I wonder who 'investors' voted for? I'll bet a dime to a dollar that, by and large, Wall Street voted for Bush. Why do you think the Harvard Business School is convervative?
...and yet still infinitely more qualified than Gore....and yes he did win the election. Everyone who's gone into Florida to do a recount (using every criteria imaginable) has conceded that Bush received more votes. This argument is not just tired, it's dead, buried, and rotting. Get over it McAuliffe.
I think your prevailing winds blew by the chicken houses before they got to Slashdot because all you did was expunge a lot of hot air and it stinks too.
You're right, it is amazing. It seems that a Republican must come in every time and clean up the mess left by some socialist Democrat who taxed Americans into oblivion.
I'm thankful every day Gore isn't in office. I'd probably still be employed but I'd be in the bread line nonetheless.
By definition, the belief in creationism is a logical necessity of being a christian.
The only thing a Christian is logically expected to believe is that all was created by God. Not how he did it. The definition of creationism the parent poster was using was one that was exclusive of any evolutionary science.
If you argue that an atheist can have no morals, then you're effectively saying that society as a whole has no morals, and the church has been inefective in providing a moral framework in the first place.
Western society was born of Christian ideals, yet it has gradually moved away from that in many respects. Abortion is an excellent example of this taking place.
I also did not say that an atheist cannot conduct themselves morally. The problem is that when society adjusts its moral position, the atheist must follow suit as well. The atheist has ceded all means of morally reasoning that one action is superior to another action. If all actions are then morally equal, how can we point out any deficiencies??
The point I'm making is that any dynamic means of determining morality is philosophically flawed. It must be absolute. There are plenty of things that fall outside of moral action that one might consider moral action (drinking alcohol is an example of this) but that's a perception problem, not a moral problem.
The point is, I have to base my worldview on something, and I have chosen evolution simply because the weight of the evidence is in its favour.
Christians don't base their worldview on creationism. That's why it's quite silly for you to actually base your worldview on evolution. I still don't think you understand the philosophical aspects of the discussion. Maybe we are just firing past each other, but there's definitely a disconnect here.
"It looks like the wheels are coming off! This time for sure! No really, this looks very bad for Microsoft!" Posted by [any_slashdot_editor] on [several_times_every_stinking_day] from the Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf Department
Whenever you commission a photographer to photograph an event, he or she usually retains all rights to the photographs taken. However, when you commission an artist to do a painting, all rights to that painting belong to you. For example, if someone wants to include the painting in an art book, getting permission from the artist typically does no good. You must get permission from the person who owns the painting. Photographs cannot be reprinted without permission of the photographer since the photographer typically retains all rights to his or her pictures.
I agree, it's time for photographers to get with the times.
I read this book a few months ago and I agree with the reviewer that this is an excellent book. However, it tends to concentrate a great deal more on the politics surrounding Project Orion than the science much to my chagrin. Much of the information surrounding Project Orion is still classified so I don't necessarily blame the author for this, but those intending on reading the book should qualify their expectations.
I did get a great appreciation for the sheer size and magnitude of truly difficult engineering problems and the organizations and minds assigned to solving them.
All in all, it's a quick and easy interesting read that engineers and NASA junkies will likely enjoy.
One theory has that the sevens days specifically mentioned in Genesis refer to the days the creation of the Universe was revealed to Moses. If you inspect the way Genesis words the creation account, it is entirely plausible.
When people jump at the opportunity to put creationism and evolution at odds, it speaks more about the person's point of view and biases than about the theories themselves. Evidence to suggest a species evolution is not evidence against creationism, just as evidence against evolutionary theory (or the proof that previously credited evolutionary evidence is false...such as pilt down man) is not evidence in support of creationism. Each theory contributes quite elegantly to each other if you really think about it, and together they paint a complete picture on explaining the origin of the universe.
The caveat to all of this is that either or both can be completely and totally wrong, since it requires a faith presupposition to hold either one.
Oh yeah. I was around 10 at the time. I bet I traced his drawings 150 times apiece. His best was the one that had the monster with a tank in place of his legs...eerily similar to the first boss in Smash TV (which I believe came out later).
My submission was pretty horrible as well. I created what was more or less a sequel to Blaster Master. It was a lot of fun.
Nintendo Power sponsored a contest around 12 or so years ago challenging its readers to come up with spiffy game concepts and submit them. They got some pretty incredible submissions that were incredibly detailed and highly original. The winner was a neat design by budding 14 year old artist Jeffrey Scott Campbell, who I believe went on to a career as a comic book artist. Some dedicated Nintendo junkie out there might still have the issue in question to verify.
Slashdot Mirror
convervative = conservative
I wonder who 'investors' voted for? I'll bet a dime to a dollar that, by and large, Wall Street voted for Bush. Why do you think the Harvard Business School is convervative?
Quit making stuff up.
...and yet still infinitely more qualified than Gore. ...and yes he did win the election. Everyone who's gone into Florida to do a recount (using every criteria imaginable) has conceded that Bush received more votes. This argument is not just tired, it's dead, buried, and rotting. Get over it McAuliffe.
