Yeah, it is pretty small. Most MWVs can be played elsewhere. I basically used WMP just to stream my music from certain web radios that didn't support anything but WMP.
Of course now, I know that VLC plays those, so um... that was useless.
Only thing left is a plugin viewer for ZDF.de media streams. Flip4Mac should do that fine.
Well, that and the stupid mistake of taking out a mortgage and getting a house- but if it wasn't for the kid I could eventually just go bankrupt and walk away from that.
This is not at all intended with malice.
But technically, you could do the same with your kid. You just have to decide if walking away is worth being the worst dad in the world... I think most people would decide to stick around.
Plus, I think there might be criminal liability involved with that choice. So, it generally all around would suck to do so. A pretty good example of a Hobson's choice Except this one is leading you down the more moral path, so it shouldn't be much of a point of dilema for most people.
Plus, it gives you the ultimate in with the female co-eds by being "helpful", which leads to dates, and eventually to the family, and the house bought on a 30 year mortgage guaranteed by your small but never-decreasing paycheck.
I gotta say, from my emperical experiences, this doesn't work for me. So, YMMV.
Sure, "could care less" is potentially sarcastic (could -> couldn't). But any retard knows sarcasm without a tone of voice indication requires a lot less ambiguity to be clearly transmitted.
Except the way ever teenager (and older now that we've grown up) speaks the phrase is with a sarcastic tone. I'm sorry you're not in the "in crowd" but it's really quite simple to figure that an initially sarcastic phrase can also simply become an idiomatic phrase meaning its opposite.
I check the display, and it doesn't have an ABS light at all. Again, nothing's conclusive till I actually slam on the brakes really hard and feel the result.
I'm really starting to think now that neither of the cars I complained about had ABS at all. In which case, I'm practically amazed that I managed to stop as well as I did. Considering, I was likely presented with situations as in the above article.
Of course, I had been driving both vehicles for a long time before I had to perform these panic stops, and I had a good feel for how both handled.
The S10 though, nothing much but dry road surface... there's a reason why wrecks go through the roof in New Mexico when it snows, because no one has any experience driving on icey surfaces. When it only happens once a year during non-drought conditions, it's hard to get any experience at all. Of course, if they had special driving ranges where people can practice all-weather conditions, it'd be nice.
Sounds like a good excuse to go play in the parking lot late tonight.:)
Do some straight-line panic stops, do some swerves, do some corner-braking, do some swerve-braking, and try some serve-panic-stops (be careful, you may spin your car).
Not only is that kind of practice boat loads of fun, but it might very well save your life one day.
Yeah.... that's definitely a good idea. I also have this thing where I essentially have a desire to handle my car closer to the limit during normal driving than most people. Some of my friends have insisted that when I get a "real" car, that I'm going to kill myself.
This would definitely be something nice for me to do, and it might save my life, but then again, it might get me more intimate with the machine, and then I might drive harder, and then I might kill myself...
While I'm certain that 120W would be sufficient to power their computer, I imagine the electron microscope to read the screen would use up a little more juice.
As someone else already posted, those are ideal conditions for ABS to work. In my experience in breaking a car with ABS doesn't leave any doubt that the ABS is working. You will feel the break pedal pulsate quickly and hear a sharp grinding/rattling noice from the hydraulics system. If the ABS is active you will notice. (And that is the way it's supposed to work, don't ease off on the break.)
Yeah, that's what I assumed also, and why I initially posted. I'm thinking that since all my ABS history is on dry tarmack, or other dry surfaces that it's possible that I'm not acustomed to the feedback presented by ABS kicking in on a slippery surface.
Wow... not to be an ass, but you don't really know how to drive, do you?
Not to be an ass in response, but I do.
You need to "blip" or "chop" the throttle in order to match wheel speed with road speed. The reason you were sliding is that when you let the clutch out, there was a signficant difference between the two. Chop on upshift, blip on downshift. Blipping being the most important of the two because it usually happens while already decelerating, and hence "using up" some of your traction.
Wow, it's like you read my mind on exactly what I had to do in order to not slide off the road everytime I shifted gears. I still initially slipped in the phase between where I had the clutch in while I was letting it out, in the very beginning of when the gear started gripping, because it's impossible to know how much throttle I need to give in order to match the wheel speed with road speed until there's actual feedback.
Okay. If the ABS did not kick in, either the ABS system was not working correctly (do you ever test it?), you do not have ABS, or you did not push the brake pedal hard enough.
I will not discount the first possibility, nor the second. I don't know the truck well enough. I did however definitely push the brake pedal hard enough.
The fact that you were able to use engine braking suggests that, at the very least, your driving (rear) wheels were not locked -- otherwise, the engine would have stopped. Unless your clutch is slipping. In which case you would not have been engine braking.:)
Unless I slipped the clutch manually by feel such that my engine wouldn't stop. You're right though... if my rear wheels were fully slipping engine braking wouldn't have helped.
Engine braking will NEVER help mitigate the lack of road traction. The only advantage engine braking offers is that it can be controlled on a particular pair of wheels (rear, in your case) -- it's like an auxilliary brake. The handbrake will also off similar functionality on some cars. It can't help mitigate the lack of road traction, because the engine doesn't touch the road. At least it shouldn't. The road/vehicle interface is still the tires, which are controlled directly by the brakes and/or engine. If you were able to slow more because of engine braking and ABS was not engaged, one of two things is true:
- Your brakes are substandard
- You were not pressing hard enough on the brake pedal
When the brake pedal doesn't go any further I think that's pressing hard enough on the brake pedal. I assure you, I was pressing quite firmly on the brake pedal.
It's possible that ABS feels different on a slippery surface, and I didn't notice the "studdering" because the difference in traction between the breaking when the brakes were engaging and when the breaks were being lessened is not as drastic as it is on a dry road. (I'm highly accustomed to driving in dry roads, being from New Mexico, land of 360 sunny days a year.)
Thus, the ABS were working, but I just don't have enough experience with ABS+slippery road conditions to recognize when it is working on that surface. The fact that the engine breaking helped indicates that I was getting traction, and the rear tires were not locked. That or my "driving feel" took over for the ABS... I'd rather bet on the former, than the later.
This usually happens when more braking force is achieved on one left/right pair of wheels than the other. Like when two wheels are on ice and two are on snow. This is one thing ABS and is supposed to prevent.
Yeah, well, it happened with both vehicles. Thus, my cause for concern.
Well, your wheels weren't locked, and the ABS hadn't kicked in yet. You could have done a better job braking (assuming your truck is in good working order). The fact that engine braking helped on a pick-up truck is interesting, because as you brake, much of the vehicle's weight will transfer to the forward wheel
If you stopped right before hitting the car in front of you, chances are that you would probably have hit him if the ABS had engaged. The most effective way to stop is to have all the wheels blocked. This however gives you no control of direction.
You did not read all of my post. I know how ABS works, and I know what it feels like when it engages. It did not engage, because I did not get the brake "studdering" that ABS causes.
Proffesional drivers will be able to maintain the same control that the ABS gives, but will be able to stop faster by controling the clutch and breakes correctly.
Actually, I saw a race on TV of professional drivers. GT, and the class right under that. The lead GT driver was driving a Mustang, that had it's ABS go out on the drivers (they had two drivers that would switch at the pit), and they had a bit of trouble with breaking, in that they were so accustomed to ABS that they no longer had a good sense of braking distance.
