I'm sure if Dubya hears about it, he'll personally head up an investigation into why the chemical industry should be scrapped as it removes the need for more oil and hence the need to invade middle-eastern countries.
[Assuming you're joking] He (GWB) could always just invade middle-eastern countries for sport while Pat Robertson is busy assassinating the president of Venezuela...
I have my own problems with e-books -- on one hand, I'd love to carry my entire library with me at all times -- with the added advantage of it being electronically searchable. I don't like the idea that my entire library could be lost by dropping the thing in the sink, leaving it on a bus, having it stolen from my pocket, etc. -- I also don't like the idea that my library might be useless/unreadable by changes in software or hardware (like some old wp docs I've got lying around on a 5 1/4" floppy disk)
This is what I'd like to see happen:
1) Dead-Tree Media never ever go away! When I buy a book I intend to keep it until I die! (Until a new technology comes along that's better we'll need this kind of super-long-term information system. -- er, except for books like "Windows 95 unleashed" Those might not have much future value.)
2) Printed books that include an electronic copy of the text for use with e-paper devices for a small additional cost (I refuse to pay an outragious price for an e-book when I could buy the hard-copy version for jsut a few dollars more -- an article I recently read mentioned tiny 30% discounts for e-textbooks that lasted only as long as a single semester. That sucks for the poor student who still pays too much, and gets absolutly nothing in the end! [er, perhaps (s)he gets it all in the "end"])
I guess what I want is the best of both worlds. Is that so much to ask?!
It took me quite some time to figure out how best to reply to your message. You seem to have a fear (yes, fear) of new technology. I honestly don't understand why.
1) How the internet has changed society: This is a very difficult question to answer as I cannot answer it directly. Consider for a moment that we are currently at the beginning (or middle, some would say) of TWO major revolutions. 1) The Information Revolution [the direct result of the internet] and 2) The technological revolution [of which the internet is not only a product, but also a fuel that feeds the revolution that created it.]
Accept that communication (between people, between groups) is essential in order for people to function in a society. (isolated groups are not part of the same society -- as communication is impossible) -- It stands to reason, the method and means of communication (the written word, verbal communication, etc.) affect the structure of the society.
The internet has changed the way we communicate with other people (an almost immediate effect). The internet has changed the way we consider the relationship between physical distance and latency of communication. (Mountains, rivers, valleys, oceans, etc. are no longer barriers to communication. It no longer takes several weeks to transmit a message to someone across the globle - it can happen almost instantly!) Individual societies are no longer isolated by physical distance. Communities can form without their membership being limited to a specific geographic area. (The advantages to this are more than obvious.)
1a) How will society change as a result of the internet? This question is more difficult to answer as the internet is still in its infancy. The last major information revolution came in the form of the printing press -- which lead to popular literacy! (Though it certainly didn't happen over night.) It seems to be too early for us to speculate what the long-term effects of the internet may be -- Though I can only envision positive changes. (All the immediate effects have been positive, though none too dramatic -- it's still early yet -- give it time.)
1b) Has technology in the past caused changes to society. (Demonstrate that technology is a vehicle for social change.) -- This one is easy. Consider the example above (Gutenberg printing press) for starters. The jaquard loom lead to the industrial revolution (improving the standard of living). The steam engine and the rail road changed the way we *live and work* and helped to create the abundance and variety of food (through faster travel) that we could only dream about before! The highway and automobile changed our perceptions on distance -- we no longer had to live in the city to work in the city (leading to a suburban subculture). The manufacturing process changed the way products were produced -- affording an abundance and improving our standard of living and leasure time -- Time that might not have existed in great quantity before -- allowing innovation to occour.
Now when I said "the way we *live and work*" I mean that it has a direct impact on our culture -- changes to our culture directly impact our world-view -- which will affect our philosophy, theology, morals, etc.
2) We don't consider the consequences of our developments. We will eventually create the tool of our own distruction. -- Well, this is hard to refute, as we certainly could destroy ourselves if we wanted to. I don't believe we want to. The Atomic Bomb,a weapon that threatened to destroy all human life, didn't destroy humanity -- it SAVED LIVES! First by putting a quick end to the second world war. Second by *preventing* the cold war from escalating into a third world war (leaving the first world a third world!)
