Jesus Jumping Christ on a pogo stick, what is wrong with American universities nowadays? What in the name of Bob is an "illumni"? Perhaps you meant "alumni", but you cannot be an alumni either - because alumni is plural. You, my friend, are an alumnus (unless you're female, in which case you are an alumna).
This is of course not nearly as bad as the post to which you were replying, which had spelled "studen't" as if it were a contraction.
Sure, I'll probably end up giving them free support and doing a lot of hand-holding when things break
Yeah, but I'd rather support Linux systems than Windows systems! What I wouldn't give for a/var/log/messages to look at when my mother's computer crashes... and no, C:\BOOTLOG.TXT isn't even close.
And we all know how important the FPU is in web surfing. For general purpose, non-gaming use, I doubt that you can tell the difference between a C3-800 and a Duron-850 without running a benchmark. On the other hand, there's probably not a whole lot of price difference between the two.
I do not read the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita because the Bible claims to be truth and I believe what the Bible says. The Bible teaches that there is one way to the Father, and that is through his son Jesus Christ. (John 14:6) It would be going against what I believe to be truth to read these other texts in search of 'some other truth'.
So, if you had read the Koran first, and it said it was the truth, would you have believed it and never read the Bible?
If you say yes, does that mean all the books are the same, and whichever one you read first trumps the others? If so, how does that mesh with your belief that only believers in the Bible will receive salvation - does God accept or reject people based on which book they read first?
If you say no, what is it about the Bible that makes you believe that it is true, and how do you know that same "something" isn't in the Koran if you've never read it?
Yep, it's funny to listen to creationists saying the bombardier beetle, due to its complex defense mechanism, must have been created rather than evolved. Because, according to these same creationists, death and suffering were not designed into the world but brought about by mankind's sin. The bombardier beetle was designed before man, with all the other things that creep and crawl, according to Genesis. Why, then, did it need this mechanism? God's plan didn't include predators against which it would have to defend itself!
Before any creationists answer that God knew ahead of time that mankind would sin, think about this: if God knows this, and designs creation around it, creating predators with sharp teeth and venomous creatures and so on, how is that different from designing death into creation?
Your odds are 1. Your sequence implies an infinite repetition of the events, so not only will you draw the card, you will draw it an inifite number of times. If each card has a letter of the English alphabet on it, you will also draw the complete works of Shakespeare an infinite number of times.
The scientific evidence for MicroEvolution in no way supports MacroEvolution.
To quote the Borg Queen from First Contact: You imply a disparity where none exists. What is the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution? One is small random changes to DNA over time, the other is big random changes to DNA over time. What do you think happens when you've had 50 or 100 or 100,000 small changes? It adds up to a big change.
I see a lot of blind faith on the part of 'scientists' trying to "prove" evolution.
Blind faith? We're talking about a theory which has huge amounts of supporting evidence and explains the current state of the world very well. The mechanisms by which it works have been discovered and are being researched (with possibly huge benefits to humanity waiting to be uncovered - what is 'creation science' doing for us?). Blind faith would be rejecting the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution because it disagrees with the worldview of the people of forty centuries ago.
todate, I have never heard of a new species that was capable of reproduction ever being evolved.
I've never seen the tree in my front yard grow. If you take measurements of it ten years from now, I'll tell you that the ruler shrank, because this book my mother gave me says trees don't grow.
This is the kind of logic creationists use. Despite all the fossil evidence of common ancestry, current evidence of small evolutionary change over the limited time frame we've been observing, and a known mechanism by which evolution takes place, they keep saying there's no 'proof' of evolution. They refute all the evidence you can possibly present, coming up with all kinds of outlandish theories to explain it in the context of their little book.
The bombadier beetle's boiling water mechanism is irreducibly complex. Any of the parts of the system that would have evolved would have been useless and arguably detrimental without the other parts of the system.
Sounds like you didn't read the refutation. Many of the parts of that system do exist in other beetles. "Irreducible complexity" is a myth creationists invented because the big words made their ranting sound scientific.
I don't know about the person to whom you are replying, but I've seen bacteria. There's this miraculous new invention called the microscope you might want to look into (pun intended).
I am not saying that I don't believe in large evolutionary changes - just that they require different, more difficult evidence than small changes.
Well, it's like this. We know small changes occur. If enough small changes occur in a row, common sense indicates that the result is a large change. Apparently that common sense is lacking in some creationists, who seem to believe there is some "kind barrier" across which mutations cannot progress, despite the fact that there is no evidence of such a barrier. Believing things without hard evidence, though, is right up their alley.