A properly trained Professional driver can maintain the same control that ABS supplies, but only if they are acustomed to driving without ABS.
Let's suppose that there is a God. How, then, do you know which religion is the right one?
I don't. I made an arbitrary choice that was dictated by my birth, rearing, and education.
Had I been raised around a different religion, then I would have likely picked that one. Either way, my necessity for the belief in God hasn't been diminished by the fact that I might be wrong in my selection.
You keep saying that and I keep proving you to be a liar.
Um...
Usage note Generally speaking, systems of belief that do not involve the existence of one or more deities, such as Buddhism, can be considered a religion, though some people prefer a stricter definition that excludes the possibility of a non-theistic religion. Others are in favor of a very general definition of religion: that any belief or system of beliefs is a religion or part of a religion, including science and atheism.
You can refuse my definition, but it doesn't mean that I'm wrong, or that other people don't agree with me, and not with you.
Even by your definition above it doesn't fit. If atheism is a religion, then you are a member of numerous religions. You are an anti-{every religion that's ever been with the exception of Christianity, tooth fairy, FSM etc. etc. et.c}ian. It's stupid and pointless to claim that, and it's fundamentally dishonest. *You* need religion for whatever reason. I don't. I'm not trying to claim superiority, but it is a fundamental difference between us.
YES! I am a member of numerous religions. Yes, I'm anti-every religion that isn't my own.
Why is it dishonest to say what I actually consider to be true?
I can accept that you don't need a belief in supernatural beings and such, and that you don't need anything but rational science. But to me religion != belief in the supernatural. religion is simply a philosophical belief system, which allows it to cover things like Zen Buddhisml.
The CIA world fact book lists the official religion of China as "Atheism". It's good enough for them to label it a religion, wtf is wrong with you? What did "religion" do to you to make you have such a negative connotation of the word?
What personally upsets me now that I think about it, is that I've been in two heavy breaking situations. Situations where it was just suddenly realized that traffic is stopping, and I need to stop NOW.
There's no choice of massaging the break, I needed all of the grip potential of the tires to go into me stopping.
The problem is that the two cars I was driving at the time both either didn't have ABS, or the ABS didn't function because I was on a very slippery surface.
The first time I was driving a Chevy S10 on an icey road surface, so icey that while shifting gears the mere act of letting out the clutch would cause a loss of traction. I was travelling at 10mph, and took all my concentration to drive. Suddenly, there's a huge line of cars stopped in front of me, and I had to stop. No ABS kicked in, and I ended up stopping barely in time by using engine breaking to help mitigate the lack of road traction. My car rotated slightly laterally (maybe 10~20 degrees) to the right in the process. I barely stopped in time.
The next time was just recently (New Year's) on a slippery road surface (from rain, yay Seattle). I was driving along at say around 30~40, I think. I'm trying to move to the right so I can get off the highway, when traffic stops because the exit before my exit (for the space needle) is backed up to Vancouver (it seemed like) and the lane next to it naturally is filled with people trying to either merge in, or merge out of that lane. So, they stop. I'm forced to break hard in a Honda Accord '92 model, (a quick google says that later models of my car should have anti-lock breaks) but while breaking, the ABS did not engage, and I slid, quite frustratingly to a stop just before hitting the car in front of me.
I had a '91 Chevy Corsica with ABS for a long tme. At one point the alternator went out, and the battery was slowly losing charge. At some point losing battery power, the system would turn off the ABS and give a red "ABS" signal on the driver information display. I got kind of used to driving without the ABS there, and when I finally fixed the problem, and the battery was all charged again, and I once again had ABS, it was kicking in all over the place. (Yeah, I drive harder than I need to.) It kind of upset me that the ABS was kicking in, where I knew from previous experience that my car would not skid on.
So, now I'm presented with three situations. Two were situations that ABS should have kicked in, but didn't. At least one of those cars certainly had ABS, and another situation where the ABS was going off before it needed to.
I dunno... ABS is good for drivers inexperienced at stopping hard. But I can't say I've had particularly happy results with it myself.
You claim to lack a religion, but to me religion is any belief system that explains the creation of the world and what its nature is.
Now, excuse me if I'm wrong, but I think you have some sort of belief about those one way or the other.
Your free to disagree with my definition, but to me, you still have a religion. A belief system however well justified it might well be, to me is still a religion. If you can honestly tell me that we are perceiving reality, and we are not brains in a jar being fed perceptual data, then you have a belief system defining the world.
Atheism isn't a religion.
Yes, it is.
No they aren't. Send them to a religious school. Problem solved.
Not problem solved, I would have to pay money out of my own pocket in order to send my children to a private religious school. Meanwhile, if I'm happy with my children being taught in a sanitized environment that infringes regularly on their free excercise of religion, then I can send them to public school.
You're not indecent for not accepting the simple basic fact of evolution. You're indecent for trying to shove religious dogma into science classes. It's an insult to freedom, it's an insult to decency, and it's an insult to your own god.
The position presented in most science classes is that there is no need for a God, and also teaching that what we don't need to exist shouldn't be presumed to exist.
I've not said that ID be taught in public schools, you're assuming that I'm on the ID side of the argument.
Perhaps, I just feel that the state should pay for my childs education where ever that education happens to occur, so that I can send my children to a religious school without having the burden of paying for it.
What a truly frighteningly delusional person you are. Your sole issue is that *your* religion is not being shoved down people's throats in direct violation of the founding principles of this country. You're honestly saying that searching for answers is evil?!? WTF dude.
Your position was to call my religion evil without actually evaluating any of its properties. You assume that I'm a supporter of ID, and attempt to paint my religion as evil.
Right, because I don't blindly accept your beliefs and promote forcing them on others, I'm an evil heretic. Your insane attittude is exactly why the seperation of church and state was enacted.
I had an argument with one person about this before. He kept complaining that everyone was trying to "push their beliefs on him", while he himself was being evangelistic about his atheism.
He was attempting to force his ideas on other people, and at the same time, when someone attempted to present anything in opposition to his ideas, they were suddenly pushing their beliefs on him. He has been a hypocrit beyond compare for me.
You are more than welcome to come up with another scientific theory that explains the observed phenomena. Why is it that nobody on your side of this debate has even tried to do so?
We have, you just refuse to call it "science". Of course, you also refuse to call atheism a "religion". Funny how a little thing like semantics can allow you to control people.
No it isn't. It is fundamentally founded on various other religious beliefs, most especially human sacrifice, sun worship, and astrology.
HAHAHAHAHAHA... thanks for your total misunderstanding of my faith.
Again with this insanity. I choose to exercise my freedom *not* to believe in your favorite fairy story. That is not a religion.
And there you go again with your semantic definition to remove you from any responsibility of establishment. When the state religion of China is atheism.... are you saying they're wrong? That China has no state religion, and that they otherwise promote atheism? Or are you ok with the classification here, because it's descriptive, not damning?
Your implied comparison of the theory of evolution to mathematical theorems in order to show the former weaker is a common technique among creationists, especially those who either have a weak grasp of science or pander to an audience with the same. The improper tie of scientific theories to mathematical theorems, which can not be justified semantically except to distinguish the two, is a recurring shady tactic in this debate.
Fuck you and your strawman argument.
Perhaps I'm a well versed linguist, and I'm better able than you to evaluate the necessity of an examination of the semantic use of the word "theory".
