There is no place for Intelligent Design in Science. Intelligent design is trying to push religion into science.
Want proof.
Fine, where are the papers on ID that have been accepted to respected conferences. None? Ok.
Where are the professors speaking up in favor of it. None?
Ok.
See, this is the difference between science and a political agenda... science is science, and a political agenda is a political agenda. See? Science is discussed at conferences, by scientists. If your theory isn't peer reviewed, in science, it's not "science." It's a theory that you've posited.
What these people are doing is wrong. They're trying to make their religion true by calling it science. There's a funny thing about faith. You're just supposed to believe it. If your faith isn't strong enough to stand up to even a basic test, then perhaps you just don't have faith.
Uhmm. Here, professors join the facebook and add their students as friends. They'll announce this behavior in class, and brag of their numbers. It's hardly a covert op.
Also, the facebook isn't a blog, it's a social networking service.
While we're at it, there isn't much that you could do in facebook that would be all that damaging. Naked pictures are banned... other than that, you could join a group with a controversial name, but there isn't much in that. I'm a member of "My name's Justin biotch." Lots of people are members of "I went to a public school, bitch." Not here, since most of the kids here are wealthy Ivy Leaguers, born with a silver spoon in their mouths, but, you know, whatever.
Well, the poster had said that nobody reads computer books. My answer is that I read computer books. Not only that, but I'm surrounded by people who both read and write computer books. Not only that, but I spend, arguably, 25-50% of my time reading such literature, and a greater amount of time pursuing its authorship.
Oh, and if you want to equate the war in Iraq with Vietnam, you have to remember that, in Vietnam, the president actually handn't gained permission to declare war. Vietnam was labelled a "police action," with no official declaration of war, ever. In fact, part of the reason that it was such a protracted, bloody, and dangerous war was because of limitations on the activity of military personnel, based on the fact that it wasn't a way.
Now, I'm not taking a stance that supports either the war in Iraq or Vietnam, both political tinderboxes that I don't want to touch with a 10' pole. To sort out the facts, however, you need to back up off the crack that is being pushed on you by the political talking heads, who really don't want you to form your own opinion, but follow theirs, and consider what actually must have happened according to the law of the land.
Otherwise, you sound like a ranting conspiracy theorist, which you did with your initial post.
Oh, and to move back to that original issue, the Taliban were harboring known terrorists, and had been for a while. It wouldn't be much of a "war on terror" if we had let a known terrorist stronghold stand.
Now, if you want to continue down that path, you have to question why we aren't raiding other countries known to harbor terrorists. A solid guess would be the solid debacle that has been the war in Iraq.
If you want to drive even further down that road. Read the constitution. The President doesn't have the right to declare war. That means that at least half of the politicians on Capitol Hill voted for the war in Iraq. Doesn't it strike you as at least a bit disingenuous for a politician to authorize a President to declare war, only to back up and say, "oh, but I didn't think he'd actually do it!"
Interestingly, supposedly we had multiple opportunities to take out Bin Laden that we didn't capitalize upon much earlier. Various accusations go around. Many say that we were just incompetent and couldn't muster the ability to do things like blow up terrorist training camps. They're vaguely believable given that drug cartels still manage to operate quite nicely, despite heavy military operations in South America, which, to be honest, should be far more controversial than any operations in the middle east, where interests exist that have been self-declared as our sworn enemies, but I digress.
The other accusation is that, because of alliances in the middle east, we didn't go in and slaughter (and I mean a bloody slaughter, you see what an apache with a couple gattlers and some missiles will do to a terrorist training camp), them the first time. This really confuses the argument that this is all about oil, since those alliances are also supposedly around oil.
IE, the reason that we didn't kill Bin Laden early on is, again, about oil.
Now, if you want further screwiness. More than one plane was allowed to fly during the ban on flying on Sept. 11. Supposedly, only Air Force One flew. The other plane flew the Saudi royal family home. To give some perspective, we flew Ossama Bin Laden's parents home on the same day of the attacks.
The parent can, again, put some of that back into his pipe and smoke it.
If you seriously think that we chased Ossama Bin Laden to Afghanistan on economic grounds, you sir, are thinking only with your political orientation. Nobody questioned the invasion of Aghanistan from what I can recall. Even the Democrats cited it as the war that we should still be fighting, rather than Iraq.
