> You know what this means right? We've backed Microsoft into a corner, so now it's going to pull every dirty trick in the book to get it's profits back...
And this differs from their previous behavior, how?
> To his Hungarian friends (you know, some unknowns like Eugene Wigner (= Wigner Jeno), Leo Szilard (= Szilard Leo), Edward Teller (= Teller Ede), etc.) he most definitely _was_ Janos.
So, to translate between German and Hungarian you just reverse the word order?
> To those of faith every aspect of life as we know it evidence of God's existance:
> * That we exist. For motion to exist there must be a prime mover.
So, what moves God?
You offer a very familiar bogus argument for the existence of deity, which goes like this:
Everything must X
God doesn't have to X
Therefore, God exists.
It doesn't help to try to bolster faith with bad arguements.
> * The sophistication of life and nature.
Why is that evidence for God's existence? Why wouldn't God have made everything simple instead of sophisticated?
> * Beauty and ugliness.
Why is that evidence for God's existence? Why wouldn't God have made everything one way or the other, rather than mixing them?
> * Serendipidous events that often determine our situation in life.
Like getting shot dead by a perfect stranger while driving down the freeway minding your own business? Why is that evidence for God's existence?
You aren't offering evidence; you're offering post hoc rationalizations, all of which rely on an unspoken assumption that whatever you see is precisely what God wants. (I suppose what you see puts some constraints on God's nature if he does exist, but it's hardly evidence of his existence.)
> Science requires that we look to the results of assertions proven by controled experiments.
No, that is a bogus requirement that only pops up when people want to deny some scientific result. Science is perfectly well capable of investigating cosmology, astrophysics, biological history, and other things where controlled experiments are difficult or impossible.
> So we're left, much like those in the realm of the religous with huge assertions, a mass of uncomprehendable data with nearly infinite variables.
No, science is is making sense out of piles of data; don't blame science if the results don't correspond to your neolithic traditions.
> As for me, I'm not sure why this global warming matters so much. Even if it does exist, is it caused by anything I or mankind can control?
How will we know, unless we study it?
Or are you one of those who think we should exploit the planet for all it's worth, since God's comming back and we won't have any grandkids to need it?
> What mean you by "evolution deniers?" Explain yourself.
People who deny the reality of biological evolution?
> If looking at it from a scientific Christian (absolutely not to be confused with Christian Scientist) perspective, there are two types of evolution, typically called macro- and micro- evolution.
You forgot the key ingredient: "and a glass ceiling that magically keeps micro-evolution from turning into macro-evolution, no matter how many generations pass by".
Also, s/Christian/biblical literalist/. Lots of Christians acknowledge the reality of biological evolution.
> Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is that which has no reliable undisputed evidence,
No, macro-evolution is the compelling interpretation of the fossil and genetic records. (If you have a more compelling interpretation, feel free to give it a try.)
> such as primordial goop turning into puddles of proteins and suddenly coming to life
That's abiogensis, not evolution. Evolution happens whether life appeared by the natural operations of chemistry in the primordial goop, was seeded here by aliens, or was specially created by an all-powerful god.
> and crawling out of the ocean and sprouting legs and etc. etc. until man finally unhunched and became what we are today
That's what the fossil and genetic evidence shows, yes.
> and then the whole process mystically stopped.
No scientist thinks the process has stopped, mystically or otherwise.
> Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is more like a religion of its own than science. It has no proof and is not observable.
Macro-evolution is as well supported by evidence as any other fact known to modern scientists. And it is easily observed indirectly, which is the same standard we hold most other sciencess to.
> While I'm at it, since when does "Bible-thumping" determine "science-rejection" status?
There is a strong correlation between rejection of biology + cosmology and being a member of a certain class of religious sects, commonly known as bible thumpers. Indeed, you are a good example of the phenomenon, offering a "Christian" variant of science as an alternative to the standard international, intercultural, interreligious kind.
> So alright already, will somebody please get off their dead ass and preload an "interesting" photo or two into the imaging software for the next lander!
I was there on Mars waiting for this one to show up, but I accidentally bent its antenna while I was setting up my diorama in front of its cameras.
> I've found that many atheists and Christian fundamentalists alike are disappointed when they learn that words like 'Xmas' are not a removal of 'Christ' from the word but that the X is an old and oft-used shorthand for Christ
In my experience, atheists know exactly what it means, and fundamentalists ignorantly complain about its use.
