She didn't trust computers or the network, much less the internet. She was always afraid that there was some piece of information that she would need right now, and the network would be down, the power would be out, whatever. When she left, I had the fun task of shredding two filing cabinets full of stuff she had printed out and just stuffed in there. It never got looked at. It was wasted paper, power, space, time, etc, all because she was techphobic but cloaked it in "you never know!"
Yes, I too wonder about the utility of having all of your data off-site. But then again, I've used nothing but webmail for about 6 years and have had no problems at all. I'd bet Google has better data security than the vast majority of companies, since data is their core business. Karl Rove might not have lost his email (ahem) if he'd used off-site storage.
There is a point here, though. If we accept that we are descended from the same stock as the monkeys and apes (well, technically all life is from the same stock, but anyway...) and we look at their behavior, "what makes us human" is the wish to rise above our biological nature.
If you look at chimps and monkeys, you'll see rape, murder, infantcide, war, and so on. Evolution-haters would tell you that you see the same things in humanity because we teach evolution, but I think it's because we don't think enough about evolution. We have to realize the inherently savage nature of our lineage and face that, and only then can we recognize that we have to be alert to the same impulses in ourselves.
Look at the Zimbardo prison experiments, the Milgram experiments, and even Abu Ghraib--people show the darkest side of their nature precisely because we deny that it is there. If you look at apes/monkeys and concede that we're related then it's obvious that the nature component is there, and only by acknowledging the link and facing up to it can we overcome it. And overcoming it isn't a one-step process--it's a state of alertness to the darker side of our nature, the side we see the other primates living out. They have our opposable thumbs, but not our cerebral cortices. We have at least the capacity to overcome it, if we can just develop the honesty to admit our lineage and weaknesses.
"What it means to be human" may be an insoluble question, but only by asking who we are can we begin to ask who we want to be.
Even with headphones, I can't tell the difference between, say, 224kbit (or whatever it is) mp3 and lossless codecs. Some people may have phenomenally good ears, but most are pretending, I'd bet. When minidisc was big I remember blind tests that showed that people couldn't reliably pick out which one was the minidisc (which uses a lossy codec) and the actual CD. I'm happy with 320 or even 224kbit vbr files. Yeah, I wish I could go back in time and re-rip everything in OGG, but that isn't really going to happen. I can pick out 128kbit mp3 and yes I can hear the chirps and so on, but much better than that it's all the same to my ears.
With Linux you *must* tinker with the darn thing to make it work
I've done zero tinkering with Ubuntu. Everything works from the first splash screen. With Windows, I have to hunt down driver disks (plus my USB floppy) for the video card, sound card, NIC (keep that in mind before wiping the HD), and most stuff other than the mouse and keyboard. Also, when installing Windows, I have to think ahead and pre-download Zonealarm, antivirus software, adaware, the latest Service Packs, and so on so they can be in place before I plug in the network cable.
How many websites do I have to visit, and how many files do I have to download and install, to get a working Latex editor under Windows? As opposed to, say, "sudo apt-get install kile" and then answering "yes"? Linux recognizes the need programs and installs them as well, instead of needing to get Miktex installed on my own and then telling my editor where it is.
Look, I have no problem with people using Windows. But I abandoned Windows because Linux was easier, not because it totally ruled and I wanted to be leet, or tinker, or whatever. In Windows, something as stupidly simple as emailing someone a listing of files in a folder, getting that list in text form, requires add-on programs. Getting a sha-1 value requires an add-on program. PGP? Add-on. Grep alone is cool enough to switch for. Yes, I could install cygwin, but what would be the point?
I'm not bashing Windows, only saying that Linux has moved well beyond being useful only for those who like to tinker. I moved because of apt-get/synaptic, greater stability/security, the command-line tools like grep and sed, and so on. I can just do more stuff with my computer, while needing to go to less trouble, in Linux.
Start with a bare HD and a selection of installation media. A copy of Windows Vista, a copy of Ubuntu, a copy of Knoppix, and whatever else you want. Maybe not Gentoo or LFS, but work with me.
Which is easier to get a working system? I can boot to Knoppix in a couple of minutes. With the Knoppix DVD I have not only OpenOffice, but LaTeX editors and other resources. I can boot to DSL or Puppy Linux even faster. Even with a HD install, Ubuntu still installs faster than any Windows version I've installed. Installing Ubuntu, Automatix, and a couple of Latex editors, and I'm largely done.
How many hours of searching the web for the freeware programs I want will it take to get Windows usable for my needs? Yes, Openoffice, Texmaker, Abiword, Google Earth, Adobe Reader, and media codecs/players are all available for Windows, but I have to go to those webpages, download the programs to a folder, and then install. I can install most of them via one apt-get line in Linux, or use Automatix for one-stop shopping. How is Windows easier?
