The moment something is taken out of the science basket and put back into the god basket, you let me know, ok?
That is precisely what the creationists are trying to accomplish: putting the question of the origin of species back into the god basket. Don't let these people out of your sight...
There aren't any baskets! God and science are unrelated. The creationists are wrong about denying science and you're wrong about denying God. It takes a narrow minded person to believe in the basket analogy, whether you're on the God side or the science side. God is not an explanation of the things we don't understand. The idea of God was around before we understood much, and things were chalked up to God when people didn't understand them, but the idea of God is not simply an explanation of nature. Quit perpetuating a useless viewpoint that only serves to cause controversy.
The solution to limited scientific knowledge is better science, not to give up and invent a god of the gaps.
What's with this "god of the gaps" crap still sticking around? Science and God are unrelated. Neither is a threat to the other. If God exists, then science is simply a way of observing and explaining what God has done. So what? Why does either side so vehemently care? Because they're being so narrow minded to think that both are not possible. It amazes me that the science side sees themselves as so enlightened as to not need the crutch of religion, yet not enlightened enough to see that science and God are not related to each other.
But if you teach kids from an early enough age to view the world critically and scientifically and to think for themselves, one should lead to the other.
Don't be such a fool. You're as bad as the creationists when you posit that science and God are at opposition with each other. They're simply unrelated. The idea that science can be used to explain what God has done is not new. It's been around for years. It simply gets ignored by all the people that want a battle and a fight. There have been many great scientists in history that were also Christian (Newton, for example). We need to simply move on from this religion versus science battle because it serves no purpose. Religion is not a threat to scientific thought. Science is not a threat to religion. The only threat is for narrow minded people on both sides of the argument that can't seem to handle the idea that someone thinks something they don't. I say we forget those people and move on.
Your basket analogy is deeply flawed. It can be ruined entirely by the statement that science is simply an explanation of how God does what God does. Whether or not you believe in God, this is a simple and rational explanation for the combination of science and God. You're trying to create some kind of divide between science and God that simply doesn't exist. While I'm sure that you think that believers are the narrow minded ones, you're being quite narrow minded yourself if you don't think that it's entirely possible that God simply created evolution and the other mechanisms that science observes. You may not like the idea of God or the fact that other people believe in God, but the observations of science do absolutely nothing to dispel the idea that God is behind all of this.
It's simply not possible that there are addicts who really want help. The religious nut jobs are forcing their morals on everyone and they have developed fancy technology to help them destroy the sinners.
Those states grow enough for food purposes, but don't have the capacity to grow for food and fuel. The sugar lobby is rather powerful, and if they felt they could grow enough to supply fuel, they'd be barking it up as much as the corn folks are.
Yea, corn gets all the publicity while sugar cane is a better feed source than corn and Switchgrass is even better than sugar. Corn gets it because the corn lobby is big and they get a lot of subsidies.
Well, you can only grow sugar in sufficient quantity for fuel usage down in Brazil. We here in America are foolishly nationalistic and want to force everything to be American.
The ability to download free books negates any cost argument
Only if the books I desire to read are available for free. Some are, most aren't.
Why would you buy a book you don't intend to keep? and why does this concern you if, as you say, you get so little money for it?
Some books don't wind up being as useful as I expected. I sell them to someone else that may find it of greater use.
Don't buy DRM protected e-books
That's only realistic if you only read old books. If you want to read anything newer, you'll (currently) have to go with DRM.
Try packing two or three software/programming reference books, you'll quickly see the utility of an e-book.
And I do have a subscription to Safari for programming books. I do purchase software books in PDF format when available. However, I don't read them at all when I'm not at work, so portability isn't much of a factor to that for me.
Forgot one more point: I have a lot of trouble finding the books I want to read in electronic formats. This happens a significant portion of the time. I don't read bestsellers (or fiction at all, really) and my selections don't seem to be mainstream enough to get into electronic formats.
I am one who thinks eBooks are foolish. Here are the problems I see:
Quite often, the physical book is cheaper, thanks to Amazon or some other discount provider. eBooks are overpriced and rarely discounted.