As far as I'm aware the significant majority of textbooks do show evidence and justification to support evolution, and in any case teachers will present such information. This is likely true because:
1.) It's easiest to explain evolution initially by demonstration. Presentation of the various species of animals and the presentation of evidentiary branches of evolution. i.e. There are apes, and there are birds. It best likely follows that apes are related and birds are related. Also, presentation of the various stages of particular species, in particular we have the most popular evidence of man's evolution. 2.) Because to teach a theory without justification and evidence is to teach something authoritatively. Basically, one would be explaining that "evolution happens because scientists say so." Which I can guarentee you is most likely not happening in any classroom.
That will be truly sad day; suddenly, biology (not just evolution), astronomy, physics, medicine, and countless other scientific topics will be carvied into swiss cheese as the religious crackpots, mainstream and otherwise, line up to say that current scientific theories in these disciplines imply their teaching are wrong and hence atheistic. Sort of what we have now but a thousand times worse. You welcome this to our public education?
I can't say that I envy the outcome, but it is the only response to a system where our government is forbidden from establishing a state religion. I think it necessary for the state to have a guiding religion that they adhere do, but to permit the free practice of others. Namely, just switch the way Christianity is now, to Atheism.
One thing I will say, you are mostly right that proscribing the statment on the sticker seems to be not justified by using first ammendment, taken at face value of both the former and latter.
That was simply my goal to get people to consider this. If this sticker can be marked as establishment of religion, then what can and can't be? I seemed like this was passed on a slippery slope, and those are just dangerous all around, because they can lead to a horrible environment where people with essentially zero justification attempt to exert their position and rights over those that can demonstrate that justification.
The goal (or effect at least), seems to say that in the end, all beliefs, churchy or scientific, are equal, all systems of belief equivalent, all facts illusory, all opinions equal, all points of view equivalent, all actions justified.
CLOSE.
All beliefs are equal: for a government to assert otherwise would violate the right to religious freedom. All systems of belief are equivalent: not equivalent. equally justifiable. All facts are illusory: in that facts require a context to be true, yes All opinons are equal: considering that opinions are by definition non-facts, this should be accepted by everyone without argument. To assert otherwise leads to a position that could say that "I don't like onions" is wrong. All points of view equivalent: again, not equivalent, equally justifiable All actions justified: within a particular context. Some people who kill feel that their actions were necessarily justified. It's the job of a society to settle discrepencies between those actions and the good of that society. Basically, the society has to choose its context, which sometimes comes in direct disagreement with person actions.
Recognize this goal when you see someone painting science with the religion brush. Call them out on it, then stop talking to them - there is no way to have a reasonable discussion with such a person
Wrong, me and Marxist Hacker 42 had a conversation with someone who believed in science. He simply stated that his belief in science was his choice, and that he felt that it were justified. And despite the fact that we can assert that science is fundamentally unproveable had no effect on his position that science is reality.
We commended him and said that's all we ever want anyone to admit. That science still cannot answer the meta-physical question of what is reality.
But so many atheist and believers in science here on slashdot here "science is religion" and immediately fly off the handle and act like we haven't actually considered what this means.
I mean, fuck, me and Marxist Hacker 42 seem to have this argument every other week, we've discussed it A LOT.
Not irrelevant. And your choice of "religion" to mean a belief in hocus pocus is unreasonably restrictive of the semantic meaning of religion.
Opting not to believe some ridiculous nonsense is not a religious belief, it's basic common sense.
Religion is not ridiculous nonsense, and your opinion of religion as ridiculous nonsense, is ridiculous nonsense.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe in any god, so not believing isn't religious at all. Every single person who ever lived was born an atheist.
How do you know the infinite series of possibilities? I have a logical and responsible reason for believing in God. And nothing you can say can disprove my necessity to believe in God.
Therefore, my belief in God is justified, and reasonable, and not at all "ridiculous nonsense".
Yes I would. I'd be even happier if they left the sticker off entirely and explained fully (not in two sentences) what science is, how it works to include verification and revision of theories and models, and to what extent things can be proved or disproved in science Inside the book.
I would be very happy about that, too. But considering that the average person listens to the news and the news says, "Scientist says that he's cloned human cells," and they believe it, it's apparent that this is NOT taught sufficiently.
I remember that stuff from science education in my public school days, but maybe they don't teach it anymore - as evidenced by your misunderstanding of science
Fuck you, you don't have permission to attack me personally.
This little bit here shows a staggering misunderstanding of the topic of hand.
Or PERHAPS, I'm attempting to show that even in the strongest possible link of theory to fact, justification is still necessary in education.
This has little to do with the theories of science.
I knew this had little to do with science, I was working with the semantics of the word.
I don't think evolution is taught in any more or less authoritarian of a manner than other theories, though I concede all of science education is (possibly necessarily) authoritarian at introductory levels.
So, by only asserting against a single point their argument suddenly loses all merit or value? That sounds like a typical ID argument, that since scientists haven't proven it all, it's all worthless.
Maybe, maybe not. Many people disagree with you, including the courts, who intpret the ruling of the first ammendment, which you somehow managed to miss some nuance of, short as it is.
My assertion is that it's a gross misuse of the first amendment to say that a tauntology statement about science is supporting the establishment of a religion.
If only someone could get a court to rule that athiesm is a religion, they could then argue that evolution advances a religion, and that advancement warrants an establishment of a religion.
Tax-free status has got nothing to do with this, and even if it did, you might consider that just cause the government violates the bill of rights once, doesn't justify every other violation they feel like committing.
Tax-free status has EVERYTHING to do with this. Because at some point you could assert that it sets up an establishment of a religion. All I need to do is believe that I am a divine authority, and that I deserve tax-free status. When that is denied, then I assert that because the US grants tax-free status to some religious authorities, but not to me, that it is an establishment of religion. (same god damn shaky leg as declaring that an admittedly redundant statement about a single scientific statement is an establishment of religion)
It's not "Why remove something that was placed there by people with an agenda", it's "why even put it there?" They're the ones trying to shove their shit down everybody else's throats.
Your religion offends me! To suggest that there is no God is absolutely infuriating, and I do not want you to shove your shit down my, and my children's throat. The very nature of public education has only served to advance the Atheist religion, and due to law my children are being FORCED to go to that public school, and be taught things that I find fundamentally offensive!
They're the ones pissing off decent people.
Fuck you for calling me indecent. I have attempted to live my life in the strictest manner possible, avoiding all things that are indecent. Your presumption that just because I refuse to believe in the lies of evolution makes me not a part of "decent people" is offensive.
If reality pisses them off, fuck em. They're the ones trying to waste money on a redundt statement directed against one particular field of science that they're too cowardly to deal with.
You're the one attempting to establish your Athiestic religion by sugguating the public school system to pass on your evil religious motivations.
The entire point of their sticker is inflammatory. That's why they intentionally misuse the word "theory" That was my entire point in making up my sticker. I hope you didn't think my intent was that it shouldn't be inflammatory.
Of course I found your sticker inflammatory, and of course I knew you intended it to be inflammatory.
If a theory can be proven, then call it a fact. Stop calling it "the theory of evolution" and start calling it "the fact of evolution". It's apparent that you are so certain of your belief that evolution is correct that you're willing to discount any possibility that evolution may be wrong.
True, but I think "ripped off" is too kind in that respect. "The promoters of those ideas were brutally murdered and their ideas stolen in order to assert control over their faithful".
This is hardly accurate.
