Maybe it's the Boy Scout in me. Maybe it's because I still picture Christa McAuliffe coming to our school the week after her flight. It might be because I come from a military family and have been around soldiers my whole life. My country isn't perfect, but it's my country.
I know it's not because I'm ignorant. I'm one of the most cynical people in the world. I don't trust anyone. I judge people on sight. I look for the bad aspect of every person I meet and I remember that part of them before anything else. Jon Benet's parents had something to do with it. I don't need the proof, I made my decision the moment I saw the news.
But, when it comes to our space program, I refuse to believe that any of it is faked. When I meet people in our space program, I can see and hear the excitement they have. I can see the child I used to be. I can see myself, without my cynicism, looking up, feeling very small, and letting my imagination go. The space program isn't about getting it right the first time. It's about setting your expectations higher than you can imagine and keeping at it until you get there.
I have to picture the Soviet engineers, scientists, and children the same way. Maybe their government wanted to keep its people happy and proud. Maybe they saw their children look up the same way I did. Maybe they just wanted to preserve that pride.
Nobody in these programs has to hide anything. We'll still be proud of the effort.
Over the weekend, we learned that Germany's Minister of the Interior, Otto Schily, was thinking...
It doesn't say, anywhere, that the "we" refers to people in the US. Because there was a mention of the US government doesn't mean that the assumption was made that all readers were from the US.
If an organization, government or private, publicly decided to begin doing this, the resulting DoS attack from every pissed-off slashdot reader, angst-filled script kiddie, and livid free-speech activist, worldwide, would be enough to cripple (and make an example of) any organization.
It would take only one and it wouldn't ever be an issue again.
A 1999 report by Alvin Cooper and Coralie R. Scherer of the California- based Marital and Sexuality Centre found that 75 per cent of those who enjoy adult Internet sites don't tell anyone about it.
They must mean they don't tell anyone but Alvin Cooper and Coralie R. Scherer.
Seriously though, nothing irritates me more than a researcher saying "Your numbers are wrong and mine are right because nobody will tell you the truth."
interesting applications of this technology, including a system to allow teachers to create prinnted tests and lab assignments with embedded DataGlyphs to allow automatic generation of graded and annotated results
There's a reason that most encryption and computer security measures are created in a way to suggest that you never, ever trust the client.
Bonus points to the kid who uses his Palm Pilot or TI-82 to read the answers embedded in his homework. I know I would have spent hours to outsmart the teacher's technology that otherwise could have been spent studying or doing the actual work.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I don't trust wires of any kind
Agreed, but encryption will never be absolutely secure, despite what a government does or does not do. The key is to know who's intereted in your data and plan accordingly. The level of encryption only needs to be stronger than what someone else is willing to attempt breaking.
A prospective victim in a police station isn't absolutely safe, but it's much more likely that they'll be left alone there by someone only interested in lifting thir wallet. The mob snitch is a different story.
IE is bolted to Win98 and up, and there is no option to NOT install, right? And you did pay for your OS, right?
So... you buy an OS, knowing that it comes with a shoddy browser...
Imagine you brought a car with door locks that only work 50% of the time. If it was stolen, it is the fault of the thief AND the manufacturer.
This would only be the same situation if you bought the car, knowing that the locks don't work. Last I checked, the fact that IE was part of the OS was advertised as a selling point. I don't picture the car dealer writing "Broken Locks Included!" on the windshield with soap. If that is the case, you're an idiot for buying it.
Our company is one of the many who received registered mail requesting a list of all our Microsoft software, license information, and a list of any equipment that may be running said software. Our head of purchasing has flipped out and is running around like an idiot and scaring management into thinking we're under attack.
When my girlfriend was in a car accident, the idiot who caused it hired a lawyer. The weasel lawyer sent out official-looking, registered mail stating that he needed her immediate written responses to the contained survey and questions. Her insurance company said to forward it to them and forget about it, as the lawyer had no right to any of that information. A similar tactic was used when my mother was rear-ended at a stoplight.
Simple fact is that we aren't required to give Microsoft diddly. They are not a federal agency, they don't have authority to demand the info, and we aren't going to give it to them.
Simple solution is to quietly make sure, should the occassion arise that we need to give the proper authority proof, we are up-to-date on our licensing. Sending the information places you in a much more dangerous situation, because Microsoft knows you're scared and ready to cooperate with them.