People have very selective perception on this issue. Yes, Linux has stumped me. I had the bright idea of installing TrueCrypt and VMPlayer on Damn Small Linux, and could get neither to work at all. Fine. But they both work on Fedora, Suse, Debian, and Ubuntu, so I'll live with it. Windows often leaves people stuck as well, but no one considers that a show-stopper. I've even read hardware reviews in Maximum PC where they couldn't get a particular something or other to work at all, due to bad drivers or whatever, but no one said "Well, Windows just isn't ready for prime time!" People take the flaws of Windows with a grain of salt and move on, but if they have to type one command into a terminal, then Linux is "impossible for normal people." Spare me. Use it or don't, as you like, but the idea that Windows is easier than Linux is a very arbitrary and misleading statement.
Re:Will anyone gain anything from this? Not Linux
on
The End is Nigh for XP
·
· Score: 1
On the other hand most updates for linux aren't patches but new versions of programs. So downloads are HUGE compared to MS ones
I've always wondered why this was so. Doesn't Linux have ways of copying only those bits of the file that actually changed? Surely out of a 6MB file not every line is different. I'm not trying to be facetious here--I'm really curious why you have to download the entire file when only part has changed.
Re:Will anyone gain anything from this? Not Linux
on
The End is Nigh for XP
·
· Score: 1
Upgrading to them is as easily as doing "Windows Update." Linux (and BSD) distros will never be this easily patched due to the very nature of being open source. I only have to go to 1 web site to update my PC's - Windows Update - and it's incredibly simple - just click on Update and voila, it's done and everything works.
Windows update updates only Windows, and perhaps other Microsoft titles like Office or Media Player. I get automatic updates for Ubuntu that updates the OS, as well as EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION I have installed. Does Windows Update check for updates on all the non-MS titles, and will it update them for you?
Other distros have similar utilities. My Ubuntu updates don't require rebooting the computer, though doing so is recommended. There is just no way that Windows Update is better than the update methodology used in Ubuntu.
I'd guess you are right about Microsoft's desperation. I personally haven't liked any of their OS's since Win2K well enough to even pirate. I bought XP twice, via a laptop purchase and again for a desktop, but both were immediately formatted, the first one for 2K and then both for Ubuntu once I switched. I don't like XP, and from the little I've played with Vista in stores, I detest it.
I'm ambivalent on whether the best thing for Linux is for "everyone" to be using it. Even with hordes of newbies and their unrealistic expectations for everything to be easy (i.e. instant, with no learning involved, and god help you if I have to type even one command), the fact is that with more users comes more industry support, more incentive to release drivers, and so on. You may have a distro pop up here and there without even a command line available at all, something locked down with only a handful of apps available, but that wouldn't impinge on power users (or even intermediate users like me) at all. We'll still have Debian, Ubuntu, and your Gentoo.
If only parents would limit their children's TV watching. In China, the USA, anywhere. Videogames are a good deal better (or at least less deleterious) for your brain than TV, I'd wager. Videogames may not make you smarter, but they don't actively make you know less than you did before, do they?
"Skepticism" over global warming has more to do with dispensationalism and postmillenarianism than it does with a dedication to libertarian principles of the free market. Partly, of course, the Republicans are repudiating environmentalism because the liberals got there first, but the hold the Raputure-waiters have over the party is more to blame. The book Kingdom Coming discusses this link quite nicely. If the Rapture is coming any second, why worry about the future of the Earth? Plus, Christian Dominionism holds that Christians (or at least Dominionists) rightfully hold dominion over the Earth (and the rest of us), so they have every right to exploit it however much they want.
This is also the subset of evangelicals who repudiate evolution, the age of the earth, and pretty much empirical, factual reality itself. They dismiss the findings of science as "materialism" and they hold that the conclusions they derive from their interpretation of the Bible (which they don't think is interpretation, even though it changes over the decades) have more value and authenticity than the findings of conventional science.
Reason magazine speaks to a different part of the Republican party. The libertarian-leaning Ron Paul faction has little in common with the Christian Dominionist faction, other than that they are both trying to steer the party towards their own political philosophy.
I know I've already linked to it, but please read Kingdom Coming. It may not be a perfect book, but it clarifies a lot of nagging issues that you see in the news. It's fascinating, and of course a bit frightening, to read that a sizeable number of people in the USA live by not just different beliefs, but by a different epistemology altogether. There is no common ground between them, and, well, Reason.
And before the "You hate all Christians! How sad." posters jump on me, don't. Just don't. I didn't say that, you know I didn't say that, and you can read my post to see that I didn't say that. Christian Dominionism exists, they (like Rushdoony) have written books, given speeches, and so on, and we can easily find out about them and their beliefs. They reject pluralistic society, reject science, and reject rationality. All while enjoying the fruits of pluralistic society and the scientific method. They don't represent all Christians, and I never said they did. Even the book I've linked repeatedly points out that they don't typify all Christians, or even all evangelicals. But they are quite prominent, and in fact finance the Creationist movement, the abstinence-only movement, and so on. So a lot of people who wouldn't agree with Rushdoony's more draconian ideas are still on board with them, meaning they have influence beyond their ostensible numbers.