Human beings and chimpanzees share like 99.6% of their DNA. A little bit of extrapolation based on known rates of genetic change indicates that a common ancestor is very plausible. Extend this same concept across all the known genera and species, and evolution hardly requires any huge leap of faith. It certainly doesn't require belief in any mechanism for which we have no evidence.
Keep these things in mind the next time a creationist tells you "It takes more blind faith to believe evolution than creation."
Yep, it's Friday on Slashdot, you can tell by the article that was clearly posted to incite the Creation/Evolution debate once again.
How does the concept of Creation a la Genesis and a global flood explain the presence of kangaroos in Australia, and nowhere else? They had to have been on the Ark. How did they get from Mt. Ararat to Australia without any of them staying somewhere in between?
Don't you think that that's the same thing the RIAA is saying? "how is this not stealing..."
The difference: if the software tricks Amazon into awarding affiliate sales commission to Morpheus instead of the intended recipient, the intended recipient has lost money that they would definitely have received.
When you download "See My Boobies One More Time", Britney and her record company are only being deprived of income if you would have bought the album without the P2P service. In fact, with P2P you might check out more of the album, like it, and wind up buying it when you wouldn't have done so if your only exposure was the two overplayed songs on the radio.
To sum it up, what Kazaa, etc are doing takes the money away every time. The P2P user isn't always a true financial loss to the RIAA.
Note that I'm not saying this makes copyright infringement ok, I'm saying it's a "lesser evil" than the fraud being perpetrated on Amazon affiliates.
Saying Gnome is faster than KDE is like saying a snail is faster than a slug.
Shouldn't a slug be faster since it doesn't have to tote a shell around? Oh, I get it. You're getting a quick jab in on Gnome while you're pointing out the silliness of comparing it to KDE on low-end machines. Clever, if that was your intent.
and requires you to install MySQL and Postgresql, which is a waste of diskspace
A basic install of Mandrake doesn't require either MySQL or Postgres. The catch is, if you install libqt3-devel (needed to build KDE stuff, obviously) there's a dependency on postresql-devel and libmysql10-devel. Which means that if you check 'Development' in the install, you're gonna get both DBMSs.
Still, your point holds true - it wastes disk space, but as long as you don't run them, it shouldn't make your system slow.
I started leaving a large gap between my car and the car ahead of me in stop and go traffic several years ago. I've never had significant problems with cars cutting in and filling up the gap. Read the FAQ on his web page to get some explanations why.
This doesn't work around Birmingham, Alabama. Damn NASCAR fans don't think they're going anywhere if they aren't passing people and cutting them off.
Apparently you VASTLY underestimate those same conspiracy theorists.
He seemed to believe that hard evidence would convince them that Apollo really got to the moon. Thus, I think he OVERestimated them - he UNDERestimated their obstinance and irrationality.
Well, not exactly. L Ron Hubbard founded Scientology with a statement that it was just to make money. Historical evidence (including, but not limited to, the Bible) indicates that Jesus of Nazareth did not found Christianity due to a bet against another rabbi. Even if you don't believe He's the Son of God, you have to admit his teachings are more socially acceptable (as in, not sociopathic, paranoid, psychotic) than Hubbard's.
Now, whether the current Roman Catholic Church or any other Christian church are still following in His footsteps, or exist solely to collect money, is subject to debate. My belief is that most Church officials have their hearts in the right place, but no organization made up of humans can be free from corruption.
Many give upwards of 50% of their income to the church.
Too bad none of those people go to any church I've attended. Catholics on the average don't even hit the 10% the Church "recommends" - most don't come close. I'm one of them, because I think my money can be put to better use helping people than building a new church building, as nice as that might be.
Oh yea. the RCC has been around for 1500 or so years, and Scientology is only about 20 years old.
They say the difference between a cult and a religion is a couple hundred years. They may be right. Incidentally, the oldest religion that's still being practiced relatively the same way it always has is probably Hinduism.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus Jumping Christ on a pogo stick, what is wrong with American universities nowadays? What in the name of Bob is an "illumni"? Perhaps you meant "alumni", but you cannot be an alumni either - because alumni is plural. You, my friend, are an alumnus (unless you're female, in which case you are an alumna).
This is of course not nearly as bad as the post to which you were replying, which had spelled "studen't" as if it were a contraction.
The difference is that Barry Manilow CDs are ar least useful to drive pests away from your garden.
No, no, it's...
