Well it is an important discussion. But I still cling to the idea that wasteful spending is only as absurd in relation to how much money you have to begin with.
I like to gamble. And for the longest time, it blew me away that there would be people in the middle of the casino betting $10,000 a hand. How can anyone bet a third of the average persons salery and not bat an eye. Then I realized, to these people they are taking out of it the same pleasure and risk that I do making my measly $5 a hand bet.
And I can't begrudge them that. It's all relitive, and that's a fact of life. The truth is, nobody who's been there can understand the motivation of the extrodinarly wealthy. But from what I've observed, the wealthy have the same ideocyrancies, abitions, or insecurities as the rest of us.
The billionare who spends $85m on a rare painting is no different then the record store clerk who spends $200 on a rare comic book he's been dreaming of.
I think I understand where you're coming from, however. There is that issue of having a social responsibility, and spending so much at once at one time seems like a betrayal of that responsibility. To me it doesn't. What is worse in the aggrigate, a billionare spending $85m in one day, or 85 million average Americans throwing away a dollar on a can of soda or cup of coffee they don't need?
Not only do the super rich spend more money on charity, they spend more of their income as a percentage on them (ok, the motivation may be for taxes, but still). So yeah, it's hard to put it the right perspective, but in the end it works out.
As a footnote, keep in mind I only absolve them when they don't hurt anyone. (I guess you could argue that they are hurting people by not giving their money up to humanitarian causes... but no more then your average slashdot reader harms them by buying the latest video card instead of throwing the cash into a collection plate). I don't begrudge the super rich for indulging when they can afford it. But when a corporate CEO throws a $3 million birthday party for his wife while crushing the hopes and dreams of thousands of people, that I can never condone.
I guess I'm going way off an a tangent here, but the point is, it doesn't bother me that some people would spend $20,000 on a motion simulator home theatre. It can't, when I could see myself spending 20% of that on my non-motion enhanced home theatre system.
Put all the legal teams in a cage and give them knifes. The legal team still standing at the end gets $1 million, and their client wins. (Appeals could be handled by pistols at 20 paces).
The outcome would stand about the same as the current way our courts work, just faster and far more entertaining.
You forget that most people who buy expensive art do so (at least partially) as an investment.
Granted, when the Van Gogh sold for $85M it probably was at the height of conspicious consumption, but chances are if he chose to sell it, he wouldn't lose that much as a percentage.
The problem is, too many people in this world are motivated by greed, and some of our best advancements to humanity are motivated by that same greed (or lust for power, or fame) above and beyond the pure humanitarian inspiration.
I would bet that a large number of the doctors who develop a cure for cancer, aids, or help cure Christopher Reeves wouldn't be in that profession if A:) they weren't paid handsomly (and enjoy the luxery items afforded by that salery), and B:) weren't receiving acces to the resources or facilities unless they worked for big medical companies motivated again by money.
Of course there is that level of extravagance that just seems insane to people like you and me. I would have no want (or need) for jewel encrusted cellphones, but then again I can't understand the attraction towards jewerly that many women have. (Though my favorate example, which made me laugh and slightly nausated at the same time was the diamond covered hand bag emblazed with the star-fleet emblem at the gift shop near the Star Trek experience in Las Vegas).
But I don't have a problem spending thousands of dollars a year on technology equipment. I really don't need it, I'm not using it to help anyone. I just like it. I derive pleasure from it. This is a pretty large expenditure in relation to my income, and I don't care.
We all spend large sums of money on things we don't need. All we REALLY need, if we don't have a family, is a roof over our heads and some food. The average single person could afford that working part time at a mini-mart. Instead we create a cycle of consumption that (eventually) trickles over to humanitarian persuits.
If every technophile slashdot user stoped buying new computers and devoted that money to charity, they would raise far more then the $85 million one man spent on a painting. But they won't, and in certian respects, they shouldn't. Stop buying consumer electronics and computers, economys start to suffer, less money to charities in the long run.