We haven't engineered a biological weapon that has destroyed humanity. We haven't developed nanobots that reproduce themselves without limit creating a grey-goo that engulfs the planet. We haven't moved the earth "with a place to stand and a lever long enough". In short
We already pollute our air and oceans to points where there are days that we can't go outside for fresh air or take a dip in the ocean because the pollutants are so great that we would get sick.
What? I have no trouble finding fresh air -- and last time I was in the ocean it was clean as a whistle. (I did come away with a sun burn, but that's my own fault for not wearing sunscreen!)
There's no need to stop researching and learning, hell that's what makes us human. But we MUST begin to consider the rate in which society evolves and how science pushes the envelope.
That's dangerous thinking -- Science is a vehicle for social evolution! With technology comes progress and change.
Until society advances, the medical break through such as these should be considered before they are pushed through. I'm sorry Larry Ellison, but humans were not meant to live forever...
Even if the technology were applicable to humans (which, at present, it is not) would you actually suggest that it NOT be used?! Tell that to someone with a bad heart, kidney, etc.
To continue: This article is about regeneration, not eternal life. This technology promises to improve and possibly extend life for those with damaged/missing organs/limbs or what-have-you (er, have-you-not). This technolgoy does NOT promise you can live forever! Hell, the article even mentioned that subjects were unable to regenerate brain tissue -- what should that tell you about living forever?
When it's cold and snowing the road conditions tend to be quite poor -- I don't know about you, but I tend to avoid taveling at a high rate of speed on icy roads.
Here in NW Pennsylvania we don't typically associate gender with the word 'guys' -- That is, it's okay for us to address an all-female group with 'How are you guys?' or a mixed-gender group the same way. Now the word 'guy' (singular) on the other hand is different... go figure.
Already installed in my car (a 1994 model), and requiring no re-application or chemicals, no electricity, and once activated it stays activated until manually deactivated. Even in a deactivated state this amazing invention provides an invisible barrier to dangerous atmospheric gas -- such as carbondioxide and powerful solvents such as dihydrogenmonoxide often found in highly toxic acid rain.
This device is designed with macro technology (buzzword: MacroTech) -- which is not plagued by the extremely dangerous problems associated with nano techology.
What is this incredible device? It's called a drivers side window. Once "opened" 3" to 4", my windshield is not only cleared of any fog, but it says clear until the device is "closed" again!
This article reminds me of the idiots who thought sarcasm was the way for the macintosh to beat the PC
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'sarcasm was the way...' . Could you provide some background? (This is a serious request. I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm just after a little more info.)
The question shouldn't be "why do we need these certs?", but how do we make certifications for computer science and IT that are as strong as other professional certifications for doctors, architects, civil/mechanical engineers, etc. No one should ever think that is just meaningless paper certification.
Though I fear I've misinterpreted you here:
As it stands now, many present certifications are useless -- an MCSE means nothing to any qualified IT Manager.
A worthless anecdote: A friend of mine earned his MCSE (and a few other MS Certs) at a two-week "bootcamp". Not long after returning he called me to ask how to make a bootdisk.
You're right to say that we need professional certifications for computer professionals -- the problem is creating a good certificate program.
(Speaking as one who teaches adult computer literacy classes) For the past 25+ years there has been debate on what it means to be computer literate with no generally accepted definition yet. How can we expect more advanced certifications be valid if we can't even manage such an obvious prerequisite?
Defining literacy aside, there is still the problem of the metric. I can teach a class all the basic fundamentals (which change month to month as I guess at what skills I should consider essential.) and get them to pass a test that (should) reflect their ability to perform basic tasks. The sad thing about that is, most my students would have learned very little or nothing at all, would still be 'computer illiterate', and yet be able to pass a test with flying colors! (I use a qualitive, not quantitive, metric now -- so that my students get a chance to actually learn.)