I cannot loan an eBook to a friend. I do this a lot with regular books, so it's a real concern.
I cannot borrow an eBook from a library. Thousands of books for free.
I cannot sell the eBook when I'm done with it. Same basic point: I cannot buy a used eBook like I can a real book (and used books can be rather cheap).
DRM. I run the risk that the permission granting service closes up shop. This has happened to other media, so it's a real concern.
Quite honestly, I'm not sure what the benefit of an eBook is. Portability, I guess, but I don't really need to take 50 books with me. I'm usually only reading two or three, and it's no real big deal to pack three books on a trip. If all of that makes me a Luddite, then I guess I'm becoming an crotchety old man earlier than I expected (hey, they already play the music I grew up to on the classic rock channel, so I guess it's getting closer to time).
I'm not agreeing with having a database, I'm just going to provide two thoughts on why sex crimes are different. First, it has been shown over and over again that if you commit these crimes once, you're very likely to do it again. This is not as true for other crimes as it is for sex crimes. The database is an interesting compromise between locking them up for life and simply setting them free. I'm not certain if it is a good or a bad compromise. Second, if someone steals my car, I can get another one. If someone rapes my child, odds are that my child has life long issues.
Don't forget that these databases are simply an aggregation of data providing for easier access to what was already public. You could have gone and looked this stuff up in the court records yourself, but it would have taken much longer to do so.
the thing is that they repeatedly make their games off copying their games
Look up Weird Al - he makes a living "copying" music. It's called parody. While you're at it, watch a few Simpsons episodes - if you don't notice all of the parodies, then you're rather out of touch with culture. Have you seen South Park? Have you seen Saturday Night Live? You've posted about five times in this thread in defense of Rockstar, but I don't see what defense is there. Parody is legal. Parody is common and quite popular (Weird Al, Simpsons, South Park, SNL, etc). On top of that, this game is based on one of the most popular parody shows of our time - The Simpsons. You'd be nuts to think that they wouldn't parody something, and a violent video game that parodies violent video games is a good fit. The most commonly mention violent game when talking about violent games? Grand Theft Auto.
The concept of god answers no questions, and encourages us to stop looking for answers.
For most of us, the concept of God is unrelated to looking for answers. Just ignore the nutjobs and quit assuming they speak for anyone but themselves.
Why else would a home user need 20/20 if they aren't uploading torrents? Surely Verizon realizes this, right?
I upload photos to Flickr for backup in batches of 100 or so. It's very slow. I'd like to use an online backup service for the rest of my stuff, but given how slow it is uploading 500MB to Flickr, I can't fathom how I'd get ~200GB sent anywhere. Figure a GB or two a week in new files (purchase TV shows from iTMS, more photos of kids, etc), and it'll drive me nuts to keep uploading it all. And while I have a 15/2 line, when I'm uploading, my dl speed goes down a ton.
Do you think the factory workers, or even the management at Lenovo have anything to do with China's military decisions? The US has a behavioral problem as well, do you think that world consumers should punish the people of the US economically because of it? When you boycott an entire country, keep in mind that the employees of the companies are people just like you who are working for a living. "China" is not some collection of a billion evil people shooting at monks - it's a country full of good people working to feed themselves and take care of their families.
how about "in every significant way" because I guarantee you most of us could care less about the AAC - MP3 thing.
I like the Amazon offering's prices and lack of DRM, but the iTunes UI is better - things like showing you the most popular songs for the artist and things that others bought. Seems simple for Amazon to add, but I currently don't see it.
So, if the law changes, your employer will not pay you any more than they do now. You'll likely run the risk of earning less. When determining your hourly pay rate, your employer will factor in the total number of hours they desire you to work, including the on call time. So, your pay will be the same as it is now, provided you work a full week, including the late night calls. The weeks where you don't get the calls, you'll get paid less than you do now.
Think I'm being cynical? Watch it happen. Best case is that your total pay remains the same. Management is there to make money, not to let some new law cause them to pay more to their employees.
