"You'd rather your money go to put beer in the belly of some spoiled yankee college kid, than food on the table of a chinese family, and you don't see racism?
I bet you even consider yourself a liberal. Shame on you. "
If you look for racism everywhere, you will find it whether it exists or not.
"They're really complicated!" is no excuse for not following the conventional uninstall procedure and requiring that a separate uninstall program be downloaded separately from the internet.
"A year from now if Sony and Blu-Ray have won the format war with only Blu-Ray movies readily available, will Bill bite the bullet and also make an external Blu-Ray available?"
Of course.
"Would Sony let them? Could Sony prevent it legally?"
Why wouldn't/would they? Blu-Ray would mean more money for Sony's coffers.
"There are many good points that you have made, however I do not believe that Intelligent Design is weasel words for creationism although they both are essentially the same thing"
"one can't really point to evolution and say that evolution itself does not have gods hand in it's work. Sure sure, a all powerful god can just poof....get rid of fossil record and change things at will, but it would depend of that's what god wanted to do! Maybe god's just being lazy, or maybe god is leaving this record for a reason??"
Believing God drove evolution is not ID. It is theistic evolution, which while still not proper for classroom discussion is compatible with what is discussed in the classroom.
"I think all that creationists/intelligent design proponents are asking for is that it also be given class time. One can't point at ID saying that it's non-science because one doesn't have the proof either way."
And we say no because there's no science involved. If there's no proof, there's no reason to use it as if there was proof. "Irreducible complexity" is a nonscientific concept and regularly proven to be false.
"It IS possible to teach ID with a non religious bent (and likely it would be a very short lecture....)."
It would not be ID without a religious bent, it would be evolution.
"Even with evolution we are starting to stop to look for anything alternative."
Because "evolution" involves a fuckton of evidence. We look for different approaches to the same idea because the idea is correct. The questions lie in how the idea is put into place.
"I am not for nor agaisnt the theary of evolution."
You obviously are letting your creationist ties show through with nebulous statements like...
"But it remains just that - a theory."
Gravity is "just a theory", but its effects are just as visible. "Just a theory" is another creationist argument based off of a childish misunderstanding of how science is supposed to work. Anyone looking for "laws" is not grounded in reality.
"Being a better theory does not make it true."
No, being useful and with a stack of evidence makes it useful with a stack of evidence to assist us in our understanding of the world. Creationism has no evidence but wishful thinking in its favor.
"Remember the time when the most acclaimed minds in the world thought that the world was flat?"
The most acclaimed minds didn't think the world was flat. That was just the conventional assumption.
"Or how the best minds once thought the molecule was the smallest unit before they discovered atoms and electrons and those became the smallest. Then they they spilt THOSE up too. Remember the period table 50 years ago had less elements than they do now."
We thought that until evidence came by to further illuminate the molecule's components. When we understand how EVOLUTION works in a more detailed manner we will then further grow in our knowledge of evolution. That comparison doesn't work in your favor:)
"Intelligent Design may not be the answer. But that does not mean evolution is. Scientists are supposed to have an open mind. Accept your believes and accept that they may be wrong."
We do, and when more accurate information comes out, we'll accept the information.
Until that point, feel free to contribute to the wealth of creationist "science" sure to come out any day now! It's obviously a young movement, perhaps we can give it another couple of thousand years to see if we can get anything other than a halfassed and unscientific "god of the gaps" argument:)
Re:The same thing we do every night, Pinky
on
How Xbox Happened
·
· Score: 1
"can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll point out that in many many schools across the United States, the Bible is banned, not because it's religious, but because of violent and sexual content."
Do any of you have a reputable citation for this? Sounds like the same bullshit and fearmongering fundraising tactics that brought us the "war on christmas" this year.
I wouldn't quite put it like that, but religious promotion, education, and ritual *is* social conditioning of the most powerful sort. I don't think it's in most cases a bad thing, but your immersion in the culture prevents you from understanding the sorts of (willful, in your case) conditioning that goes on.
Bathing is necessary for day-to-day interactions and basic hygiene. Hygiene is stressed by any good parent, but it is learned without impetus. Breaking societal norms for dress as an identifying marker is also common among teenagers.
Associating atheists with dirty hippies and goths because they all break from convention is absolute bullshit, especially as you're using it as some pathetic attempt to denigrate.
A smelly hippie breaks from normal convention because he has a personality defect that prevents him from giving hygenic practices due priority. A RAAAGE against the mainstream goth is making the conscious effort to break social norms for attention.
An atheist does not follow christian norms because he does not require them. They do not appeal to him, and regardless of how much effort was placed into his internalizing of them by society. They do not take hold because while there may be "values" found within, he does not find there to be any evidence of a creator and can not accept the rest of the package that goes along with such "values".
Absolutely. Without the cultural inertia behind Christianity, there's little logical reason to believe it. Now, if you're talking about social bonds, ritual, institutions, and the experiential, that's a whole different sociological matter.
Slashdot Mirror
It requires excel to read a log outputted to excel format. There are other options to output the log, I assume.
"In moderation, I can't see the harm either... I am not responsible if it diagrees with you or vice versa, but I saw no side effects."
;)
There are never any side effects with sugar pills, unless you believe that there should be
"You'd rather your money go to put beer in the belly of some spoiled yankee college kid, than food on the table of a chinese family, and you don't see racism?
I bet you even consider yourself a liberal. Shame on you. "
If you look for racism everywhere, you will find it whether it exists or not.
Guess what, cultural preferences are not racism!
"Find an ISP -- preferably a small, mom-and-pop operation, or at least a customer friendly, yes-we-do-have-a-clue company -- and switch."
Oh, the ones who lease DSL service from Bellsouth. Gotcha.
Sometimes "real" is overrated. Obnoxious advertising is certainly one of those times.