Colleges today aren't much better. Ask any random yahoo with a B.S. in C.S. to give you an example of when to use a digraph (or whatever) -- or explain to you how to represent a digraph. (For those not in the know: A Digraph [Directed graph] is a very basic data structure.)
It gets even worst: There are C.S. graduates out there that have never taken a descrete mathematics class (ack! What's wrong with education?!)
Okay, I guess the point of this whole rant is that standards in computer education are too poor (if they exist at all) to rely on. And if you can't rely on a cert. then that cert. should be considered worthless.
That would be news: Linux defies basic mathematics by running on a single transistor. Linus Torvalds suspected terrorist.
Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!!
on
10 Technologies MIA
·
· Score: 1
And the reason the parent was modded Insightful is because slashdot's mod system doesn't increase karma for Funny mods, so people have been modding funny posts as insightful.
And for good reason! It's way easier to make a post funny than it is 'interesting' or 'insightful'. There were just too many karma whores flooding us with posts they thought were funny and added nothing to the discussion.
2) Games written in Basic. Oh for the glory days when any schoolkid could write from scratch something that his mates would be interested in playing.
And glory days they were! Not only was it tons of fun, but it taught new ways of thinking and problem solving to uncountable kids across the globe. It's a real shame that MS decided to stop bundling a basic interpreter with their o/s...
I also disagree that we would end up with a society of smart people. We would end up with a society of knowledgable people, but that knowledge would be limited in scope to the hard sciences.
Science is a method of observation and a process of investigation. In essence, science is a way of thinking. Science is not a mere collection of facts -- that's the scientific body of knowledge. I believe the idea the parent ment to express was that by teaching more science (the correct way), we'll produce students who are better able to think.
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Using your observability argument to define science... We do not observe new species popping up, by chance, _from the dirt_, therefore, evolution and chance as explainations for the origin of life are also not science.
This is the kind of nonsence that make creationists look like uneducated willfully-ignorant religious nuts. Science is about observation. In science, the observation come *before* the theory -- unlike creationism. The theory of evolution fits with observations in the fossil record, diversification of species, biological resistance to drugs, and much more. If another theory comes along that better explains the data, science will adopt it and evolution will disappear. (Then you'll have somthing new to insist is wrong!)
Why does everthing we create require us to develop/design it, and why didn't cars pop up from the ground by themselves. They've had plenty of time to apparently.
Well, cars did evolve, in a way. All technology evolves -- We build tools to make better tools to make better tools, etc.
Sir Issac Newton once said: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" Implying an evolutionary process to the accumulation of scientific knowledge.
Your example also breaks down at a very fundamental level -- Cars are not living organisms -- the theory of evolution deals preaty exclusively with LIFE.
Not quite -- A little research could have saved you some trouble.
By the way, according to the bible, the earth was created around 7000 years ago.
This is incorrect. You were thinking of bishop James Ussher who studied the genealogies in the old testament back in the 1650's. He calculated that the earth was created in 4004 B.C. (Though many think his math is sketchy) -- That would make the earth 6009 years old, not 7000. Oh, and that's not according to the bible, its according to one persons highly suspect interpretation of the bible.
The oldest tree in the world is in California. It is 4200 years old. That's an old tree, but if this world is billions of years old, why isn't there an older one?
The oldest tree in the world is a Bristlecone Pine named "Methuselah" -- It's 4,767 years old. Why isn't there an older tree? Perhaps changes in climate and geography over time, natural disasters (think: fire, etc.). It's preaty amazing anything could survive that long.
The oldest and biggest reefs in the world are outside the coast of Australia. The Great Barrier Reefs. After a 30 year study, several groups of scientists all came to the conclusion that the reef had to be less than 4300 years old. That's some pretty old reef. But once again, with a billion year old world, shouldn't that be WAAY older?
Not quite -- the oldest reef in the world is is located in a very odd place -- Vermont -- The Chazy Reef is estimated to be over 480 million years old. Though it has competition from Rowland's Reef in Nevada -- a multi-million year old bioherm. (Perhaps you shouldn't trust info you get from John Ankerberg?)