I'd guess that all companies, once they get big enough, start believing their own hype. Managers start thinking that they have some secret sauce that means they don't have to deal with the normal realities facing other companies. They start avoiding standard, easy solutions because they think their own homegrown idea, even if it's completely incompatible with everything else in the world, will magically be better. Then they get secretive, partly to conceal their own bad decisions. The reinvent the wheel constantly because they think that their companies' "needs" are unique, which they very rarely are.
Your area sounds great. I was just one of those kids growing up in somewhere that is practically nowhere. There are worse places--I drove from TX to CA and there were little burgs where the only radio stations were religious AM broadcasts, and otherwise you hit "seek" on the radio and it just goes in a loop. Little places like someone eventually makes a "Children of the Corn" or "Jeepers Creepers" story out of. There is a lot of nowhere in the USA. I'm glad that there are places like yours that are affordable and culturally decent. If I had grown up in a college town (Austin, for example) my opinion of Texas might not be so horrible. As it is, the best I can say about it is that it isn't as bad as, say, the creepy hitchhiker in Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Real estate is indeed cheaper in many places, but the problem is that the places real estate is cheap are also places that are less interesting to live in. Manhattan, San Francisco, Seattle, etc have culture, like theaters, bookstores, good and varied restaurants, libraries, symphonies, and so on. Small town USA has church and Wal-Mart. Well, there's the corn festival, but you get the idea. I grew up in a small TX town where you can still buy a livable house for $25K or not much more. Considerably less, if your needs are modest. I once looked at a livable, decent 5-bedroom house in a small Oklahoma town for $15K. The town was basically a deceased oil town. If you don't farm, what do you do? I'd rather be broke in an interesting place than rich in a boring place.
Yes, the internet softens some of this. When I was a kid I had no bookstores other than Waldenbooks in the mall (notice I said "the" mall, not "a" mall) and now I have Amazon.com, addall.com, half.com/ebay, and so on. I can buy anything. But there still isn't that much to do in small town USA, and the mindset can be stifling if you're from a blue state way of thinking. And even if the adults like small town USA and want to raise their kids there because of low crime/affordable living/etc, the kids often hate it because there is so little to do. I grew up wanting nothing more than to get out. Small towns are famous for sucking you in.
I don't think it's that dramatic of leap. I wasn't posing a delimma between totalitarianism and anarchy. But the drugs/prostitution litmus test is, I've found, dependable, because it goes straight to the heart of social conservatism and immediately stops any talk of small government.
JAMA, The Lancet, and other medical journals have advocated an end to the war on drugs, not on moral grounds, but because it makes for worse social and health problems. Even the National Review had a cover story a few years back advocating an end to the drug war. There is no health threat from prostitution--it's just sex. Amsterdam, where drugs and prostitution are allowed (if not always technically legal) the AIDs rate and drug addiction rate are lower.
But this has been debated to death, and all the data is known. My only point was to find out of the parent poster was a social conservative or not. I got fooled during the Clinton era by all the seemingly libertarian-leaning conservatives who cried "tyranny" over Ruby Ridge, Waco, and so on. I thought these guys were about small government. And when the government was run by the Democrats, they were about small government.
Fast-forward a few years and they're telling us that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint and outdated," torture is okay, and the government should be able to hold people forever without trial. I rely on the examples of drugs and prostitution because those subjects can safely separate the "I hate democrats" conservatives from the actual Ron Paul conservatives who are more or less libertarian-leaning Republicans. Not all (or even many) Democrats want to legalize drugs or prostitution, but my ruse still tells me who I'm talking to, and tells me whether or not their concern for the scope of government is authentic.
That's funny--I've always read "Your rights online" as "Your rights, online," rather than meaning "a section about your online-related rights." I've always considered it an online forum about our rights in general, not a forum restricted to our internet-related rights. Strange how three little words can be seen so differently by different people.
I almost agree with you (in theory) but I fear that your argument may be a stalking horse. Here's a litmus test--should prostitution and drugs be legal?
If the answer is "yes" then I know you are a libertarian, with a consistent, coherent political philosophy. I may disagree with you on some issues, but at least we can have a conversation. If the answer is "no" or, worse, "that's not my point, and it's more complex than that... (i.e. equivocating)" then I know that you're a conservative who cries for limited government only on those issues where he doesn't want the government to take action.
Drugs, prostitution, pornography, gay marriage, abortion--on these subjects conservatives are silent about the evils of big government. The environment, hate crimes, intelligent design, prayer in schools--on these subjects the conservatives wail as if liberty herself were being dismembered on the White House lawn whenever the government takes action.
The main problem I see here is that your points are taken straight from creationist and ID literature and web-pages. These sources are great for building up and tearing down a caricature of evolution, but not so good for understanding actual evolutionary theory.
Fred Hoyle of the British Academy of Science and mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe decided to calculate the probability of life coming into existence anywhere in the universe. Their results? Utterly impossible.
Evolutionary theory does not address how life itself came about. Abiogenesis is a distinctly different field. But even so, life exists--we know that already. It's a bit odd to posit that something that has already happened is impossible. We may not know the agency (Hoyle was a fan of panspermia, for example) but that life exists indicates that life can come into existence.
