Okay. Porn is "bad". Your children might see it, but you're not going to spend money on it for them.
Video-Games can be highly social, skill-based, and excite learning about technology (c'mon, how many 20-somethings on Slashdot know Perl and never played a computer game for fun as a kid).
Violent or otherwise "objectionable" material is engaging. Not only that, but they can help children build "fantasy" scenarios, which, lets face it, aren't all that different from the things they might see in real life. I worked in a Day Care during highschool [before 9/11, etc, etc], and a kid in the room was lining up toy soldiers and playing "bombing Saddam" - *no joke*. This wasn't some abnormal kid, he was a 4th grader who had heard about this evil guy and made up a game to get rid of him.
Let face it, you wouldn't want your daughters growing up playing Princess, but you realize that there there's a point where children need to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and at a certain age, play-acting is play-acting.
It's a big country with a big military and big economic weight. That's how they Dare it.
I'm not saying I agree with their policy, I just don't neccessarily degree on the grounds you've described. How is the NSA supposed to tell where a particular X is heading before it gets there without reading it?
Your arguement seems to make sense, but it's not quite logical.
Well, George Bush has just approved a Task Force to answer that very question. Preliminary reports say that we should be able to prevent blaming other stuff in the future.
Just gonna have to wait for the answer, aren't you?
Re: Two Christian creation myths
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
...
Read Genesis 1.
Now start at Genesis 2.4a and continue 'til ~2:25.
See? Two stories, and it's commonly held that this is the case.
As far as I understand, the spelling mistakes allow for the mails to slip through the spam detection software.
The first one is a little absurd, since it looks *really* unofficial, but one or two spelling mistakes wouldn't be uncommon for even an official piece of mail that you'd receive from a company.
If you read the story, you have to take a breathalyzer test before you get in, fingerprint yourself, take a urine sample, submit DNA, and answer a Terrorism survey.
If you fail, it drives you to the Ashcroft.//made that up.
I'm someone who really works with pigeons doing visual cognition tasks. =) Everyone thinks that's hilarious =)
http://pigeon.psy.tufts.edu
Re: Two Christian creation myths
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
Huh?
Read the bible. There are two listed right in a row.
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
I'd really like to carry this conversation over something better than slashdot. Too much latency. My definition says everything about the common ancestor, and so does the definition from talkorigins, I suppose.
Hmmm, a huge database of digital mugshots and digital fingerprints, which will be kept forever - hope we have enough RAM to search through it quickly and constantly.
Well, look. Even if we were to get every person in the next 100 years, if we were to record their *age*, we could make a best guess at who's dead by now and assume that there aren't 147 yr old suicide bombers. They wont be kept forever. Duh.
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
They're morally reprehensible to most humans.
Otherwise, you're right. In a structured society, if you can deal with the consequences of your actions, then you're free to do what you wish.
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
Evolution is the process by which things change because of random mutation and because environments [see: actual environment, other organism, outside events] only allow a subset of the original population to survive.
Simple.
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
Creation wasn't meant to be taken literally.
If it was, why are there *two* totally different stories?
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
You're misreading evolution. Again.
Evolution isn't moral license to go do whatever you like. Evolution is the phenomenon that surviving members of a species transmit their genes to the next generation. Killing what you percieve to be the "weak" certainly has an effect on that subsequent generation, but it has little to do with ethical principle.
The major problem with anti-evolutionists is that they read too much into the idea.
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What if natural selection does not improve the species? What if all living things were created in their best form, and have been heading downhill since then? Natural selection then plays the role not of improving a species, but of slowing its decline - such that if the power of natural selection was absent, the fall of a species would be hurried. Yet if natural selection was present, the species would still degrade, but at a much slower rate.
I have no idea who you are, so I'll try to be as cordial as possible.
You're completely misreading evolution.
Natural Selection doesn't try to DO anything. It's the name for a simple "phenomenon" - anything that survives 'til the opportunity to reproduce has some of it's genetic material passed down to the next generation.
There's no way anyone could construe Natural Selection in the way you're talking about. There's no "absense" of natural selection possible. If nothing survives, then quite simply, everything was "selected against", that is, it couldn't survive in it's current environment and didn't. End of story. If everything survives, then the current environment is safe until 'Time K', which is some time in the future when the Carrying Capacity [i.e., amount of our species the environment can sustain] of said environment has been reached.
Evolution happens, whether or not it's of divine design. Things were not *created*, they *happened*. DNA isn't that big of a coincidence when you consider the practical infinity of time and the practical infinity of the universe.
Your idea that things might have started off as "better" is bogus. The point of evolution is simple: The thing that survives moves on in the form of the gene.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a game about a movie about a game.
That's pretty close. =)
Protection from a tinfoil hat, you say?
Brings a whole new meaning to the term dickhead.
You forgot spammers.
They're behind this somehow.
In America, you use systems and software to make money.
In Soviet Russia, Systems and software make money by using YOU!
It's one of the few recent Soviet Russia jokes that might even have something to do with Soviet Russia!
Okay. Porn is "bad". Your children might see it, but you're not going to spend money on it for them.
Video-Games can be highly social, skill-based, and excite learning about technology (c'mon, how many 20-somethings on Slashdot know Perl and never played a computer game for fun as a kid).
