Bullshit. The folks who routinely and habitually ignore the evidence that goes against their assumptions and premises are the evolutionists. Evolution is their premise, and evolution is their conclusion. What a coincidence, eh?
Well, I really need to get some sleep, but I'll take a quick try at getting through to you.
Let's consider the protein synthetic apparatus. This is the mechanism by which protein is produced. Guess what it's made of.
Protein. That's right, the mechanism that produces protein in your hoodwinked brain is itself made of protein. Why is that significant? Well, ask yourself the question, how did the protein in the mechanism that produces protein get produced? Can you see where I am headed?
Oh, I know you've got it all figured out, but I can assure you that you are completely wrong. Proteins are not just random slime. They are extremely precise arrangements of hundreds of amino acids. If even one of them is out of order, you often get a disease, such as sickle-cell anemia.
So the mechanism that produces protein is an extremely precise machine that is itself made of protein. How did it originate? What produced the protein in the protein-synthetic apparatus? Did it originate with "random" proteins. Ya, I know you've got it all figured out in your little mind, but the problem is that your "random" proteins do not exist. Oh, I know, they once existed, but now they are all gone. Isn't that too bad. The story always seems to be the same, doesn't it?
I can just imagine an evolutionist as a prosecutor in a murder case. We have no evidence for murder and we haven't found the murder weapon, but we know it exists because it was used to murder the victim. Therefore let's just assume that we have it in front of us. OK, now we have the evidence we need to convict. Sounds convincing to me!
Michael Denton's explains this all brilliantly in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Read it extremely carefully THREE TIMES and if you are lucky you will be jolted out of your ignorance.
By the way, the Perloff Book is a bit less technical and will absolutely amaze you, guaranteed. You might want to start with it. Denton's book is a tougher read, but it is absolutely excellent.
I know I shouldn't have been so vulgar with my post, but I get sick and tired of the arrogant assholes who think that anyone who doesn't swallow evolution hook, line, and sinker must also believe the earth is flat.
And what really irks me is when they have the unmitigated gall to assert that evolution is as a much a scientific fact as gravity. As if I can make a fly mutate into an elephant as easily as I can drop an apple and watch it fall!
For all you folks who think that, you are WRONG, and your pathetic fools too. But don't take my word for it. READ A FEW BOOKS THAT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSURDITY OF PURELY NATURALIST EVOLUTION.
C may still make sense for low-level system software, but they can't be serious in continuing to push it today for high-level application software.
Several important standards organizations (e.g., DoD, MISRA, ARINC, NASA, CENELEC) recommend Ada as their top choice for safety-critical systems, and none that I know of recommend another language over Ada. Yes, Ada.
And just what is "safety-critical" software? It's software that must work properly or people could die. Well, excuse me, but I would like to see all software designed to work properly. Wouldn't that be nice?
Anyone who is seriously interested in physics should read the book "Escape from Einstein" by Ron Hatch. Ron is currently the president of the Institute of Navigation and is recognized as one of the top experts in the world on GPS. He is certainly no crank.
I read about a dozen paragraphs into the article without finding out how the frickin' hydrogen will be produced. Listen fellas, you need to consume energy to produce hydrogen. That's where ultra-clean nuclear power comes into play. But I don't have time to educate you empty-headed morons on nuclear power.
Yes, I too am tired of the constant error messages. I bet you'd get far fewer of them if you programmed in Ada. It's specifically designed for safety-critical software, i.e., error-free software.
C and C++ are far more error prone than Ada. One study found that Ada can cut development time in half compared to C/C++ because the programmer need not spend prodigious amounts of time tracking down segmentation faults and other such crap.
I'm an aerospace research engineer and I work at home officially one day per week. I have a DSL connection and I use ssh with X forwarding on Linux to essentially use my work computer at home. It's a very nice setup.
Telecommuting is not appropriate for everyone. Other than the self-employed, it is best for motivated workers who tend to work very independently. If you need to constantly interact with other people or access hardware, it won't work.
As traffic conditions continue to deteriorate, the demand for telecommuting will grow. As the demand grows, so will the supply. Eventually it will be another job benefit for some, like health insurance.
By the way, you should support telecommuting even if you can't do it yourself, because it reduces the traffic congestion on your commute.