...also attempted to calculate the probability that life sprang into existence spontaneously. His results? Utter impossible.
Again, life exists, so I'd temper the "utter impossible" assessments. Considering that we, along with the men whose assessments you're trumpeting, don't know exactly how life came about, I'd take their calculations with an ounce of salt. You might be overestimating how impossible something is when it's actually just improbable. Shuffle one deck of cards, and the probability of coming out with any particular arrangement is one over a 68-digit number. Two decks of cards? One over a 166-digit number. It is trivially easy to do things at your dining-room table that are mind-staggeringly improbable. That's the problem with trying to assess the probability of something that already happened--it may have been improbable, but now it's a fait accompli, so it no longer makes sense to say it's impossible.
Stephen J. Gould, one of the greatest defenders of evolution, was also troubled by issues that he saw within evolution. As a result, he came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium. He postulated that there were sudden leaps in evolution that left no transitional forms.
This is false, and is a deliberate mischaracterization by creationists of what Gould wrote. I'm sorry you were duped by this, but you might want to do an internet search for creationism and quote-mining. Here is a good link where you can read what Gould actually thought about those transitional fossils that you've been told he thought didn't exist. Again, I'm sorry you were lied to. It's hard enough to have a conversation about this complex of a subject without some creationist authors basically lying about what some scientist did or didn't say.
Take for example the eye.
I'd love to, primarily because it's one of the most frequently explained examples of how complex structures can evolve piece by piece. Wikipedia has a good article on the subject, and if you search around there are others. I've read good explanations by Dawkins, and others. Even PBS has a decent article. Basically any light-sensetive cell would give an organism an advantage over his competitors, and over time any further advantages would accrue as they develop. You are underestimating the power of accumulated changes.
Another stake in the heart of evolution is the absence of transitional forms.
Therearemany articles covering transitional fossils. They are real, we have thousands of them, and they can be easily viewe
This is why I never bought a photo printer. I have a monochrome laser, but that's about it. I've ordered prints from online services a few times, and always been happy. It wasn't instantanous, but it was better than hassling with the printer. I still drool over large-format pro-level printers, but the truth is that I wouldn't use one if I had it.
I only liked the show because Anderson's character was so stuck up. I dug the ice-maiden thing. When they made her more human and vulnerable (i.e. after I saw her cry) I started to lose interest. The off-putting "why do you exist again?" raised-eyebrow look was quite the draw.
As cheesecake Anderson isn't that much. Even as an actress Anderson isn't that much. But neither is Moore, in either department. Moore did better than I thought she would at playing Clarice Starling, but she still is too vulnerable to play such cerebral and (to me) cold women. And I happen to like cerebral and cold women.
Scientific theories are unseated when a better explanation of the facts comes along, one that is better at predicting outcomes and so on. I think skeptics vastly underestimate the size of the mountain of evidence supporting evolution, and vastly overestimate the validity of the claims made by creationist, ID, or Fixed Earth type sites.
That being said, your argument is a common one. The problem is that the evidence we have supports evolutionary theory, the counterclaims made by evolution skeptics (the bombadier beetle, and so on) were answered years or even decades ago. If other evidence came up, scientists would look at it. Evolutionary theory is constantly being revised, in that we are learning more about sexual selection, types of speciation, rates of change, and so on--it's quite an interesting field, even to a layman.
Then you have a lot of noise from the predominantly (though not exclusively) religiously-motivated community who say that evolution isn't really science because common descent and so on isn't being challenged in the science journals. Even Behe, the ID bigwig, accepts common descent, because the evidence is so overwhelming. What skeptics want is a complete grounds-up reappraisal of common descent, natural selection, and so on, in spite of the fact that no data calls those things into question.
The religious "skeptics" will never accept evolution, and for that matter will never accept methodological materialism, because they want their bible-based explanation taught as science. So much of the "skepticism" is just a PR campaign, as per the well-known Wedge Strategy.
Yes, I've read Lee Strobel, as well as Josh McDowell. There are plenty of responses to their arguments, and frankly their books are only persuasive if you already have faith in God. If you look around and see no reason to believe in God/providence/divine whatever, then the arguments fall a bit flat.
I think a large part of the misunderstanding, if it can be called that, is that the way your proposition is phrased begs the question. To say that I "believe that a diety did not create human life" presupposes that I believe in a diety, which I don't. It also shifts the burden of proof to someone (me) who is not making a claim. I am not making an assertion that a diety did not create human life. You can always assert the hand of God, evolution or no. Saying "God did it" or for that matter "God did not do it" are not, strictly speaking, provable claims, and I am not making either one of them.
And before you say "So you're saying atheism is logically untenable?" let me clarify by saying that the statement "God does not exist" is just as logically untenable as saying "Ghosts do not exist," or similar statements about Bigfoot, UFOs, whatever. In any case, I am not making the assertion that God doesn't exist, only saying that I have no faith that he does. Similarly, I am not making the bold assertion that there are no ghosts, anywhere in the universe, but I can honestly say that I see no reason to think that they exist. Stricly speaking, saying "there is no ESP" is logically unprovable, but we know that what people mean when they say that is that they see no reason to believe in the phenomenon. I don't believe in God in the same way I don't believe in leprechauns.