Every time you run an app using WINE, you make Baby Jesus cry.
Sure, I'll probably end up giving them free support and doing a lot of hand-holding when things break
/var/log/messages to look at when my mother's computer crashes... and no, C:\BOOTLOG.TXT isn't even close.
Yeah, but I'd rather support Linux systems than Windows systems! What I wouldn't give for a
As if! The C3 even has half-speed FPU!
And we all know how important the FPU is in web surfing. For general purpose, non-gaming use, I doubt that you can tell the difference between a C3-800 and a Duron-850 without running a benchmark. On the other hand, there's probably not a whole lot of price difference between the two.
I do not read the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita because the Bible claims to be truth and I believe what the Bible says. The Bible teaches that there is one way to the Father, and that is through his son Jesus Christ. (John 14:6) It would be going against what I believe to be truth to read these other texts in search of 'some other truth'.
So, if you had read the Koran first, and it said it was the truth, would you have believed it and never read the Bible?
If you say yes, does that mean all the books are the same, and whichever one you read first trumps the others? If so, how does that mesh with your belief that only believers in the Bible will receive salvation - does God accept or reject people based on which book they read first?
If you say no, what is it about the Bible that makes you believe that it is true, and how do you know that same "something" isn't in the Koran if you've never read it?
THe problem is that drones like you derive your worldview from something that was intended to be scientific only in nature.
Are you saying it's better to "derive your worlview" from something non-scientific with little or no evidence to support it?
Yep, it's funny to listen to creationists saying the bombardier beetle, due to its complex defense mechanism, must have been created rather than evolved. Because, according to these same creationists, death and suffering were not designed into the world but brought about by mankind's sin. The bombardier beetle was designed before man, with all the other things that creep and crawl, according to Genesis. Why, then, did it need this mechanism? God's plan didn't include predators against which it would have to defend itself!
Before any creationists answer that God knew ahead of time that mankind would sin, think about this: if God knows this, and designs creation around it, creating predators with sharp teeth and venomous creatures and so on, how is that different from designing death into creation?
Your odds are 1. Your sequence implies an infinite repetition of the events, so not only will you draw the card, you will draw it an inifite number of times. If each card has a letter of the English alphabet on it, you will also draw the complete works of Shakespeare an infinite number of times.
The scientific evidence for MicroEvolution in no way supports MacroEvolution.
To quote the Borg Queen from First Contact: You imply a disparity where none exists. What is the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution? One is small random changes to DNA over time, the other is big random changes to DNA over time. What do you think happens when you've had 50 or 100 or 100,000 small changes? It adds up to a big change.
I see a lot of blind faith on the part of 'scientists' trying to "prove" evolution.
Blind faith? We're talking about a theory which has huge amounts of supporting evidence and explains the current state of the world very well. The mechanisms by which it works have been discovered and are being researched (with possibly huge benefits to humanity waiting to be uncovered - what is 'creation science' doing for us?). Blind faith would be rejecting the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution because it disagrees with the worldview of the people of forty centuries ago.
todate, I have never heard of a new species that was capable of reproduction ever being evolved.
I've never seen the tree in my front yard grow. If you take measurements of it ten years from now, I'll tell you that the ruler shrank, because this book my mother gave me says trees don't grow.
This is the kind of logic creationists use. Despite all the fossil evidence of common ancestry, current evidence of small evolutionary change over the limited time frame we've been observing, and a known mechanism by which evolution takes place, they keep saying there's no 'proof' of evolution. They refute all the evidence you can possibly present, coming up with all kinds of outlandish theories to explain it in the context of their little book.
The bombadier beetle's boiling water mechanism is irreducibly complex. Any of the parts of the system that would have evolved would have been useless and arguably detrimental without the other parts of the system.
Sounds like you didn't read the refutation. Many of the parts of that system do exist in other beetles. "Irreducible complexity" is a myth creationists invented because the big words made their ranting sound scientific.
I don't know about the person to whom you are replying, but I've seen bacteria. There's this miraculous new invention called the microscope you might want to look into (pun intended).
I am not saying that I don't believe in large evolutionary changes - just that they require different, more difficult evidence than small changes.
Well, it's like this. We know small changes occur. If enough small changes occur in a row, common sense indicates that the result is a large change. Apparently that common sense is lacking in some creationists, who seem to believe there is some "kind barrier" across which mutations cannot progress, despite the fact that there is no evidence of such a barrier. Believing things without hard evidence, though, is right up their alley.