I just recently started looking at Ada95, and I am impressed. I don't like the klunky syntax much, but the language is fundamentally sound and powerful. It is widely used in safety-critical systems such as ICBMs, air traffic control systems, and airplanes. Some have claimed that it cuts development time in half compared to C/C++. I don't understand why Ada gets so little attention.
Incidentally, I proposed on comp.lang.ada that the syntax could be cleaned up, without breaking backwards compatibility, with a relatively simple preprocessor. This would essentially create a new, cleaner dialect of Ada. It got a lot of resistance, but I think it has potential.
The simple fact of the matter is that electronic voting by itself cannot possibly ensure integrity (assuming we are to maintain a secret ballot). That is especially true for online voting over the internet, but it is true even for precinct-based electronic voting. However, a combination of electronic AND paper voting can guarantee integrity if done right. Please see Ensuring the Integrity of Electronic Voting for the details.
Please read this article and find out about the real science the "mainstream" media is hiding from you. Among many interesting points: global temperatures may simply be tracking the fluctuations in the energy output of the sun.
The "purveyors of coal-burning plants" are not the ones promulgating absurd lies about the toxicity of plutonium. The enviro-wackos are the ones doing that. But thanks for taking the time to read the article. I'm trying to get Cohen to put this article and others on his own website with better formatting.
For some enlightening background, check out The Myth of Plutonium Toxicity by Bernard L. Cohen. This article exposes an insidious enviro-lefty lie. Cohen has authored six books and over 300 papers in scientific journals, and he was awarded the Health Physics Society Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award, among several other major awards.
Suppose someone drives around your neighborhood at 3:00 a.m. and blasts advertisements from a 10 kW PA system. Is that free speech, you free speech purists?
Of course it's not. Why not? Because it is offensive and I cannot "turn it off," like a TV station. That's just plain common sense, which Congressman Gebhart doesn't seem to have.
FL state law gave the sec. of state the authority to certify the election at a certain date. The date passed, and she certified the election, because Bush had won both the first count and the machine recount.
The law did give the sec. of state the OPTION to extend the deadline in case of natural disaster or other extreme disruption, but it did NOT require her to extend the deadline as the Democrats tried to argue.
If I recall correctly, federal law prohibits the changing of any election rules or laws after a point in time several days before the election. The FL Supreme clearly changed the deadline for certification.
Imagine a football game in which the referee decides that 60 minutes is not quite enough time, so he extends the game for two more minutes. That's equivalent to what the FL Supreme court tried to do. The US SC had no choice but to spank them. To claim that they "f***ed the voters" is the epitome of ignorance.
I don't care how dominant Microsoft becomes, as long as I have a reasonable alternative. Most of my fellow libertarians think the government has no business at all monitoring MS, but I disagree. When MS tries to use its dominance to manipulate standards (official of de facto) for the purpose of driving out competition, then the government needs to take strong action. Unfortunately, they have a history of doing that.
I can't believe slashdot is falling for one of the greatest anti-technology hoaxes ever perpetrated. Plutonium is no more toxic than many other industrial substances. In fact, it is only about ten times more toxic than caffiene. Tests were done on dogs decades ago, in which a dozen or so dogs were given a tablespoon (or something like that). They all died of old age. Yet one pound of plutonium produces as much energy as the Yankee stadium full of coal! Not using nuclear is sheer environmental idiocy of the highert order. Wake up, folks!
Can you say "There's no such thing as a free lunch." The capital costs of this boondoggle would be astronomical, and the energy beamed down would be miniscule by any standard of large-scale energy procuction.
I could have missed it, but did anyone look at the cost of the proposed idea? I'll bet it's riciculously expensive. I'll bet it would cost about 100 times the cost of nuclear power (per unit of energy), but that's just a WAG.
The problem with selling radio spectrum is that it is very difficult to estimate what it will be worth in the future. The big networks made out like bandits on the current system. I say lease out stations, and re-auction the leases every ten years. The government (hence the taxpayer) will make out much better that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. The folks who routinely and habitually ignore the evidence that goes against their assumptions and premises are the evolutionists. Evolution is their premise, and evolution is their conclusion. What a coincidence, eh?
Well, I really need to get some sleep, but I'll take a quick try at getting through to you.