Seriously. Put down the pipe and come back to reality.
Now, if you really want to be a conspiracy nut, the way to explain this is that we left without a confirmed kill on Ossama Bin Laden. The real whackos have an explanation for this though. We killed him, which is why we haven't heard from him in a long time. We keep his death in question so we can use it as a weapon against the people, in an excuse to further pass draconian measures that steal people's freedoms.
Jeez dude, if you're going to be a whacko conspiracy nut, at least pick a good conspiracy.
I am strongly against intelligent design, but it does bother me when I must listen to an atheist explain that atheists are, essentially, more intelligent than people with religion, and then back the whole statement up with something asinine that shows them to be complete twits.
Books and Papers
on
Java Puzzlers
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
When you have spare time and decide to do something with a book (That's like an analog webpage, for the neuronauts among us), how often do you turn to a computer related book? How often has it happened in the last year? Right. The problem being that computer books are often either: a) boring, b) difficult to read, c) poorly written, or possibly: d) made of cheese
Being a computer science grad student... I imagine myself to be among the nerdy. Interestingly, I own an assortment of books, spend most of my time that isn't in a lab in a library, and read about 6-7 hard-copy academic papers a week, in addition to an assortment of books. When I have free time, I read books on AI.
I'm not talking about practical concerns. This is an article about how to manage "geeks." The premise of what I'm talking about is the idea that they should, for some reason, be treated differently. This, in my experience, generally means in a condescending, fairly distasteful manner.
I'm not talking about practical concerns like that. In my experience, I was at a network company where network geeks were stuck in teleconferences just as often. In fact, I was stuck in teleconferences frequently. For the period that I didn't have an office (I had an office for a year) I was stuck finding a conference room, whereas some just preferred to teleconference in their cubicles.
Forget that. The problem is that people feel like they can power trip like that because you're some sort of alien species. If you insist on working at a place where they respect you, then you'll receive that respect.
If enough people insisted at working at such places, we wouldn't have management who feel that they can treat their technical staff so poorly.
He completed his elementary, junior-high, and high school curricula in just nine months, something that usually takes 12 years
Have you ever considered what you're taught in primary school? No offense, but it's not that much. I've actually come to feel rather bitter that there was no good route presented to me to skip through primary school at an early point. I wouldn't have done it at six or anything, but certainly there were timeframes of my education that I felt were merely teachers endlessly harping the same points at me repeatedly.
I really ended giving up frequently in high school, mostly in an act of throwing my arms up in frustration at the system. I even got called into guidance to explain why every score on a test outside of my school system (I got high SAT, PSAT, IQ, aptitude... whatever) scores didn't match up with my scores INSIDE the school system ('A' student, but no valedictorian). Simply put, I had been passed over for the gifted program (strangely, since I was in the JHU gifted program), and had not been super-accelerated in math (just accelerated) despite flawless test scores. I felt like "well, what the hell will it take to get where I should be?" for several years, and then I just stopped trying, because the answer was that nothing was going to change things in that system.
I feel really bad saying that, since I had a few exceptional teachers, but in aggregate, public school wasn't that hot. A few exceptional educators are now in charge where I went to school... perhaps they'll make things better, but I think that the entire concept behind the education system is a little flawed.
It's been perhaps the past year that I've managed to get back on track academically. Now I'm definately getting into a reasonably good PhD program.
I think that just about everyone would be more successful if school was about teaching kids what they were ready to know, rather than putting them all in one big room, teaching them at the same pace, and evaluating them as they go. Only people who learn at that pace succeed. People who are faster or slower never catch up. The simple fact is that people are all different. You can't paint with such a broad brush.
I rather hate literature that says that, because I took an interest in science in life, I'm some how childish, unsophisticated, and handicapped. I absolutely hate when people act as if I am somehow different and need to be thrown in a playpen.
I've been to companies that throw everyone with a "business" job in offices, the programmers get cubicles. Worse yet, we called one place the "playpen," because they had a big round office, with tables and workstations against the walls, and nerf junk to throw at each other. Of course, everyone who wasn't a programmer, no matter how low on the totem pole (including their network people), had offices.
I'd rather not be lorded over like that and have some feel-good garbage thrown in to excuse treating your workers like crap.