Human beings and chimpanzees share like 99.6% of their DNA. A little bit of extrapolation based on known rates of genetic change indicates that a common ancestor is very plausible. Extend this same concept across all the known genera and species, and evolution hardly requires any huge leap of faith. It certainly doesn't require belief in any mechanism for which we have no evidence.
Keep these things in mind the next time a creationist tells you "It takes more blind faith to believe evolution than creation."
Yep, it's Friday on Slashdot, you can tell by the article that was clearly posted to incite the Creation/Evolution debate once again.
How does the concept of Creation a la Genesis and a global flood explain the presence of kangaroos in Australia, and nowhere else? They had to have been on the Ark. How did they get from Mt. Ararat to Australia without any of them staying somewhere in between?
Make a good p2p client and sell it instead of loading it with crap.
The problem is, if you sell a P2P client, the RIAA lawyers will be on you like... like RIAA lawyers on Napster.
Don't you think that that's the same thing the RIAA is saying? "how is this not stealing..."
The difference: if the software tricks Amazon into awarding affiliate sales commission to Morpheus instead of the intended recipient, the intended recipient has lost money that they would definitely have received.
When you download "See My Boobies One More Time", Britney and her record company are only being deprived of income if you would have bought the album without the P2P service. In fact, with P2P you might check out more of the album, like it, and wind up buying it when you wouldn't have done so if your only exposure was the two overplayed songs on the radio.
To sum it up, what Kazaa, etc are doing takes the money away every time. The P2P user isn't always a true financial loss to the RIAA.
Note that I'm not saying this makes copyright infringement ok, I'm saying it's a "lesser evil" than the fraud being perpetrated on Amazon affiliates.
To define redundant, we must first define redundant.
Actually, you get the current hdlist when you run urpmi.addmedia, so you shouldn't have to run urpmi.update after it.
Saying Gnome is faster than KDE is like saying a snail is faster than a slug.
Shouldn't a slug be faster since it doesn't have to tote a shell around? Oh, I get it. You're getting a quick jab in on Gnome while you're pointing out the silliness of comparing it to KDE on low-end machines. Clever, if that was your intent.
and requires you to install MySQL and Postgresql, which is a waste of diskspace
A basic install of Mandrake doesn't require either MySQL or Postgres. The catch is, if you install libqt3-devel (needed to build KDE stuff, obviously) there's a dependency on postresql-devel and libmysql10-devel. Which means that if you check 'Development' in the install, you're gonna get both DBMSs.
Still, your point holds true - it wastes disk space, but as long as you don't run them, it shouldn't make your system slow.
Yep, very important, because once you have a frickin' laser, you can get... One Meeeeellion Dollars!
I started leaving a large gap between my car and the car ahead of me in stop and go traffic several years ago. I've never had significant problems with cars cutting in and filling up the gap. Read the FAQ on his web page to get some explanations why.
This doesn't work around Birmingham, Alabama. Damn NASCAR fans don't think they're going anywhere if they aren't passing people and cutting them off.
Apparently you VASTLY underestimate those same conspiracy theorists.
He seemed to believe that hard evidence would convince them that Apollo really got to the moon. Thus, I think he OVERestimated them - he UNDERestimated their obstinance and irrationality.
That's almost a haiku, but not quite. I'll fix it.
Op'ration Snow White
Scientologists clean up
Covert op gone bad
They exist soley to collect money
Well, not exactly. L Ron Hubbard founded Scientology with a statement that it was just to make money. Historical evidence (including, but not limited to, the Bible) indicates that Jesus of Nazareth did not found Christianity due to a bet against another rabbi. Even if you don't believe He's the Son of God, you have to admit his teachings are more socially acceptable (as in, not sociopathic, paranoid, psychotic) than Hubbard's.
Now, whether the current Roman Catholic Church or any other Christian church are still following in His footsteps, or exist solely to collect money, is subject to debate. My belief is that most Church officials have their hearts in the right place, but no organization made up of humans can be free from corruption.
Many give upwards of 50% of their income to the church.
Too bad none of those people go to any church I've attended. Catholics on the average don't even hit the 10% the Church "recommends" - most don't come close. I'm one of them, because I think my money can be put to better use helping people than building a new church building, as nice as that might be.
Oh yea. the RCC has been around for 1500 or so years, and Scientology is only about 20 years old.
They say the difference between a cult and a religion is a couple hundred years. They may be right. Incidentally, the oldest religion that's still being practiced relatively the same way it always has is probably Hinduism.