And that $85 million did make somewhat of a difference in peoples lives. It continued to cement the idea that art is a legitimate asset. If artists can make more money (or money flows to all artists), we end up with more art. I know that seems like a hudge expenditure for a very small and subtle impact on a community, but hey, it's better then nothing.
I don't have the magic formula for determining at what price frivolity becomes irresponsible.
I see what your saying, but really, it's an issue of what you have vs. what you spend. If you were to follow the logic that $20,000 for something that is purly for entertainment/status, then you'd have to chastise anyone with a luxery car knowing full well a cheap Honda gets you from point A to point B just fine.
That having been said, I'd probably never buy one even if it wouldn't effect me financially, but that's only because it wouldn't appeal to me. But if that floats your boat and you've got the cash, by all means get one.
I should have winlinux running on Windows 2000 running on linux running from my X-box emulator I installed on WINE on top of Linux on my Mac... just as soon as I get Mac0S off the machine.
I don't understand the fascination with the 600 mile separation. The people who need to control things directly with their neurons are going to be much more interested in manipulating their immediate environment.
Vacationing parents might care.
"Dear, my mind nanny is showing that our little Johnny is thinking about throwing a party now that we're away"
"We'll see about that!" (holds fingers to temples). 600 miles away, thwap!. "That'll show him!"
That's what pisses me off about the anti-religious creationists.
"Oh no! A fundie wacko has found a hole in our theory. Let's not indentify it as a legimate hole and just sweep it under the rug instead of using science to try to figure it out!!!"
I enjoy studying about the evolution of species, and I'm sorry to say, the wackos are right. There are some holes in the theory. That doesn't mean the theory is wrong, it just means that there are some unanswered questions. The point of the orgininal thread I started was to throw out the suggestion that this new discovery might patch one of those holes.
If you don't see those holes, you are dismissing the scientific method with the same bigotry and zelousness as the fundies you dislike so much.
Basically it comes down to you forcing me and my family to accept the bible as the literal truth, which I will never do. And me trying to get you to understand that given billions of years Evolution is not only possible but probable.
Funny use of words. I already am pretty sure, as far as the evidence is concered, that evolution is both possible and probable.
That is a conclusion based on logic, despite trying to be 'forced' to belive that it's true (I went to a public High School!).
I don't think I, or anyone else in this thread has tried to force you into beliveing that the bible as a literal truth. You can form your own conclusions.
Then you get people who get to listen to God and write it down hoping details won't be lost.
Then you get to have it edited by people trying to interpert a mans version of what God really said.
Then you get religion, which preaches what an orginization thinks was ment by an editor who reviewed the writing of a prophet who talked to God.
Then you get the end user who picks and chooses what the orginization thinks was said by the editor who tried to figure out what was meant by the prophet who actually got the Truth from God.
Gee wiz, you think a few things might have gotten lost?
Again, I agree with you. Perhaps not on all the details, but at least in spirit.
Heck, I'm Catholic. The pope recently said that Jews are cool and get to go to Heaven regardless if they belive in Jesus or not. I have no problem with that (though it makes some of the more fundimentalist sects of Christianity go absolutly apeshit).
There are two things that made me feel very comfortable with faith, and both were told to me by clergy members. The first was from a nun responding to my naturally smart ass and inquisitive nature. I asked her if the bible says you can't go to Heaven unless you accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior, what happens if you grew up in the darkest jungles of Aferica and never heard of God do they spend an eternity in hell through no fault of their own? Her response: "I don't really think God is that cruel".
The second was from a preist in college (Yes, I went to a Catholic college). To paraphrase, "One of the greatest gifts God gave us was that we don't have to judge people. That's His Job"
I feel cool with that. Now, to get back on topic, No, the big bang/creationist theories are NOT mutially exclusive. The point of me starting this thred was that I thought it was so great that a question that was not previously answered might be answered now from a scientific view.
