"Darwinism's presence in science is so overwhelming," Schwartz said. "For the longest time, there was no room for alternative thinking among the scientific community."
Point one, he's feeding her the extremism, she isn't including it herself. Second, his second line is complete and utter bs. As others have noted, this warm-over of punctuated equilibria is a challenge to Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution, not to evolution itself.
I seem to disctinctly remember Richard Dawkins attacking Punctuated Equilibrium as 'giving aid and comfort to Creationism'. So, no, the second line is empathically not bs, as there are followers of gradualism out there who do dismiss alternative evolutionary mechanisms as unscientific.
The extremism exists in the scientific community, so Professor Schwartz has a point. I agree that the headline is oversensationalising the point though.
I believe the point brunson was trying to make by saying "Theory of Jesus" is you don't see organized efforts by the scientific community trying to impose their will on the worlds religions by trying to make them state their beliefs are only a theory.
I think the existence of Richard Dawkins and his considerable popularity among his peers and the existence of the followers of the Holy Prophet Carl Sagan point a slightly less rosy picture of the tolerance of the scientific community towards religion.
It is unmistakable for everyone who follows these kind of discussions that there is a fundamentalist, proselytising strain of atheism, and that it has significant backers in the scientific community.
I don't wanna hear gays telling me what they do in the bedroom anymore than they want to hear me telling them what *I* do in the bedroom.
Coming out of the closet may be a source of pride for gay people, but in essence they're shoving their private lives in the faces of people who have no interest or desire to know about it.
If you're not a bigot, meditate on these two statements. Then think of the following: according to your rules, a homosexual is not allowed to mention his partner in casual conversation. If you are consistent, then neither should a heterosexual.
Do you think "I have to go home, my girlfriend is expecting me for dinner" is a socially acceptable remark? Then what of a man saying "I have to go home, my boyfriend is expecting me for dinner"? According to you, he just shoved his homosexuality in your face. Or do you advocate Political Correctness and want everyone to say "I have to go home, my partner is expecting me for dinner"?
And what do you do if you are invited over for a party? The minute you see said partner, the hetero- or homosexuality of your friend is once more shoved into your face.
No amount of weaselling can avoid the central problem: homosexuality is flat out impossible to hide except by not coming out of the closet at all, being totally celibate (which is basically staying in the closet) or by living as a pair of total recluses with your partner. Your stated preference will still ostracise people merely on the basis of who they happen to love. That is a form of bigotry, even if you don't recognise it yourself.
Ah yes, the rallying cry of the modern bigot: Political Correctness!
As if everyone who is incensed about a clear example of bigotry is merely being Politically Correct. As if the bigotry itself is not worthy of outrage, because once upon a time some people in academic circles tried to get rid of certain expressions in public discourse.
It's more like saying, "Look, I know you're homosexual, but when you're at my house, I'd appreciate if you didn't mention it because otherwise my friends will yell and scream and shout at you and might try to beat you within an inch of your life."
On the other hand, this statements tells your homosexual friend that you value the friendship of the homophobes more than you value his'. And therein lies the rub for Blizzard's position: they openly state that a large part of their subscribers will incite themselves against you if you even state that you are gay-friendly, let alone openly state that you're gay. In other words, the homophobes' dollars are worth more, therefore the homosexuals must submit and keep their orientation quiet. This is bigotry, no matter how they try to wriggle out from underneath that accusation.
On a related note, in my bookcase I have a board game by the very American Avalon Hill Game Company, a game named Geronimo.
And while said game is full of historically accurate information on the Native American Peoples, and a lot of their woeful history in dealing with the European colonists, the one way to win at playing this game is to ruthlessly subject and even massacre the tribes as the US player.
I remember no outrage about it however. Perhaps this is because the tribes can get their licks in as well by burning down settlements, and ambushing US Army columns.
Oh, and if you have an interest in this era of US history, and like a good game, try finding a copy. It is good fun, if sometimes in a bit of a wry way (massacring a tribe's village feels weird, even if it is only represented by a bit of cardboard).
non-in-your-face Christian names like "Redeemed", "The Forgiven"
How can you say that these names are not in-your-face? The very names "Redeemed" or "Forgiven" divide the world in those who are redeemed or forgiven, versus those who are unredeemed (aka damned), and unforgiven. There is not even an implication of "the others are bad" in there, the judgment is right out in the open.
I can only think of one quote when I see names like that: "Judge not, that thou shalt not be judged". Not to mention Jesus' various tirades against the Pharisees to boot.
[...] since our politicians have almost totally bought into the ideas of Socialism for the wealthy classes, and the "free market" for the poor and working classes [...]
he can't figure out it was, at worst, incompetence.
