The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,568 years. That means that half of the C-14 decays (into nitrogen-14) in 5,568 years. Half of the remaining C-14 decays in the next 5,568 years, etc. This is too short a half-life to date dinosaurs; C-14 dating is useful for dating items up to about 50,000 - 60,000 years ago (useful for dating organiams like Neanderthal man and ice age animals).
If evolution turns out to be false, then suddenly there is a God, and there is meaning to our actions. Which also means responsibility.
I'm not sure where you get this stuff from, but this is a logical nightmare. So it's only evolution or creation? Is it if any part of evolutionary theory is false, or the whole premise? Because, well, there's lot of biologist who do it all the time, so one of those isn't going to happen. And the parts that get refined are part of a process called science (which I beginning to think you have only a general concept of).
The logical conclusion of evolution is that there is no meaning, no right and wrong. While doing something may not be desired by many, it is certainly not 'wrong'.
Umm, how is that logical? Perhaps on a purely biological level right and wrong can be iffy, but if you look at psychology and moral philosophy, they still seem to be around. The stark, harsh right and wrong of the Bible are pretty strange when interpreted literally and lead to...well...look at countries that have ruling theocracies and see how things turn out. Laws and morality have come quite a ways since Hammurabi.
I also find it hard to believe that a concept encompassing billions of years of willful (my word) decisions leading ultimately to the rise of consciousness, from basic energy to complex living matter, can be devoid of deeper meaning. Who told you that it wasn't? Hovind, perhaps?
. The area of science for a creationist here is describing what they would expect to see if the flood had occurred, and see if the evidence fits those predictions.
Funny you should mention that. If you would like to know more about it, perhaps you could read a book. Or if not, how about a web page. There is rather strong evidence that a rather apocalyptic flood did occur. However, unless the authors who wrote about it had access to satellite imagery and international communications infrastructure, I find the claim of a world-wide phenomenon rather sketchy. It certainly would have seemed that way to them, since their perception of the planet was so limited, and they would have written in such a way that expressed these perceptions, but now we're questioning the FACTS of the Bible, and that's not allowed.
After all, that's what the Bible says.
And until you can look beyond that great work, and use the data collected by other true believers, believers in a process of finding little bits of Truth in the world around them and building a bigger picture from it, you will make no progress.
BTW, I already read some creationist apologists on the Ballard research. Most end with "Well, that's not what the Bible says, so he's wrong." Sorry, but if you only have one resource, you aren't doing very good research.
Anyway, these conversations are always fun, if tiring. Even if you are trolling.
Face facts - evolution AND creation are more than just theories. The answer to these questions will be fundamentally more than just "how old is the earth?". It will address whether there is a God, whether there is an afterlife or not, whether this life has any meaning, and much more. Our whole life stands to be turned around by this question.
Not really. This would be true if you based your entire worldview on a rather old book. For those of us that don't, it's merely another way to look at how we got here. Using evidence and critical thought.
This is not just a question of science, but a question of our entire life direction and purpose.
This is probably why you can't make any progress. See first paragraph.
Ocean basins were created and the waters receded into them.
How many times does "created" come up in your arguments? Is this why it is called "creation" science, the answer to "why" is always "it was created"? You are skipping the "how" part of the question, and jumping straight to "why". Science tends to focus on "how" and religion jumps to "why". This is another reason you make little progess in your forum debates.
Evolution took the world by storm. It won by popularity contest even before there was evidence for it, just Charles Darwin's hypotheses. The world was ready to hear it and they grabbed onto it.
Similar to how Christianity and Islam did, no? People know a good idea when they see one.
Maybe we don't need digital protection, we just need a scarcity mechanism. That is why people buy things in the first place...
There is a scarcity mechanism. When media moves to an infinite product (there's more music out there than one could hear in a lifetime) the scarce object becomes the consumer's time. Saving the consumer time by building an efficient and convenient product produces the value.
So what? The whole point here is that it wouldn't matter who else was offering the files. Removing the barriers and finding a price point that works. There is a value in convenience and even if the volume of music traded on P2P is 2, 5 or 10 times what they get on the sanctioned site, if they make enough money to cover costs and have a bit left over, it's a success. They have NO production costs, no marketing costs, nothing to pay for but bandwidth and minimum of design.