In a perfect world, we could have these kinds of discussions without even bringing religion into light. But that seems impossible, and it seems more of the fault of the Athiests then the faithful. Doing an informal count of posts, far more were being critical of the topic because of it's implications regarding the validity of evolution from a religious point of view then creationists tooting their own horn or for people trying to discuss it in a purly scientific manner put together.
Again, I don't follow your reasoning, and have a difficult time understanding why it's 'logic'. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to understand.
If god is to be credited with natures' successes, why not natures' failures as well?
I doubt anyone would not credit God with natures failures. The origin of the Universe is not a baseball game where only the winners thank Hod.
You mean to say that we can understand the 'will of god' when it comes to explaining useful differences, but we cannot explain why he created all these obviously useless differences?
Nobody can compleatly understand 'The Will of God' as to why some things are useful and some are not. The great thing about science is the more we learn, the more we understand the role things previously thought useless play in the nature of biology (or anything for that matter).
And that's supposed to be a scientific theory?
No, that is NOT a scientific theory. But helps to think of it in those terms. Intellegent design suggests (as far as my understanding of it is) that the ordered nature of biological orginizisms develop and change according to a pre-determined plan by an onipotent force. In other words, the design of biological entities is ordered according to a plan.
Science gives us a wonderful tool in examining these structures to understand the cause and effect relationship they have with the physical world. Weather or not they have been designed as such (or the initial biological orgninisims which have evolved into what we study now) by a sentient diety or by pure chance is a question best left up to theolgians or philosophers. Ultimatly, the scientific approach to the theory of evolution is sound.
However, intellegent design is brought foward as a response to the implied motivation of the evolutionary theory which states that there is not, nor can not be any sort of sentient motivation behind biological development.
A ball is droped onto the pavement.
Why was the ball dropped?
Evolutionist: Because gravity pulled it to the ground. Period.
Intellegent design: Because somebody wanted to let it go to allow gravity to pull it to the ground.
I can be totaly off base, and if so, I'd invite proponents of intellegent design to tell me where I'm wrong. This is just how I see it.
I'd have to agree... and yes, it's just semantics. One thing, however. I don't view the Bible as metaphore, I simply see it as something attempting to describe a complex universe in ways understandable to the people of the time.
Try to think of a way to explain the automobile to a peasent in the first century in terms he or she could grasp. "A carrage as smooth as glass, 10 feet long and 5 feet high, with 200 horses inside it's belly". It's going to seem a bit strange until you consider the context.
I can't say that I agree with your fast and lose interpritation.
God is God, and science is science. God created science. Until we get to know God, the science He gave us is pretty darn interesting. From a scientific standpoint, evolutionary theory is the best thing we have.
Let me ask you this. If you want to get super technical, take all known species on the planet. Figure out their aprox. weight and size and ask yourself if they could fit in the Arc of Noah (a ship whos size is clearly defined).
They can't. I don't know about you, but the best answer I have is devation from the initial species through natural selection and quite possibly evolution.
Ignoring all the people who want to get into a creationist vs. evolution debate, I find this very interesting. (For the record, I'm a Christian who is interested in science.)
I've always been curious about evolution, but have found a problem in it that I havn't been able to get around.
We can see natural selection at work withen a species before our eyes in a matter of generations, but have yet to see any dramatic jump that evolutionary theory supports.
Could this be the answer? Could these stored up Genes have enough in side of them to not only modify a breed of species, but create an entirly new one? I'd love to see more research on this.
If so, we have discovered the final missing link in evolutionary theory.
To be proud to be an American. It's just hard to feel good about a country that is so great because it has protected freedoms when those freedoms are slowly being taken away.
When we reach a point where freedom of speach is only limited to something the government agrees with, we have lost what is sacred to us and have become no better then the countries and orginizations we demonize.
