> "A small company I work for has discovered that a domain name has been registered with their U.S.-trademarked (since 1980) name. Requests to the owner of the site (a U.S. citizen) have gone unanswered, so we're now moving on to filing an ICANN dispute. There was a query last week about inexpensive alternatives to the $1000+ UDRP arbiters. The discussion ended up revolving around whether the author had a valid claim or not, but I'd still like to know -- are there inexpensive alternatives?"
Here's a cheap, effective solution: deal with it. The current owner has as much right to it as you do (or more, since ownership is 9/10 of the law).
Try.biz, or think of a new domain name for your company. And look for sympathy elsewhere, 'cause you ain't gonna get much here.
> > What the hell does the theory of evolution have to do with the age of the universe?!
> The possible link here is that the age of the universe is measured by the amount of evolution that has occured.
Some idiot fundies think scientists made up the big bang for the sole purpose of hiding the "fact" that the universe isn't old enough for humans to have evolved.
> The problem with evolution isn't that it contradicts creationism... The problem is that it's taught as more true than religion
Funny thing, secular schools only teach stuff that's supported by evidence in science class. If that bothers you, go to a seminary instead.
> and the atheism aspect of evolution ("man evolved from apes") isn't seperated from the observable theory ("life evolves to the survival of the fittest.")
FYI, lots of Christians and other theists believe that "man evolved from apes". If you doubt me, go post the question on talk.origins and read the theists' responses.
By calling that atheistic you have promoted your sectarian interpretation of scripture to an article of faith. You are confusing fundamentalism with religion.
> I don't think the fundies are out to distor the teaching of 'science' I think they just want to make the assumptions of science based on the Bible.
What assumptions are these?
I think fundies are more concerned about science's conclusions than its assumptions. They only seem to want to wrangle about assumptions when science gives conclusions that are in conflict with their doctrine.
Lurk on talk.origins for a while and you'll get a very good peek at how fundies actually operate.
> Not trying to troll here (and speaking as a creationist), but I fail to see how a range this wide is helpful to anybody, let alone intriguing. This has always been my biggest fault with the theory of evolution: it will always remain indeterminate.
You can get started on your education by learing the difference between cosmology and the theory of evolution.
> How can a range nearly equal to that of one of the factors itself be considered scientific?
Would you prefer that they gave a narrower range that they couldn't justify?
> I'm not trying to pessimistic, but it's always hard for me to believe any of these theories given that they seem to change on the decade.
Unlike creationists, who cling to their ideas even though we had the evidence to refute them 180 years ago?
You should learn to understand theories as models that explain what we see. Scientists are obligated to revise their theories as more information becomes available.
> I once read that chimps have the intelligence of an average human three year old. Three year olds usually have a fairly (it's all relative) usable vocabulary. The reason I heard for why chimps can't speak is that they never developed a "speech center" in the brain. Is this really such a black-and-white thing?
No, it's not black-and-white at all.
Human vocabulary is actually dispersed all over the cortex. (The purported speech center is purportedly dedicated to syntax processing.)
But there are problems with the whole notion of a speech center. Yes, clearly Broca's area is heavily implicated in language processing, but you also get some truly bizarre effects where people have damage to other areas of the brain and lose extremely specific linguistic capabilities as a result.
The way the brain supports language use is far from understood, however much certain parties would have you believe otherwise. And other primates have brains very like the human brain; IMO some rudimentary linguistic capabilities would be the default expectation.
Also, notice that the other apes' tongue and throat do not have the structure/control that would ever let them pronounce as many different sounds as humans do. Lots of people argue that this means language developed only with anatomically modern humans -- even the Neandertals being somewhat deficient in this area. However, it has never been shown how many distinguishable sounds are necessary to support language, so this whole line of argument is built without any foundation.
The root of the problem is that too many people view language as an all-or-nothing thingy that you either "have" or "don't have", with nothing intermediate between a full modern language and the grunts and cries of the other primates (which lots of people want to dismiss as non-linguistic behavior). But probably the most important scientific result of the past 40 years is the continuous sequence of revelations that the other apes, particularly the chimps, are more like us than we ever thought. They hunt. They use tools. They have cultures that pass their rudimentary technologies from generation to generation. They have rudimentary linguistic capabilities. It's time for certain linguists to give up the medieval notion that humans are a thing apart from the rest of our kin. Only then will we start to understand language.