I think your prevailing winds blew by the chicken houses before they got to Slashdot because all you did was expunge a lot of hot air and it stinks too.
I simply don't believe that you actually buy that line of crap. I think you just like trolling.
You really think a president can have an effect on the economy within a month and a half of his presidency?????
Oh my goodness. I post the same thing as the parent and I'm a troll, while his is modded up as interesting.
The inmates are running the asylum.
friggin hippie left wingers...
You're right, it is amazing. It seems that a Republican must come in every time and clean up the mess left by some socialist Democrat who taxed Americans into oblivion.
I'm thankful every day Gore isn't in office. I'd probably still be employed but I'd be in the bread line nonetheless.
By definition, the belief in creationism is a logical necessity of being a christian.
The only thing a Christian is logically expected to believe is that all was created by God. Not how he did it. The definition of creationism the parent poster was using was one that was exclusive of any evolutionary science.
If you argue that an atheist can have no morals, then you're effectively saying that society as a whole has no morals, and the church has been inefective in providing a moral framework in the first place.
Western society was born of Christian ideals, yet it has gradually moved away from that in many respects. Abortion is an excellent example of this taking place.
I also did not say that an atheist cannot conduct themselves morally. The problem is that when society adjusts its moral position, the atheist must follow suit as well. The atheist has ceded all means of morally reasoning that one action is superior to another action. If all actions are then morally equal, how can we point out any deficiencies??
The point I'm making is that any dynamic means of determining morality is philosophically flawed. It must be absolute. There are plenty of things that fall outside of moral action that one might consider moral action (drinking alcohol is an example of this) but that's a perception problem, not a moral problem.
The point is, I have to base my worldview on something, and I have chosen evolution simply because the weight of the evidence is in its favour.
Christians don't base their worldview on creationism. That's why it's quite silly for you to actually base your worldview on evolution. I still don't think you understand the philosophical aspects of the discussion. Maybe we are just firing past each other, but there's definitely a disconnect here.
Then you admit to not understanding neither science nor philosophy.
classic!
"It looks like the wheels are coming off! This time for sure! No really, this looks very bad for Microsoft!"
Posted by [any_slashdot_editor] on [several_times_every_stinking_day]
from the Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf Department
Whenever you commission a photographer to photograph an event, he or she usually retains all rights to the photographs taken. However, when you commission an artist to do a painting, all rights to that painting belong to you. For example, if someone wants to include the painting in an art book, getting permission from the artist typically does no good. You must get permission from the person who owns the painting. Photographs cannot be reprinted without permission of the photographer since the photographer typically retains all rights to his or her pictures.
I agree, it's time for photographers to get with the times.
I think it was moved into the public domain in the early second century, kind of like RSA.
I'm with you. The whole thing sounds really fishy.
Sorry. I had to convince everyone I was smart to whore karma.
I read this book a few months ago and I agree with the reviewer that this is an excellent book. However, it tends to concentrate a great deal more on the politics surrounding Project Orion than the science much to my chagrin. Much of the information surrounding Project Orion is still classified so I don't necessarily blame the author for this, but those intending on reading the book should qualify their expectations.
I did get a great appreciation for the sheer size and magnitude of truly difficult engineering problems and the organizations and minds assigned to solving them.
All in all, it's a quick and easy interesting read that engineers and NASA junkies will likely enjoy.
One theory has that the sevens days specifically mentioned in Genesis refer to the days the creation of the Universe was revealed to Moses. If you inspect the way Genesis words the creation account, it is entirely plausible.
When people jump at the opportunity to put creationism and evolution at odds, it speaks more about the person's point of view and biases than about the theories themselves. Evidence to suggest a species evolution is not evidence against creationism, just as evidence against evolutionary theory (or the proof that previously credited evolutionary evidence is false...such as pilt down man) is not evidence in support of creationism. Each theory contributes quite elegantly to each other if you really think about it, and together they paint a complete picture on explaining the origin of the universe.
The caveat to all of this is that either or both can be completely and totally wrong, since it requires a faith presupposition to hold either one.
The New York Times inability to report the news and instead to be a political mouthpiece is well documented.
Ummm...I can't find any reports of anyone being killed.
Maybe you should retract your salvo unless you can find proof that what you say is true.
Oh yeah. I was around 10 at the time. I bet I traced his drawings 150 times apiece. His best was the one that had the monster with a tank in place of his legs...eerily similar to the first boss in Smash TV (which I believe came out later).
My submission was pretty horrible as well. I created what was more or less a sequel to Blaster Master. It was a lot of fun.
Nintendo Power sponsored a contest around 12 or so years ago challenging its readers to come up with spiffy game concepts and submit them. They got some pretty incredible submissions that were incredibly detailed and highly original. The winner was a neat design by budding 14 year old artist Jeffrey Scott Campbell, who I believe went on to a career as a comic book artist. Some dedicated Nintendo junkie out there might still have the issue in question to verify.
If only I had moderation points to mod you up.
...I'm just another married brother that feels your pain.