Way back then, I always thought this was the best business model you could have. Give your software away for free, make your cash on related support (books, phone support, etc.)
It was partially to address a mindset I had at the time (and still do today to a lesser extent); If I'm going to pay a good chunk of cash for something, I want to have something tangible. It just didn't seem right to plunk out $50+ for a floppy disk, but perfectly already to spend the same amount of money for a well written and comprehensive text I could keep on my bookshelf.
In a round about way, I think many software companies are going that route, espically when it comes to games. The software still costs way too much, but now comes with little or no documentation often requiring you to purchase supplimental texts just to figure out how the thing works.
Linux embrases this philosophy much better. Go to a software store today, and it makes a heck of a lot more financial sense to buy a large user guide that happens to include a free, full working copy of the OS then to spend twice as much for an OS that only includes a 12 page booklet on installation tips.
I know for one I've helped out MS far more by pirating windows then hurting it. I can think of at least a hundred people I've helped become comfortable with windows for no other reason then I gained a high level of technical mastery of the product from my pirated copies (which I would probably never have purchased on my own).
Of course, now that I have a job I make sure we have legal copies of MS products, partially because I'm afraid of the hammer comming down if the BSA decided we were naughty, but partially because it's the right and moral thing to do. I'm no longer a kid messing around, I am dealing with a company who actually uses these products to make money.
All in all it's turned into a beautiful symbotic relationship. I pirate windows so I can learn how to fix it when it breaks and help keep the market share up for paying customers, while MS makes buggy bloated software that requires technical people to keep running properly, keeping me in a job. It's win win.
So, when is the Bush administration going to get serious about terrorists in this country and take out America's largest and most heavily financed terrorist organization?
Even the president doesn't have that kind of legal power.
My life is so boring, even if the government was able to find out everything about me, I doubt they would care.
I actually feel sorta bad for the government guys who have to deal with this stuff. When I go through the computer, I must set off some red flags, but if they examine it closely the worst they will find is I tend to get too drunk in the airport bar before I board the plane, try to flirt with the airline attendent in a terribly clumsy way, and fall asleep.
I guess they could tap my phone, but the most contraversial thing that I've discussed was bugging my mom for spending too much money on curtans for her house.
I don't like the fact that profilling happens, but I also feel bad for the people who have to do it. On paper I'm a real bad person. In reality, I'm just dull and any investigation of my life ends up in a innane exercise in tedium.
I've been getting that same email.. the one where you give them your checking account number and you get to help them transfer lots of cash and make a bit for your self.
Of course, I know it was a scam the first time I saw it, and have seen it come and go over the last 8-10 years in different forms.
So one day I decided to start fowarding these to the FBI. Afterall, they had a return e-mail, a phone and a fax number.
I'm not going to fall for it, but my guess is people do, so the FBI should start looking into it.
But it doesn't seem as if they have. What, some lady falls for it and looses over $2 million of her companies cash, and the FBI says 'oh wow, well that's a big deal I guess'.
Um, that's just terribly disapointing. How hard would it be to set up a dummy account, work in colaberation with Interpool (or whatever international police agency would have authority), and throw these fuckers in jail? Why does it take one niave person to waste millions of her companies assets before it becomes an issue?
Man, I love my country, but gosh, I wish our law enforcement was a little more proactive.
Slashdot Mirror
Well it is an important discussion. But I still cling to the idea that wasteful spending is only as absurd in relation to how much money you have to begin with.
I like to gamble. And for the longest time, it blew me away that there would be people in the middle of the casino betting $10,000 a hand. How can anyone bet a third of the average persons salery and not bat an eye. Then I realized, to these people they are taking out of it the same pleasure and risk that I do making my measly $5 a hand bet.
And I can't begrudge them that. It's all relitive, and that's a fact of life. The truth is, nobody who's been there can understand the motivation of the extrodinarly wealthy. But from what I've observed, the wealthy have the same ideocyrancies, abitions, or insecurities as the rest of us.