It's just that, to me, the existence of life does not prove God, I don't find Christian theology convincing, and science is known to be a productive, useful way of looking at the world, at least so far as explaining, predicting, and exploiting physical phenomenon. Science doesn't tell you why you should be a good person, but that isn't what it's for.
Anyway, back to your point, I've read much on the "it takes more faith to be an atheist" line of argument, and though it may be convincing to those who already have faith in God, it doesn't map well to what atheists actually believe. Usually when I encounter a person using that argument, most of their effort is spent in building up this edifice of belief they think I must have to be an atheist, and trying to get me to admit to it so they can use their canned arguments to knock it down. I don't think the outlooks are easy to reconcile, and they never really understand me. To them, I must by definition have a creed (though a wrong one) and it's that creed they are trying to pin down. But I don't have a creed per se, and atheism is not a belief system. I defer to science because it works where other mental models have failed. Science seeks to explain the natural world in terms of the natural world, which to me seems to make a bit of sense. What's more, evolutionary theory is profitably used in a variety of fields, including that of antibiotic research.
Regardless on our views on man's ultimate origins, the science behind evolutionary theory is so sound that it has practical applications today. The fight against AIDs, H5N1 (avian flu), and other diseases would be impossible without the mental model of evolutionary theory. It works. Deferring to what works doesn't somehow become blind faith in a non-god solution just because (some!) religious people are uncomfortable with evolutionary theory.
These people are rejecting science and depending on technology. Science:= Technology.
Technology is the application of what was learned from science. Technology is the tangible proof that science isn't "just so stories." Technology works, ergo the science is valid. Evolutionary theory, for example, is used every day in the development of antibiotics, and many other fields. To embrace new antibiotics and modern medicine while rejecting the mental model that allowed for their development is stupid and arrogant.
You seem to be citing almost the entire catalog of common creationist claims. Fortunately, they've all been addressed before.
I believe that the next big popular "theory" will be the space seed theory.
What's funny about your contemptuous reference here to Panspermia is that Fred Hoyle, who is the source of the "evolution is as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a 747" quote so often cited by creationists, believed in Panspermia. Thanks for making me smile at the irony.
it takes far more faith to believe that a "deity" did not create human life
It takes more faith to not have faith in a diety than to have faith in a diety? So... not believing in Santa Claus is really to have more belief in Santa Claus than those who... believe in Santa Claus? Being skeptical that Bigfoot exists means that you really have a stronger faith than those who believe in Bigfoot?
Could you please explain your logic? You don't seem to be making any sense. Me not believing in your God does not mean I have more faith than you--it means that I lack your faith in your God.
The ignorance to evolution is amazing in this country. It's no surprise at all people haven't embraced it here like they have overseas in Europe.
The problem isn't just the lack of education, but the outright disinformation we get from our entertainment. Yes, I know it's entertainment, but Americans at least seem to conflate the two. Think of what lessons about evolution we draw from movies like The X-Men, or that movie actually called Evolution, with that X-Files guy in it. How many movies have you seen where the monster "evolves" new capabilities? It's fairly horrible. With "understanding" like that, I'm not sure what value it is when a person on the street says they do believe in evolution. I'd rather ask them to explain it, even at a basic level.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I too wonder about the utility of having all of your data off-site. But then again, I've used nothing but webmail for about 6 years and have had no problems at all. I'd bet Google has better data security than the vast majority of companies, since data is their core business. Karl Rove might not have lost his email (ahem) if he'd used off-site storage.
If you look at chimps and monkeys, you'll see rape, murder, infantcide, war, and so on. Evolution-haters would tell you that you see the same things in humanity because we teach evolution, but I think it's because we don't think enough about evolution. We have to realize the inherently savage nature of our lineage and face that, and only then can we recognize that we have to be alert to the same impulses in ourselves.
Look at the Zimbardo prison experiments, the Milgram experiments, and even Abu Ghraib--people show the darkest side of their nature precisely because we deny that it is there. If you look at apes/monkeys and concede that we're related then it's obvious that the nature component is there, and only by acknowledging the link and facing up to it can we overcome it. And overcoming it isn't a one-step process--it's a state of alertness to the darker side of our nature, the side we see the other primates living out. They have our opposable thumbs, but not our cerebral cortices. We have at least the capacity to overcome it, if we can just develop the honesty to admit our lineage and weaknesses.
"What it means to be human" may be an insoluble question, but only by asking who we are can we begin to ask who we want to be.
Even with headphones, I can't tell the difference between, say, 224kbit (or whatever it is) mp3 and lossless codecs. Some people may have phenomenally good ears, but most are pretending, I'd bet. When minidisc was big I remember blind tests that showed that people couldn't reliably pick out which one was the minidisc (which uses a lossy codec) and the actual CD. I'm happy with 320 or even 224kbit vbr files. Yeah, I wish I could go back in time and re-rip everything in OGG, but that isn't really going to happen. I can pick out 128kbit mp3 and yes I can hear the chirps and so on, but much better than that it's all the same to my ears.
