth from your mouths and comment on the merits (of lack of) the feature...not on a completely fabricated hypothetical comment meant to incite you into a frenzy.
How did they patent the use of a MS api?
They didn't. There is no patent.
b) x10 also "stole their technology and business model," and started using it on their own. This was also part of the lawsuit, and deserves to be laughed out of court.
And how is this a patent issue?
Tell you what: why don't you go ahead reference the patent in question at the USPTO site...oh, you can't you say? Is it perhaps because there is no patent in question?
Granted, there is a valid debate on the merits of this so-called "proprietary" technology, but this has nothing to do with patents.
No, but apparently there are movements underway by Slashdot editors to post stories about "patent" abuse that have nothing to do with patents.
MusicMatch
It would be interesting to know what the trends are like on the Mac side. Were the Mac users downloading a million songs a week? If so, then the Windows users didn't download any -- that's probably no more accurate or meaningful than the "million downloads, million songs" correlation.
From the stats up to September, Mac iTunes users were averaging 500K songs per week and Steve Jobs indicated during the iTunes for Windows announcement that the average since then has been moving up towards 600K.
So, if we assume 600K/wk, then the 3.5 day period should have yielded 300K of sales. Given that 1 million songs were sold, it looks like 700K of those were to Windows users. Of course, all the hoopla (and simultaneous release of a new version of iTunes for the Mac) may have led Mac users to ramp up their buying a bit.
I'd guess at least 500K songs were sold to Windows users.
And where is your algorithm (or "simple" program) that can read your manipulated image and produce the exact ASCII represented by the resulting image? Go ahead...provide one.
Regardless of what you may think, CAPTCHA defeating programs are difficult to write and are never are 100% effective.
Thus, it hardly seems appropriate to label this sample "stupid."
Stupid for you, but hard for a program. That's the whole point!
what stops a computer program from filtering out everything of the wavy background by just eliminating everything non-black?
Stupid? Well, then...go ahead: Provide an algorithm that not only correctly extracts this antialiased text out of three-channel color (hint: filtering out the wavy background is not mathematically easy), and then also can do an OCR regognition on the remaining distorted bitmap.
Can it be done? Sure -- but it certainly isn't trivial. Coming up with a mathematical method (and hence a computer algorithm) to solve what you think is "stupid" is much, much tougher than you appear to believe.
...in every market segment EXCEPT word processing, spreadsheets, multimedia presentations, Internet surfing, and of course, the OS (!) -- how convenient for Redmond!
As if the numbers weren't terribly useless already, here's "conclusive evidence" that Dells are better than Apples.
Since when is poor math "conclusive evidence"?
Hint: (3TFlops/300 machines = 10GFlops/machine)
The source code is for a program to test/prove the vulnerability in ES5...it is not the source code to ES5.