The billionare who spends $85m on a rare painting is no different then the record store clerk who spends $200 on a rare comic book he's been dreaming of.
I think I understand where you're coming from, however. There is that issue of having a social responsibility, and spending so much at once at one time seems like a betrayal of that responsibility. To me it doesn't. What is worse in the aggrigate, a billionare spending $85m in one day, or 85 million average Americans throwing away a dollar on a can of soda or cup of coffee they don't need?
Not only do the super rich spend more money on charity, they spend more of their income as a percentage on them (ok, the motivation may be for taxes, but still). So yeah, it's hard to put it the right perspective, but in the end it works out.
As a footnote, keep in mind I only absolve them when they don't hurt anyone. (I guess you could argue that they are hurting people by not giving their money up to humanitarian causes... but no more then your average slashdot reader harms them by buying the latest video card instead of throwing the cash into a collection plate). I don't begrudge the super rich for indulging when they can afford it. But when a corporate CEO throws a $3 million birthday party for his wife while crushing the hopes and dreams of thousands of people, that I can never condone.
I guess I'm going way off an a tangent here, but the point is, it doesn't bother me that some people would spend $20,000 on a motion simulator home theatre. It can't, when I could see myself spending 20% of that on my non-motion enhanced home theatre system.
Put all the legal teams in a cage and give them knifes. The legal team still standing at the end gets $1 million, and their client wins. (Appeals could be handled by pistols at 20 paces).
The outcome would stand about the same as the current way our courts work, just faster and far more entertaining.
You forget that most people who buy expensive art do so (at least partially) as an investment.
Granted, when the Van Gogh sold for $85M it probably was at the height of conspicious consumption, but chances are if he chose to sell it, he wouldn't lose that much as a percentage.
The problem is, too many people in this world are motivated by greed, and some of our best advancements to humanity are motivated by that same greed (or lust for power, or fame) above and beyond the pure humanitarian inspiration.
I would bet that a large number of the doctors who develop a cure for cancer, aids, or help cure Christopher Reeves wouldn't be in that profession if A:) they weren't paid handsomly (and enjoy the luxery items afforded by that salery), and B:) weren't receiving acces to the resources or facilities unless they worked for big medical companies motivated again by money.
Of course there is that level of extravagance that just seems insane to people like you and me. I would have no want (or need) for jewel encrusted cellphones, but then again I can't understand the attraction towards jewerly that many women have. (Though my favorate example, which made me laugh and slightly nausated at the same time was the diamond covered hand bag emblazed with the star-fleet emblem at the gift shop near the Star Trek experience in Las Vegas).
But I don't have a problem spending thousands of dollars a year on technology equipment. I really don't need it, I'm not using it to help anyone. I just like it. I derive pleasure from it. This is a pretty large expenditure in relation to my income, and I don't care.
We all spend large sums of money on things we don't need. All we REALLY need, if we don't have a family, is a roof over our heads and some food. The average single person could afford that working part time at a mini-mart. Instead we create a cycle of consumption that (eventually) trickles over to humanitarian persuits.
If every technophile slashdot user stoped buying new computers and devoted that money to charity, they would raise far more then the $85 million one man spent on a painting. But they won't, and in certian respects, they shouldn't. Stop buying consumer electronics and computers, economys start to suffer, less money to charities in the long run.
And that $85 million did make somewhat of a difference in peoples lives. It continued to cement the idea that art is a legitimate asset. If artists can make more money (or money flows to all artists), we end up with more art. I know that seems like a hudge expenditure for a very small and subtle impact on a community, but hey, it's better then nothing.
I don't have the magic formula for determining at what price frivolity becomes irresponsible.
I see what your saying, but really, it's an issue of what you have vs. what you spend. If you were to follow the logic that $20,000 for something that is purly for entertainment/status, then you'd have to chastise anyone with a luxery car knowing full well a cheap Honda gets you from point A to point B just fine.