Slashdot Mirror
Your basket analogy is deeply flawed. It can be ruined entirely by the statement that science is simply an explanation of how God does what God does. Whether or not you believe in God, this is a simple and rational explanation for the combination of science and God. You're trying to create some kind of divide between science and God that simply doesn't exist. While I'm sure that you think that believers are the narrow minded ones, you're being quite narrow minded yourself if you don't think that it's entirely possible that God simply created evolution and the other mechanisms that science observes. You may not like the idea of God or the fact that other people believe in God, but the observations of science do absolutely nothing to dispel the idea that God is behind all of this.
It's simply not possible that there are addicts who really want help. The religious nut jobs are forcing their morals on everyone and they have developed fancy technology to help them destroy the sinners.
Only if it's the USPTO that decides on who gets the fee. Everyone else knew it was obvious.
Odd. I watched the show, but am not a Trekkie. I knew what the visor looked like.
Those states grow enough for food purposes, but don't have the capacity to grow for food and fuel. The sugar lobby is rather powerful, and if they felt they could grow enough to supply fuel, they'd be barking it up as much as the corn folks are.
Read the article. It's a 2% increase in your total energy expenditure for a WEEK! Not 2% more energy used during the time spent playing games.
Forgot one more point: I have a lot of trouble finding the books I want to read in electronic formats. This happens a significant portion of the time. I don't read bestsellers (or fiction at all, really) and my selections don't seem to be mainstream enough to get into electronic formats.
- Quite often, the physical book is cheaper, thanks to Amazon or some other discount provider. eBooks are overpriced and rarely discounted.
- I cannot loan an eBook to a friend. I do this a lot with regular books, so it's a real concern.
- I cannot borrow an eBook from a library. Thousands of books for free.
- I cannot sell the eBook when I'm done with it. Same basic point: I cannot buy a used eBook like I can a real book (and used books can be rather cheap).
- DRM. I run the risk that the permission granting service closes up shop. This has happened to other media, so it's a real concern.
Quite honestly, I'm not sure what the benefit of an eBook is. Portability, I guess, but I don't really need to take 50 books with me. I'm usually only reading two or three, and it's no real big deal to pack three books on a trip. If all of that makes me a Luddite, then I guess I'm becoming an crotchety old man earlier than I expected (hey, they already play the music I grew up to on the classic rock channel, so I guess it's getting closer to time).I'm not agreeing with having a database, I'm just going to provide two thoughts on why sex crimes are different. First, it has been shown over and over again that if you commit these crimes once, you're very likely to do it again. This is not as true for other crimes as it is for sex crimes. The database is an interesting compromise between locking them up for life and simply setting them free. I'm not certain if it is a good or a bad compromise. Second, if someone steals my car, I can get another one. If someone rapes my child, odds are that my child has life long issues.
Don't forget that these databases are simply an aggregation of data providing for easier access to what was already public. You could have gone and looked this stuff up in the court records yourself, but it would have taken much longer to do so.
I'm pretty sure that finger and email have been around for years.
That's the hope. I don't get why Apple haven't done it themselves. It is important to a lot of potential customers.
Do you think the factory workers, or even the management at Lenovo have anything to do with China's military decisions? The US has a behavioral problem as well, do you think that world consumers should punish the people of the US economically because of it? When you boycott an entire country, keep in mind that the employees of the companies are people just like you who are working for a living. "China" is not some collection of a billion evil people shooting at monks - it's a country full of good people working to feed themselves and take care of their families.
So, if the law changes, your employer will not pay you any more than they do now. You'll likely run the risk of earning less. When determining your hourly pay rate, your employer will factor in the total number of hours they desire you to work, including the on call time. So, your pay will be the same as it is now, provided you work a full week, including the late night calls. The weeks where you don't get the calls, you'll get paid less than you do now.
Think I'm being cynical? Watch it happen. Best case is that your total pay remains the same. Management is there to make money, not to let some new law cause them to pay more to their employees.