Yet in the very selfsame quote of Prof. Kellner you yourself give, he openly states that is either conspiracy or incompetence:
Kellner: In my book, I explore the case for conspiracy and conclude that either the Bush administration knew the attacks were coming and exploited them to push through their rightwing domestic and foreign policy or they were utterly incompetent, failing to see all of the obvious signs of the coming Al Qaeda attack.
My conclusion is fully validated. You openly judge a book on its title alone, and when called upon it, you start playing semantic games.
Badly, I may add, because nothing you say refutes your earlier gaffe: you still haven't said anything about the content of the book.
And I am empathically not what you Yanks call a Liberal. Beside the word as used in the US being a travesty of the English language of Orwellian proportions, neither the US nor the European definition would fit my political beliefs. You, however, are still stupid.
Dr. William F. Keegan, for example, from the University of Florida, has a book titled The People Who Discovered Columbus. You don't need to read it to get an idea of the main thrust of his work.
So you are able to judge a book on the prehistoric and pre-Columbus natives of the Bahamas on the basis of a provocative title alone?
Way to go to prove that it doesn't hurt to be stupid to be a conservative.
I must say, I partially agree with the grandparent post. Pratchett did have a period where he was going stale, around Maskerade up to (but not including) The Truth. Not surprisingly, this coincided with his announcement that he was going to cut back on his writing, down to one book per year, maybe even one per two years.
The Truth was a breaking point, the fresh perspective on old characters in that novel was a sign of the better books to follow. But calling Thud his best until now is giving him too much credit. For that, the allegory between the deep-down dwarves and fundamentalist Muslims just feels too heavy-handed IMO. The book improves halfway through when plot events force that particular allegory into the background. It is good, better than The Fifth Elephant for instance, but not his best yet.
What has Albrecht said about her? That's she's hot? She is. Even if you're not in the right age bracket, it is easy to see that Emma Watson is quite a beauty now, and liable to become one of the hottest female stars in the coming years.
On a Unix or Unix-like system, a file is not necessarily removed completely when it is deleted. Any references to the file by programs currently running are held by the kernel on the files initial inode, so you can just delete the old file and replace it with a new one, even if the old file is mapped into memory.
New open() calls will open the new file. Since Unix.so files (DLLs to you Windows folks) are versioned, and multiple versions can be in use at the same time, all this will do at worst is use up some additional memory because a newer version is loaded into memory beside the old one. As apps restart, sooner or later the old file will no longer be in use, and the memory space and inodes will be reclaimed.
Finally, because Unix software is much more modular in nature, it is quite often easy to determine which files are in use, and only restart the appropriate programs. Occasionally a reboot is the best option, if it's a fundamental library like libc.
It is quirks in Windows' file locking semantics and DLL versioning which leads to the problem that files can only be replaced on a reboot.
There were no such things under DOS/Windows in these days. But things like different privilege levels, multiuser and multitasking computing, memory protection and networking certainly existed in the eighties.
It is Microsoft's abiding attitude of NIH that led to them disregarding best practices as they were known to other systems in those days, and consequently reintroducing errors and bad security practices that we thought had fallen by the wayside.
And of course, in France, how much ethylene glycol to add at the end.
You have any references that indicate this is common practice? As far as I know, according to the INAO rules and the EU food safety directives, adding ethylene glycol is flat out illegal. At the very least AOC rated wines will not contain ethylene glycol, as this might cost the vintners their AOC rating.
Yet when I do a ps aux on my GNU/Linux machine, I see all my servers running under their own user accounts. When I open the Task Manager on my work XP workstation, I see all services running under the SYSTEM account.
Regardless of theory, a fine-grained permission system isn't worth squat if it is not used. Conversely, in the *nix side of the computing universe, we have gotten smart (through painful experience) and wrote our server software to immediately drop permissions after binding to a port.
The problem is social, not technological. Microsoft (and third-party coders who pick up their bad habits) refuses to learn, either because that would mean going against their NIH attitude, or because it would mean admitting past mistakes.
Oh. You're a Galbraith desciple. That saves me some time. HAND.
Way to frame an argument. I thought you sounded like a typical thirteen-year old Randroid from the start, but at least I kept that irrelevant opinion out of the argument. Well, at least your "LA! LA! LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" debating style makes it quite clear that further discussion is indeed useless.
Advertising usually serves to persuade you to use our service to meet your already-present demand.
And just how does advertising persuade me without creating a demand for the product in me? That it may be a competing demand is immaterial here, the fact is that advertising must either be capable of creating a demand in those undergoing it, or it is useless. The fact that billions are spent on it suggest that its clients at least think the advertising industry is not useless.
The myth of the sovereign consumer has been debunked long ago.
Saying it has doesn't make it so.