Which completely destroys any divine authority, and any reason to take it as anything besides a collection of fables.
This assertion is just as ridiculous as asserting that just because scientists can't explain how bees fly, that all of science is wrong. Divine authority need not be absolute, to still be correct.
They're all arbitrary. The reasons varied, but often were a matter of one group of bishops using trivial differences as an excuse to murder their opposition. That's why it's important to note that regardless of the particular translation, the selection of entire chapters was based on evil men's desire to subjugate their fellow man.
WTF is your problem continually asserting that everything was solved with murder and religion? Let's not forget that the Christian faith is fundamentally founded upon the deaths of their founding members.
Keep your church out of my state and I'll keep my state out of your church.
Keep YOUR religion out of MY state, and I'll start keeping my religion out of your state.
Please don't think I'm actually arguing for that.
Why don't you stick your balls out and actually argue for it? You're already being enough of an asshole to argue it, why not do so in earnest.
Personally, I don't feel a compulsion to argue anything unless I believe in it strongly enough to argue it in earnest.
The entire point of the ID movement is to destroy that most fundamental of American values.
Holy mythical maker! What the fuck? Are you seriously trying to assert this? Do you not know that the first amendment to the constitution, the first right given to the people in the bill of rights, is the freedom of religion.
FUCK! I hate the use of this word "American" as if that automatically means "good", and that "unamerican" is "bad". It leads to the stupidest statements
Many people imply though that wikipedia is essentially wrong (competing research products often present this view, of course they're biased) or at least so to the point that it is worthless as an academic or for any research.
Of course it's valid for research. It's hardly credible enough to use as a citation for a fact, or detail, but it's certainly sufficient for research. Depending on how strict citation and demonstrating sources are, it may even be sufficient for use in lower levels of education, where the standards of evidence are minimal, and the important thing is to learn how to support ideas from other sources.
Hell, in my High School we had some 10 year old Encyclopedias that were essentially all that we had available to do research with.
Because implicit in the purpose of the sticker is the idea that the theory of evolution is unlike the rest of theoretical science in this regard.
Would you be happier if it didn't single out evolution?
Further, the language of the sticker implies incorrect usage of the word theory.
So, just because a theory is provable means that it shouldn't be critically considered? Let's take a theory that definitely can be proven: "The square of the hypothenus is equal to the sum of the two other sides." We shouldn't present this and show how it's provable?
Any scientific theory, or even mathematical theory (that can even be logically proven) should be presented with the justification and evidence of that. Showing evolution as an authoritarian fact is the wrong way to present evolution to students.
Further, that the stick is religiously motivated, not scientifically motivated. I.E. there is no academic or scientific reason for the existence of the sticker that can't be better conducted within the text book itself or in texts on the philosophy of science.
If this information were presented as such, then there would be no need for the sticker, but in absense of that information, then it should be affixed onto the material after the fact.
There is, however, a clear religious motivation for the existence of the sticker. Hope that helps, bucko.
Regardless of there being a religious motivation of the sticker, it does not equate to establishment of a religion, and thus warrant removing it. The tax-free status of religious organizations is religiously motivated, but it's not denied to people under the presumption that it is establishing a state-sponsored religion.
I'm sure you are 100% in support of that. If not, then you are a hypocrite.
No, because it's not accurate.
If you wanted to put a sticker on public bibles saying, "The material in this book is presented as fact, although little of it can be historically validated. The information, which is contained within should be considered with a critical mind." I would be up for that. It's a public bible. I can insist that no such sticker be placed on my personal bible, as much as I make no assertion that such a sticker as I represented be placed upon your scientific textbooks.
It's a waste of time to label all science that way because science is *defined* that way.
Then if it's a waste of time, why fight that it's even there... This is my assertion, if the ID people were happy with that, then why not just leave it alone, why piss them off by going and insisting that they remove something that is an accurate, and nonoffensive clarrification of the contents.
I will now discuss the material that you ask our sticker to contain:
"The bible is a collection of stories ripped off from earlier religions
Not ripped of, evolved from, or borrowed from. The use of "ripped off" also is inflammatory. Also, The Bible has a number of stories borrowed from at the time contemporary religions. Your sticker would not indicate that.
and used as a means for the leaders of the Roman empire to subjugate their people.
Also, the pope, and medieval kings also used it to subjugate their people. Your sticker doesn't indicate this (this information is fine though) A less inflammatory statement than "subjugate" would be "control" their people, or "keep them in line."
Many different, conflicting, versions of the stories exist within the bible itself
Unarguable. Religious theologians though contend that they are different "viewpoints". I personally believe that James is the worst Gospel, and its variation in the presentation of the attitude of Jesus is quite literally opposed to the one presented in the other three Gospels.
Thus, I can't argue with this at all.
and many more stories were edited out primarily as a means to allow a few evil people to pillage and murder the supporters of the other equally valid stories.
Considering that most modern translations are from the oldest sources that we can gather, it's unlikely that modern bibles need to include this statement. More accurately would be that some books have been excluded from canon for essentially arbitrary reasons, just as well as some have been included for arbitrary reasons.
There is little, if any, evidence that there ever was a Jesus and the gospels were written long after his death by people who never met him if he ever did live."
Again, undisputable, and I accept that.
So, I would agree to: "The Bible is a collection of stories, some of which have been taken from other religions. Many parts of it have been used throughout history to control people. There exist differing, and conflicting versions of the stories within the bible, and the books of the Bible were not included, or included based on biased and essentially arbitrary reasons based on their compliance with established beliefs, rather than any reason for a belief of better accuracy or authority. Many details presented in the Bible have been used by people to wage war, murder and otherwise act against peoples believing in equally valid stories. There is little evidence that there ever was a Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and other people presented in the Bible, and the Gospels in particular were written after Jesus's death by people, who may never have met him, if he ever did live."
You want that as a sticker on public Bibles, I'm fine with it.
Occam's Razor is false logic; always has been. The scientific method is not. If you had followed my posts over my slashdot history you would find that I have debated extensively with everyone from script kiddies to NASA rocket scientists over the merits of Occam's Razor.
Please read up on Occam's Razor. It's not false logic, it's a logical challege to theories. Using it as proof or as a strong assertion of the truth-value of a statement is wrong.
Yes, that's what the razor would suggest. But the razor has been wrong in the past, and will be wrong again. We have 10,000 years worth of experiential evidence that an intelligent designer exists- we really need equal experiential evidence to deny one.
Well the point of Occam's Razor is the "necessity" part. Occam's Razor cannot be used in philosophy to disprove a theory, it can only be used to cast doubt upon a theory, "Is it necessary to create this XY?" For instance with say, quarks. We believed for a long time that atoms were indivisible (atom means indivisible) but then we saw evidence that atoms were in fact not divisible. Thus the need was presented that atoms need be made of SOMETHING, so that they might be divisible.
Occam's Razor in philosophy is never applied as a negative assertion, it can be used as a positive assertion, "I can explain this observance without inventing anything new." Thus providing that it is likely the best of alternates that cannot otherwise be verified. But the moment a need is generated, that explanation suddenly breaks Occam's Razor, it is in fact necessary to invent something, and thus the previous explanation is definitively wrong.
As with many philosophical tools, it is a tool for growing and working upon knowledge, not for asserting the truth against something.
You should likely never see a true philosopher argue against God with Occam's Razor. Because the innecessity of God has never been absolutely proven.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it is pretty small. Most MWVs can be played elsewhere. I basically used WMP just to stream my music from certain web radios that didn't support anything but WMP.