It's a very good first run at a proposal. There's definitely some room for improvement ($20/yr for all you can eat) but using it as a test has got to be cheaper than all the money they are paying the lawyers.
See their paper in which they point out 2 YEARS and $300,000 from a DARPA grant was used to build it. not something someone can do overnight in a basement using a $10K budget.
In the future, only the 5 richest kings of Europe will be able to affort computers.
If there are some good independent media outlets out there, the ones that don't get much press, why don't you write a story about them? It's nice and easy to point out the fact that multi-national exist to make the most money possible and the effects of that ethos of media coverage are deplorable. That much is obvious. But give us a hint on where to focus our attention to alleviate the problem. Tell us what is being done to combat the problem, because there are people out there fighting it. Find 'em and point 'em out. The rest of use have real work to do.
That's all you can be doing. Valenti has been lobbying, with cash money, for over 100 years (or at least he looks like it). To think that something will change without consistent concerted action is the dream of a junkie. Stay firm, keep working, and never, ever, ever give up.
whenever anyone figures out the universe it automatically mutates into something stranger,i.e. time travel starts working/universe explodes->new universe starts->digital watches.
Re:He really isn't a nut
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 2
There's can't be a proof. At least not without assuming a big part of it. However, it is more likely than not, at least in what is knowable and predictable. Now matter how much you know about me, and what I might do, I can choose to do differently. If you think you know, and make a prediction, and I know that prediction, then I can change my behaviour. And any small change in a complex system makes it impossible to predict over time. So while I might not have free will, you can't prove it, but I can act like it. Pull out a razor at this point and draw a conclusion.
It is also the defense companies. I can't look up the story I read about it (dang dial-up), but basically it was about the installation of speed monitoring cameras set-up in Wash, D.C. They had generated nearly $37 million for the city by snaggin every speeder. The fun part is that Lockheed Martin (IIRC) set them up for free...with a 35% take of the total revenue generated. So once, we start moving to a corporate police state, no one can break a law (get tough on "crime"), and ho boy will profits go through the roof.
Bush might see this as "saving the economy", but a 5 year old would probably see it as cutting open the goose to get the golden egg. Our system worked because of Freedom, capitalism was a stepping stone (and a dang useful one at that, but it has its downsides, see: our media, MS, RIAA, drug corps ad'ing on TV selling drugs no one needs until they think they do, the death of education, and yes, there's an etc. here too).
This isn't the sort of attack on fair-use that makes the DMCA evil. It's something the market will sort out, when there's money to be made.
The market can't sort it out, because to do so is against the law (DMCA). The market is defined by that law, which was tweaked by the recording industry to define the market. The market could sort it out (*coughNapster*) if that were legal, which it turns out it wasn't. There's your "free market" in a "free country", it turns out it isn't that hard to buy.
How about this one. Not realizing how incredibly powerful these suckers are, they dispose of the ones that don't work (i.e. kill blood cells) in a less than perfect fashion. How does one remove nanotubes from the water supply? I doubt boiling would kill them. --
I can say that the "zone" you can reach in quake is no different from the one you can reach in competitive sports. I have felt both and they are the same, at least to the brain. A full comprehension of all the factors that effect your performance. A laser focus and the ability to act instantaneously on new information. The feeling of "flow" and ability to anticipate the reactions of your opponents.
It's the same "emotion" one way or the other, and it's a pretty good one as far as emotions go. Definitetly worthwhile to cultivate in whatever form you can experience it. --
Oooh, you should go check out the credits from Trainspotting. After they garbled the voices to hide the drug use, it was the only part of the film I got. --
it is expensive, but it's a solid product. On win2k it's the only way to go. About 4 times faster than PCAnywhere (must be nice to have source code) and is pretty stable. For GUI Win adminin' it's the best I've found. Not much different than remote X sessions, just more expensive. --
Americans as a majority want prayer in their children's lives.
Yes, just like Americans as a majority picked George W. Bush to be our president. Where did you pull this tidbit from? From my limited perspective, most Americans know what a myth is, or at least a tall tale. If they can't put two and two together, well, Christianity is for them.
