I never said the human or the earth were a closed system. What i meant by that was, that there has to be enough positive from evolution to cancel out the negative entropy that evolution has caused. I don't see this as happening. And if you'll read my reply to my own post, I rethought what I said.
What the hell are you talking about? there is no such thing as 'negative entropy' You do not understand what you are talking about
Its like saying a person can't win the lottery 10^140993 times in there life. or a billion billion billion billion billion billion(repeat 1506 times...
User Bio I am in no way associated with Microsoft...if you lash out at me because of my fake e-mail address then I am glad you are agitated you small-minded, bandwagon-riding whiner who should spend more time focusing on the good you have in front of you.
I haven't, but I know a few people who have smoked pot. They seem perfectly fine (even Bill Clinton (well, he didn't 'inhale', sure...)). Yet the government, for whatever reason, seems to want to tell people that it's going to fuck them up good. The government also says that other drugs will fuck them up good to, why should we believe them then?
they risk their health, their precious jobs, legal ramifications
The greatest risk is artificial, created by the 'war on drugs', with legal drugs held to the same standards as food and prescription drugs, the health concern would be minor. and the other two points would be moot.
But the fact of the matter is that they do it and anything they read here won't make them stop. If they ever do they will have to come to that decision themselves.
Especialy since most people here seem to be disagreeing with you...
This is a little Offtopic, but it's at least tangential to the discussion.
I think its time to declare a failure on the so-called war on drugs. I don't know the exact figures, but I'd be willing to bet that about 90% of crime in this country is drug-related. Legalize drugs, and you'd be getting rid of 90% of the crime. Of course the situation is more complicated then that, but I think it would be an improvement.
Of course, you wouldn't want to just simply legalize everything, but who would want to take Crystal Meth, when they could get a safer, cheaper, and similar-strength stimulant at Wall Mart?
And, in legalizing drugs, you'll defund the criminal enterprise that flourishes by providing drugs. There won't be any need for the crypts and the bloods anymore in inner cities, or any other "gangsta" gangs. Without any reason for these organizations, they will cease. If drug users aren't ostracized by outside culture, they will be able to fit in. Bill Clinton, and George W bush are proof that marijuana and cocaine aren't detrimental to people's lives respectively. This is despite what government propaganda purports.
I think at when you look at this rationally, the war on drugs doesn't really make all that much sense. It isn't stopping drug use, and its creating more crime (in attempts to get around it) then its stopping.
I didn't know for sure, but I was pretty certain that the bible did in fact claim itself to be true. That doesn't matter much, though. I could just as easily claim the same thing about this post.
What I'm asking is, why would someone choose to believe in something so silly? Other then being indoctrinated as children, I just can't understand why anyone would want to believe it...
Forgive me if I don't jump in the air and scream "At last! Non-belief in God is intellectually credible! I can stop this Christianity lark and go out into the evil, bad world as an atheist with my intellectual pride intact..."
Now say that, maybe, just maybe, the premise of, say, Christianity is true--that being, that every word in the Bible is the inspired truth of God himself, the creator of all things. What you would have is a PERFECT system of information that did not need to be continually self-corrected (like an imperfect system such as science).
I don't understand. Why would anyone suppose such an idiotic, nonsensical premise?
well, he belived that life didn't start at conseption.
Anyway, that quote didn't even seem to make sense to me, and the "recent scientific work in the field of molecular biology" was just a load of crap from a Creationist...
Evolution (macro), on the other hand, is not provable
Macro and micro evolution are the same thing. Saying that you can have one without the other is like saying that just because there are people around now, it doesn't mean that there were 100 years ago.
...cells are able to choose advantageous mutations.
I don't know much about quantum mechanics, but I don't remember anything about unconscious objects being able to chose anything. This is one of the worst cases of misapplying scientific knowledge from one field to another where it doesn't belong. DNA is large enough that quantum effects aren't needed to calculate it (although, since it in most cases is a reaction involving one cell, you could say mutations could be caused by quantum effects). But saying that mutations exist in a 'quantum multiverse' is just silly. And saying that cells can "chose" what mutations that will be advantageous is idiotic. (I'd love to see the math to back that up!). What's next? Are we going to have a bunch of Creationists coming out saying that evolution is entopicly disfavorable now? That makes just about as much sense as what this guy's saying.
Would it be posible for you to post the video in somthing other then RM? RM is butt ugly, and the player likes to piss all over windows. What's the matter with MPEG?