For someone who is invoking economics, you seem to have a pretty shallow grasp of the field. There is more than the Chicago School, you know. You could start with reading "The Affluent Society" bij J.K. Galbraith. And here's a more recent citation. It's the first hit when you google for 'sovereign consumer' for crying out loud.
It is a given that demand can be manufactured.
No, it's not a given. It's your hypothesis. Please demonstrate it.
Who is responsible for the current beauty ideal? Answer that question, and you'll find why women buy fashion magazines.
The myth of the sovereign consumer has been debunked long ago. It is a given that demand can be manufactured. The interesting question is then "who is manufacturing the demand?"
Slashdot Mirror
I seem to disctinctly remember Richard Dawkins attacking Punctuated Equilibrium as 'giving aid and comfort to Creationism'. So, no, the second line is empathically not bs, as there are followers of gradualism out there who do dismiss alternative evolutionary mechanisms as unscientific.
The extremism exists in the scientific community, so Professor Schwartz has a point. I agree that the headline is oversensationalising the point though.
MartI think the existence of Richard Dawkins and his considerable popularity among his peers and the existence of the followers of the Holy Prophet Carl Sagan point a slightly less rosy picture of the tolerance of the scientific community towards religion.
It is unmistakable for everyone who follows these kind of discussions that there is a fundamentalist, proselytising strain of atheism, and that it has significant backers in the scientific community.
MartIf you're not a bigot, meditate on these two statements. Then think of the following: according to your rules, a homosexual is not allowed to mention his partner in casual conversation. If you are consistent, then neither should a heterosexual.
Do you think "I have to go home, my girlfriend is expecting me for dinner" is a socially acceptable remark? Then what of a man saying "I have to go home, my boyfriend is expecting me for dinner"? According to you, he just shoved his homosexuality in your face. Or do you advocate Political Correctness and want everyone to say "I have to go home, my partner is expecting me for dinner"?
And what do you do if you are invited over for a party? The minute you see said partner, the hetero- or homosexuality of your friend is once more shoved into your face.
No amount of weaselling can avoid the central problem: homosexuality is flat out impossible to hide except by not coming out of the closet at all, being totally celibate (which is basically staying in the closet) or by living as a pair of total recluses with your partner. Your stated preference will still ostracise people merely on the basis of who they happen to love. That is a form of bigotry, even if you don't recognise it yourself.
MartIn other words, people wouldn't gay-bash if gays just stayed in the closet.
Thank you for playing, but however weak, that still is the same bigotry.
MartAh yes, the rallying cry of the modern bigot: Political Correctness!
As if everyone who is incensed about a clear example of bigotry is merely being Politically Correct. As if the bigotry itself is not worthy of outrage, because once upon a time some people in academic circles tried to get rid of certain expressions in public discourse.
MartOn the other hand, this statements tells your homosexual friend that you value the friendship of the homophobes more than you value his'. And therein lies the rub for Blizzard's position: they openly state that a large part of their subscribers will incite themselves against you if you even state that you are gay-friendly, let alone openly state that you're gay. In other words, the homophobes' dollars are worth more, therefore the homosexuals must submit and keep their orientation quiet. This is bigotry, no matter how they try to wriggle out from underneath that accusation.
MartOn a related note, in my bookcase I have a board game by the very American Avalon Hill Game Company, a game named Geronimo.
And while said game is full of historically accurate information on the Native American Peoples, and a lot of their woeful history in dealing with the European colonists, the one way to win at playing this game is to ruthlessly subject and even massacre the tribes as the US player.
I remember no outrage about it however. Perhaps this is because the tribes can get their licks in as well by burning down settlements, and ambushing US Army columns.
Oh, and if you have an interest in this era of US history, and like a good game, try finding a copy. It is good fun, if sometimes in a bit of a wry way (massacring a tribe's village feels weird, even if it is only represented by a bit of cardboard).
MartHow can you say that these names are not in-your-face? The very names "Redeemed" or "Forgiven" divide the world in those who are redeemed or forgiven, versus those who are unredeemed (aka damned), and unforgiven. There is not even an implication of "the others are bad" in there, the judgment is right out in the open.
I can only think of one quote when I see names like that: "Judge not, that thou shalt not be judged". Not to mention Jesus' various tirades against the Pharisees to boot.
MartI think the word you're looking for is Fascism
MartThe Irish, Germans and Colombians (among others) beg to differ.
If you don't know what you are talking about, shut the fuck up.
Yet in the very selfsame quote of Prof. Kellner you yourself give, he openly states that is either conspiracy or incompetence:
(Emphasis mine)Who is the moonbat now?
MartMy conclusion is fully validated. You openly judge a book on its title alone, and when called upon it, you start playing semantic games.