If anything, allowing our children to pray together would give them opportunity to learn about each other's faiths.
Oh, yeah. Just wait until that little Hindu or Wiccan gets up in front of the class and says a bunch of stuff that scares the class. Or even more likely, look at that Hindu or Wiccan in the corner afraid to say anything since they've just been told by a third of their class (the ones bad at math) that there is only one true religion, and their's isn't it.
Without a higher power laying down the rules, it's every man/woman for him/herself, and that's pretty much where we are right now.
Yea, and who is that talks to that higher power? Last I heard some people decided to use that unquestionable authority to kill, maim and conquer, and all with God's loving blessing. What, you questioning the word of God? Die, sinner!!
There are thousands of books written by saints, scholars, and psychologists about morality. Unfortunately you're not going to find any of those in your school library because they pissed off some athiest.
Yes and who can even guess at the number of texts that were burned since they didn't say that the Earth was the center of the Universe or challenged some other "divine inspiration". Let's go visit some parochial school libraries and see what a wide variety of viewpoints they offer.
We need to know that there is something bigger than us,
And we also need to accept that we can't know its will (at least not to the degreee of accuracy that most religions claim). So we're left with what we got, each other and damn nifty place to meet. I think any answers you need (or would be useful) will be found in that bunch.
Umm, that is what two companies decide should be popular music. Not a lot of choice. (Clear Channel own 1200 radio stations, second is Infinity/Viacom which owns the rest and VH1/MTV)
These are much more effective than Napster in exposing one to new music one might like.
Not a chance. Can you use this with only the name of some random band and listen to it within 10 minutes? Napster is the best type of tech we have for finding diverse music. That's why they wanted to kill it. After spending so much comandeering all distrubtution channels, it's annoying to have people looking for stuff themselves. --
Slashdot Mirror
Read, learn, grow.
The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,568 years. That means that half of the C-14 decays (into nitrogen-14) in 5,568 years. Half of the remaining C-14 decays in the next 5,568 years, etc. This is too short a half-life to date dinosaurs; C-14 dating is useful for dating items up to about 50,000 - 60,000 years ago (useful for dating organiams like Neanderthal man and ice age animals).
If evolution turns out to be false, then suddenly there is a God, and there is meaning to our actions. Which also means responsibility.
I'm not sure where you get this stuff from, but this is a logical nightmare. So it's only evolution or creation? Is it if any part of evolutionary theory is false, or the whole premise? Because, well, there's lot of biologist who do it all the time, so one of those isn't going to happen. And the parts that get refined are part of a process called science (which I beginning to think you have only a general concept of).
The logical conclusion of evolution is that there is no meaning, no right and wrong. While doing something may not be desired by many, it is certainly not 'wrong'.
Umm, how is that logical? Perhaps on a purely biological level right and wrong can be iffy, but if you look at psychology and moral philosophy, they still seem to be around. The stark, harsh right and wrong of the Bible are pretty strange when interpreted literally and lead to...well...look at countries that have ruling theocracies and see how things turn out. Laws and morality have come quite a ways since Hammurabi.
I also find it hard to believe that a concept encompassing billions of years of willful (my word) decisions leading ultimately to the rise of consciousness, from basic energy to complex living matter, can be devoid of deeper meaning. Who told you that it wasn't? Hovind, perhaps?
. The area of science for a creationist here is describing what they would expect to see if the flood had occurred, and see if the evidence fits those predictions.
Funny you should mention that. If you would like to know more about it, perhaps you could read a book. Or if not, how about a web page. There is rather strong evidence that a rather apocalyptic flood did occur. However, unless the authors who wrote about it had access to satellite imagery and international communications infrastructure, I find the claim of a world-wide phenomenon rather sketchy. It certainly would have seemed that way to them, since their perception of the planet was so limited, and they would have written in such a way that expressed these perceptions, but now we're questioning the FACTS of the Bible, and that's not allowed.
After all, that's what the Bible says.
And until you can look beyond that great work, and use the data collected by other true believers, believers in a process of finding little bits of Truth in the world around them and building a bigger picture from it, you will make no progress.