And before anyone mentions Carbon14 dating.. Actually:) go ahead. I'd love to show you just how sketchy that 'science' gets going near / past the half life (5730 years)
Other than your apparent distaste for science -- which is most likely founded in ignorance of what science actually is (see this link for some enlightenment) -- The half-life of C14 does not mean that we can only date organic material 5730 years old and newer -- I'm not entirely certain where you got that information. The half-life of C14 is the time it takes for half of a sample to undergo radioactive decay. The effective range of Carbon Dating seems to be about 50,000 years. There is a good article Here that you might find enlightening.
The are so many different simple things that we can find in nature that really put a kink in the entire evolution viewpoint.
Not really. A little education will surely clear things up for you. Someone posted this link earlier -- it's a good one just to get your thinking started.
Remember that real scientists don't care about creationism -- as creationism is not science. If creationists want to be taken seriously, they should come up with real scientific evidence in support of creationism, not try to show that the currently accepted theory is wrong. (They'll have a hard time doing that!) The interesting thing about science is when a theory no longer explains the data, it gets tossed out the window. If evolution is wrong, science will get rid of the theory itself -- and replace it with a theory that explains all the data. -- Note that it won't be replaced by creationism, as creationism isn't science.
The games on disney.com on nick.com only work in IE -- If you have kids, you might have noticed this.
A friend of mine attends Slippery Rock University and can't access a great majority of the site (to check email, register for classes, etc.) without IE.
As someone else mentioned, many online classes require you to use IE.
I've been IE free for 2 years now and haven't personally encountered a problem yet -- but many people have, and many people I know have.
have you not noticed that every war the united states has been in it has brought hatred towards the "other" race?
Ignoring the fact that the U.S. is made up of people of all races... and sence you seem to think all americans are white...
Ignoring the Germans, Russians, and all the other 'white' races out there...
On a side note -- I find that it's the most racist people who push 'race' issues -- the non-racists don't seem to give it a second though. (Perhaps becuase they don't see people in terms of race.)
Maybe it is NOT about race. However, given the callousness displayed, i feel that it is definitely about race!
Okay, you only gave one example -- with no factual source -- of actual racism. Though the actions of a few soldiers singing racist songs does not make their actions racist (as they would have performed the same actions singing or not).
And the whole "treat Iraqui's like dogs" bit? Has nothing to do with race. I can treat someone like a dog without any concern to their race.
Did rotten things happen? Sure -- but that doesn't mean race was a factor.
About the topic: Do you honestly believe that this weapon was created because the designers were racist? That's absurd!
I'm still wondering how that guy got his Ph.D in computer science when he can't even get his computer spyware free?
"Computer science is as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes" --Edsgar Dijkstra
I know a fellow with a Ph.D in computer science who doesn't know the first thing about MS Windows, the internet, email, spyware, etc. He's in his 80's and just never bothered to keep up with current technology.
One of my old CS professors --with whom I've had the pleasure of working with recently-- has never had to deal with adware/spyware and thus has no idea what it is, how it works, or how to get rid of it. In fact, she earned her Ph.D in computer science in the late 70's without knowing a single thing about adware and spyware. She lets the university techs handle those sorts of problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Mac Nano? Yeah, I'd buy that... or the Newton Shuffle...
[Assuming you're joking] He (GWB) could always just invade middle-eastern countries for sport while Pat Robertson is busy assassinating the president of Venezuela...
I have my own problems with e-books -- on one hand, I'd love to carry my entire library with me at all times -- with the added advantage of it being electronically searchable. I don't like the idea that my entire library could be lost by dropping the thing in the sink, leaving it on a bus, having it stolen from my pocket, etc. -- I also don't like the idea that my library might be useless/unreadable by changes in software or hardware (like some old wp docs I've got lying around on a 5 1/4" floppy disk)
This is what I'd like to see happen:
1) Dead-Tree Media never ever go away! When I buy a book I intend to keep it until I die! (Until a new technology comes along that's better we'll need this kind of super-long-term information system. -- er, except for books like "Windows 95 unleashed" Those might not have much future value.)