How many websites do I have to visit, and how many files do I have to download and install, to get a working Latex editor under Windows? As opposed to, say, "sudo apt-get install kile" and then answering "yes"? Linux recognizes the need programs and installs them as well, instead of needing to get Miktex installed on my own and then telling my editor where it is.
Look, I have no problem with people using Windows. But I abandoned Windows because Linux was easier, not because it totally ruled and I wanted to be leet, or tinker, or whatever. In Windows, something as stupidly simple as emailing someone a listing of files in a folder, getting that list in text form, requires add-on programs. Getting a sha-1 value requires an add-on program. PGP? Add-on. Grep alone is cool enough to switch for. Yes, I could install cygwin, but what would be the point?
I'm not bashing Windows, only saying that Linux has moved well beyond being useful only for those who like to tinker. I moved because of apt-get/synaptic, greater stability/security, the command-line tools like grep and sed, and so on. I can just do more stuff with my computer, while needing to go to less trouble, in Linux.
Which is easier to get a working system? I can boot to Knoppix in a couple of minutes. With the Knoppix DVD I have not only OpenOffice, but LaTeX editors and other resources. I can boot to DSL or Puppy Linux even faster. Even with a HD install, Ubuntu still installs faster than any Windows version I've installed. Installing Ubuntu, Automatix, and a couple of Latex editors, and I'm largely done.
How many hours of searching the web for the freeware programs I want will it take to get Windows usable for my needs? Yes, Openoffice, Texmaker, Abiword, Google Earth, Adobe Reader, and media codecs/players are all available for Windows, but I have to go to those webpages, download the programs to a folder, and then install. I can install most of them via one apt-get line in Linux, or use Automatix for one-stop shopping. How is Windows easier?
People have very selective perception on this issue. Yes, Linux has stumped me. I had the bright idea of installing TrueCrypt and VMPlayer on Damn Small Linux, and could get neither to work at all. Fine. But they both work on Fedora, Suse, Debian, and Ubuntu, so I'll live with it. Windows often leaves people stuck as well, but no one considers that a show-stopper. I've even read hardware reviews in Maximum PC where they couldn't get a particular something or other to work at all, due to bad drivers or whatever, but no one said "Well, Windows just isn't ready for prime time!" People take the flaws of Windows with a grain of salt and move on, but if they have to type one command into a terminal, then Linux is "impossible for normal people." Spare me. Use it or don't, as you like, but the idea that Windows is easier than Linux is a very arbitrary and misleading statement.
Other distros have similar utilities. My Ubuntu updates don't require rebooting the computer, though doing so is recommended. There is just no way that Windows Update is better than the update methodology used in Ubuntu.
I'm ambivalent on whether the best thing for Linux is for "everyone" to be using it. Even with hordes of newbies and their unrealistic expectations for everything to be easy (i.e. instant, with no learning involved, and god help you if I have to type even one command), the fact is that with more users comes more industry support, more incentive to release drivers, and so on. You may have a distro pop up here and there without even a command line available at all, something locked down with only a handful of apps available, but that wouldn't impinge on power users (or even intermediate users like me) at all. We'll still have Debian, Ubuntu, and your Gentoo.
If only parents would limit their children's TV watching. In China, the USA, anywhere. Videogames are a good deal better (or at least less deleterious) for your brain than TV, I'd wager. Videogames may not make you smarter, but they don't actively make you know less than you did before, do they?
This is also the subset of evangelicals who repudiate evolution, the age of the earth, and pretty much empirical, factual reality itself. They dismiss the findings of science as "materialism" and they hold that the conclusions they derive from their interpretation of the Bible (which they don't think is interpretation, even though it changes over the decades) have more value and authenticity than the findings of conventional science.
Reason magazine speaks to a different part of the Republican party. The libertarian-leaning Ron Paul faction has little in common with the Christian Dominionist faction, other than that they are both trying to steer the party towards their own political philosophy.
I know I've already linked to it, but please read Kingdom Coming. It may not be a perfect book, but it clarifies a lot of nagging issues that you see in the news. It's fascinating, and of course a bit frightening, to read that a sizeable number of people in the USA live by not just different beliefs, but by a different epistemology altogether. There is no common ground between them, and, well, Reason.
And before the "You hate all Christians! How sad." posters jump on me, don't. Just don't. I didn't say that, you know I didn't say that, and you can read my post to see that I didn't say that. Christian Dominionism exists, they (like Rushdoony) have written books, given speeches, and so on, and we can easily find out about them and their beliefs. They reject pluralistic society, reject science, and reject rationality. All while enjoying the fruits of pluralistic society and the scientific method. They don't represent all Christians, and I never said they did. Even the book I've linked repeatedly points out that they don't typify all Christians, or even all evangelicals. But they are quite prominent, and in fact finance the Creationist movement, the abstinence-only movement, and so on. So a lot of people who wouldn't agree with Rushdoony's more draconian ideas are still on board with them, meaning they have influence beyond their ostensible numbers.