BTW, I already read some creationist apologists on the Ballard research. Most end with "Well, that's not what the Bible says, so he's wrong." Sorry, but if you only have one resource, you aren't doing very good research.
Anyway, these conversations are always fun, if tiring. Even if you are trolling.
Face facts - evolution AND creation are more than just theories. The answer to these questions will be fundamentally more than just "how old is the earth?". It will address whether there is a God, whether there is an afterlife or not, whether this life has any meaning, and much more. Our whole life stands to be turned around by this question.
Not really. This would be true if you based your entire worldview on a rather old book. For those of us that don't, it's merely another way to look at how we got here. Using evidence and critical thought.
This is not just a question of science, but a question of our entire life direction and purpose.
This is probably why you can't make any progress. See first paragraph.
Ocean basins were created and the waters receded into them.
How many times does "created" come up in your arguments? Is this why it is called "creation" science, the answer to "why" is always "it was created"? You are skipping the "how" part of the question, and jumping straight to "why". Science tends to focus on "how" and religion jumps to "why". This is another reason you make little progess in your forum debates.
Evolution took the world by storm. It won by popularity contest even before there was evidence for it, just Charles Darwin's hypotheses. The world was ready to hear it and they grabbed onto it.
Similar to how Christianity and Islam did, no? People know a good idea when they see one.
Maybe we don't need digital protection, we just need a scarcity mechanism. That is why people buy things in the first place...
There is a scarcity mechanism. When media moves to an infinite product (there's more music out there than one could hear in a lifetime) the scarce object becomes the consumer's time. Saving the consumer time by building an efficient and convenient product produces the value.
So what? The whole point here is that it wouldn't matter who else was offering the files. Removing the barriers and finding a price point that works. There is a value in convenience and even if the volume of music traded on P2P is 2, 5 or 10 times what they get on the sanctioned site, if they make enough money to cover costs and have a bit left over, it's a success. They have NO production costs, no marketing costs, nothing to pay for but bandwidth and minimum of design.
It's a very good first run at a proposal. There's definitely some room for improvement ($20/yr for all you can eat) but using it as a test has got to be cheaper than all the money they are paying the lawyers.
Can we have world wide network to promote our music (that we created) without having to pay a tax to the RIAA?
See their paper in which they point out 2 YEARS and $300,000 from a DARPA grant was used to build it. not something someone can do overnight in a basement using a $10K budget.
In the future, only the 5 richest kings of Europe will be able to affort computers.
If there are some good independent media outlets out there, the ones that don't get much press, why don't you write a story about them? It's nice and easy to point out the fact that multi-national exist to make the most money possible and the effects of that ethos of media coverage are deplorable. That much is obvious. But give us a hint on where to focus our attention to alleviate the problem. Tell us what is being done to combat the problem, because there are people out there fighting it. Find 'em and point 'em out. The rest of use have real work to do.
That's all you can be doing. Valenti has been lobbying, with cash money, for over 100 years (or at least he looks like it). To think that something will change without consistent concerted action is the dream of a junkie. Stay firm, keep working, and never, ever, ever give up.
It's the only way to win.
whenever anyone figures out the universe it automatically mutates into something stranger,i.e. time travel starts working/universe explodes->new universe starts->digital watches.
There's can't be a proof. At least not without assuming a big part of it. However, it is more likely than not, at least in what is knowable and predictable. Now matter how much you know about me, and what I might do, I can choose to do differently. If you think you know, and make a prediction, and I know that prediction, then I can change my behaviour. And any small change in a complex system makes it impossible to predict over time. So while I might not have free will, you can't prove it, but I can act like it. Pull out a razor at this point and draw a conclusion.
Here's a short analysis of it. Basically, it seems you resolve the paradox by making up a new word and using that to explain it.
Look about yourselves. Astroturfers in full effect.
How long till I can get it in some sunglasses, or embedded in my contacts?
It really started in 1898, with the Spanish-American war,
;-)
Don't you mean the Cuban War for Independence? Or do ya think the English call it the "Revolutionary War" too?