Incidentally, we were contacted very shortly after by a Microsoft employee who congratulated us on our recent growth (no, I don't know how he knew) and asked if we needed any more licenses to keep us legal. Coincidence... I think not.
You may have seen the Maryland teenager (18) who was just arrested for sending IM's to some students at Columbine and California where the last couple shootings occurred. For those that don't know, he sent some pretty heavy messages to some of the surviving students about "finishing the job". He was arrested and is now awaiting extradition for some heavy charges in 3 states.
I know the guy personally (for most of his life)and I know he wouldn't have done any of the things he said. I know his parents haven't done crap to raise him properly and that they always blamed his Attention Deficit Disorder for any problems he had. It's sad, because he's a pretty good kid who's overly-hyper and doesn't think before he acts... mostly just looking for attention. Now he's facing some pretty hefty charges, no longer a minor, in a time when the courts would be happy to crucify someone and create a scapegoat for all the bad things.
However, I have to vehemently disagree with eliminating a zero-tolerance policy. This is the same attitude that allows a parent to blame someone other than the child and themselves and face the consequences. This guy will probably get some hefty punishment and it will be justly deserved. I guarantee no matter what it is, he will take every opportunity to think before he acts next time... and maybe it will be a deterent for the next person.
Bull, no ad campaign, no matter how great it is can make me buy a crap product more than once
I'm not talking about an individual person. I have changed the radio station because of an irritating ad. However, nobody can deny that crappy products can be sold through sheer volume of advertising and name recognition even when there are better alternatives. Here's a perfect example of a company that owns almost 70% of their market earned almost entirely through their advertising.
People watch and remember the commercials whether they want to or not. Everyone remembers commercials no matter how irritating or stupid they are.
What type of beer the frogs keep saying? Maybe you'll recall the idiot on the front page of the newspaper that gets attached to the grill of the passing "Corr-oll-aaaahhhh?!!" Anyone remember what type of drink Britney Spears advertised? I'll bet even the ones who haven't seen it know. Perhaps, you know why the servers don't care about the merger?
If you change the station, walk away, or just attempt to ignore it, you've still seen the commercial. If a commercial gets under your skin it still works. Any publicity is good publicity. These ads will work and good advertising execs realize that click-throughs are only one way of measuring the success of an ad.
The effort put forth by an official for a response will never be a greater effort than that put out by the taxpayer. This applies to any situation, whether it be a large business or a government office. If you want a written response, send a written letter.
I've found that if you stop by their office and look and sound important, speak politely, and act uninterested in subordinates you move up the chain quickly. I spoke with two of my state senators, in their office, face-to-face, just by stopping by and expresing my disgust that they hadn't stopped by my office yet. I never actually had previous contact with either of the offices, but no subordinate will risk blowing off a person who is already pissed and may be important.
Expecting anything more than an ambiguous form letter from an email is ridiculous. How much of the "junk" mail do you respond to?
Directing an animator to move a character would be exactly the same as directing an actor to move a character. The process is creating visuals and atmosphere. When an actor can't accomplish something that the director wants, a good director would find another actor. The less competent director would say, "I guess that will work."
Whining that someone has a lot of money to invest in a film is no excuse to bash them. Lucas could make just as much money, based only on the Star Wars name, if he said "Screw everyone. I'm going with a single Hi-8 camera and using my nephew in the backyard using a broom handle as a lightsaber." Instead, he invests a ton of money in a film to make what he thinks is better.
I thought Jar Jar was irritating. I thought the announcer for the pod race was lame. I won't, however, insult Lucas for doing what he thought the audience would want to see and creating the movie that he envisioned. If you don't like how he's making his films then don't watch them. If you think you can do better, make your own and impress us.
The addition of the urlspace to the domain name can be very natural, and can become part of the common idiom for describing domain names. For example, poems-jane.com would be pronounced:
poems.com in uspace jane
This idiom is very short and natural sounding
The word calculus is short and natural sounding. That doesn't make it easy to comprehend. I'm all for finding new solutions and thinking outside of the box, but the attraction to names like "sports.com" or "pets.com" is that they're easy to remember. Someone hears a name and types it in later. The urlspace idea requires someone to remember a domain (which is probably related, but not the intended target) and then parse and insert additional info. You're asking a lot of the typical web user.
I also don't expect the proprieter of FuzzyPets to want to advertise "pets.com in uspace fuzzy" and mention a competitor's name, possibly steering interested clients away.