I'd guess that all companies, once they get big enough, start believing their own hype. Managers start thinking that they have some secret sauce that means they don't have to deal with the normal realities facing other companies. They start avoiding standard, easy solutions because they think their own homegrown idea, even if it's completely incompatible with everything else in the world, will magically be better. Then they get secretive, partly to conceal their own bad decisions. The reinvent the wheel constantly because they think that their companies' "needs" are unique, which they very rarely are.
Your area sounds great. I was just one of those kids growing up in somewhere that is practically nowhere. There are worse places--I drove from TX to CA and there were little burgs where the only radio stations were religious AM broadcasts, and otherwise you hit "seek" on the radio and it just goes in a loop. Little places like someone eventually makes a "Children of the Corn" or "Jeepers Creepers" story out of. There is a lot of nowhere in the USA. I'm glad that there are places like yours that are affordable and culturally decent. If I had grown up in a college town (Austin, for example) my opinion of Texas might not be so horrible. As it is, the best I can say about it is that it isn't as bad as, say, the creepy hitchhiker in Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Yes, the internet softens some of this. When I was a kid I had no bookstores other than Waldenbooks in the mall (notice I said "the" mall, not "a" mall) and now I have Amazon.com, addall.com, half.com/ebay, and so on. I can buy anything. But there still isn't that much to do in small town USA, and the mindset can be stifling if you're from a blue state way of thinking. And even if the adults like small town USA and want to raise their kids there because of low crime/affordable living/etc, the kids often hate it because there is so little to do. I grew up wanting nothing more than to get out. Small towns are famous for sucking you in.
JAMA, The Lancet, and other medical journals have advocated an end to the war on drugs, not on moral grounds, but because it makes for worse social and health problems. Even the National Review had a cover story a few years back advocating an end to the drug war. There is no health threat from prostitution--it's just sex. Amsterdam, where drugs and prostitution are allowed (if not always technically legal) the AIDs rate and drug addiction rate are lower.
But this has been debated to death, and all the data is known. My only point was to find out of the parent poster was a social conservative or not. I got fooled during the Clinton era by all the seemingly libertarian-leaning conservatives who cried "tyranny" over Ruby Ridge, Waco, and so on. I thought these guys were about small government. And when the government was run by the Democrats, they were about small government.
Fast-forward a few years and they're telling us that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint and outdated," torture is okay, and the government should be able to hold people forever without trial. I rely on the examples of drugs and prostitution because those subjects can safely separate the "I hate democrats" conservatives from the actual Ron Paul conservatives who are more or less libertarian-leaning Republicans. Not all (or even many) Democrats want to legalize drugs or prostitution, but my ruse still tells me who I'm talking to, and tells me whether or not their concern for the scope of government is authentic.
That's funny--I've always read "Your rights online" as "Your rights, online," rather than meaning "a section about your online-related rights." I've always considered it an online forum about our rights in general, not a forum restricted to our internet-related rights. Strange how three little words can be seen so differently by different people.
If the answer is "yes" then I know you are a libertarian, with a consistent, coherent political philosophy. I may disagree with you on some issues, but at least we can have a conversation. If the answer is "no" or, worse, "that's not my point, and it's more complex than that... (i.e. equivocating)" then I know that you're a conservative who cries for limited government only on those issues where he doesn't want the government to take action.
Drugs, prostitution, pornography, gay marriage, abortion--on these subjects conservatives are silent about the evils of big government. The environment, hate crimes, intelligent design, prayer in schools--on these subjects the conservatives wail as if liberty herself were being dismembered on the White House lawn whenever the government takes action.
So which is it? Libertarian or conservative?
Evolutionary theory does not address how life itself came about. Abiogenesis is a distinctly different field. But even so, life exists--we know that already. It's a bit odd to posit that something that has already happened is impossible. We may not know the agency (Hoyle was a fan of panspermia, for example) but that life exists indicates that life can come into existence.
Again, life exists, so I'd temper the "utter impossible" assessments. Considering that we, along with the men whose assessments you're trumpeting, don't know exactly how life came about, I'd take their calculations with an ounce of salt. You might be overestimating how impossible something is when it's actually just improbable. Shuffle one deck of cards, and the probability of coming out with any particular arrangement is one over a 68-digit number. Two decks of cards? One over a 166-digit number. It is trivially easy to do things at your dining-room table that are mind-staggeringly improbable. That's the problem with trying to assess the probability of something that already happened--it may have been improbable, but now it's a fait accompli, so it no longer makes sense to say it's impossible.
This is false, and is a deliberate mischaracterization by creationists of what Gould wrote. I'm sorry you were duped by this, but you might want to do an internet search for creationism and quote-mining. Here is a good link where you can read what Gould actually thought about those transitional fossils that you've been told he thought didn't exist. Again, I'm sorry you were lied to. It's hard enough to have a conversation about this complex of a subject without some creationist authors basically lying about what some scientist did or didn't say.