It is also the defense companies. I can't look up the story I read about it (dang dial-up), but basically it was about the installation of speed monitoring cameras set-up in Wash, D.C. They had generated nearly $37 million for the city by snaggin every speeder. The fun part is that Lockheed Martin (IIRC) set them up for free...with a 35% take of the total revenue generated. So once, we start moving to a corporate police state, no one can break a law (get tough on "crime"), and ho boy will profits go through the roof.
Bush might see this as "saving the economy", but a 5 year old would probably see it as cutting open the goose to get the golden egg. Our system worked because of Freedom, capitalism was a stepping stone (and a dang useful one at that, but it has its downsides, see: our media, MS, RIAA, drug corps ad'ing on TV selling drugs no one needs until they think they do, the death of education, and yes, there's an etc. here too).
The market can't sort it out, because to do so is against the law (DMCA). The market is defined by that law, which was tweaked by the recording industry to define the market. The market could sort it out (*coughNapster*) if that were legal, which it turns out it wasn't. There's your "free market" in a "free country", it turns out it isn't that hard to buy.
How about this one. Not realizing how incredibly powerful these suckers are, they dispose of the ones that don't work (i.e. kill blood cells) in a less than perfect fashion. How does one remove nanotubes from the water supply? I doubt boiling would kill them.
--
I can say that the "zone" you can reach in quake is no different from the one you can reach in competitive sports. I have felt both and they are the same, at least to the brain. A full comprehension of all the factors that effect your performance. A laser focus and the ability to act instantaneously on new information. The feeling of "flow" and ability to anticipate the reactions of your opponents.
It's the same "emotion" one way or the other, and it's a pretty good one as far as emotions go. Definitetly worthwhile to cultivate in whatever form you can experience it.
--
And if you liked ninja scroll. See what he was like as a young boy. [flash required]
--
Oooh, you should go check out the credits from Trainspotting. After they garbled the voices to hide the drug use, it was the only part of the film I got.
--
History shows again and again, how nature points out the folly of man. -B.O.C.
--
it is expensive, but it's a solid product. On win2k it's the only way to go. About 4 times faster than PCAnywhere (must be nice to have source code) and is pretty stable. For GUI Win adminin' it's the best I've found. Not much different than remote X sessions, just more expensive.
--
Americans as a majority want prayer in their children's lives.
Yes, just like Americans as a majority picked George W. Bush to be our president. Where did you pull this tidbit from? From my limited perspective, most Americans know what a myth is, or at least a tall tale. If they can't put two and two together, well, Christianity is for them.
If anything, allowing our children to pray together would give them opportunity to learn about each other's faiths.
Oh, yeah. Just wait until that little Hindu or Wiccan gets up in front of the class and says a bunch of stuff that scares the class. Or even more likely, look at that Hindu or Wiccan in the corner afraid to say anything since they've just been told by a third of their class (the ones bad at math) that there is only one true religion, and their's isn't it.
Here's a nice happy loving kids sharing religion link.
Without a higher power laying down the rules, it's every man/woman for him/herself, and that's pretty much where we are right now.
Yea, and who is that talks to that higher power? Last I heard some people decided to use that unquestionable authority to kill, maim and conquer, and all with God's loving blessing. What, you questioning the word of God? Die, sinner!!
There are thousands of books written by saints, scholars, and psychologists about morality. Unfortunately you're not going to find any of those in your school library because they pissed off some athiest.
Yes and who can even guess at the number of texts that were burned since they didn't say that the Earth was the center of the Universe or challenged some other "divine inspiration". Let's go visit some parochial school libraries and see what a wide variety of viewpoints they offer.
We need to know that there is something bigger than us,
And we also need to accept that we can't know its will (at least not to the degreee of accuracy that most religions claim). So we're left with what we got, each other and damn nifty place to meet. I think any answers you need (or would be useful) will be found in that bunch.
--
Umm, that is what two companies decide should be popular music. Not a lot of choice. (Clear Channel own 1200 radio stations, second is Infinity/Viacom which owns the rest and VH1/MTV)
These are much more effective than Napster in exposing one to new music one might like.
Not a chance. Can you use this with only the name of some random band and listen to it within 10 minutes? Napster is the best type of tech we have for finding diverse music. That's why they wanted to kill it. After spending so much comandeering all distrubtution channels, it's annoying to have people looking for stuff themselves.
--