Of course now, I know that VLC plays those, so um... that was useless.
Only thing left is a plugin viewer for ZDF.de media streams. Flip4Mac should do that fine.
Well, that and the stupid mistake of taking out a mortgage and getting a house- but if it wasn't for the kid I could eventually just go bankrupt and walk away from that.
This is not at all intended with malice.
But technically, you could do the same with your kid. You just have to decide if walking away is worth being the worst dad in the world... I think most people would decide to stick around.
Plus, I think there might be criminal liability involved with that choice. So, it generally all around would suck to do so. A pretty good example of a Hobson's choice Except this one is leading you down the more moral path, so it shouldn't be much of a point of dilema for most people.
Plus, it gives you the ultimate in with the female co-eds by being "helpful", which leads to dates, and eventually to the family, and the house bought on a 30 year mortgage guaranteed by your small but never-decreasing paycheck.
I gotta say, from my emperical experiences, this doesn't work for me. So, YMMV.
Sure, "could care less" is potentially sarcastic (could -> couldn't). But any retard knows sarcasm without a tone of voice indication requires a lot less ambiguity to be clearly transmitted.
Except the way ever teenager (and older now that we've grown up) speaks the phrase is with a sarcastic tone. I'm sorry you're not in the "in crowd" but it's really quite simple to figure that an initially sarcastic phrase can also simply become an idiomatic phrase meaning its opposite.
I check the display, and it doesn't have an ABS light at all. Again, nothing's conclusive till I actually slam on the brakes really hard and feel the result.
:)
:)
;)
I'm really starting to think now that neither of the cars I complained about had ABS at all. In which case, I'm practically amazed that I managed to stop as well as I did. Considering, I was likely presented with situations as in the above article.
Of course, I had been driving both vehicles for a long time before I had to perform these panic stops, and I had a good feel for how both handled.
The S10 though, nothing much but dry road surface... there's a reason why wrecks go through the roof in New Mexico when it snows, because no one has any experience driving on icey surfaces. When it only happens once a year during non-drought conditions, it's hard to get any experience at all. Of course, if they had special driving ranges where people can practice all-weather conditions, it'd be nice.
Sounds like a good excuse to go play in the parking lot late tonight.
Do some straight-line panic stops, do some swerves, do some corner-braking, do some swerve-braking, and try some serve-panic-stops (be careful, you may spin your car).
Not only is that kind of practice boat loads of fun, but it might very well save your life one day.
Yeah.... that's definitely a good idea. I also have this thing where I essentially have a desire to handle my car closer to the limit during normal driving than most people. Some of my friends have insisted that when I get a "real" car, that I'm going to kill myself.
This would definitely be something nice for me to do, and it might save my life, but then again, it might get me more intimate with the machine, and then I might drive harder, and then I might kill myself...
It's all in weighing the consequences...
Useful info though, thanks for being an ass
While I'm certain that 120W would be sufficient to power their computer, I imagine the electron microscope to read the screen would use up a little more juice.
I can't emphasize this enough.
It's "and couldn't care less...." COULDN'T!!!
The comment "I could care less" is sarcastic.
But then, I could care less if you actually could understand.
As someone else already posted, those are ideal conditions for ABS to work. In my experience in breaking a car with ABS doesn't leave any doubt that the ABS is working. You will feel the break pedal pulsate quickly and hear a sharp grinding/rattling noice from the hydraulics system. If the ABS is active you will notice. (And that is the way it's supposed to work, don't ease off on the break.)
Yeah, that's what I assumed also, and why I initially posted. I'm thinking that since all my ABS history is on dry tarmack, or other dry surfaces that it's possible that I'm not acustomed to the feedback presented by ABS kicking in on a slippery surface.
Wow... not to be an ass, but you don't really know how to drive, do you?
:)
Not to be an ass in response, but I do.
You need to "blip" or "chop" the throttle in order to match wheel speed with road speed. The reason you were sliding is that when you let the clutch out, there was a signficant difference between the two. Chop on upshift, blip on downshift. Blipping being the most important of the two because it usually happens while already decelerating, and hence "using up" some of your traction.
Wow, it's like you read my mind on exactly what I had to do in order to not slide off the road everytime I shifted gears. I still initially slipped in the phase between where I had the clutch in while I was letting it out, in the very beginning of when the gear started gripping, because it's impossible to know how much throttle I need to give in order to match the wheel speed with road speed until there's actual feedback.
Okay. If the ABS did not kick in, either the ABS system was not working correctly (do you ever test it?), you do not have ABS, or you did not push the brake pedal hard enough.
I will not discount the first possibility, nor the second. I don't know the truck well enough. I did however definitely push the brake pedal hard enough.
The fact that you were able to use engine braking suggests that, at the very least, your driving (rear) wheels were not locked -- otherwise, the engine would have stopped. Unless your clutch is slipping. In which case you would not have been engine braking.
Unless I slipped the clutch manually by feel such that my engine wouldn't stop. You're right though... if my rear wheels were fully slipping engine braking wouldn't have helped.
Engine braking will NEVER help mitigate the lack of road traction. The only advantage engine braking offers is that it can be controlled on a particular pair of wheels (rear, in your case) -- it's like an auxilliary brake. The handbrake will also off similar functionality on some cars. It can't help mitigate the lack of road traction, because the engine doesn't touch the road. At least it shouldn't. The road/vehicle interface is still the tires, which are controlled directly by the brakes and/or engine. If you were able to slow more because of engine braking and ABS was not engaged, one of two things is true:
- Your brakes are substandard
- You were not pressing hard enough on the brake pedal
When the brake pedal doesn't go any further I think that's pressing hard enough on the brake pedal. I assure you, I was pressing quite firmly on the brake pedal.
It's possible that ABS feels different on a slippery surface, and I didn't notice the "studdering" because the difference in traction between the breaking when the brakes were engaging and when the breaks were being lessened is not as drastic as it is on a dry road. (I'm highly accustomed to driving in dry roads, being from New Mexico, land of 360 sunny days a year.)
Thus, the ABS were working, but I just don't have enough experience with ABS+slippery road conditions to recognize when it is working on that surface. The fact that the engine breaking helped indicates that I was getting traction, and the rear tires were not locked. That or my "driving feel" took over for the ABS... I'd rather bet on the former, than the later.
This usually happens when more braking force is achieved on one left/right pair of wheels than the other. Like when two wheels are on ice and two are on snow. This is one thing ABS and is supposed to prevent.
Yeah, well, it happened with both vehicles. Thus, my cause for concern.
Well, your wheels weren't locked, and the ABS hadn't kicked in yet. You could have done a better job braking (assuming your truck is in good working order). The fact that engine braking helped on a pick-up truck is interesting, because as you brake, much of the vehicle's weight will transfer to the forward wheel
If you stopped right before hitting the car in front of you, chances are that you would probably have hit him if the ABS had engaged. The most effective way to stop is to have all the wheels blocked. This however gives you no control of direction.
You did not read all of my post. I know how ABS works, and I know what it feels like when it engages. It did not engage, because I did not get the brake "studdering" that ABS causes.
Proffesional drivers will be able to maintain the same control that the ABS gives, but will be able to stop faster by controling the clutch and breakes correctly.