That having been said, I'd probably never buy one even if it wouldn't effect me financially, but that's only because it wouldn't appeal to me. But if that floats your boat and you've got the cash, by all means get one.
I should have winlinux running on Windows 2000 running on linux running from my X-box emulator I installed on WINE on top of Linux on my Mac... just as soon as I get Mac0S off the machine.
I don't understand the fascination with the 600 mile separation. The people who need to control things directly with their neurons are going to be much more interested in manipulating their immediate environment.
Vacationing parents might care.
"Dear, my mind nanny is showing that our little Johnny is thinking about throwing a party now that we're away"
"We'll see about that!" (holds fingers to temples). 600 miles away, thwap!. "That'll show him!"
No, you're not an idiot. I wasn't correcting your spelling, I was just pointing out typos. I probably have more typos and spelling errors then most.
That's the main reason why I want to see voice reconignition software. The input will be slower, but at least it'll look good.
In the next 30 years:
Personal transportation will be more efficent and quite possibly cheaper
Processors will become much much faster they are are today. It is likely that processor powered devices may become smaller.
There will be people in the general public interested in space travel.
Most of the world will use the Internet. Some may even use it for pornography.
Now where are my bags of money?
...Even A modest typer can type better then speak. Imagine an office with everyon talking to their computers.
Even in star treck there was very little actual voice command...
Yeah, but imagine how much smarter everyone will sound.
That's what pisses me off about the anti-religious creationists.
"Oh no! A fundie wacko has found a hole in our theory. Let's not indentify it as a legimate hole and just sweep it under the rug instead of using science to try to figure it out!!!"
I enjoy studying about the evolution of species, and I'm sorry to say, the wackos are right. There are some holes in the theory. That doesn't mean the theory is wrong, it just means that there are some unanswered questions. The point of the orgininal thread I started was to throw out the suggestion that this new discovery might patch one of those holes.
If you don't see those holes, you are dismissing the scientific method with the same bigotry and zelousness as the fundies you dislike so much.
Basically it comes down to you forcing me and my family to accept the bible as the literal truth, which I will never do. And me trying to get you to understand that given billions of years Evolution is not only possible but probable.
Funny use of words. I already am pretty sure, as far as the evidence is concered, that evolution is both possible and probable.
That is a conclusion based on logic, despite trying to be 'forced' to belive that it's true (I went to a public High School!).
I don't think I, or anyone else in this thread has tried to force you into beliveing that the bible as a literal truth. You can form your own conclusions.
First you have God.
Then you get people who get to listen to God and write it down hoping details won't be lost.
Then you get to have it edited by people trying to interpert a mans version of what God really said.
Then you get religion, which preaches what an orginization thinks was ment by an editor who reviewed the writing of a prophet who talked to God.
Then you get the end user who picks and chooses what the orginization thinks was said by the editor who tried to figure out what was meant by the prophet who actually got the Truth from God.
Gee wiz, you think a few things might have gotten lost?
Again, I agree with you. Perhaps not on all the details, but at least in spirit.
Heck, I'm Catholic. The pope recently said that Jews are cool and get to go to Heaven regardless if they belive in Jesus or not. I have no problem with that (though it makes some of the more fundimentalist sects of Christianity go absolutly apeshit).
There are two things that made me feel very comfortable with faith, and both were told to me by clergy members. The first was from a nun responding to my naturally smart ass and inquisitive nature. I asked her if the bible says you can't go to Heaven unless you accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior, what happens if you grew up in the darkest jungles of Aferica and never heard of God do they spend an eternity in hell through no fault of their own? Her response: "I don't really think God is that cruel".
The second was from a preist in college (Yes, I went to a Catholic college). To paraphrase, "One of the greatest gifts God gave us was that we don't have to judge people. That's His Job"
I feel cool with that. Now, to get back on topic, No, the big bang/creationist theories are NOT mutially exclusive. The point of me starting this thred was that I thought it was so great that a question that was not previously answered might be answered now from a scientific view.