Mine too. But like lots of terms, this one is splitting into a "strong" definition and a "weak" definition.
vaporware, n. (strong definition) - A non-existant product that a company hypes in order to forestall customers who might buy a competitor's product. Vaporware is sometimes marketed by presentations of prototypes and/or rigged demos.
vaporware, n. (weak definition) - A product under development that is getting lots of buzz but seems to be having trouble getting to the market.
(Heh. Too bad I didn't see this story earlier. The Wikipedia page now shows that it has been visited 56 times, and if I had posted the link when this story was new we could have gotten a quantitative measurement of the Slashdot effect.)
> The average web browser's "back" feature is almost the only software feature in existence that is universally understood, and works as advertised. If it aint broke...
The problem is that "back" is the wrong way when you're on the other side of the equator.
> Here's a little lesson in how things work for Americans, because obviously some of you just don't get it. American Government is ran by AMERICANS. "they" are "us" and no different except the titles beside their names.
> So would "they" set off a nuke on "their" own people?
> HELL NO
Just like they wouldn't secretly give their soldiers LSD and watch what happened?
> It had all the effects of a atomic blast: fireball, mushroom cloud, shock wave
When I was a kid, a chemical plant just outside my home town was mixing chemicals in a tank car and it popped. I didn't see the fireball because I was home playing in my yard, but the shock wave made all the neighborhood screen doors open and close, and you could easily see the mushroom cloud over the rooftops.
This kind of stuff really doesn't take all that big an explosion.
> > Why is any religion not of Christian origin called a "cult"?
> This is simply incorrect. Major world religions with some history behind them are not called cults while many sects that have their roots in Christianity are considered cults.
Basically, a religious sect without a pedigree is called a "cult", whereas those with pedigrees are deemed respectable.
The term is simply a culturally moderated value judgement.
> This is GOD, using a keyboard to clarify your doubts, mortal man. I didn't tell the jewishs to not write down my name in full, I told that my full name was too long, so better not write it all... simple as that.
> Anyone know what the relationship is between this cult and two song's from The Who Sell Out - Rael and Rael 2
No relation at all. "Rael" != "Raël".
In the song, "Rael" is derived from "Israel" and "Red Chins" from "Red Chinese".
> No, I have no idea what they are talking about, but it definitely seems relevant.
Yes, the "plot" of Rael is very sketchy. I think Pete Townshend said he was working on Scene 22 when Decca said, "Uh, Pete, you guys need to put out an album this year." So we got two songs from an incomplete Rock opera, plus a few later comments by the composer. Not much to go on.
> Raëlians are followers of Raël, a French-born former race-car driver who has said he met a four-foot space alien atop a volcano in southern France in 1973 and went aboard his ship, where he was entertained by voluptuous female robots...
> I think that the anti-collaboration atmosphere of many academic institutions is a fundamentally flawed idea.
I don't. I've been on too many projects beside clowns with a BS in CS who don't understand the most rudimentary concepts, and I get tired of carrying their weight.
Yeah, maybe some senior-year courses should teach and require cooperation, but most of the degree program needs to be targeted at ensuring that that student has a basic clue about a few things.
> How much money are they saving really? By adopting linux they are also opening thier own tech support centers. Training and hiring those people costs money. They still have to develop (costs money) or buy software (Gee jolly gosh, this costs money too). Supporting linux might actually be a more expensive proposition then sticking with microsoft. I think they did it becuase they feel it is a better operating system. Save money in not needing new hardware maybe? I dont think money was a big factor in thier decision making.
Step back and ask yourself how much money will flow out of the country this way over the next 30 years vs how much would flow out if they didn't switch.
What India and others are doing is commonly called "opting out".
Slashdot Mirror
> "A small company I work for has discovered that a domain name has been registered with their U.S.-trademarked (since 1980) name. Requests to the owner of the site (a U.S. citizen) have gone unanswered, so we're now moving on to filing an ICANN dispute. There was a query last week about inexpensive alternatives to the $1000+ UDRP arbiters. The discussion ended up revolving around whether the author had a valid claim or not, but I'd still like to know -- are there inexpensive alternatives?"
Here's a cheap, effective solution: deal with it. The current owner has as much right to it as you do (or more, since ownership is 9/10 of the law).
Try
There was a desalination plant off the coast of Freeport, Texas for about a decade during the '60s and '70s.