Yes, software gets re-used in the real world. But, when we look to hire a programmer we aren't looking for someone who can use a library. We want people who can code. We've had entirely too many hours wasted interviewing people straight out of school who can't program worth crap.
High school diplomas used to mean something. You had lower graduation rates because the requirements meant something. Now getting high school diploma means you attended more classes than you didn't, you can write your own name without making more than a couple mistakes, and you didn't shoot anyone. It's beginning to occur in univerities now and to be an impressive candidate in a lot of industries you have to have your masters degree.
Collabortion is great. OOP is fantastic. Trained monkeys who can sniff out and find somebody else's work are useless. School is for learning and copying work, rather than creating it, is detrimental to the student and to the school's reputation.
Take pride in your work, fulfill the requirements, and you'll understand why it's important.
This reminds me of when I was in grade school and we thought we were slick because we hid small calculators in our desks for our math problems. Of course, if we ever got caught (like when the idiot in front of me who wrote an "e" in his answer) we were given failing grades.
The teachers I had in high school and college didn't care if we used calculators because it was expected that we had already learned basic math and they were more concerned that we learn algebra or calculus.
My computer science instructors (University of Maryland) were very similar in the way that they taught. If we were concentrating on building a string class from scratch to learn how linked lists worked then it made sense that we shouldn't be allowed to copy someone else's list classes. If we were creating PM-1 Quad Tree classes or some other complex project the the instructor generally didn't care if we used someone's string classes (with proper citation, of course) so long as we programmed the core of the requirements.
Some would argue that people reuse code in the real world. This is very true and I do it every day. You can still be held liable for not citing someone else's work. More importantly, in college someone is giving you a diploma that says, "We certify that this person has succeeded in meeting our requirements" not "We certify that this peron has succeeded in finding and copying the results of someone else who would meet our requirements."
I began reading this post, thinking "I love sarcasm," but it quickly became clear that you actually believe this. Even upon realizing this, rolling my eyes, and eventually returning them back to their original position, I was completely ready to let it go.
Then I saw this...
|*| Ask not what you country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country. -- anonymous |*|
If you don't know who said this, please finish your American history homework before you go out to play kickball at recess and don't post to any newsgroups on your older brother's computer. Stupid opinions do count and should be given due respect, however, you are really pushing the limits.
As someone who started out in computer engineering and switched to computer science, I would have to say they're pretty evenly matched when it comes to curriculum (this, of course, is relative by school). I switched because I found I enjoyed the programming aspect much more than the hardware.
Placed in the same situation, I would still go to engineering first. With all of the required core engineering classes that I took my freshman year, I know it was much easier to switch the way I did, but I've seen people add years to their education trying to do it vice-versa.
I am amazed at the ignorance, and more importantly the arrogance, of people on both sides of this.
When it comes down to it, people are scared, beyond measure, about what happens to them when they die. Sure, anyone in our church (yes, I attend on an occassional basis -- schedule defined by me) will tell you "I'm not scared... I know where I'm going" but nearly every one of those people are scared, too. The few that are truly happy and comfortable don't feel the need to vehemently prove their *faith* to other people.
I consider myself to be a fairly scientific person. I try to evaluate things with an open mind. I accept that evolution probably does occur and we have some pretty convincing slumped-over caveman skeletons that show some amazing evolution in a short time. I also don't remember dinosaurs getting mentioned in any good book (no brontasaurus or wooly mammoth on any ark that size, either). However, I would probably have heard some pretty convincing aruements that the worls was flat and that maggots spontaniously appear in rotten food, too, had I lived earlier and listened to the amazing scientists then.
Nobody can absolutely prove the existence of a god nor can they provide absolute proof that one does not exist. There's nothing wrong with that, but to assume that you absolutely know God's will or the secret of life, based on either a gene or a book, is ridiculous.
My recommendation to both sides is to keep an open mind and realize that if you could prove faith it would cease to be faith.
I've had this discussion/arguement with several friends. My girlfriend is a graphic designer/web developer and I'm a programmer/web developer. I was once told that "solving a problem creatively with code implies you are a good programmer, but it does not make you an artist."
My next question was "what makes a person an artist?"
The only answer was "creativity" and the arguement was over.
Slashdot Mirror
She was supposed, too. Obviously, she didn't.
Maybe it's the Boy Scout in me. Maybe it's because I still picture Christa McAuliffe coming to our school the week after her flight. It might be because I come from a military family and have been around soldiers my whole life. My country isn't perfect, but it's my country.