In a perfect world, we could have these kinds of discussions without even bringing religion into light. But that seems impossible, and it seems more of the fault of the Athiests then the faithful. Doing an informal count of posts, far more were being critical of the topic because of it's implications regarding the validity of evolution from a religious point of view then creationists tooting their own horn or for people trying to discuss it in a purly scientific manner put together.
Makes you wonder.
Again, I don't follow your reasoning, and have a difficult time understanding why it's 'logic'. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to understand.
If god is to be credited with natures' successes, why not natures' failures as well?
I doubt anyone would not credit God with natures failures. The origin of the Universe is not a baseball game where only the winners thank Hod.
You mean to say that we can understand the 'will of god' when it comes to explaining useful differences, but we cannot explain why he created all these obviously useless differences?
Nobody can compleatly understand 'The Will of God' as to why some things are useful and some are not. The great thing about science is the more we learn, the more we understand the role things previously thought useless play in the nature of biology (or anything for that matter).
And that's supposed to be a scientific theory?
No, that is NOT a scientific theory. But helps to think of it in those terms. Intellegent design suggests (as far as my understanding of it is) that the ordered nature of biological orginizisms develop and change according to a pre-determined plan by an onipotent force. In other words, the design of biological entities is ordered according to a plan.
Science gives us a wonderful tool in examining these structures to understand the cause and effect relationship they have with the physical world. Weather or not they have been designed as such (or the initial biological orgninisims which have evolved into what we study now) by a sentient diety or by pure chance is a question best left up to theolgians or philosophers. Ultimatly, the scientific approach to the theory of evolution is sound.
However, intellegent design is brought foward as a response to the implied motivation of the evolutionary theory which states that there is not, nor can not be any sort of sentient motivation behind biological development.
A ball is droped onto the pavement.
Why was the ball dropped?
Evolutionist: Because gravity pulled it to the ground. Period.
Intellegent design: Because somebody wanted to let it go to allow gravity to pull it to the ground.
I can be totaly off base, and if so, I'd invite proponents of intellegent design to tell me where I'm wrong. This is just how I see it.
I'd have to agree... and yes, it's just semantics. One thing, however. I don't view the Bible as metaphore, I simply see it as something attempting to describe a complex universe in ways understandable to the people of the time.
Try to think of a way to explain the automobile to a peasent in the first century in terms he or she could grasp. "A carrage as smooth as glass, 10 feet long and 5 feet high, with 200 horses inside it's belly". It's going to seem a bit strange until you consider the context.
Wow. That's a fancy line of reasoning you've got there.
Intellegent design is bunk because nature is more complex then God. You're going to have a lot of converts on that one.
I can't say that I agree with your fast and lose interpritation.
God is God, and science is science. God created science. Until we get to know God, the science He gave us is pretty darn interesting. From a scientific standpoint, evolutionary theory is the best thing we have.
Let me ask you this. If you want to get super technical, take all known species on the planet. Figure out their aprox. weight and size and ask yourself if they could fit in the Arc of Noah (a ship whos size is clearly defined).
They can't. I don't know about you, but the best answer I have is devation from the initial species through natural selection and quite possibly evolution.
Do you have a better explination?
Ignoring all the people who want to get into a creationist vs. evolution debate, I find this very interesting. (For the record, I'm a Christian who is interested in science.)
I've always been curious about evolution, but have found a problem in it that I havn't been able to get around.
We can see natural selection at work withen a species before our eyes in a matter of generations, but have yet to see any dramatic jump that evolutionary theory supports.
Could this be the answer? Could these stored up Genes have enough in side of them to not only modify a breed of species, but create an entirly new one? I'd love to see more research on this.
If so, we have discovered the final missing link in evolutionary theory.