Let's consider the protein synthetic apparatus. This is the mechanism by which protein is produced. Guess what it's made of.
Protein. That's right, the mechanism that produces protein in your hoodwinked brain is itself made of protein. Why is that significant? Well, ask yourself the question, how did the protein in the mechanism that produces protein get produced? Can you see where I am headed?
Oh, I know you've got it all figured out, but I can assure you that you are completely wrong. Proteins are not just random slime. They are extremely precise arrangements of hundreds of amino acids. If even one of them is out of order, you often get a disease, such as sickle-cell anemia.
So the mechanism that produces protein is an extremely precise machine that is itself made of protein. How did it originate? What produced the protein in the protein-synthetic apparatus? Did it originate with "random" proteins. Ya, I know you've got it all figured out in your little mind, but the problem is that your "random" proteins do not exist. Oh, I know, they once existed, but now they are all gone. Isn't that too bad. The story always seems to be the same, doesn't it?
I can just imagine an evolutionist as a prosecutor in a murder case. We have no evidence for murder and we haven't found the murder weapon, but we know it exists because it was used to murder the victim. Therefore let's just assume that we have it in front of us. OK, now we have the evidence we need to convict. Sounds convincing to me!
Michael Denton's explains this all brilliantly in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Read it extremely carefully THREE TIMES and if you are lucky you will be jolted out of your ignorance.
Oh, I forgot to mention
Philip Johnson
Mark A. Ludwig
By the way, the Perloff Book is a bit less technical and will absolutely amaze you, guaranteed. You might want to start with it. Denton's book is a tougher read, but it is absolutely excellent.
I know I shouldn't have been so vulgar with my post, but I get sick and tired of the arrogant assholes who think that anyone who doesn't swallow evolution hook, line, and sinker must also believe the earth is flat.
And what really irks me is when they have the unmitigated gall to assert that evolution is as a much a scientific fact as gravity. As if I can make a fly mutate into an elephant as easily as I can drop an apple and watch it fall!
For all you folks who think that, you are WRONG, and your pathetic fools too. But don't take my word for it. READ A FEW BOOKS THAT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSURDITY OF PURELY NATURALIST EVOLUTION.
To all you idiots out there who have been hoodwinked by the "fact" of evolution, please pull your heads out of your ass and read:
Michael Denton
James Perloff
Michael Behe
Then read Richard Dawkins and tell me with a straight face that he is not a over-educated moron.
C may still make sense for low-level system software, but they can't be serious in continuing to push it today for high-level application software.
Several important standards organizations (e.g., DoD, MISRA, ARINC, NASA, CENELEC) recommend Ada as their top choice for safety-critical systems, and none that I know of recommend another language over Ada. Yes, Ada.
And just what is "safety-critical" software? It's software that must work properly or people could die. Well, excuse me, but I would like to see all software designed to work properly. Wouldn't that be nice?
How many of you even know about Ada95?
Anyone who is seriously interested in physics should read the book "Escape from Einstein" by Ron Hatch. Ron is currently the president of the Institute of Navigation and is recognized as one of the top experts in the world on GPS. He is certainly no crank.
I read about a dozen paragraphs into the article without finding out how the frickin' hydrogen will be produced. Listen fellas, you need to consume energy to produce hydrogen. That's where ultra-clean nuclear power comes into play. But I don't have time to educate you empty-headed morons on nuclear power.
Yes, I too am tired of the constant error messages. I bet you'd get far fewer of them if you programmed in Ada. It's specifically designed for safety-critical software, i.e., error-free software.
C and C++ are far more error prone than Ada. One study found that Ada can cut development time in half compared to C/C++ because the programmer need not spend prodigious amounts of time tracking down segmentation faults and other such crap.
Educating the public on basic rights is an uphill battle. Good luck.
I'm an aerospace research engineer and I work at home officially one day per week. I have a DSL connection and I use ssh with X forwarding on Linux to essentially use my work computer at home. It's a very nice setup.
Telecommuting is not appropriate for everyone. Other than the self-employed, it is best for motivated workers who tend to work very independently. If you need to constantly interact with other people or access hardware, it won't work.
As traffic conditions continue to deteriorate, the demand for telecommuting will grow. As the demand grows, so will the supply. Eventually it will be another job benefit for some, like health insurance.