I think it was a pilot project, so the article can still claim "first commercial desalination plant" in the USA.
> > What the hell does the theory of evolution have to do with the age of the universe?!
> The possible link here is that the age of the universe is measured by the amount of evolution that has occured.
Some idiot fundies think scientists made up the big bang for the sole purpose of hiding the "fact" that the universe isn't old enough for humans to have evolved.
> The problem with evolution isn't that it contradicts creationism
Funny thing, secular schools only teach stuff that's supported by evidence in science class. If that bothers you, go to a seminary instead.
> and the atheism aspect of evolution ("man evolved from apes") isn't seperated from the observable theory ("life evolves to the survival of the fittest.")
FYI, lots of Christians and other theists believe that "man evolved from apes". If you doubt me, go post the question on talk.origins and read the theists' responses.
By calling that atheistic you have promoted your sectarian interpretation of scripture to an article of faith. You are confusing fundamentalism with religion.
> I don't think the fundies are out to distor the teaching of 'science' I think they just want to make the assumptions of science based on the Bible.
What assumptions are these?
I think fundies are more concerned about science's conclusions than its assumptions. They only seem to want to wrangle about assumptions when science gives conclusions that are in conflict with their doctrine.
Lurk on talk.origins for a while and you'll get a very good peek at how fundies actually operate.
> Good article, also trying to explain why current aging methods (such as carbon dating) are not accurate
Only a scientifically illiterate idiot would try to determine the age of the earth or the universe with carbon dating.
>
Maybe time is expanding too.
> Not trying to troll here (and speaking as a creationist), but I fail to see how a range this wide is helpful to anybody, let alone intriguing. This has always been my biggest fault with the theory of evolution: it will always remain indeterminate.
You can get started on your education by learing the difference between cosmology and the theory of evolution.
> How can a range nearly equal to that of one of the factors itself be considered scientific?
Would you prefer that they gave a narrower range that they couldn't justify?
> I'm not trying to pessimistic, but it's always hard for me to believe any of these theories given that they seem to change on the decade.
Unlike creationists, who cling to their ideas even though we had the evidence to refute them 180 years ago?
You should learn to understand theories as models that explain what we see. Scientists are obligated to revise their theories as more information becomes available.
> I once read that chimps have the intelligence of an average human three year old. Three year olds usually have a fairly (it's all relative) usable vocabulary. The reason I heard for why chimps can't speak is that they never developed a "speech center" in the brain. Is this really such a black-and-white thing?
No, it's not black-and-white at all.
Human vocabulary is actually dispersed all over the cortex. (The purported speech center is purportedly dedicated to syntax processing.)
But there are problems with the whole notion of a speech center. Yes, clearly Broca's area is heavily implicated in language processing, but you also get some truly bizarre effects where people have damage to other areas of the brain and lose extremely specific linguistic capabilities as a result.
The way the brain supports language use is far from understood, however much certain parties would have you believe otherwise. And other primates have brains very like the human brain; IMO some rudimentary linguistic capabilities would be the default expectation.
Also, notice that the other apes' tongue and throat do not have the structure/control that would ever let them pronounce as many different sounds as humans do. Lots of people argue that this means language developed only with anatomically modern humans -- even the Neandertals being somewhat deficient in this area. However, it has never been shown how many distinguishable sounds are necessary to support language, so this whole line of argument is built without any foundation.
The root of the problem is that too many people view language as an all-or-nothing thingy that you either "have" or "don't have", with nothing intermediate between a full modern language and the grunts and cries of the other primates (which lots of people want to dismiss as non-linguistic behavior). But probably the most important scientific result of the past 40 years is the continuous sequence of revelations that the other apes, particularly the chimps, are more like us than we ever thought. They hunt. They use tools. They have cultures that pass their rudimentary technologies from generation to generation. They have rudimentary linguistic capabilities. It's time for certain linguists to give up the medieval notion that humans are a thing apart from the rest of our kin. Only then will we start to understand language.
> and they couldn't find it for some reason...
Error: $404 Not Found
> My understanding was...
Mine too. But like lots of terms, this one is splitting into a "strong" definition and a "weak" definition.
vaporware, n. (strong definition) - A non-existant product that a company hypes in order to forestall customers who might buy a competitor's product. Vaporware is sometimes marketed by presentations of prototypes and/or rigged demos.
vaporware, n. (weak definition) - A product under development that is getting lots of buzz but seems to be having trouble getting to the market.