> I never got past the 'Western in space' problem. Great actors, good stories, but why bother with the spaceships? The combination of hi and lo tech just looked silly - it was like... spaceships landing in the wild west and being met with men on horses. It was an inconsistent and totally implausible view of the future.
Less plausible than the usual fare, where heros scoot around the galaxy fighting monsters that have evolved to seduce starship captains and eat their ships?
> First off you have the american side of it. The CEOs will ship the jobs off shore, americans will lose jobs and have to go on pogey. So yeah, the CEO makes a short-term profit but pays for it in taxation in the end.
Yeah, offshoring makes sense for a single company, since it gives a cost advantaves vis-a-vis the competition. But when everyone does it the high-paid US worker will disappear, and that's bad news for an economy that's 60% consumerism.
Sure, some of the offshore workers will buy the US companies' products, but since they're only earning a fraction of the wages they'll only buy a fraction of the products. (And that's after deducting whatever they spend into their own local economy.)
> My guilty pleasure this year was The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. It was much better than all the reviews led me to believe. I actually enjoyed it more than X2 by a large margin. It was a fun action movie with really cool steam-punk technology and "magical" mythical heroes. What's not to like?
Slashdot Mirror
> You know what this means right? We've backed Microsoft into a corner, so now it's going to pull every dirty trick in the book to get it's profits back...
And this differs from their previous behavior, how?
> To his Hungarian friends (you know, some unknowns like Eugene Wigner (= Wigner Jeno), Leo Szilard (= Szilard Leo), Edward Teller (= Teller Ede), etc.) he most definitely _was_ Janos.
So, to translate between German and Hungarian you just reverse the word order?
Does this mean all our potatos are going to get culosis?
> Top 10 people you don't want to hear say "Oops".
You left out the one about circumcision.
> In a related story, the authorities are now scouring libraries coast to coast to find the book entitled, "Where I Am Hiding" by Osama Bin Laden.
Easy; he's hiding in Iraq's WMD storage facility.
> To those of faith every aspect of life as we know it evidence of God's existance:
> * That we exist. For motion to exist there must be a prime mover.
So, what moves God?
You offer a very familiar bogus argument for the existence of deity, which goes like this:
- Everything must X
- God doesn't have to X
- Therefore, God exists.
It doesn't help to try to bolster faith with bad arguements.> * The sophistication of life and nature.
Why is that evidence for God's existence? Why wouldn't God have made everything simple instead of sophisticated?
> * Beauty and ugliness.
Why is that evidence for God's existence? Why wouldn't God have made everything one way or the other, rather than mixing them?
> * Serendipidous events that often determine our situation in life.
Like getting shot dead by a perfect stranger while driving down the freeway minding your own business? Why is that evidence for God's existence?
You aren't offering evidence; you're offering post hoc rationalizations, all of which rely on an unspoken assumption that whatever you see is precisely what God wants. (I suppose what you see puts some constraints on God's nature if he does exist, but it's hardly evidence of his existence.)
> Science requires that we look to the results of assertions proven by controled experiments.
No, that is a bogus requirement that only pops up when people want to deny some scientific result. Science is perfectly well capable of investigating cosmology, astrophysics, biological history, and other things where controlled experiments are difficult or impossible.
> So we're left, much like those in the realm of the religous with huge assertions, a mass of uncomprehendable data with nearly infinite variables.
No, science is is making sense out of piles of data; don't blame science if the results don't correspond to your neolithic traditions.
> As for me, I'm not sure why this global warming matters so much. Even if it does exist, is it caused by anything I or mankind can control?
How will we know, unless we study it?
Or are you one of those who think we should exploit the planet for all it's worth, since God's comming back and we won't have any grandkids to need it?
> What mean you by "evolution deniers?" Explain yourself.
People who deny the reality of biological evolution?
> If looking at it from a scientific Christian (absolutely not to be confused with Christian Scientist) perspective, there are two types of evolution, typically called macro- and micro- evolution.
You forgot the key ingredient: "and a glass ceiling that magically keeps micro-evolution from turning into macro-evolution, no matter how many generations pass by".
Also, s/Christian/biblical literalist/. Lots of Christians acknowledge the reality of biological evolution.
> Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is that which has no reliable undisputed evidence,
No, macro-evolution is the compelling interpretation of the fossil and genetic records. (If you have a more compelling interpretation, feel free to give it a try.)
> such as primordial goop turning into puddles of proteins and suddenly coming to life
That's abiogensis, not evolution. Evolution happens whether life appeared by the natural operations of chemistry in the primordial goop, was seeded here by aliens, or was specially created by an all-powerful god.
> and crawling out of the ocean and sprouting legs and etc. etc. until man finally unhunched and became what we are today
That's what the fossil and genetic evidence shows, yes.
> and then the whole process mystically stopped.
No scientist thinks the process has stopped, mystically or otherwise.
> Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is more like a religion of its own than science. It has no proof and is not observable.
Macro-evolution is as well supported by evidence as any other fact known to modern scientists. And it is easily observed indirectly, which is the same standard we hold most other sciencess to.
> While I'm at it, since when does "Bible-thumping" determine "science-rejection" status?
There is a strong correlation between rejection of biology + cosmology and being a member of a certain class of religious sects, commonly known as bible thumpers. Indeed, you are a good example of the phenomenon, offering a "Christian" variant of science as an alternative to the standard international, intercultural, interreligious kind.
> So alright already, will somebody please get off their dead ass and preload an "interesting" photo or two into the imaging software for the next lander!
I was there on Mars waiting for this one to show up, but I accidentally bent its antenna while I was setting up my diorama in front of its cameras.
Sorry! I'll be more careful next time.
> The longer they can delay us from further probing their planet, the longer they can keep their privacy.
And I suppose they come around 'probing' us in revenge?
> And how is Christianity being stuffed down your throat?
Not from the USA, are you.
> I've found that many atheists and Christian fundamentalists alike are disappointed when they learn that words like 'Xmas' are not a removal of 'Christ' from the word but that the X is an old and oft-used shorthand for Christ
In my experience, atheists know exactly what it means, and fundamentalists ignorantly complain about its use.
> the first movie will be "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe"
Oh, my!
> I never got past the 'Western in space' problem. Great actors, good stories, but why bother with the spaceships? The combination of hi and lo tech just looked silly - it was like
Less plausible than the usual fare, where heros scoot around the galaxy fighting monsters that have evolved to seduce starship captains and eat their ships?
Only 5 generations 'til we get to the R2 series!
> First off you have the american side of it. The CEOs will ship the jobs off shore, americans will lose jobs and have to go on pogey. So yeah, the CEO makes a short-term profit but pays for it in taxation in the end.
Yeah, offshoring makes sense for a single company, since it gives a cost advantaves vis-a-vis the competition. But when everyone does it the high-paid US worker will disappear, and that's bad news for an economy that's 60% consumerism.
Sure, some of the offshore workers will buy the US companies' products, but since they're only earning a fraction of the wages they'll only buy a fraction of the products. (And that's after deducting whatever they spend into their own local economy.)
Tragedy of the Commons, I suppose.
> I'd like to see some research carried out on the speculation these guys (Forrester, Gartner etc) come up with.
Heh, get them to 'research' each other's performance.
> This is a lot of people changing career. What will they all be doing though?
Flying car salesmen.
Forget goatse, the latest rage is butcandle.com.
> This "if your signals penetrate my airwaves then they belong to me and I can do whatever I like with them" argument really is flawed.
Like the old Benny Hill skit where a woman leans over his fence and he thinks that gives him a right to grope her tits.
> I *STILL* think they could reopen the storyline using this premise.
Yeah, adding another sequel always fixes things...
> My guilty pleasure this year was The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. It was much better than all the reviews led me to believe. I actually enjoyed it more than X2 by a large margin. It was a fun action movie with really cool steam-punk technology and "magical" mythical heroes. What's not to like?
A more formulaic movie was never made.
> I think if you said this in public in the Philippines you'd be smacked harshly on the bum with a wooden cane.
And to think I've been paying a couple of 'ladies' to do that.
> What is this 'notoriuous'?
Since there are several of them, it should have been 'notoriuoii'.
> This whole thing is one expensive guess, nothing more nothing less.
No, it's an informed guess.
And there's a huge difference, as the past half millenium of progress in science and technology should let you know.