"Not that Google in France or Germany would allow you to, either."
g le-Suche&meta=h erche+Google&meta=
What the hell are you talking about?
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=nazi&btnG=Goo
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=Nazi&btnG=Rec
"I don't factor upgradability into any system I buy"
"I make poor hardware choices, therefore I have poor hardware choices available to me".
"They're really complicated!" is no excuse for not following the conventional uninstall procedure and requiring that a separate uninstall program be downloaded separately from the internet.
FWIR, those were intentionally swapped as a project of the Cacophony society.
While the reference is unnecessary, it's always nice to have a response for every functionally retarded Creationist God of the Gaps argument.
Interesting like Fred Phelps is "interesting". They're all psychotic attention whores that feed and profit directly off of media attention.
"A year from now if Sony and Blu-Ray have won the format war with only Blu-Ray movies readily available, will Bill bite the bullet and also make an external Blu-Ray available?"
Of course.
"Would Sony let them? Could Sony prevent it legally?"
Why wouldn't/would they? Blu-Ray would mean more money for Sony's coffers.
Yeah, someone used it on the SomethingAwful forums for whatever nefarious purpose-
= &threadid=1759903
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s
Or perhaps you're too credulous a person :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Skaggs
He's pulled some *GREAT* hoaxes on the media and general public.
In the US, as long as the key's in the car with you.
"There are many good points that you have made, however I do not believe that Intelligent Design is weasel words for creationism although they both are essentially the same thing"
"one can't really point to evolution and say that evolution itself does not have gods hand in it's work. Sure sure, a all powerful god can just poof....get rid of fossil record and change things at will, but it would depend of that's what god wanted to do! Maybe god's just being lazy, or maybe god is leaving this record for a reason??"
Believing God drove evolution is not ID. It is theistic evolution, which while still not proper for classroom discussion is compatible with what is discussed in the classroom.
"I think all that creationists/intelligent design proponents are asking for is that it also be given class time. One can't point at ID saying that it's non-science because one doesn't have the proof either way."
And we say no because there's no science involved. If there's no proof, there's no reason to use it as if there was proof. "Irreducible complexity" is a nonscientific concept and regularly proven to be false.
"It IS possible to teach ID with a non religious bent (and likely it would be a very short lecture....)."
It would not be ID without a religious bent, it would be evolution.
"Even with evolution we are starting to stop to look for anything alternative."
:)
:)
Because "evolution" involves a fuckton of evidence. We look for different approaches to the same idea because the idea is correct. The questions lie in how the idea is put into place.
"I am not for nor agaisnt the theary of evolution."
You obviously are letting your creationist ties show through with nebulous statements like...
"But it remains just that - a theory."
Gravity is "just a theory", but its effects are just as visible. "Just a theory" is another creationist argument based off of a childish misunderstanding of how science is supposed to work. Anyone looking for "laws" is not grounded in reality.
"Being a better theory does not make it true."
No, being useful and with a stack of evidence makes it useful with a stack of evidence to assist us in our understanding of the world. Creationism has no evidence but wishful thinking in its favor.
"Remember the time when the most acclaimed minds in the world thought that the world was flat?"
The most acclaimed minds didn't think the world was flat. That was just the conventional assumption.
"Or how the best minds once thought the molecule was the smallest unit before they discovered atoms and electrons and those became the smallest. Then they they spilt THOSE up too. Remember the period table 50 years ago had less elements than they do now."
We thought that until evidence came by to further illuminate the molecule's components. When we understand how EVOLUTION works in a more detailed manner we will then further grow in our knowledge of evolution. That comparison doesn't work in your favor
"Intelligent Design may not be the answer. But that does not mean evolution is. Scientists are supposed to have an open mind. Accept your believes and accept that they may be wrong."
We do, and when more accurate information comes out, we'll accept the information.
Until that point, feel free to contribute to the wealth of creationist "science" sure to come out any day now! It's obviously a young movement, perhaps we can give it another couple of thousand years to see if we can get anything other than a halfassed and unscientific "god of the gaps" argument
Here's the plot.
v 2005/tc20051122_410710.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/no
They're more lumbering than stupid, you know.
No, the little they lose on each console (at this point) is less important than diversification a strong share of the console market offers.
"can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll point out that in many many schools across the United States, the Bible is banned, not because it's religious, but because of violent and sexual content."
Do any of you have a reputable citation for this? Sounds like the same bullshit and fearmongering fundraising tactics that brought us the "war on christmas" this year.
An "X" was also used by the pious illiterates who could not write their names.
I wouldn't quite put it like that, but religious promotion, education, and ritual *is* social conditioning of the most powerful sort. I don't think it's in most cases a bad thing, but your immersion in the culture prevents you from understanding the sorts of (willful, in your case) conditioning that goes on.
That's an absolute non-sequitur.
Bathing is necessary for day-to-day interactions and basic hygiene. Hygiene is stressed by any good parent, but it is learned without impetus. Breaking societal norms for dress as an identifying marker is also common among teenagers.
Associating atheists with dirty hippies and goths because they all break from convention is absolute bullshit, especially as you're using it as some pathetic attempt to denigrate.
A smelly hippie breaks from normal convention because he has a personality defect that prevents him from giving hygenic practices due priority. A RAAAGE against the mainstream goth is making the conscious effort to break social norms for attention.
An atheist does not follow christian norms because he does not require them. They do not appeal to him, and regardless of how much effort was placed into his internalizing of them by society. They do not take hold because while there may be "values" found within, he does not find there to be any evidence of a creator and can not accept the rest of the package that goes along with such "values".
Absolutely. Without the cultural inertia behind Christianity, there's little logical reason to believe it. Now, if you're talking about social bonds, ritual, institutions, and the experiential, that's a whole different sociological matter.