See also the entry at Wikipedia.
(Heh. Too bad I didn't see this story earlier. The Wikipedia page now shows that it has been visited 56 times, and if I had posted the link when this story was new we could have gotten a quantitative measurement of the Slashdot effect.)
> >
> You mean like the Mona lisa?
> The Eiffel Tower?
> How about the Giza pyramids?
Try a big city department store, Hayseed!
> To those of you who may not know who Phyllis Schafly is, it may be informative to read the biography of her on that site [townhall.com].
For a more candid view of the mentality she espouses, grep dejagoogle for "schafly" and see what kind of idiocy her sons post to talk.origins betimes.
> The average web browser's "back" feature is almost the only software feature in existence that is universally understood, and works as advertised. If it aint broke...
The problem is that "back" is the wrong way when you're on the other side of the equator.
From what I've seen, computers are mostly used in the classroom as electronic babysitters. Small wonder they aren't improving education.
Our society seems to be beset with a mentality that calls for computerizing things because we can, rather than because there's a need.
ps - Get more replies when there's a reply button, eh Taco?
> Here's a little lesson in how things work for Americans, because obviously some of you just don't get it. American Government is ran by AMERICANS. "they" are "us" and no different except the titles beside their names.
> So would "they" set off a nuke on "their" own people?
> HELL NO
Just like they wouldn't secretly give their soldiers LSD and watch what happened?
> It had all the effects of a atomic blast: fireball, mushroom cloud, shock wave
When I was a kid, a chemical plant just outside my home town was mixing chemicals in a tank car and it popped. I didn't see the fireball because I was home playing in my yard, but the shock wave made all the neighborhood screen doors open and close, and you could easily see the mushroom cloud over the rooftops.
This kind of stuff really doesn't take all that big an explosion.
You know, there's nothing in your whole religious tirade that says anything about acceleration, which is what you purport to be explaining.
And you wonder why people think biblical literalists are idiots.
> > Why is any religion not of Christian origin called a "cult"?
> This is simply incorrect. Major world religions with some history behind them are not called cults while many sects that have their roots in Christianity are considered cults.
Basically, a religious sect without a pedigree is called a "cult", whereas those with pedigrees are deemed respectable.
The term is simply a culturally moderated value judgement.
> This is GOD, using a keyboard to clarify your doubts, mortal man.
I didn't tell the jewishs to not write down my name in full, I told that my full name was too long, so better not write it all... simple as that.
Welsh, are you?
> Anyone know what the relationship is between this cult and two song's from The Who Sell Out - Rael and Rael 2
No relation at all. "Rael" != "Raël".
In the song, "Rael" is derived from "Israel" and "Red Chins" from "Red Chinese".
> No, I have no idea what they are talking about, but it definitely seems relevant.
Yes, the "plot" of Rael is very sketchy. I think Pete Townshend said he was working on Scene 22 when Decca said, "Uh, Pete, you guys need to put out an album this year." So we got two songs from an incomplete Rock opera, plus a few later comments by the composer. Not much to go on.
> BTW, Elohim in Hebrew elohim, means God (or The Mighty One)...
And curiously enough, it's a plural form.
> Raëlians are followers of Raël, a French-born former race-car driver who has said he met a four-foot space alien atop a volcano in southern France in 1973 and went aboard his ship, where he was entertained by voluptuous female robots...
Yeah, I saw that movie too.
I think it was called "Eating Raël" or something.
> I think that the anti-collaboration atmosphere of many academic institutions is a fundamentally flawed idea.
I don't. I've been on too many projects beside clowns with a BS in CS who don't understand the most rudimentary concepts, and I get tired of carrying their weight.
Yeah, maybe some senior-year courses should teach and require cooperation, but most of the degree program needs to be targeted at ensuring that that student has a basic clue about a few things.
> How much money are they saving really? By adopting linux they are also opening thier own tech support centers. Training and hiring those people costs money. They still have to develop (costs money) or buy software (Gee jolly gosh, this costs money too). Supporting linux might actually be a more expensive proposition then sticking with microsoft. I think they did it becuase they feel it is a better operating system. Save money in not needing new hardware maybe? I dont think money was a big factor in thier decision making.
Step back and ask yourself how much money will flow out of the country this way over the next 30 years vs how much would flow out if they didn't switch.
What India and others are doing is commonly called "opting out".