Is this the bump that Firefox needs to boost downloads? Will Google be able to pay the millions for all the downloads?
Sheesh, would you say that if it were the Yahoo! toolbar? How will this help FireFox exactly? Having a bunch of people list the Google Toolbar for FireFox will apparently help it's spread?
Nothing against Google... but "this will help FireFox" seems like a very odd way to connect the dots.
Was that intended to be a dig at me, or just a joke?
I really didn't mean any offense to any of the parties... but lets be honest.
Democrats... they want to take your money and use it in government programs. That's what they promote. It's Socialism. Socialism has an ugly name in the US since the cold war, so nobody wants to be called Socialist. Here in Ithaca, the Socialist party reigns supreme. I wasn't calling the Democrats Socialist for shock value. Among the townies here, saying that you're a Socialist is like saying you like your eggs scrambled. Socialism can be used in conjunction with capitalism. Refer to Norway for a country that does this.
China actually is a Communist country.
As for the Republicans. I didn't say that all of them are Totalitarian, and that one, I probably did jump over the line with. Still, think censorship... who supports it? Republican interests. There are other Republican ideas that have seemed rather... Draconian, over the years. I'm fine with the Republicans too.
My parents are a Republican and a Democrat. I'm a Libertarian. I know that these aren't the ideals that the Republican and Democratic parties were started with, but, lets face it, this is what the American public drives them to. You need a group on the right, and one on the left. Having a dual-party system means that the people in the wings will be the strong voices for these parties (and the people in the center... what a wierd dynamic). Drive to the wings, and this is what you get.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I noted that... or should have. I was just trying to clarify the matter, but it didn't come through.
I grew up near W&M. I almost went there for my PhD. I'm at Cornell now. W&M is a pretty nifty place. I dated a girl there for a while. Rock on.
There is no place for Intelligent Design in Science. Intelligent design is trying to push religion into science.
Want proof.
Fine, where are the papers on ID that have been accepted to respected conferences. None? Ok.
Where are the professors speaking up in favor of it. None?
Ok.
See, this is the difference between science and a political agenda... science is science, and a political agenda is a political agenda. See? Science is discussed at conferences, by scientists. If your theory isn't peer reviewed, in science, it's not "science." It's a theory that you've posited.
What these people are doing is wrong. They're trying to make their religion true by calling it science. There's a funny thing about faith. You're just supposed to believe it. If your faith isn't strong enough to stand up to even a basic test, then perhaps you just don't have faith.
Uhmm. Here, professors join the facebook and add their students as friends. They'll announce this behavior in class, and brag of their numbers. It's hardly a covert op.
Also, the facebook isn't a blog, it's a social networking service.
While we're at it, there isn't much that you could do in facebook that would be all that damaging. Naked pictures are banned... other than that, you could join a group with a controversial name, but there isn't much in that. I'm a member of "My name's Justin biotch." Lots of people are members of "I went to a public school, bitch." Not here, since most of the kids here are wealthy Ivy Leaguers, born with a silver spoon in their mouths, but, you know, whatever.
I worry more about what I say on Slashdot.
Not a problem.
Frustrated?
Well, the poster had said that nobody reads computer books. My answer is that I read computer books. Not only that, but I'm surrounded by people who both read and write computer books. Not only that, but I spend, arguably, 25-50% of my time reading such literature, and a greater amount of time pursuing its authorship.
Oh, and if you want to equate the war in Iraq with Vietnam, you have to remember that, in Vietnam, the president actually handn't gained permission to declare war. Vietnam was labelled a "police action," with no official declaration of war, ever. In fact, part of the reason that it was such a protracted, bloody, and dangerous war was because of limitations on the activity of military personnel, based on the fact that it wasn't a way.
Now, I'm not taking a stance that supports either the war in Iraq or Vietnam, both political tinderboxes that I don't want to touch with a 10' pole. To sort out the facts, however, you need to back up off the crack that is being pushed on you by the political talking heads, who really don't want you to form your own opinion, but follow theirs, and consider what actually must have happened according to the law of the land.
Otherwise, you sound like a ranting conspiracy theorist, which you did with your initial post.
Bah.