To be proud to be an American. It's just hard to feel good about a country that is so great because it has protected freedoms when those freedoms are slowly being taken away.
When we reach a point where freedom of speach is only limited to something the government agrees with, we have lost what is sacred to us and have become no better then the countries and orginizations we demonize.
Way back then, I always thought this was the best business model you could have. Give your software away for free, make your cash on related support (books, phone support, etc.)
It was partially to address a mindset I had at the time (and still do today to a lesser extent); If I'm going to pay a good chunk of cash for something, I want to have something tangible. It just didn't seem right to plunk out $50+ for a floppy disk, but perfectly already to spend the same amount of money for a well written and comprehensive text I could keep on my bookshelf.
In a round about way, I think many software companies are going that route, espically when it comes to games. The software still costs way too much, but now comes with little or no documentation often requiring you to purchase supplimental texts just to figure out how the thing works.
Linux embrases this philosophy much better. Go to a software store today, and it makes a heck of a lot more financial sense to buy a large user guide that happens to include a free, full working copy of the OS then to spend twice as much for an OS that only includes a 12 page booklet on installation tips.
I know for one I've helped out MS far more by pirating windows then hurting it. I can think of at least a hundred people I've helped become comfortable with windows for no other reason then I gained a high level of technical mastery of the product from my pirated copies (which I would probably never have purchased on my own).
Of course, now that I have a job I make sure we have legal copies of MS products, partially because I'm afraid of the hammer comming down if the BSA decided we were naughty, but partially because it's the right and moral thing to do. I'm no longer a kid messing around, I am dealing with a company who actually uses these products to make money.
All in all it's turned into a beautiful symbotic relationship. I pirate windows so I can learn how to fix it when it breaks and help keep the market share up for paying customers, while MS makes buggy bloated software that requires technical people to keep running properly, keeping me in a job. It's win win.
So, when is the Bush administration going to get serious about terrorists in this country and take out America's largest and most heavily financed terrorist organization?
Even the president doesn't have that kind of legal power.
*sigh*.
It's nice to see at least one news source keeping up the struggle to expose Scientology for the cult they are.
I just hope they don't go too far before they get sued into the ground.
I for one really dislik....
er, never mind. I don't that kind of money to protect myself.
My life is so boring, even if the government was able to find out everything about me, I doubt they would care.
I actually feel sorta bad for the government guys who have to deal with this stuff. When I go through the computer, I must set off some red flags, but if they examine it closely the worst they will find is I tend to get too drunk in the airport bar before I board the plane, try to flirt with the airline attendent in a terribly clumsy way, and fall asleep.
I guess they could tap my phone, but the most contraversial thing that I've discussed was bugging my mom for spending too much money on curtans for her house.
I don't like the fact that profilling happens, but I also feel bad for the people who have to do it. On paper I'm a real bad person. In reality, I'm just dull and any investigation of my life ends up in a innane exercise in tedium.
I've been getting that same email.. the one where you give them your checking account number and you get to help them transfer lots of cash and make a bit for your self.
Of course, I know it was a scam the first time I saw it, and have seen it come and go over the last 8-10 years in different forms.
So one day I decided to start fowarding these to the FBI. Afterall, they had a return e-mail, a phone and a fax number.
I'm not going to fall for it, but my guess is people do, so the FBI should start looking into it.
But it doesn't seem as if they have. What, some lady falls for it and looses over $2 million of her companies cash, and the FBI says 'oh wow, well that's a big deal I guess'.
Um, that's just terribly disapointing. How hard would it be to set up a dummy account, work in colaberation with Interpool (or whatever international police agency would have authority), and throw these fuckers in jail? Why does it take one niave person to waste millions of her companies assets before it becomes an issue?
Man, I love my country, but gosh, I wish our law enforcement was a little more proactive.
That to find out this information, somebody had to type /lusers over and over again?
In the meantime, I suppose I'm supposed to feel good that I was idling through a small peice of history.