Hrm, I would think that Linux is all around a better operating system, in general, then wince. If lots of linux geeks want Linux in there hands, then there going to buy it. It makes a lot more sense then submersing your motherboard in mineral oil... but people did that, didn't they?
Dump a few of those Pentium III's, recycle them, ship them to a needy third-world country, and replace them with PowerMacs (preferably new, but buy used if you must (if you do this, be sure to upgrade the OS)). Run a dual-boot system. Being a CUSTOMER of Apple will give you more weight with them.
Yes, that's a good idea! Destroy thousands of dollars of computer equipment, from a hardware company that actively makes it difficult for alternative OS's, and is more expensive! So, that way we might get to watch their proprietary video format in a few years. Of course, by then we would all be Apple whores, so there would be no Risk in it for Apple
PPC may be 'faster', but x86 is cheaper both absolutely and in price/performance, x86 is more open, the architecture is controlled by more then one company. Intel does support Linux, investing in VA Linux, and Red Hat, and helping to port Linux to the new ia64 architecture.
We wouldn't HAVE as many codecs. Think Sorenson would donate their codecs for the good of mankind?
You mean like the Motion Picture Exsperts Group?
Microsoft *already* supports QT in Windows Media Player. In fact, it STEALS your file associations and makes itself the default player for MOV's on Windows. That's wrong,
So? QuickTime steals them in the first place; the difference is, with QuickTime, you can't get your associations back, as there buried inside of IE. I can't right click and save a PNG file on my own computer! And at least media player doesn't flash me with an advertisement every time I use it.
Oh, right-clicking brings up a context menu. It just dosn't have a save option.
I don't see why I should have to pay Apple Money just so I can right-click save PNG files on my own computer. Somthing that it's capable of doing without QT.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out the simplifed chinese version of their religions web page (http://www.rael.org/users/china/ simplified/index.htm)
Its downright shocking... complete with crappy midi music (:P
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
I never said the human or the earth were a closed system. What i meant by that was, that there has to be enough positive from evolution to cancel out the negative entropy that evolution has caused. I don't see this as happening. And if you'll read my reply to my own post, I rethought what I said.
What the hell are you talking about? there is no such thing as 'negative entropy' You do not understand what you are talking about
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
He didn't even try to explain the fact that different species have different numbers of chromosomes.
geez, Even I can do that. NON-DISJUNCTION. didn't you take highschool biology?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Its like saying a person can't win the lottery 10^140993 times in there life. or a billion billion billion billion billion billion(repeat 1506 times...
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
User Bio
I am in no way associated with Microsoft...if you lash out at me because of my fake e-mail address then I am glad you are agitated you small-minded, bandwagon-riding whiner who should spend more time focusing on the good you have in front of you.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
I haven't, but I know a few people who have smoked pot. They seem perfectly fine (even Bill Clinton (well, he didn't 'inhale', sure...)). Yet the government, for whatever reason, seems to want to tell people that it's going to fuck them up good. The government also says that other drugs will fuck them up good to, why should we believe them then?
they risk their health, their precious jobs, legal ramifications
The greatest risk is artificial, created by the 'war on drugs', with legal drugs held to the same standards as food and prescription drugs, the health concern would be minor. and the other two points would be moot.
But the fact of the matter is that they do it and anything they read here won't make them stop. If they ever do they will have to come to that decision themselves.
Especialy since most people here seem to be disagreeing with you...
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
This is a little Offtopic, but it's at least tangential to the discussion.
I think its time to declare a failure on the so-called war on drugs. I don't know the exact figures, but I'd be willing to bet that about 90% of crime in this country is drug-related. Legalize drugs, and you'd be getting rid of 90% of the crime. Of course the situation is more complicated then that, but I think it would be an improvement.
Of course, you wouldn't want to just simply legalize everything, but who would want to take Crystal Meth, when they could get a safer, cheaper, and similar-strength stimulant at Wall Mart?
And, in legalizing drugs, you'll defund the criminal enterprise that flourishes by providing drugs. There won't be any need for the crypts and the bloods anymore in inner cities, or any other "gangsta" gangs. Without any reason for these organizations, they will cease. If drug users aren't ostracized by outside culture, they will be able to fit in. Bill Clinton, and George W bush are proof that marijuana and cocaine aren't detrimental to people's lives respectively. This is despite what government propaganda purports.
I think at when you look at this rationally, the war on drugs doesn't really make all that much sense. It isn't stopping drug use, and its creating more crime (in attempts to get around it) then its stopping.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
I didn't know for sure, but I was pretty certain that the bible did in fact claim itself to be true. That doesn't matter much, though. I could just as easily claim the same thing about this post.