9 80270
Refer to this post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167609&cid=13
Oh, and to move back to that original issue, the Taliban were harboring known terrorists, and had been for a while. It wouldn't be much of a "war on terror" if we had let a known terrorist stronghold stand.
Now, if you want to continue down that path, you have to question why we aren't raiding other countries known to harbor terrorists. A solid guess would be the solid debacle that has been the war in Iraq.
If you want to drive even further down that road. Read the constitution. The President doesn't have the right to declare war. That means that at least half of the politicians on Capitol Hill voted for the war in Iraq. Doesn't it strike you as at least a bit disingenuous for a politician to authorize a President to declare war, only to back up and say, "oh, but I didn't think he'd actually do it!"
Interestingly, supposedly we had multiple opportunities to take out Bin Laden that we didn't capitalize upon much earlier. Various accusations go around. Many say that we were just incompetent and couldn't muster the ability to do things like blow up terrorist training camps. They're vaguely believable given that drug cartels still manage to operate quite nicely, despite heavy military operations in South America, which, to be honest, should be far more controversial than any operations in the middle east, where interests exist that have been self-declared as our sworn enemies, but I digress.
The other accusation is that, because of alliances in the middle east, we didn't go in and slaughter (and I mean a bloody slaughter, you see what an apache with a couple gattlers and some missiles will do to a terrorist training camp), them the first time. This really confuses the argument that this is all about oil, since those alliances are also supposedly around oil.
IE, the reason that we didn't kill Bin Laden early on is, again, about oil.
Now, if you want further screwiness. More than one plane was allowed to fly during the ban on flying on Sept. 11. Supposedly, only Air Force One flew. The other plane flew the Saudi royal family home. To give some perspective, we flew Ossama Bin Laden's parents home on the same day of the attacks.
The parent can, again, put some of that back into his pipe and smoke it.
If you seriously think that we chased Ossama Bin Laden to Afghanistan on economic grounds, you sir, are thinking only with your political orientation. Nobody questioned the invasion of Aghanistan from what I can recall. Even the Democrats cited it as the war that we should still be fighting, rather than Iraq.
Seriously. Put down the pipe and come back to reality.
Now, if you really want to be a conspiracy nut, the way to explain this is that we left without a confirmed kill on Ossama Bin Laden. The real whackos have an explanation for this though. We killed him, which is why we haven't heard from him in a long time. We keep his death in question so we can use it as a weapon against the people, in an excuse to further pass draconian measures that steal people's freedoms.
Jeez dude, if you're going to be a whacko conspiracy nut, at least pick a good conspiracy.
"offtopic" indeed.
It wasn't sarcastic. I was being honest.
Thanks. That was an intelligent post.
I am strongly against intelligent design, but it does bother me when I must listen to an atheist explain that atheists are, essentially, more intelligent than people with religion, and then back the whole statement up with something asinine that shows them to be complete twits.
When you have spare time and decide to do something with a book (That's like an analog webpage, for the neuronauts among us), how often do you turn to a computer related book? How often has it happened in the last year? Right. The problem being that computer books are often either: a) boring, b) difficult to read, c) poorly written, or possibly: d) made of cheese
Being a computer science grad student... I imagine myself to be among the nerdy. Interestingly, I own an assortment of books, spend most of my time that isn't in a lab in a library, and read about 6-7 hard-copy academic papers a week, in addition to an assortment of books. When I have free time, I read books on AI.
That's fine.
I'm not talking about practical concerns. This is an article about how to manage "geeks." The premise of what I'm talking about is the idea that they should, for some reason, be treated differently. This, in my experience, generally means in a condescending, fairly distasteful manner.
I'm not talking about practical concerns like that. In my experience, I was at a network company where network geeks were stuck in teleconferences just as often. In fact, I was stuck in teleconferences frequently. For the period that I didn't have an office (I had an office for a year) I was stuck finding a conference room, whereas some just preferred to teleconference in their cubicles.
Forget that. The problem is that people feel like they can power trip like that because you're some sort of alien species. If you insist on working at a place where they respect you, then you'll receive that respect.
If enough people insisted at working at such places, we wouldn't have management who feel that they can treat their technical staff so poorly.
It's that simple.
That is the only convincing argument regarding blood and oil and war that I've ever heard.