I know it's not because I'm ignorant. I'm one of the most cynical people in the world. I don't trust anyone. I judge people on sight. I look for the bad aspect of every person I meet and I remember that part of them before anything else. Jon Benet's parents had something to do with it. I don't need the proof, I made my decision the moment I saw the news.
But, when it comes to our space program, I refuse to believe that any of it is faked. When I meet people in our space program, I can see and hear the excitement they have. I can see the child I used to be. I can see myself, without my cynicism, looking up, feeling very small, and letting my imagination go. The space program isn't about getting it right the first time. It's about setting your expectations higher than you can imagine and keeping at it until you get there.
I have to picture the Soviet engineers, scientists, and children the same way. Maybe their government wanted to keep its people happy and proud. Maybe they saw their children look up the same way I did. Maybe they just wanted to preserve that pride.
Nobody in these programs has to hide anything. We'll still be proud of the effort.
Over the weekend, we learned that Germany's Minister of the Interior, Otto Schily, was thinking...
It doesn't say, anywhere, that the "we" refers to people in the US. Because there was a mention of the US government doesn't mean that the assumption was made that all readers were from the US.
If an organization, government or private, publicly decided to begin doing this, the resulting DoS attack from every pissed-off slashdot reader, angst-filled script kiddie, and livid free-speech activist, worldwide, would be enough to cripple (and make an example of) any organization.
It would take only one and it wouldn't ever be an issue again.
A 1999 report by Alvin Cooper and Coralie R. Scherer of the California- based Marital and Sexuality Centre found that 75 per cent of those who enjoy adult Internet sites don't tell anyone about it.
They must mean they don't tell anyone but Alvin Cooper and Coralie R. Scherer.
Seriously though, nothing irritates me more than a researcher saying "Your numbers are wrong and mine are right because nobody will tell you the truth."
interesting applications of this technology, including a system to allow teachers to create prinnted tests and lab assignments with embedded DataGlyphs to allow automatic generation of graded and annotated results
There's a reason that most encryption and computer security measures are created in a way to suggest that you never, ever trust the client.
Bonus points to the kid who uses his Palm Pilot or TI-82 to read the answers embedded in his homework. I know I would have spent hours to outsmart the teacher's technology that otherwise could have been spent studying or doing the actual work.
Interesting technology, though...
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I don't trust wires of any kind
Agreed, but encryption will never be absolutely secure, despite what a government does or does not do. The key is to know who's intereted in your data and plan accordingly. The level of encryption only needs to be stronger than what someone else is willing to attempt breaking.
A prospective victim in a police station isn't absolutely safe, but it's much more likely that they'll be left alone there by someone only interested in lifting thir wallet. The mob snitch is a different story.
IE is bolted to Win98 and up, and there is no option to NOT install, right? And you did pay for your OS, right?
So... you buy an OS, knowing that it comes with a shoddy browser...
Imagine you brought a car with door locks that only work 50% of the time. If it was stolen, it is the fault of the thief AND the manufacturer.
This would only be the same situation if you bought the car, knowing that the locks don't work. Last I checked, the fact that IE was part of the OS was advertised as a selling point. I don't picture the car dealer writing "Broken Locks Included!" on the windshield with soap. If that is the case, you're an idiot for buying it.
Our company is one of the many who received registered mail requesting a list of all our Microsoft software, license information, and a list of any equipment that may be running said software. Our head of purchasing has flipped out and is running around like an idiot and scaring management into thinking we're under attack.
When my girlfriend was in a car accident, the idiot who caused it hired a lawyer. The weasel lawyer sent out official-looking, registered mail stating that he needed her immediate written responses to the contained survey and questions. Her insurance company said to forward it to them and forget about it, as the lawyer had no right to any of that information. A similar tactic was used when my mother was rear-ended at a stoplight.
Simple fact is that we aren't required to give Microsoft diddly. They are not a federal agency, they don't have authority to demand the info, and we aren't going to give it to them.
Simple solution is to quietly make sure, should the occassion arise that we need to give the proper authority proof, we are up-to-date on our licensing. Sending the information places you in a much more dangerous situation, because Microsoft knows you're scared and ready to cooperate with them.
Incidentally, we were contacted very shortly after by a Microsoft employee who congratulated us on our recent growth (no, I don't know how he knew) and asked if we needed any more licenses to keep us legal. Coincidence... I think not.