2) Printed books that include an electronic copy of the text for use with e-paper devices for a small additional cost (I refuse to pay an outragious price for an e-book when I could buy the hard-copy version for jsut a few dollars more -- an article I recently read mentioned tiny 30% discounts for e-textbooks that lasted only as long as a single semester. That sucks for the poor student who still pays too much, and gets absolutly nothing in the end! [er, perhaps (s)he gets it all in the "end"])
I guess what I want is the best of both worlds. Is that so much to ask?!
It took me quite some time to figure out how best to reply to your message. You seem to have a fear (yes, fear) of new technology. I honestly don't understand why.
1) How the internet has changed society:
This is a very difficult question to answer as I cannot answer it directly. Consider for a moment that we are currently at the beginning (or middle, some would say) of TWO major revolutions. 1) The Information Revolution [the direct result of the internet] and 2) The technological revolution [of which the internet is not only a product, but also a fuel that feeds the revolution that created it.]
Accept that communication (between people, between groups) is essential in order for people to function in a society. (isolated groups are not part of the same society -- as communication is impossible) -- It stands to reason, the method and means of communication (the written word, verbal communication, etc.) affect the structure of the society.
The internet has changed the way we communicate with other people (an almost immediate effect). The internet has changed the way we consider the relationship between physical distance and latency of communication. (Mountains, rivers, valleys, oceans, etc. are no longer barriers to communication. It no longer takes several weeks to transmit a message to someone across the globle - it can happen almost instantly!) Individual societies are no longer isolated by physical distance. Communities can form without their membership being limited to a specific geographic area. (The advantages to this are more than obvious.)
1a) How will society change as a result of the internet?
This question is more difficult to answer as the internet is still in its infancy. The last major information revolution came in the form of the printing press -- which lead to popular literacy! (Though it certainly didn't happen over night.) It seems to be too early for us to speculate what the long-term effects of the internet may be -- Though I can only envision positive changes. (All the immediate effects have been positive, though none too dramatic -- it's still early yet -- give it time.)
1b) Has technology in the past caused changes to society. (Demonstrate that technology is a vehicle for social change.) -- This one is easy. Consider the example above (Gutenberg printing press) for starters. The jaquard loom lead to the industrial revolution (improving the standard of living). The steam engine and the rail road changed the way we *live and work* and helped to create the abundance and variety of food (through faster travel) that we could only dream about before! The highway and automobile changed our perceptions on distance -- we no longer had to live in the city to work in the city (leading to a suburban subculture). The manufacturing process changed the way products were produced -- affording an abundance and improving our standard of living and leasure time -- Time that might not have existed in great quantity before -- allowing innovation to occour.
Now when I said "the way we *live and work*" I mean that it has a direct impact on our culture -- changes to our culture directly impact our world-view -- which will affect our philosophy, theology, morals, etc.
2) We don't consider the consequences of our developments. We will eventually create the tool of our own distruction. -- Well, this is hard to refute, as we certainly could destroy ourselves if we wanted to. I don't believe we want to. The Atomic Bomb,a weapon that threatened to destroy all human life, didn't destroy humanity -- it SAVED LIVES! First by putting a quick end to the second world war. Second by *preventing* the cold war from escalating into a third world war (leaving the first world a third world!)
We haven't engineered a biological weapon that has destroyed humanity. We haven't developed nanobots that reproduce themselves without limit creating a grey-goo that engulfs the planet. We haven't moved the earth "with a place to stand and a lever long enough". In short
What? I have no trouble finding fresh air -- and last time I was in the ocean it was clean as a whistle. (I did come away with a sun burn, but that's my own fault for not wearing sunscreen!)
That's dangerous thinking -- Science is a vehicle for social evolution! With technology comes progress and change.
Even if the technology were applicable to humans (which, at present, it is not) would you actually suggest that it NOT be used?! Tell that to someone with a bad heart, kidney, etc.
