If it were a democracy, we could address it this November 2. Being a republic, we'll have a 2-4 year lag time while we educate ourselves and our representatives on the issue, then press for our representatives to take some sort of action. If they fail to take the actions we (assuming we is a majority or a vocal, organized minority) want, we can find a different candidate, and elect that candidate in his/her stead.
We'll be able to address this issue. But not this November, and probably not next year, either. Our legislative system moves slowly, except when there are smoking piles of rubble on the nightly news.
Actually, I think that this was a smart move. Want to get the average gas-guzzling American interested in alternative sources of energy? Which is a more effective illustration: a nearly transparent, one-passenger 50-pound "car" that my poodle could pull, or a '98 S10 running on sunlight and water?
I'd say that the choice of the S10 was deliberate, and absolutely brilliant.
Well said. I'm a fervent Bush supporter, and I agree with you 100%. Good job disclosing the essence.
(Well, maybe 99% - I'd not go so far to say that Bush "lied" to use re the rationale for an Iraq invasion, as that implies a deliberate disregard for the truth. I do agree with you, however, that we should find fault in him, and take him to task, for failing to uncover that truth, regardless of how many government agencies or foreign leaders were present to corroborate. Too much was and is at stake to let that oversight slide.)
Then you lose, don't you, for saying you can't say "You can't say that" and win an argument?
Never said you couldn't (didn't have the right to) say it.
You have every right to attempt to silence your oppenent. It happens all the time, in the name of "patriotism" or "political correctness." You also have the right to shout expletives, speak in malformed sentences, or to declare "I'm superior because I've been chosen by God."
All of these actions, however, are sure signs that you're about to lose in a political contest.
A "patriotic" American will defend the his opponents' rights to voice their contrary opinions. Or, as Voltaire almost said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
Political discourse in America often turns ugly. Whoever first says, "You can't say that" has, in my opinion, lost the argument.
How are "copy protected" music CDs doing? How about the 5-day self-destructing DVD sales?
Game developers/publishers are free to implement any protection technology they desire. In the end, though, all non-trivial copy-protection schemes share one (un?)intended result: they're an inconvenience to a certain percentage of the honest, paying customers. If either the inconvenience level or the percentage are high enough, sales will suffer.
The markets will decide whether or not StarForce is viable. Long-winded arguments on/. will not.
down instead of converted. Would that make the Saudis any happier? Or MS could have just left them as churches, and the Muslim faithful could attend mosque under the cross. Still not acceptable? Any alternatives I've missed?
What the Saudis object to is the concept of the game. They object to a Muslim team grabbing land from a Christian team.
I wonder how the demographics (age, sociopolitical bent, level of education) of slashdot compares with that of the US in general. I wonder as well what portion of the readership resides outside of the US. Is this stat available?
Remember the hue and cry from Boston that the political protesters were sequestered to fenced, razor-wired, roofed facility away from the convention center? Neither do I. Didn't seem to make it into the papers.
Remember the outrage when "Dude, Where's My Country" and "Against All Enemies" weren't given shelf space at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and other nationsl bookstores? Neither do I. Anti-Bush books don't seem to have trouble making it onto the shelves, even if they're not Number one on Amazon.com and BN.com
I'm a supporter of free speech. I happen to think that I'm smart enough to make an informed decision, given access to the information. I think a majority of my fellow Americans would put themselves into that same bucket.
I'm sick of the hypocrisy. I enjoy hearing arguments against Bush. There are a lot of them. Some of them are even well-formed. I don't see any arguments against Kerry seeing the light of day. His lawyers and the media simply won't allow it. And it'll be a cold day in Hell before we see Nader allowed into a presidential debate. I'm just sick of it.
Let's all pick some random resident from the middle of Ohio and write him in for President in November, and be done with the whole mess.
Do you honestly think that there is a "main slashdot template" that describes the majority of the readership? Or are you just using this to make a point?
I've come to the realization, over the past two years, that there is representation for just about every political, social, fiscal, and religious belief present here. The amazing part is, it's the "fringe view" that often gets positive moderation. I don't think that this was true five years ago -- we were a much more homogeneous crowd back then.
All in all, I've seen the mod system working well to advance insightful/informative/interesting discussion -- regardless of the philosophy of the poster -- when the poster truly does have something worthwhile to say.
As a community, slashdot impresses the hell out of me.
Actually, I heard that if Kerry won, he wanted to replace it Theresa with a bottle of ketchup under one arm and a sack of cash raised above her head with the other.
Personally, I think he'd never go through with it, for fear of offending the French.
I did not RTFA, but IIRC, fingerprint scanners are to fingerprints what MD5 hashes are to passwords -- the scanner reads the print, calculates a bunch of measurements, then stores the hash on the server. An image of the fingerprint is not retained.