What I'm asking is, why would someone choose to believe in something so silly? Other then being indoctrinated as children, I just can't understand why anyone would want to believe it...
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
("Hey, you over there! C is obsolate! Use VB![*]).
What are you talking about? Everyone knows the future of programming is Java!
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Now... what happend before god?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Forgive me if I don't jump in the air and scream "At last! Non-belief in God is intellectually credible! I can stop this Christianity lark and go out into the evil, bad world as an atheist with my intellectual pride intact..."
What the hell kind of crack are you smokin' boy?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Now say that, maybe, just maybe, the premise of, say, Christianity is true--that being, that every word in the Bible is the inspired truth of God himself, the creator of all things. What you would have is a PERFECT system of information that did not need to be continually self-corrected (like an imperfect system such as science).
I don't understand. Why would anyone suppose such an idiotic, nonsensical premise?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
well, he belived that life didn't start at conseption.
Anyway, that quote didn't even seem to make sense to me, and the "recent scientific work in the field of molecular biology" was just a load of crap from a Creationist...
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Not really, because as the matter that makes up the sun is utilized to create energy it is continually becoming more chaotic as well.
No it isn't. When the sun eventualy cools, it will be a solid block of ice. Its entropy is increasing.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
I think a more workable solution would be to simply work somewhere that has a decent Internet connection. But, that's just me...
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Evolution (macro), on the other hand, is not provable
Macro and micro evolution are the same thing. Saying that you can have one without the other is like saying that just because there are people around now, it doesn't mean that there were 100 years ago.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
...cells are able to choose advantageous mutations.
I don't know much about quantum mechanics, but I don't remember anything about unconscious objects being able to chose anything. This is one of the worst cases of misapplying scientific knowledge from one field to another where it doesn't belong. DNA is large enough that quantum effects aren't needed to calculate it (although, since it in most cases is a reaction involving one cell, you could say mutations could be caused by quantum effects). But saying that mutations exist in a 'quantum multiverse' is just silly. And saying that cells can "chose" what mutations that will be advantageous is idiotic. (I'd love to see the math to back that up!). What's next? Are we going to have a bunch of Creationists coming out saying that evolution is entopicly disfavorable now? That makes just about as much sense as what this guy's saying.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Best Merger: VA and Andover.Net
I don't remember voting for that...
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Would it be posible for you to post the video in somthing other then RM? RM is butt ugly, and the player likes to piss all over windows. What's the matter with MPEG?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Hrm, I would think that Linux is all around a better operating system, in general, then wince. If lots of linux geeks want Linux in there hands, then there going to buy it. It makes a lot more sense then submersing your motherboard in mineral oil... but people did that, didn't they?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Hrm, I remember that to... Supposedly it sucked. But I couldn't find a refrence to it anywhere on M$'s site though...
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Dump a few of those Pentium III's, recycle them, ship them to a needy third-world country, and replace them with PowerMacs (preferably new, but buy used if you must (if you do this, be sure to upgrade the OS)). Run a dual-boot system. Being a CUSTOMER of Apple will give you more weight with them.
Yes, that's a good idea! Destroy thousands of dollars of computer equipment, from a hardware company that actively makes it difficult for alternative OS's, and is more expensive! So, that way we might get to watch their proprietary video format in a few years. Of course, by then we would all be Apple whores, so there would be no Risk in it for Apple
PPC may be 'faster', but x86 is cheaper both absolutely and in price/performance, x86 is more open, the architecture is controlled by more then one company. Intel does support Linux, investing in VA Linux, and Red Hat, and helping to port Linux to the new ia64 architecture.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
We wouldn't HAVE as many codecs. Think Sorenson would donate their codecs for the good of mankind?
You mean like the Motion Picture Exsperts Group?
Microsoft *already* supports QT in Windows Media Player. In fact, it STEALS your file associations and makes itself the default player for MOV's on Windows. That's wrong,
So? QuickTime steals them in the first place; the difference is, with QuickTime, you can't get your associations back, as there buried inside of IE. I can't right click and save a PNG file on my own computer! And at least media player doesn't flash me with an advertisement every time I use it.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Oh, right-clicking brings up a context menu. It just dosn't have a save option.
I don't see why I should have to pay Apple Money just so I can right-click save PNG files on my own computer. Somthing that it's capable of doing without QT.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
How 'bout I just don't use quicktime, that seems to be working pretty well now...
[ c h a d o k e r e ]