It sounds like a total whack-job conspiracy theory, but, at least it's not a terribly bad one. I thought that opec made all of the money in oil.
I sincerely doubt that these folks are really using much less electricity than others.
Not to mention that nuclear fission is the cleanest, safest, most abundant practical source of energy on the planet at the moment.
All that the environmental nuts caused was for us to burn MORE fossil fuels at diesel plants. So much for saving the planet.
He completed his elementary, junior-high, and high school curricula in just nine months, something that usually takes 12 years
Have you ever considered what you're taught in primary school? No offense, but it's not that much. I've actually come to feel rather bitter that there was no good route presented to me to skip through primary school at an early point. I wouldn't have done it at six or anything, but certainly there were timeframes of my education that I felt were merely teachers endlessly harping the same points at me repeatedly.
I really ended giving up frequently in high school, mostly in an act of throwing my arms up in frustration at the system. I even got called into guidance to explain why every score on a test outside of my school system (I got high SAT, PSAT, IQ, aptitude... whatever) scores didn't match up with my scores INSIDE the school system ('A' student, but no valedictorian). Simply put, I had been passed over for the gifted program (strangely, since I was in the JHU gifted program), and had not been super-accelerated in math (just accelerated) despite flawless test scores. I felt like "well, what the hell will it take to get where I should be?" for several years, and then I just stopped trying, because the answer was that nothing was going to change things in that system.
I feel really bad saying that, since I had a few exceptional teachers, but in aggregate, public school wasn't that hot. A few exceptional educators are now in charge where I went to school... perhaps they'll make things better, but I think that the entire concept behind the education system is a little flawed.
It's been perhaps the past year that I've managed to get back on track academically. Now I'm definately getting into a reasonably good PhD program.
I think that just about everyone would be more successful if school was about teaching kids what they were ready to know, rather than putting them all in one big room, teaching them at the same pace, and evaluating them as they go. Only people who learn at that pace succeed. People who are faster or slower never catch up. The simple fact is that people are all different. You can't paint with such a broad brush.
Well said.
I rather hate literature that says that, because I took an interest in science in life, I'm some how childish, unsophisticated, and handicapped. I absolutely hate when people act as if I am somehow different and need to be thrown in a playpen.
I've been to companies that throw everyone with a "business" job in offices, the programmers get cubicles. Worse yet, we called one place the "playpen," because they had a big round office, with tables and workstations against the walls, and nerf junk to throw at each other. Of course, everyone who wasn't a programmer, no matter how low on the totem pole (including their network people), had offices.
I'd rather not be lorded over like that and have some feel-good garbage thrown in to excuse treating your workers like crap.
Nifty.
Is this the bump that Firefox needs to boost downloads? Will Google be able to pay the millions for all the downloads?
Sheesh, would you say that if it were the Yahoo! toolbar? How will this help FireFox exactly? Having a bunch of people list the Google Toolbar for FireFox will apparently help it's spread?
Nothing against Google... but "this will help FireFox" seems like a very odd way to connect the dots.
Was that intended to be a dig at me, or just a joke?
I really didn't mean any offense to any of the parties... but lets be honest.
Democrats... they want to take your money and use it in government programs. That's what they promote. It's Socialism. Socialism has an ugly name in the US since the cold war, so nobody wants to be called Socialist. Here in Ithaca, the Socialist party reigns supreme. I wasn't calling the Democrats Socialist for shock value. Among the townies here, saying that you're a Socialist is like saying you like your eggs scrambled. Socialism can be used in conjunction with capitalism. Refer to Norway for a country that does this.
China actually is a Communist country.
As for the Republicans. I didn't say that all of them are Totalitarian, and that one, I probably did jump over the line with. Still, think censorship... who supports it? Republican interests. There are other Republican ideas that have seemed rather... Draconian, over the years. I'm fine with the Republicans too.
My parents are a Republican and a Democrat. I'm a Libertarian. I know that these aren't the ideals that the Republican and Democratic parties were started with, but, lets face it, this is what the American public drives them to. You need a group on the right, and one on the left. Having a dual-party system means that the people in the wings will be the strong voices for these parties (and the people in the center... what a wierd dynamic). Drive to the wings, and this is what you get.
So, why is it that you hate me specifically?
You seem fairly irrational. I've never done a thing to you.