Of course, the FBI could use that same hash algorithm on all of the fingerprints in its inventory, and one LEFT JOIN later...
Re:GNU/Linux is not ready for "vs. Windows"
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 1
Hate to pick at a nit, but you can't buy a Linux PC off the shelf at Wal-Mart (yet) -- they're only available on-line.
While I agree that Wal-Mart's selling Linux PC's probably isn't helping Linux image or penetration at all, I don't think that Wal-Mart is using the Linux PC offering to aim at any advancement in status for Linux per se -- Wal-Mart is solely interested in advancing its profits.
If there's an ET that seeds life on this planet, then you still need to explain how the ET came about. So, you've just added to the puzzle the question of why and how the ET seeded life - the origins of life are still unknown. By Occam's Razor, this argument is not helpful.
I'm not willing to concede this point. As I've said in previous posts, I do see evolution as valid - but that some developments don't seem to fit into Darwinian evolutionary theory very well.
Take a look at Intel's latest processor. It's unimaginably complex. How could a human ever design something that complex? Answer: he didn't -- he relied on a computer to do the bulk of the design work. And the computer he used to to design it -- where did that come from? Designed with the aid of an earlier computer. And so on, until we get back to the point where computers are simple enough to be assembled by hand from their component parts.
Assume that, at least in the case of the Earth, some evolution of life was not spontaneous, but rather directed by an ET intelligence. It's quite plausible that the interloping ET evolved (in a Darwinian fashion) without any outside assistance. Or, if not that ET life, then its designer, and so on -- analagous to my processor reference. At some point in the chain, an ET intelligent life evolved via natural selection, in small, explainable quanta -- pure Darwinian evolution, without the need for a Creator of Intelligent Designer.
I just don't think that it happened here, on Earth.
I'm a firm believer in evolution. I think Darwin hit the nail on the head with his Galapagos finches, and we see it in the modern day with drug-resistant bacteria. Fossil evidence of the dinosaurs does a reasonable and acceptable job of supporting evolution there as well. I aknowledge that I am more than likely the distant descendant of Australopithecus. There certainly isn't a better theory available.
There are some biological complexities, however, which don't neatly fit into Darwinian Evolution. Perhaps a better theory will emerge in the near future which helps explain away a few more of these conundra.
Until then, I'm reminded of Einstein's comment - "God does not play dice with the universe."
There are a few things that - being of finite brain, not being able to comprehend unbelievable large or small numbers - force me to believe instead in intelligent design:
-quantum entanglement -the existence of singularities -e=mc^2 (could it be more perfect?) -certain complex life structures (chloroplast, flagellum)
It's not that I picture a backlit bearded giant sitting on a throne in Heaven pointing a finger and directing Creation. I see the universe as a cohesive unit, with a purpose and a plan. The wheels are constantly in motion, and most of our observations can be explained within our understanding of physics and mathematics.
But not everything is so easily explained. There's something going on we still don't understand. And it's not just plain dumb luck.
You find the possibility of quintillions of bacteria living for billions of years happening onto something that is improbable to be less plausible than the existence all-knowing all-seeing imaginary friend who has never revealed his presence in any way?
Yes, exactly. Some evolution is easily and logically understood as natural adaptation to changes in environment, or taking advantage of an ecological niche. I find the development of the flagellum - a freakish modification which led to greater survivability several million generations later - too outlandish to fit into either of those categories. To believe in such "natural" development requires a "faith" in the improbable that elevates science to a religion. A creator is much simpler, and much easier to believe.
The two more commonly accepted "creators" are:
1) The Creator (God, or, in your language, the all-knowing all-seeing imaginary friend)
2) An extra-terrestrial intelligent being (hacker?) who "seeded" life on this planet billions of years ago.
In theory, the two are very different. In practice, the two may be indistinguishable by us in our lifetimes, if either in fact exists.
I'd hazard a guess that those who don't believe in a Creator God are the most likely candidates to believe that there exist ET intelligence somewhere in the universe. Isn't the eye or the flagellum strong evidence that such intelligence exists, and has shown its hand here on Earth?
Don't let your reluctance to believe in "God" get in the way of scientific evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
If it were a democracy, we could address it this November 2. Being a republic, we'll have a 2-4 year lag time while we educate ourselves and our representatives on the issue, then press for our representatives to take some sort of action. If they fail to take the actions we (assuming we is a majority or a vocal, organized minority) want, we can find a different candidate, and elect that candidate in his/her stead.
We'll be able to address this issue. But not this November, and probably not next year, either. Our legislative system moves slowly, except when there are smoking piles of rubble on the nightly news.
Who the hell moderates a Monty Python reference "Informative"?