Actually, I saw a race on TV of professional drivers. GT, and the class right under that. The lead GT driver was driving a Mustang, that had it's ABS go out on the drivers (they had two drivers that would switch at the pit), and they had a bit of trouble with breaking, in that they were so accustomed to ABS that they no longer had a good sense of braking distance.
A properly trained Professional driver can maintain the same control that ABS supplies, but only if they are acustomed to driving without ABS.
Let's suppose that there is a God. How, then, do you know which religion is the right one?
I don't. I made an arbitrary choice that was dictated by my birth, rearing, and education.
Had I been raised around a different religion, then I would have likely picked that one. Either way, my necessity for the belief in God hasn't been diminished by the fact that I might be wrong in my selection.
You keep saying that and I keep proving you to be a liar.
Um...
You can refuse my definition, but it doesn't mean that I'm wrong, or that other people don't agree with me, and not with you.
Even by your definition above it doesn't fit. If atheism is a religion, then you are a member of numerous religions. You are an anti-{every religion that's ever been with the exception of Christianity, tooth fairy, FSM etc. etc. et.c}ian. It's stupid and pointless to claim that, and it's fundamentally dishonest. *You* need religion for whatever reason. I don't. I'm not trying to claim superiority, but it is a fundamental difference between us.
YES! I am a member of numerous religions. Yes, I'm anti-every religion that isn't my own.
Why is it dishonest to say what I actually consider to be true?
I can accept that you don't need a belief in supernatural beings and such, and that you don't need anything but rational science. But to me religion != belief in the supernatural. religion is simply a philosophical belief system, which allows it to cover things like Zen Buddhisml.
The CIA world fact book lists the official religion of China as "Atheism". It's good enough for them to label it a religion, wtf is wrong with you? What did "religion" do to you to make you have such a negative connotation of the word?
What personally upsets me now that I think about it, is that I've been in two heavy breaking situations. Situations where it was just suddenly realized that traffic is stopping, and I need to stop NOW.
There's no choice of massaging the break, I needed all of the grip potential of the tires to go into me stopping.
The problem is that the two cars I was driving at the time both either didn't have ABS, or the ABS didn't function because I was on a very slippery surface.
The first time I was driving a Chevy S10 on an icey road surface, so icey that while shifting gears the mere act of letting out the clutch would cause a loss of traction. I was travelling at 10mph, and took all my concentration to drive. Suddenly, there's a huge line of cars stopped in front of me, and I had to stop. No ABS kicked in, and I ended up stopping barely in time by using engine breaking to help mitigate the lack of road traction. My car rotated slightly laterally (maybe 10~20 degrees) to the right in the process. I barely stopped in time.
The next time was just recently (New Year's) on a slippery road surface (from rain, yay Seattle). I was driving along at say around 30~40, I think. I'm trying to move to the right so I can get off the highway, when traffic stops because the exit before my exit (for the space needle) is backed up to Vancouver (it seemed like) and the lane next to it naturally is filled with people trying to either merge in, or merge out of that lane. So, they stop. I'm forced to break hard in a Honda Accord '92 model, (a quick google says that later models of my car should have anti-lock breaks) but while breaking, the ABS did not engage, and I slid, quite frustratingly to a stop just before hitting the car in front of me.
I had a '91 Chevy Corsica with ABS for a long tme. At one point the alternator went out, and the battery was slowly losing charge. At some point losing battery power, the system would turn off the ABS and give a red "ABS" signal on the driver information display. I got kind of used to driving without the ABS there, and when I finally fixed the problem, and the battery was all charged again, and I once again had ABS, it was kicking in all over the place. (Yeah, I drive harder than I need to.) It kind of upset me that the ABS was kicking in, where I knew from previous experience that my car would not skid on.
So, now I'm presented with three situations. Two were situations that ABS should have kicked in, but didn't. At least one of those cars certainly had ABS, and another situation where the ABS was going off before it needed to.
I dunno... ABS is good for drivers inexperienced at stopping hard. But I can't say I've had particularly happy results with it myself.
I have no religion.
You claim to lack a religion, but to me religion is any belief system that explains the creation of the world and what its nature is.
Now, excuse me if I'm wrong, but I think you have some sort of belief about those one way or the other.
Your free to disagree with my definition, but to me, you still have a religion. A belief system however well justified it might well be, to me is still a religion. If you can honestly tell me that we are perceiving reality, and we are not brains in a jar being fed perceptual data, then you have a belief system defining the world.
Atheism isn't a religion.
Yes, it is.
No they aren't. Send them to a religious school. Problem solved.
Not problem solved, I would have to pay money out of my own pocket in order to send my children to a private religious school. Meanwhile, if I'm happy with my children being taught in a sanitized environment that infringes regularly on their free excercise of religion, then I can send them to public school.
You're not indecent for not accepting the simple basic fact of evolution. You're indecent for trying to shove religious dogma into science classes. It's an insult to freedom, it's an insult to decency, and it's an insult to your own god.
The position presented in most science classes is that there is no need for a God, and also teaching that what we don't need to exist shouldn't be presumed to exist.
I've not said that ID be taught in public schools, you're assuming that I'm on the ID side of the argument.
Perhaps, I just feel that the state should pay for my childs education where ever that education happens to occur, so that I can send my children to a religious school without having the burden of paying for it.
What a truly frighteningly delusional person you are. Your sole issue is that *your* religion is not being shoved down people's throats in direct violation of the founding principles of this country. You're honestly saying that searching for answers is evil?!? WTF dude.
Your position was to call my religion evil without actually evaluating any of its properties. You assume that I'm a supporter of ID, and attempt to paint my religion as evil.
Right, because I don't blindly accept your beliefs and promote forcing them on others, I'm an evil heretic. Your insane attittude is exactly why the seperation of church and state was enacted.
I had an argument with one person about this before. He kept complaining that everyone was trying to "push their beliefs on him", while he himself was being evangelistic about his atheism.
He was attempting to force his ideas on other people, and at the same time, when someone attempted to present anything in opposition to his ideas, they were suddenly pushing their beliefs on him. He has been a hypocrit beyond compare for me.
You are more than welcome to come up with another scientific theory that explains the observed phenomena. Why is it that nobody on your side of this debate has even tried to do so?
We have, you just refuse to call it "science". Of course, you also refuse to call atheism a "religion". Funny how a little thing like semantics can allow you to control people.
No it isn't. It is fundamentally founded on various other religious beliefs, most especially human sacrifice, sun worship, and astrology.
HAHAHAHAHAHA... thanks for your total misunderstanding of my faith.
Again with this insanity. I choose to exercise my freedom *not* to believe in your favorite fairy story. That is not a religion.
And there you go again with your semantic definition to remove you from any responsibility of establishment. When the state religion of China is atheism.... are you saying they're wrong? That China has no state religion, and that they otherwise promote atheism? Or are you ok with the classification here, because it's descriptive, not damning?
I also don't support religious
Your implied comparison of the theory of evolution to mathematical theorems in order to show the former weaker is a common technique among creationists, especially those who either have a weak grasp of science or pander to an audience with the same. The improper tie of scientific theories to mathematical theorems, which can not be justified semantically except to distinguish the two, is a recurring shady tactic in this debate.
Fuck you and your strawman argument.
Perhaps I'm a well versed linguist, and I'm better able than you to evaluate the necessity of an examination of the semantic use of the word "theory".