Badly, I may add, because nothing you say refutes your earlier gaffe: you still haven't said anything about the content of the book.
And I am empathically not what you Yanks call a Liberal. Beside the word as used in the US being a travesty of the English language of Orwellian proportions, neither the US nor the European definition would fit my political beliefs. You, however, are still stupid.
Mart
So you are able to judge a book on the prehistoric and pre-Columbus natives of the Bahamas on the basis of a provocative title alone?
Way to go to prove that it doesn't hurt to be stupid to be a conservative.
MartIndeed. Thank you for a fine demonstration.
MartI must say, I partially agree with the grandparent post. Pratchett did have a period where he was going stale, around Maskerade up to (but not including) The Truth. Not surprisingly, this coincided with his announcement that he was going to cut back on his writing, down to one book per year, maybe even one per two years.
The Truth was a breaking point, the fresh perspective on old characters in that novel was a sign of the better books to follow. But calling Thud his best until now is giving him too much credit. For that, the allegory between the deep-down dwarves and fundamentalist Muslims just feels too heavy-handed IMO. The book improves halfway through when plot events force that particular allegory into the background. It is good, better than The Fifth Elephant for instance, but not his best yet.
MartOn a Unix or Unix-like system, a file is not necessarily removed completely when it is deleted. Any references to the file by programs currently running are held by the kernel on the files initial inode, so you can just delete the old file and replace it with a new one, even if the old file is mapped into memory.
New open() calls will open the new file. Since Unix .so files (DLLs to you Windows folks) are versioned, and multiple versions can be in use at the same time, all this will do at worst is use up some additional memory because a newer version is loaded into memory beside the old one. As apps restart, sooner or later the old file will no longer be in use, and the memory space and inodes will be reclaimed.
Finally, because Unix software is much more modular in nature, it is quite often easy to determine which files are in use, and only restart the appropriate programs. Occasionally a reboot is the best option, if it's a fundamental library like libc.
It is quirks in Windows' file locking semantics and DLL versioning which leads to the problem that files can only be replaced on a reboot.
Mart<cough>Bullshit<cough>
There were no such things under DOS/Windows in these days. But things like different privilege levels, multiuser and multitasking computing, memory protection and networking certainly existed in the eighties.
It is Microsoft's abiding attitude of NIH that led to them disregarding best practices as they were known to other systems in those days, and consequently reintroducing errors and bad security practices that we thought had fallen by the wayside.
MartYeah, yeah, all wine contains traces of ethylene glycol. Thank you for being pedantic.
The question was however, whether or not using it as an additive was common. You asserted it was.
MartYou have any references that indicate this is common practice? As far as I know, according to the INAO rules and the EU food safety directives, adding ethylene glycol is flat out illegal. At the very least AOC rated wines will not contain ethylene glycol, as this might cost the vintners their AOC rating.
MartYet when I do a ps aux on my GNU/Linux machine, I see all my servers running under their own user accounts. When I open the Task Manager on my work XP workstation, I see all services running under the SYSTEM account.
Regardless of theory, a fine-grained permission system isn't worth squat if it is not used. Conversely, in the *nix side of the computing universe, we have gotten smart (through painful experience) and wrote our server software to immediately drop permissions after binding to a port.
The problem is social, not technological. Microsoft (and third-party coders who pick up their bad habits) refuses to learn, either because that would mean going against their NIH attitude, or because it would mean admitting past mistakes.
MartWay to frame an argument. I thought you sounded like a typical thirteen-year old Randroid from the start, but at least I kept that irrelevant opinion out of the argument. Well, at least your "LA! LA! LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" debating style makes it quite clear that further discussion is indeed useless.
And just how does advertising persuade me without creating a demand for the product in me? That it may be a competing demand is immaterial here, the fact is that advertising must either be capable of creating a demand in those undergoing it, or it is useless. The fact that billions are spent on it suggest that its clients at least think the advertising industry is not useless.
MartYou always want to move the knife in a downwards manner.
After all, it is Down, Not Across...
MartSaying it has doesn't make it so.
For someone who is invoking economics, you seem to have a pretty shallow grasp of the field. There is more than the Chicago School, you know. You could start with reading "The Affluent Society" bij J.K. Galbraith. And here's a more recent citation. It's the first hit when you google for 'sovereign consumer' for crying out loud.
No, it's not a given. It's your hypothesis. Please demonstrate it.
Advertising is a billion-dollar industry. QED.
MartWho is responsible for the current beauty ideal? Answer that question, and you'll find why women buy fashion magazines.
The myth of the sovereign consumer has been debunked long ago. It is a given that demand can be manufactured. The interesting question is then "who is manufacturing the demand?"
Mart