Actually, I think that this was a smart move. Want to get the average gas-guzzling American interested in alternative sources of energy? Which is a more effective illustration: a nearly transparent, one-passenger 50-pound "car" that my poodle could pull, or a '98 S10 running on sunlight and water?
I'd say that the choice of the S10 was deliberate, and absolutely brilliant.
Fantastic. I followed the link, then clicked on "try this page" only to find that we had /.ed the Coral server.
Back to the drawing board...
I've got my own CO2 extract factories; they're parked in my garage.
In the immortal words of Rush:
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
I will choose Freewill.
Well said. I'm a fervent Bush supporter, and I agree with you 100%. Good job disclosing the essence.
(Well, maybe 99% - I'd not go so far to say that Bush "lied" to use re the rationale for an Iraq invasion, as that implies a deliberate disregard for the truth. I do agree with you, however, that we should find fault in him, and take him to task, for failing to uncover that truth, regardless of how many government agencies or foreign leaders were present to corroborate. Too much was and is at stake to let that oversight slide.)
Then you lose, don't you, for saying you can't say "You can't say that" and win an argument?
Never said you couldn't (didn't have the right to) say it.
You have every right to attempt to silence your oppenent. It happens all the time, in the name of "patriotism" or "political correctness." You also have the right to shout expletives, speak in malformed sentences, or to declare "I'm superior because I've been chosen by God."
All of these actions, however, are sure signs that you're about to lose in a political contest.
A "patriotic" American will defend the his opponents' rights to voice their contrary opinions. Or, as Voltaire almost said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
Political discourse in America often turns ugly. Whoever first says, "You can't say that" has, in my opinion, lost the argument.
This happens in the game, as well.
I'm having trouble seeing step 2. in the business plan.
Exactly how does one make money selling $20 digital cameras?
There's not a lot of profit in 20 cent digital prints.
The article states that they can be recycled 5 to 8 times - but each recycling costs them money, right?
Is this a low profit, high volume scheme? Can I short their stock?
How are "copy protected" music CDs doing?
/. will not.
How about the 5-day self-destructing DVD sales?
Game developers/publishers are free to implement any protection technology they desire. In the end, though, all non-trivial copy-protection schemes share one (un?)intended result: they're an inconvenience to a certain percentage of the honest, paying customers. If either the inconvenience level or the percentage are high enough, sales will suffer.
The markets will decide whether or not StarForce is viable. Long-winded arguments on
down instead of converted. Would that make the Saudis any happier? Or MS could have just left them as churches, and the Muslim faithful could attend mosque under the cross. Still not acceptable? Any alternatives I've missed?
What the Saudis object to is the concept of the game. They object to a Muslim team grabbing land from a Christian team.
Get over it. It's a game.
Forged Unsolicited Commercial Email DOS
Well said.
I wonder how the demographics (age, sociopolitical bent, level of education) of slashdot compares with that of the US in general. I wonder as well what portion of the readership resides outside of the US. Is this stat available?
Remember the hue and cry from Boston that the political protesters were sequestered to fenced, razor-wired, roofed facility away from the convention center? Neither do I. Didn't seem to make it into the papers.
Remember the outrage when "Dude, Where's My Country" and "Against All Enemies" weren't given shelf space at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and other nationsl bookstores? Neither do I. Anti-Bush books don't seem to have trouble making it onto the shelves, even if they're not Number one on Amazon.com and BN.com
I'm a supporter of free speech. I happen to think that I'm smart enough to make an informed decision, given access to the information. I think a majority of my fellow Americans would put themselves into that same bucket.
I'm sick of the hypocrisy. I enjoy hearing arguments against Bush. There are a lot of them. Some of them are even well-formed. I don't see any arguments against Kerry seeing the light of day. His lawyers and the media simply won't allow it. And it'll be a cold day in Hell before we see Nader allowed into a presidential debate. I'm just sick of it.
Let's all pick some random resident from the middle of Ohio and write him in for President in November, and be done with the whole mess.
Do you honestly think that there is a "main slashdot template" that describes the majority of the readership? Or are you just using this to make a point?
I've come to the realization, over the past two years, that there is representation for just about every political, social, fiscal, and religious belief present here. The amazing part is, it's the "fringe view" that often gets positive moderation. I don't think that this was true five years ago -- we were a much more homogeneous crowd back then.
All in all, I've seen the mod system working well to advance insightful/informative/interesting discussion -- regardless of the philosophy of the poster -- when the poster truly does have something worthwhile to say.
As a community, slashdot impresses the hell out of me.
Since when is Canada part of America?
Has been forever.
Oh, wait - did you mean "The United States of America" or "North America"?