Violent or otherwise "objectionable" material is engaging. Not only that, but they can help children build "fantasy" scenarios, which, lets face it, aren't all that different from the things they might see in real life. I worked in a Day Care during highschool [before 9/11, etc, etc], and a kid in the room was lining up toy soldiers and playing "bombing Saddam" - *no joke*. This wasn't some abnormal kid, he was a 4th grader who had heard about this evil guy and made up a game to get rid of him.
Let face it, you wouldn't want your daughters growing up playing Princess, but you realize that there there's a point where children need to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and at a certain age, play-acting is play-acting.
Eh.
It's a big country with a big military and big economic weight. That's how they Dare it.
I'm not saying I agree with their policy, I just don't neccessarily degree on the grounds you've described. How is the NSA supposed to tell where a particular X is heading before it gets there without reading it?
Your arguement seems to make sense, but it's not quite logical.
Well, George Bush has just approved a Task Force to answer that very question. Preliminary reports say that we should be able to prevent blaming other stuff in the future.
Just gonna have to wait for the answer, aren't you?
...
Read Genesis 1.
Now start at Genesis 2.4a and continue 'til ~2:25.
See? Two stories, and it's commonly held that this is the case.
When was the last time you had read Genesis?
Kid-Tested Mother Approved Dept
Send this man to jail or Neverland Ranch.
Yeah-
The old joke around the lab with hardware that was dying was "Oh, have you checked to make sure it floats yet?"
//bite.
I'd really love it if the Mac operating system could be used on any hardware. *love* it.
Sadly, this is not the case, and I can't afford to use it, since most of my machines (lab or otherwise) are all old-parts boxen.
By the way, it's one command to mount a harddrive. =)
As far as I understand, the spelling mistakes allow for the mails to slip through the spam detection software.
The first one is a little absurd, since it looks *really* unofficial, but one or two spelling mistakes wouldn't be uncommon for even an official piece of mail that you'd receive from a company.
If you read the story, you have to take a breathalyzer test before you get in, fingerprint yourself, take a urine sample, submit DNA, and answer a Terrorism survey.
//made that up.
If you fail, it drives you to the Ashcroft.
ghghghgh. it has no "d".
I'm someone who really works with pigeons doing visual cognition tasks. =) Everyone thinks that's hilarious =)
http://pigeon.psy.tufts.edu
Huh?
Read the bible. There are two listed right in a row.
I'd really like to carry this conversation over something better than slashdot. Too much latency. My definition says everything about the common ancestor, and so does the definition from talkorigins, I suppose.
Feel free to IM me, at Ieshan.
I'll be on later tonight and some of tomorrow.
Hmmm, a huge database of digital mugshots and digital fingerprints, which will be kept forever - hope we have enough RAM to search through it quickly and constantly.
Well, look. Even if we were to get every person in the next 100 years, if we were to record their *age*, we could make a best guess at who's dead by now and assume that there aren't 147 yr old suicide bombers. They wont be kept forever. Duh.
They're morally reprehensible to most humans.
Otherwise, you're right. In a structured society, if you can deal with the consequences of your actions, then you're free to do what you wish.
Evolution is the process by which things change because of random mutation and because environments [see: actual environment, other organism, outside events] only allow a subset of the original population to survive.
Simple.
Creation wasn't meant to be taken literally.
If it was, why are there *two* totally different stories?
You're misreading evolution. Again.
Evolution isn't moral license to go do whatever you like. Evolution is the phenomenon that surviving members of a species transmit their genes to the next generation. Killing what you percieve to be the "weak" certainly has an effect on that subsequent generation, but it has little to do with ethical principle.
The major problem with anti-evolutionists is that they read too much into the idea.
What if natural selection does not improve the species? What if all living things were created in their best form, and have been heading downhill since then? Natural selection then plays the role not of improving a species, but of slowing its decline - such that if the power of natural selection was absent, the fall of a species would be hurried. Yet if natural selection was present, the species would still degrade, but at a much slower rate.
I have no idea who you are, so I'll try to be as cordial as possible.
You're completely misreading evolution.
Natural Selection doesn't try to DO anything. It's the name for a simple "phenomenon" - anything that survives 'til the opportunity to reproduce has some of it's genetic material passed down to the next generation.
There's no way anyone could construe Natural Selection in the way you're talking about. There's no "absense" of natural selection possible. If nothing survives, then quite simply, everything was "selected against", that is, it couldn't survive in it's current environment and didn't. End of story. If everything survives, then the current environment is safe until 'Time K', which is some time in the future when the Carrying Capacity [i.e., amount of our species the environment can sustain] of said environment has been reached.
Evolution happens, whether or not it's of divine design. Things were not *created*, they *happened*. DNA isn't that big of a coincidence when you consider the practical infinity of time and the practical infinity of the universe.
Your idea that things might have started off as "better" is bogus. The point of evolution is simple: The thing that survives moves on in the form of the gene.
This is so friggin backwards.
Write a fake CD drive that captures data and writes it back to the hard disk in wav format instead of burning it to a CD.
It would be a *lot* faster.
In Redundant Slashdot, Fools Capitalize YOU!
----
Well, if you think about "you" in the UCASE sense...
Who needs April Fools when you've got capitalism?
Tee hee!