You may have seen the Maryland teenager (18) who was just arrested for sending IM's to some students at Columbine and California where the last couple shootings occurred. For those that don't know, he sent some pretty heavy messages to some of the surviving students about "finishing the job". He was arrested and is now awaiting extradition for some heavy charges in 3 states.
I know the guy personally (for most of his life)and I know he wouldn't have done any of the things he said. I know his parents haven't done crap to raise him properly and that they always blamed his Attention Deficit Disorder for any problems he had. It's sad, because he's a pretty good kid who's overly-hyper and doesn't think before he acts... mostly just looking for attention. Now he's facing some pretty hefty charges, no longer a minor, in a time when the courts would be happy to crucify someone and create a scapegoat for all the bad things.
However, I have to vehemently disagree with eliminating a zero-tolerance policy. This is the same attitude that allows a parent to blame someone other than the child and themselves and face the consequences. This guy will probably get some hefty punishment and it will be justly deserved. I guarantee no matter what it is, he will take every opportunity to think before he acts next time... and maybe it will be a deterent for the next person.
I thought information was supposed to be free.
Bull, no ad campaign, no matter how great it is can make me buy a crap product more than once
I'm not talking about an individual person. I have changed the radio station because of an irritating ad. However, nobody can deny that crappy products can be sold through sheer volume of advertising and name recognition even when there are better alternatives. Here's a perfect example of a company that owns almost 70% of their market earned almost entirely through their advertising.
People watch and remember the commercials whether they want to or not. Everyone remembers commercials no matter how irritating or stupid they are.
What type of beer the frogs keep saying? Maybe you'll recall the idiot on the front page of the newspaper that gets attached to the grill of the passing "Corr-oll-aaaahhhh?!!" Anyone remember what type of drink Britney Spears advertised? I'll bet even the ones who haven't seen it know. Perhaps, you know why the servers don't care about the merger?
If you change the station, walk away, or just attempt to ignore it, you've still seen the commercial. If a commercial gets under your skin it still works. Any publicity is good publicity. These ads will work and good advertising execs realize that click-throughs are only one way of measuring the success of an ad.
The effort put forth by an official for a response will never be a greater effort than that put out by the taxpayer. This applies to any situation, whether it be a large business or a government office. If you want a written response, send a written letter.
I've found that if you stop by their office and look and sound important, speak politely, and act uninterested in subordinates you move up the chain quickly. I spoke with two of my state senators, in their office, face-to-face, just by stopping by and expresing my disgust that they hadn't stopped by my office yet. I never actually had previous contact with either of the offices, but no subordinate will risk blowing off a person who is already pissed and may be important.
Expecting anything more than an ambiguous form letter from an email is ridiculous. How much of the "junk" mail do you respond to?
Directing an animator to move a character would be exactly the same as directing an actor to move a character. The process is creating visuals and atmosphere. When an actor can't accomplish something that the director wants, a good director would find another actor. The less competent director would say, "I guess that will work."
Whining that someone has a lot of money to invest in a film is no excuse to bash them. Lucas could make just as much money, based only on the Star Wars name, if he said "Screw everyone. I'm going with a single Hi-8 camera and using my nephew in the backyard using a broom handle as a lightsaber." Instead, he invests a ton of money in a film to make what he thinks is better.
I thought Jar Jar was irritating. I thought the announcer for the pod race was lame. I won't, however, insult Lucas for doing what he thought the audience would want to see and creating the movie that he envisioned. If you don't like how he's making his films then don't watch them. If you think you can do better, make your own and impress us.
The addition of the urlspace to the domain name can be very natural, and can become part of the common idiom for describing domain names. For example, poems-jane.com would be pronounced:
poems.com in uspace jane
This idiom is very short and natural sounding
The word calculus is short and natural sounding. That doesn't make it easy to comprehend. I'm all for finding new solutions and thinking outside of the box, but the attraction to names like "sports.com" or "pets.com" is that they're easy to remember. Someone hears a name and types it in later. The urlspace idea requires someone to remember a domain (which is probably related, but not the intended target) and then parse and insert additional info. You're asking a lot of the typical web user.
I also don't expect the proprieter of FuzzyPets to want to advertise "pets.com in uspace fuzzy" and mention a competitor's name, possibly steering interested clients away.