Actually, I heard that if Kerry won, he wanted to replace it Theresa with a bottle of ketchup under one arm and a sack of cash raised above her head with the other.
Personally, I think he'd never go through with it, for fear of offending the French.
I think you're mistaken.
I did not RTFA, but IIRC, fingerprint scanners are to fingerprints what MD5 hashes are to passwords -- the scanner reads the print, calculates a bunch of measurements, then stores the hash on the server. An image of the fingerprint is not retained.
Of course, the FBI could use that same hash algorithm on all of the fingerprints in its inventory, and one LEFT JOIN later...
Hate to pick at a nit, but you can't buy a Linux PC off the shelf at Wal-Mart (yet) -- they're only available on-line.
While I agree that Wal-Mart's selling Linux PC's probably isn't helping Linux image or penetration at all, I don't think that Wal-Mart is using the Linux PC offering to aim at any advancement in status for Linux per se -- Wal-Mart is solely interested in advancing its profits.
Why not just assume life evolved on Earth until we see convincing evidence to the contrary?
Sadly, that's just what this whole thread is about. I see the development of the flagellum as one such piece of convincing evidence.
If there's an ET that seeds life on this planet, then you still need to explain how the ET came about. So, you've just added to the puzzle the question of why and how the ET seeded life - the origins of life are still unknown. By Occam's Razor, this argument is not helpful.
I'm not willing to concede this point. As I've said in previous posts, I do see evolution as valid - but that some developments don't seem to fit into Darwinian evolutionary theory very well.
Take a look at Intel's latest processor. It's unimaginably complex. How could a human ever design something that complex? Answer: he didn't -- he relied on a computer to do the bulk of the design work. And the computer he used to to design it -- where did that come from? Designed with the aid of an earlier computer. And so on, until we get back to the point where computers are simple enough to be assembled by hand from their component parts.
Assume that, at least in the case of the Earth, some evolution of life was not spontaneous, but rather directed by an ET intelligence. It's quite plausible that the interloping ET evolved (in a Darwinian fashion) without any outside assistance. Or, if not that ET life, then its designer, and so on -- analagous to my processor reference. At some point in the chain, an ET intelligent life evolved via natural selection, in small, explainable quanta -- pure Darwinian evolution, without the need for a Creator of Intelligent Designer.
I just don't think that it happened here, on Earth.
I love it when a discussion comes together.
I'm a firm believer in evolution. I think Darwin hit the nail on the head with his Galapagos finches, and we see it in the modern day with drug-resistant bacteria. Fossil evidence of the dinosaurs does a reasonable and acceptable job of supporting evolution there as well. I aknowledge that I am more than likely the distant descendant of Australopithecus. There certainly isn't a better theory available.
There are some biological complexities, however, which don't neatly fit into Darwinian Evolution. Perhaps a better theory will emerge in the near future which helps explain away a few more of these conundra.
Until then, I'm reminded of Einstein's comment - "God does not play dice with the universe."
There are a few things that - being of finite brain, not being able to comprehend unbelievable large or small numbers - force me to believe instead in intelligent design:
-quantum entanglement
-the existence of singularities
-e=mc^2 (could it be more perfect?)
-certain complex life structures (chloroplast, flagellum)
It's not that I picture a backlit bearded giant sitting on a throne in Heaven pointing a finger and directing Creation. I see the universe as a cohesive unit, with a purpose and a plan. The wheels are constantly in motion, and most of our observations can be explained within our understanding of physics and mathematics.
But not everything is so easily explained. There's something going on we still don't understand. And it's not just plain dumb luck.
You find the possibility of quintillions of bacteria living for billions of years happening onto something that is improbable to be less plausible than the existence all-knowing all-seeing imaginary friend who has never revealed his presence in any way?
Yes, exactly. Some evolution is easily and logically understood as natural adaptation to changes in environment, or taking advantage of an ecological niche. I find the development of the flagellum - a freakish modification which led to greater survivability several million generations later - too outlandish to fit into either of those categories. To believe in such "natural" development requires a "faith" in the improbable that elevates science to a religion. A creator is much simpler, and much easier to believe.
The two more commonly accepted "creators" are:
1) The Creator (God, or, in your language, the all-knowing all-seeing imaginary friend)
2) An extra-terrestrial intelligent being (hacker?) who "seeded" life on this planet billions of years ago.
In theory, the two are very different. In practice, the two may be indistinguishable by us in our lifetimes, if either in fact exists.
I'd hazard a guess that those who don't believe in a Creator God are the most likely candidates to believe that there exist ET intelligence somewhere in the universe. Isn't the eye or the flagellum strong evidence that such intelligence exists, and has shown its hand here on Earth?
Don't let your reluctance to believe in "God" get in the way of scientific evidence.