As far as I'm aware the significant majority of textbooks do show evidence and justification to support evolution, and in any case teachers will present such information. This is likely true because:
1.) It's easiest to explain evolution initially by demonstration. Presentation of the various species of animals and the presentation of evidentiary branches of evolution. i.e. There are apes, and there are birds. It best likely follows that apes are related and birds are related. Also, presentation of the various stages of particular species, in particular we have the most popular evidence of man's evolution.
2.) Because to teach a theory without justification and evidence is to teach something authoritatively. Basically, one would be explaining that "evolution happens because scientists say so." Which I can guarentee you is most likely not happening in any classroom.
That will be truly sad day; suddenly, biology (not just evolution), astronomy, physics, medicine, and countless other scientific topics will be carvied into swiss cheese as the religious crackpots, mainstream and otherwise, line up to say that current scientific theories in these disciplines imply their teaching are wrong and hence atheistic. Sort of what we have now but a thousand times worse. You welcome this to our public education?
I can't say that I envy the outcome, but it is the only response to a system where our government is forbidden from establishing a state religion. I think it necessary for the state to have a guiding religion that they adhere do, but to permit the free practice of others. Namely, just switch the way Christianity is now, to Atheism.
One thing I will say, you are mostly right that proscribing the statment on the sticker seems to be not justified by using first ammendment, taken at face value of both the former and latter.
That was simply my goal to get people to consider this. If this sticker can be marked as establishment of religion, then what can and can't be? I seemed like this was passed on a slippery slope, and those are just dangerous all around, because they can lead to a horrible environment where people with essentially zero justification attempt to exert their position and rights over those that can demonstrate that justification.
Awesome. :) I can only agree.
The goal (or effect at least), seems to say that in the end, all beliefs, churchy or scientific, are equal, all systems of belief equivalent, all facts illusory, all opinions equal, all points of view equivalent, all actions justified.
CLOSE.
All beliefs are equal: for a government to assert otherwise would violate the right to religious freedom.
All systems of belief are equivalent: not equivalent. equally justifiable.
All facts are illusory: in that facts require a context to be true, yes
All opinons are equal: considering that opinions are by definition non-facts, this should be accepted by everyone without argument. To assert otherwise leads to a position that could say that "I don't like onions" is wrong.
All points of view equivalent: again, not equivalent, equally justifiable
All actions justified: within a particular context. Some people who kill feel that their actions were necessarily justified. It's the job of a society to settle discrepencies between those actions and the good of that society. Basically, the society has to choose its context, which sometimes comes in direct disagreement with person actions.
Recognize this goal when you see someone painting science with the religion brush. Call them out on it, then stop talking to them - there is no way to have a reasonable discussion with such a person
Wrong, me and Marxist Hacker 42 had a conversation with someone who believed in science. He simply stated that his belief in science was his choice, and that he felt that it were justified. And despite the fact that we can assert that science is fundamentally unproveable had no effect on his position that science is reality.
We commended him and said that's all we ever want anyone to admit. That science still cannot answer the meta-physical question of what is reality.
But so many atheist and believers in science here on slashdot here "science is religion" and immediately fly off the handle and act like we haven't actually considered what this means.
I mean, fuck, me and Marxist Hacker 42 seem to have this argument every other week, we've discussed it A LOT.
That's barely arguable, but irrelevant.
Not irrelevant. And your choice of "religion" to mean a belief in hocus pocus is unreasonably restrictive of the semantic meaning of religion.
Opting not to believe some ridiculous nonsense is not a religious belief, it's basic common sense.
Religion is not ridiculous nonsense, and your opinion of religion as ridiculous nonsense, is ridiculous nonsense.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe in any god, so not believing isn't religious at all. Every single person who ever lived was born an atheist.
How do you know the infinite series of possibilities? I have a logical and responsible reason for believing in God. And nothing you can say can disprove my necessity to believe in God.
Therefore, my belief in God is justified, and reasonable, and not at all "ridiculous nonsense".
Yes I would. I'd be even happier if they left the sticker off entirely and explained fully (not in two sentences) what science is, how it works to include verification and revision of theories and models, and to what extent things can be proved or disproved in science Inside the book.
I would be very happy about that, too. But considering that the average person listens to the news and the news says, "Scientist says that he's cloned human cells," and they believe it, it's apparent that this is NOT taught sufficiently.
I remember that stuff from science education in my public school days, but maybe they don't teach it anymore - as evidenced by your misunderstanding of science
Fuck you, you don't have permission to attack me personally.
This little bit here shows a staggering misunderstanding of the topic of hand.
Or PERHAPS, I'm attempting to show that even in the strongest possible link of theory to fact, justification is still necessary in education.
This has little to do with the theories of science.
I knew this had little to do with science, I was working with the semantics of the word.
I don't think evolution is taught in any more or less authoritarian of a manner than other theories, though I concede all of science education is (possibly necessarily) authoritarian at introductory levels.
So, by only asserting against a single point their argument suddenly loses all merit or value? That sounds like a typical ID argument, that since scientists haven't proven it all, it's all worthless.
Maybe, maybe not. Many people disagree with you, including the courts, who intpret the ruling of the first ammendment, which you somehow managed to miss some nuance of, short as it is.
My assertion is that it's a gross misuse of the first amendment to say that a tauntology statement about science is supporting the establishment of a religion.
If only someone could get a court to rule that athiesm is a religion, they could then argue that evolution advances a religion, and that advancement warrants an establishment of a religion.
Tax-free status has got nothing to do with this, and even if it did, you might consider that just cause the government violates the bill of rights once, doesn't justify every other violation they feel like committing.
Tax-free status has EVERYTHING to do with this. Because at some point you could assert that it sets up an establishment of a religion. All I need to do is believe that I am a divine authority, and that I deserve tax-free status. When that is denied, then I assert that because the US grants tax-free status to some religious authorities, but not to me, that it is an establishment of religion. (same god damn shaky leg as declaring that an admittedly redundant statement about a single scientific statement is an establishment of religion)
It's not "Why remove something that was placed there by people with an agenda", it's "why even put it there?"
They're the ones trying to shove their shit down everybody else's throats.
Your religion offends me! To suggest that there is no God is absolutely infuriating, and I do not want you to shove your shit down my, and my children's throat. The very nature of public education has only served to advance the Atheist religion, and due to law my children are being FORCED to go to that public school, and be taught things that I find fundamentally offensive!
They're the ones pissing off decent people.
Fuck you for calling me indecent. I have attempted to live my life in the strictest manner possible, avoiding all things that are indecent. Your presumption that just because I refuse to believe in the lies of evolution makes me not a part of "decent people" is offensive.
If reality pisses them off, fuck em. They're the ones trying to waste money on a redundt statement directed against one particular field of science that they're too cowardly to deal with.
You're the one attempting to establish your Athiestic religion by sugguating the public school system to pass on your evil religious motivations.
The entire point of their sticker is inflammatory. That's why they intentionally misuse the word "theory" That was my entire point in making up my sticker. I hope you didn't think my intent was that it shouldn't be inflammatory.
Of course I found your sticker inflammatory, and of course I knew you intended it to be inflammatory.
If a theory can be proven, then call it a fact. Stop calling it "the theory of evolution" and start calling it "the fact of evolution". It's apparent that you are so certain of your belief that evolution is correct that you're willing to discount any possibility that evolution may be wrong.
True, but I think "ripped off" is too kind in that respect. "The promoters of those ideas were brutally murdered and their ideas stolen in order to assert control over their faithful".
This is hardly accurate.