By the way, you should support telecommuting even if you can't do it yourself, because it reduces the traffic congestion on your commute.
Ada95 is widely recommended for safety-critical software systems. If you really want to write reliable, quality software, check it out.
I just recently started looking at Ada95, and I am impressed. I don't like the klunky syntax much, but the language is fundamentally sound and powerful. It is widely used in safety-critical systems such as ICBMs, air traffic control systems, and airplanes. Some have claimed that it cuts development time in half compared to C/C++. I don't understand why Ada gets so little attention.
Incidentally, I proposed on comp.lang.ada that the syntax could be cleaned up, without breaking backwards compatibility, with a relatively simple preprocessor. This would essentially create a new, cleaner dialect of Ada. It got a lot of resistance, but I think it has potential.
The simple fact of the matter is that electronic voting by itself cannot possibly ensure integrity (assuming we are to maintain a secret ballot). That is especially true for online voting over the internet, but it is true even for precinct-based electronic voting. However, a combination of electronic AND paper voting can guarantee integrity if done right. Please see Ensuring the Integrity of Electronic Voting for the details.
Please read this article and find out about the real science the "mainstream" media is hiding from you. Among many interesting points: global temperatures may simply be tracking the fluctuations in the energy output of the sun.
The "purveyors of coal-burning plants" are not the ones promulgating absurd lies about the toxicity of plutonium. The enviro-wackos are the ones doing that. But thanks for taking the time to read the article. I'm trying to get Cohen to put this article and others on his own website with better formatting.
For some enlightening background, check out The Myth of Plutonium Toxicity by Bernard L. Cohen. This article exposes an insidious enviro-lefty lie. Cohen has authored six books and over 300 papers in scientific journals, and he was awarded the Health Physics Society Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award, among several other major awards.
Suppose someone drives around your neighborhood at 3:00 a.m. and blasts advertisements from a 10 kW PA system. Is that free speech, you free speech purists?
Of course it's not. Why not? Because it is offensive and I cannot "turn it off," like a TV station. That's just plain common sense, which Congressman Gebhart doesn't seem to have.
FL state law gave the sec. of state the authority to certify the election at a certain date. The date passed, and she certified the election, because Bush had won both the first count and the machine recount.
The law did give the sec. of state the OPTION to extend the deadline in case of natural disaster or other extreme disruption, but it did NOT require her to extend the deadline as the Democrats tried to argue.
If I recall correctly, federal law prohibits the changing of any election rules or laws after a point in time several days before the election. The FL Supreme clearly changed the deadline for certification.
Imagine a football game in which the referee decides that 60 minutes is not quite enough time, so he extends the game for two more minutes. That's equivalent to what the FL Supreme court tried to do. The US SC had no choice but to spank them. To claim that they "f***ed the voters" is the epitome of ignorance.
Whoops, a careless grammatical error. I scored in the 99th percentils on the Graduate Records Exam. How did you do?
The Supreme Court did not "run out the clock," you idiot. The clock ran out by itself, and the FL Supreme court tried to stop it.
You're sig screams out, ``I am a moron.''
I don't care how dominant Microsoft becomes, as long as I have a reasonable alternative. Most of my fellow libertarians think the government has no business at all monitoring MS, but I disagree. When MS tries to use its dominance to manipulate standards (official of de facto) for the purpose of driving out competition, then the government needs to take strong action. Unfortunately, they have a history of doing that.
I can't believe slashdot is falling for one of the greatest anti-technology hoaxes ever perpetrated. Plutonium is no more toxic than many other industrial substances. In fact, it is only about ten times more toxic than caffiene. Tests were done on dogs decades ago, in which a dozen or so dogs were given a tablespoon (or something like that). They all died of old age. Yet one pound of plutonium produces as much energy as the Yankee stadium full of coal! Not using nuclear is sheer environmental idiocy of the highert order. Wake up, folks!
Can you say "There's no such thing as a free lunch." The capital costs of this boondoggle would be astronomical, and the energy beamed down would be miniscule by any standard of large-scale energy procuction.
I could have missed it, but did anyone look at the cost of the proposed idea? I'll bet it's riciculously expensive. I'll bet it would cost about 100 times the cost of nuclear power (per unit of energy), but that's just a WAG.