I'd love to, primarily because it's one of the most frequently explained examples of how complex structures can evolve piece by piece. Wikipedia has a good article on the subject, and if you search around there are others. I've read good explanations by Dawkins, and others. Even PBS has a decent article. Basically any light-sensetive cell would give an organism an advantage over his competitors, and over time any further advantages would accrue as they develop. You are underestimating the power of accumulated changes.
There are many articles covering transitional fossils. They are real, we have thousands of them, and they can be easily viewe
This is why I never bought a photo printer. I have a monochrome laser, but that's about it. I've ordered prints from online services a few times, and always been happy. It wasn't instantanous, but it was better than hassling with the printer. I still drool over large-format pro-level printers, but the truth is that I wouldn't use one if I had it.
As cheesecake Anderson isn't that much. Even as an actress Anderson isn't that much. But neither is Moore, in either department. Moore did better than I thought she would at playing Clarice Starling, but she still is too vulnerable to play such cerebral and (to me) cold women. And I happen to like cerebral and cold women.
That being said, your argument is a common one. The problem is that the evidence we have supports evolutionary theory, the counterclaims made by evolution skeptics (the bombadier beetle, and so on) were answered years or even decades ago. If other evidence came up, scientists would look at it. Evolutionary theory is constantly being revised, in that we are learning more about sexual selection, types of speciation, rates of change, and so on--it's quite an interesting field, even to a layman.
Then you have a lot of noise from the predominantly (though not exclusively) religiously-motivated community who say that evolution isn't really science because common descent and so on isn't being challenged in the science journals. Even Behe, the ID bigwig, accepts common descent, because the evidence is so overwhelming. What skeptics want is a complete grounds-up reappraisal of common descent, natural selection, and so on, in spite of the fact that no data calls those things into question.
The religious "skeptics" will never accept evolution, and for that matter will never accept methodological materialism, because they want their bible-based explanation taught as science. So much of the "skepticism" is just a PR campaign, as per the well-known Wedge Strategy.
I think a large part of the misunderstanding, if it can be called that, is that the way your proposition is phrased begs the question. To say that I "believe that a diety did not create human life" presupposes that I believe in a diety, which I don't. It also shifts the burden of proof to someone (me) who is not making a claim. I am not making an assertion that a diety did not create human life. You can always assert the hand of God, evolution or no. Saying "God did it" or for that matter "God did not do it" are not, strictly speaking, provable claims, and I am not making either one of them.
And before you say "So you're saying atheism is logically untenable?" let me clarify by saying that the statement "God does not exist" is just as logically untenable as saying "Ghosts do not exist," or similar statements about Bigfoot, UFOs, whatever. In any case, I am not making the assertion that God doesn't exist, only saying that I have no faith that he does. Similarly, I am not making the bold assertion that there are no ghosts, anywhere in the universe, but I can honestly say that I see no reason to think that they exist. Stricly speaking, saying "there is no ESP" is logically unprovable, but we know that what people mean when they say that is that they see no reason to believe in the phenomenon. I don't believe in God in the same way I don't believe in leprechauns.
It's just that, to me, the existence of life does not prove God, I don't find Christian theology convincing, and science is known to be a productive, useful way of looking at the world, at least so far as explaining, predicting, and exploiting physical phenomenon. Science doesn't tell you why you should be a good person, but that isn't what it's for.
Anyway, back to your point, I've read much on the "it takes more faith to be an atheist" line of argument, and though it may be convincing to those who already have faith in God, it doesn't map well to what atheists actually believe. Usually when I encounter a person using that argument, most of their effort is spent in building up this edifice of belief they think I must have to be an atheist, and trying to get me to admit to it so they can use their canned arguments to knock it down. I don't think the outlooks are easy to reconcile, and they never really understand me. To them, I must by definition have a creed (though a wrong one) and it's that creed they are trying to pin down. But I don't have a creed per se, and atheism is not a belief system. I defer to science because it works where other mental models have failed. Science seeks to explain the natural world in terms of the natural world, which to me seems to make a bit of sense. What's more, evolutionary theory is profitably used in a variety of fields, including that of antibiotic research.
Regardless on our views on man's ultimate origins, the science behind evolutionary theory is so sound that it has practical applications today. The fight against AIDs, H5N1 (avian flu), and other diseases would be impossible without the mental model of evolutionary theory. It works. Deferring to what works doesn't somehow become blind faith in a non-god solution just because (some!) religious people are uncomfortable with evolutionary theory.
it takes far more faith to believe that a "deity" did not create human life
It takes more faith to not have faith in a diety than to have faith in a diety? So... not believing in Santa Claus is really to have more belief in Santa Claus than those who... believe in Santa Claus? Being skeptical that Bigfoot exists means that you really have a stronger faith than those who believe in Bigfoot?Could you please explain your logic? You don't seem to be making any sense. Me not believing in your God does not mean I have more faith than you--it means that I lack your faith in your God.