Yes, software gets re-used in the real world. But, when we look to hire a programmer we aren't looking for someone who can use a library. We want people who can code. We've had entirely too many hours wasted interviewing people straight out of school who can't program worth crap.
High school diplomas used to mean something. You had lower graduation rates because the requirements meant something. Now getting high school diploma means you attended more classes than you didn't, you can write your own name without making more than a couple mistakes, and you didn't shoot anyone. It's beginning to occur in univerities now and to be an impressive candidate in a lot of industries you have to have your masters degree.
Collabortion is great. OOP is fantastic. Trained monkeys who can sniff out and find somebody else's work are useless. School is for learning and copying work, rather than creating it, is detrimental to the student and to the school's reputation.
Take pride in your work, fulfill the requirements, and you'll understand why it's important.
This reminds me of when I was in grade school and we thought we were slick because we hid small calculators in our desks for our math problems. Of course, if we ever got caught (like when the idiot in front of me who wrote an "e" in his answer) we were given failing grades.
The teachers I had in high school and college didn't care if we used calculators because it was expected that we had already learned basic math and they were more concerned that we learn algebra or calculus.
My computer science instructors (University of Maryland) were very similar in the way that they taught. If we were concentrating on building a string class from scratch to learn how linked lists worked then it made sense that we shouldn't be allowed to copy someone else's list classes. If we were creating PM-1 Quad Tree classes or some other complex project the the instructor generally didn't care if we used someone's string classes (with proper citation, of course) so long as we programmed the core of the requirements.
Some would argue that people reuse code in the real world. This is very true and I do it every day. You can still be held liable for not citing someone else's work. More importantly, in college someone is giving you a diploma that says, "We certify that this person has succeeded in meeting our requirements" not "We certify that this peron has succeeded in finding and copying the results of someone else who would meet our requirements."
I began reading this post, thinking "I love sarcasm," but it quickly became clear that you actually believe this. Even upon realizing this, rolling my eyes, and eventually returning them back to their original position, I was completely ready to let it go.
Then I saw this...
|*| Ask not what you country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country. -- anonymous |*|
If you don't know who said this, please finish your American history homework before you go out to play kickball at recess and don't post to any newsgroups on your older brother's computer. Stupid opinions do count and should be given due respect, however, you are really pushing the limits.
All these people that wrap themselves in aluminum foil to counter the secret government mind rays are going to be turned into baked potatoes.
As someone who started out in computer engineering and switched to computer science, I would have to say they're pretty evenly matched when it comes to curriculum (this, of course, is relative by school). I switched because I found I enjoyed the programming aspect much more than the hardware.
Placed in the same situation, I would still go to engineering first. With all of the required core engineering classes that I took my freshman year, I know it was much easier to switch the way I did, but I've seen people add years to their education trying to do it vice-versa.
had to be, without a doubt, the maid. Her sweet employee routine that immediately switches to bitch-style when out of earshot was perfect.
I am amazed at the ignorance, and more importantly the arrogance, of people on both sides of this.
When it comes down to it, people are scared, beyond measure, about what happens to them when they die. Sure, anyone in our church (yes, I attend on an occassional basis -- schedule defined by me) will tell you "I'm not scared... I know where I'm going" but nearly every one of those people are scared, too. The few that are truly happy and comfortable don't feel the need to vehemently prove their *faith* to other people.
I consider myself to be a fairly scientific person. I try to evaluate things with an open mind. I accept that evolution probably does occur and we have some pretty convincing slumped-over caveman skeletons that show some amazing evolution in a short time. I also don't remember dinosaurs getting mentioned in any good book (no brontasaurus or wooly mammoth on any ark that size, either). However, I would probably have heard some pretty convincing aruements that the worls was flat and that maggots spontaniously appear in rotten food, too, had I lived earlier and listened to the amazing scientists then.
Nobody can absolutely prove the existence of a god nor can they provide absolute proof that one does not exist. There's nothing wrong with that, but to assume that you absolutely know God's will or the secret of life, based on either a gene or a book, is ridiculous.
My recommendation to both sides is to keep an open mind and realize that if you could prove faith it would cease to be faith.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... and have you seen those beholders? They're ugly!
I've had this discussion/arguement with several friends. My girlfriend is a graphic designer/web developer and I'm a programmer/web developer. I was once told that "solving a problem creatively with code implies you are a good programmer, but it does not make you an artist."
My next question was "what makes a person an artist?"
The only answer was "creativity" and the arguement was over.