Which completely destroys any divine authority, and any reason to take it as anything besides a collection of fables.
This assertion is just as ridiculous as asserting that just because scientists can't explain how bees fly, that all of science is wrong. Divine authority need not be absolute, to still be correct.
They're all arbitrary. The reasons varied, but often were a matter of one group of bishops using trivial differences as an excuse to murder their opposition. That's why it's important to note that regardless of the particular translation, the selection of entire chapters was based on evil men's desire to subjugate their fellow man.
WTF is your problem continually asserting that everything was solved with murder and religion? Let's not forget that the Christian faith is fundamentally founded upon the deaths of their founding members.
Keep your church out of my state and I'll keep my state out of your church.
Keep YOUR religion out of MY state, and I'll start keeping my religion out of your state.
Please don't think I'm actually arguing for that.
Why don't you stick your balls out and actually argue for it? You're already being enough of an asshole to argue it, why not do so in earnest.
Personally, I don't feel a compulsion to argue anything unless I believe in it strongly enough to argue it in earnest.
The entire point of the ID movement is to destroy that most fundamental of American values.
Holy mythical maker! What the fuck? Are you seriously trying to assert this? Do you not know that the first amendment to the constitution, the first right given to the people in the bill of rights, is the freedom of religion.
FUCK! I hate the use of this word "American" as if that automatically means "good", and that "unamerican" is "bad". It leads to the stupidest statements
I can only agree.
Many people imply though that wikipedia is essentially wrong (competing research products often present this view, of course they're biased) or at least so to the point that it is worthless as an academic or for any research.
Of course it's valid for research. It's hardly credible enough to use as a citation for a fact, or detail, but it's certainly sufficient for research. Depending on how strict citation and demonstrating sources are, it may even be sufficient for use in lower levels of education, where the standards of evidence are minimal, and the important thing is to learn how to support ideas from other sources.
Hell, in my High School we had some 10 year old Encyclopedias that were essentially all that we had available to do research with.
Because implicit in the purpose of the sticker is the idea that the theory of evolution is unlike the rest of theoretical science in this regard.
Would you be happier if it didn't single out evolution?
Further, the language of the sticker implies incorrect usage of the word theory.
So, just because a theory is provable means that it shouldn't be critically considered? Let's take a theory that definitely can be proven: "The square of the hypothenus is equal to the sum of the two other sides." We shouldn't present this and show how it's provable?
Any scientific theory, or even mathematical theory (that can even be logically proven) should be presented with the justification and evidence of that. Showing evolution as an authoritarian fact is the wrong way to present evolution to students.
Further, that the stick is religiously motivated, not scientifically motivated. I.E. there is no academic or scientific reason for the existence of the sticker that can't be better conducted within the text book itself or in texts on the philosophy of science.
If this information were presented as such, then there would be no need for the sticker, but in absense of that information, then it should be affixed onto the material after the fact.
There is, however, a clear religious motivation for the existence of the sticker. Hope that helps, bucko.
Regardless of there being a religious motivation of the sticker, it does not equate to establishment of a religion, and thus warrant removing it. The tax-free status of religious organizations is religiously motivated, but it's not denied to people under the presumption that it is establishing a state-sponsored religion.
I'm sure you are 100% in support of that. If not, then you are a hypocrite.
No, because it's not accurate.
If you wanted to put a sticker on public bibles saying, "The material in this book is presented as fact, although little of it can be historically validated. The information, which is contained within should be considered with a critical mind." I would be up for that. It's a public bible. I can insist that no such sticker be placed on my personal bible, as much as I make no assertion that such a sticker as I represented be placed upon your scientific textbooks.
It's a waste of time to label all science that way because science is *defined* that way.
Then if it's a waste of time, why fight that it's even there... This is my assertion, if the ID people were happy with that, then why not just leave it alone, why piss them off by going and insisting that they remove something that is an accurate, and nonoffensive clarrification of the contents.
I will now discuss the material that you ask our sticker to contain:
"The bible is a collection of stories ripped off from earlier religions
Not ripped of, evolved from, or borrowed from. The use of "ripped off" also is inflammatory. Also, The Bible has a number of stories borrowed from at the time contemporary religions. Your sticker would not indicate that.
and used as a means for the leaders of the Roman empire to subjugate their people.
Also, the pope, and medieval kings also used it to subjugate their people. Your sticker doesn't indicate this (this information is fine though) A less inflammatory statement than "subjugate" would be "control" their people, or "keep them in line."
Many different, conflicting, versions of the stories exist within the bible itself
Unarguable. Religious theologians though contend that they are different "viewpoints". I personally believe that James is the worst Gospel, and its variation in the presentation of the attitude of Jesus is quite literally opposed to the one presented in the other three Gospels.
Thus, I can't argue with this at all.
and many more stories were edited out primarily as a means to allow a few evil people to pillage and murder the supporters of the other equally valid stories.
Considering that most modern translations are from the oldest sources that we can gather, it's unlikely that modern bibles need to include this statement. More accurately would be that some books have been excluded from canon for essentially arbitrary reasons, just as well as some have been included for arbitrary reasons.
There is little, if any, evidence that there ever was a Jesus and the gospels were written long after his death by people who never met him if he ever did live."
Again, undisputable, and I accept that.
So, I would agree to: "The Bible is a collection of stories, some of which have been taken from other religions. Many parts of it have been used throughout history to control people. There exist differing, and conflicting versions of the stories within the bible, and the books of the Bible were not included, or included based on biased and essentially arbitrary reasons based on their compliance with established beliefs, rather than any reason for a belief of better accuracy or authority. Many details presented in the Bible have been used by people to wage war, murder and otherwise act against peoples believing in equally valid stories. There is little evidence that there ever was a Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and other people presented in the Bible, and the Gospels in particular were written after Jesus's death by people, who may never have met him, if he ever did live."
You want that as a sticker on public Bibles, I'm fine with it.
Occam's Razor is false logic; always has been. The scientific method is not. If you had followed my posts over my slashdot history you would find that I have debated extensively with everyone from script kiddies to NASA rocket scientists over the merits of Occam's Razor.
Then you argued with the wrong people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_Razor
Please read up on Occam's Razor. It's not false logic, it's a logical challege to theories. Using it as proof or as a strong assertion of the truth-value of a statement is wrong.
Yes, that's what the razor would suggest. But the razor has been wrong in the past, and will be wrong again. We have 10,000 years worth of experiential evidence that an intelligent designer exists- we really need equal experiential evidence to deny one.
Well the point of Occam's Razor is the "necessity" part. Occam's Razor cannot be used in philosophy to disprove a theory, it can only be used to cast doubt upon a theory, "Is it necessary to create this XY?" For instance with say, quarks. We believed for a long time that atoms were indivisible (atom means indivisible) but then we saw evidence that atoms were in fact not divisible. Thus the need was presented that atoms need be made of SOMETHING, so that they might be divisible.
Occam's Razor in philosophy is never applied as a negative assertion, it can be used as a positive assertion, "I can explain this observance without inventing anything new." Thus providing that it is likely the best of alternates that cannot otherwise be verified. But the moment a need is generated, that explanation suddenly breaks Occam's Razor, it is in fact necessary to invent something, and thus the previous explanation is definitively wrong.
As with many philosophical tools, it is a tool for growing and working upon knowledge, not for asserting the truth against something.
You should likely never see a true philosopher argue against God with Occam's Razor. Because the innecessity of God has never been absolutely proven.