To continue: This article is about regeneration, not eternal life. This technology promises to improve and possibly extend life for those with damaged/missing organs/limbs or what-have-you (er, have-you-not). This technolgoy does NOT promise you can live forever! Hell, the article even mentioned that subjects were unable to regenerate brain tissue -- what should that tell you about living forever?
When it's cold and snowing the road conditions tend to be quite poor -- I don't know about you, but I tend to avoid taveling at a high rate of speed on icy roads.
Here in NW Pennsylvania we don't typically associate gender with the word 'guys' -- That is, it's okay for us to address an all-female group with 'How are you guys?' or a mixed-gender group the same way. Now the word 'guy' (singular) on the other hand is different... go figure.
Already installed in my car (a 1994 model), and requiring no re-application or chemicals, no electricity, and once activated it stays activated until manually deactivated. Even in a deactivated state this amazing invention provides an invisible barrier to dangerous atmospheric gas -- such as carbondioxide and powerful solvents such as dihydrogenmonoxide often found in highly toxic acid rain.
This device is designed with macro technology (buzzword: MacroTech) -- which is not plagued by the extremely dangerous problems associated with nano techology.
What is this incredible device? It's called a drivers side window. Once "opened" 3" to 4", my windshield is not only cleared of any fog, but it says clear until the device is "closed" again!
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'sarcasm was the way
Though I fear I've misinterpreted you here:
As it stands now, many present certifications are useless -- an MCSE means nothing to any qualified IT Manager.
A worthless anecdote: A friend of mine earned his MCSE (and a few other MS Certs) at a two-week "bootcamp". Not long after returning he called me to ask how to make a bootdisk.
You're right to say that we need professional certifications for computer professionals -- the problem is creating a good certificate program.
(Speaking as one who teaches adult computer literacy classes) For the past 25+ years there has been debate on what it means to be computer literate with no generally accepted definition yet. How can we expect more advanced certifications be valid if we can't even manage such an obvious prerequisite?
Defining literacy aside, there is still the problem of the metric. I can teach a class all the basic fundamentals (which change month to month as I guess at what skills I should consider essential.) and get them to pass a test that (should) reflect their ability to perform basic tasks. The sad thing about that is, most my students would have learned very little or nothing at all, would still be 'computer illiterate', and yet be able to pass a test with flying colors! (I use a qualitive, not quantitive, metric now -- so that my students get a chance to actually learn.)
Colleges today aren't much better. Ask any random yahoo with a B.S. in C.S. to give you an example of when to use a digraph (or whatever) -- or explain to you how to represent a digraph. (For those not in the know: A Digraph [Directed graph] is a very basic data structure.)
It gets even worst: There are C.S. graduates out there that have never taken a descrete mathematics class (ack! What's wrong with education?!)
Okay, I guess the point of this whole rant is that standards in computer education are too poor (if they exist at all) to rely on. And if you can't rely on a cert. then that cert. should be considered worthless.
That would be news: Linux defies basic mathematics by running on a single transistor. Linus Torvalds suspected terrorist.
And for good reason! It's way easier to make a post funny than it is 'interesting' or 'insightful'. There were just too many karma whores flooding us with posts they thought were funny and added nothing to the discussion.
Please stop modding funny as insightful!
And glory days they were! Not only was it tons of fun, but it taught new ways of thinking and problem solving to uncountable kids across the globe. It's a real shame that MS decided to stop bundling a basic interpreter with their o/s...
Science is a method of observation and a process of investigation. In essence, science is a way of thinking. Science is not a mere collection of facts -- that's the scientific body of knowledge. I believe the idea the parent ment to express was that by teaching more science (the correct way), we'll produce students who are better able to think.
There was in interesting article posted on slashdot not too long ago about a project much like you describe:f eedId=online-news_rss20
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7674&
No, you've got it all wrong! Observation come before theory -- not the other way around!
The scientific method
(as stolen from:)
This is the kind of nonsence that make creationists look like uneducated willfully-ignorant religious nuts. Science is about observation. In science, the observation come *before* the theory -- unlike creationism. The theory of evolution fits with observations in the fossil record, diversification of species, biological resistance to drugs, and much more. If another theory comes along that better explains the data, science will adopt it and evolution will disappear. (Then you'll have somthing new to insist is wrong!)
Well, cars did evolve, in a way. All technology evolves -- We build tools to make better tools to make better tools, etc.
Sir Issac Newton once said: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" Implying an evolutionary process to the accumulation of scientific knowledge.
Your example also breaks down at a very fundamental level -- Cars are not living organisms -- the theory of evolution deals preaty exclusively with LIFE.
This is incorrect. You were thinking of bishop James Ussher who studied the genealogies in the old testament back in the 1650's. He calculated that the earth was created in 4004 B.C. (Though many think his math is sketchy) -- That would make the earth 6009 years old, not 7000. Oh, and that's not according to the bible, its according to one persons highly suspect interpretation of the bible.
The oldest tree in the world is a Bristlecone Pine named "Methuselah" -- It's 4,767 years old.
Why isn't there an older tree? Perhaps changes in climate and geography over time, natural disasters (think: fire, etc.). It's preaty amazing anything could survive that long.
Not quite -- the oldest reef in the world is is located in a very odd place -- Vermont -- The Chazy Reef is estimated to be over 480 million years old. Though it has competition from Rowland's Reef in Nevada -- a multi-million year old bioherm. (Perhaps you shouldn't trust info you get from John Ankerberg?)
Other than your apparent distaste for science -- which is most likely founded in ignorance of what science actually is (see this link for some enlightenment) -- The half-life of C14 does not mean that we can only date organic material 5730 years old and newer -- I'm not entirely certain where you got that information. The half-life of C14 is the time it takes for half of a sample to undergo radioactive decay. The effective range of Carbon Dating seems to be about 50,000 years. There is a good article Here that you might find enlightening.
Not really. A little education will surely clear things up for you. Someone posted this link earlier -- it's a good one just to get your thinking started.
Remember that real scientists don't care about creationism -- as creationism is not science. If creationists want to be taken seriously, they should come up with real scientific evidence in support of creationism, not try to show that the currently accepted theory is wrong. (They'll have a hard time doing that!) The interesting thing about science is when a theory no longer explains the data, it gets tossed out the window. If evolution is wrong, science will get rid of the theory itself -- and replace it with a theory that explains all the data. -- Note that it won't be replaced by creationism, as creationism isn't science.
The games on disney.com on nick.com only work in IE -- If you have kids, you might have noticed this.
A friend of mine attends Slippery Rock University and can't access a great majority of the site (to check email, register for classes, etc.) without IE.
As someone else mentioned, many online classes require you to use IE.
I've been IE free for 2 years now and haven't personally encountered a problem yet -- but many people have, and many people I know have.
have you not noticed that every war the united states has been in it has brought hatred towards the "other" race?
Ignoring the fact that the U.S. is made up of people of all races... and sence you seem to think all americans are white...
Ignoring the Germans, Russians, and all the other 'white' races out there...
On a side note -- I find that it's the most racist people who push 'race' issues -- the non-racists don't seem to give it a second though. (Perhaps becuase they don't see people in terms of race.)
Okay, you only gave one example -- with no factual source -- of actual racism. Though the actions of a few soldiers singing racist songs does not make their actions racist (as they would have performed the same actions singing or not).
And the whole "treat Iraqui's like dogs" bit? Has nothing to do with race. I can treat someone like a dog without any concern to their race.
Did rotten things happen? Sure -- but that doesn't mean race was a factor.
About the topic: Do you honestly believe that this weapon was created because the designers were racist? That's absurd!
It's not a race issue! Stop trying to turn it into one.
Where can I find TMA-1?
One of my old CS professors --with whom I've had the pleasure of working with recently-- has never had to deal with adware/spyware and thus has no idea what it is, how it works, or how to get rid of it. In fact, she earned her Ph.D in computer science in the late 70's without knowing a single thing about adware and spyware. She lets the university techs handle those sorts of problems.
I Hope that helps.