It is apparent that you do not understand how evolution works.
Any immunity to pesticides (or anything, for that matter) is only effective within the realm of continued use of that pesticide. Throughout that period of time, the weed is much more succeptable to things like drought, disease, and other chemicals (ie, it's weaker). Remove those pesticides from the environment, and the weed will revert to its natural state.
You can kind-of, sort-of see the same thing in some people; some of us can smoke (you know, cigarettes), resulting in a higher resistance to other resperatory-type illness, while at the same time lowering overall immunity to other things at the same time.
Yeah, but Qt doesn't have two important features which GTK+ boasts, namely:
- Has a file dialog that is as un-intuitiive and cumbersome to navigate as possible; ironically, it is very similar to the file dialog in OS X. - Provides users a feeling of superiority due to the previous mentioned feature
1) If micro but not macro evolution occurs, how does microevolution *prevented* from becoming macroevolution. That is something that ID has never answered.
No, it's been answered; nobody cares to listen, though, as it tends to punch a hole in their beliefs.
Straight-dope evolutionists like to say that "evolution can be proven". That argument, as thin as it is, can not be proven, however. There has not been a single instance of macroevolution, or even macroevolution through continued microevolution; every such attempt made by man to do so through selective breeding for their specific environment has resulted in dysfunctional breeds that are anything but "fit". They're more prone to sickness, have more genetic mutations, often have birthing problems, and die younger.
2) If the fossil record was simply species moving around, where did all these species come from anyway? And where have they all gone? Was there some insane number species at the creation of this planet, gradually dwindling as they traipsed about the earth?
You've got two choices in life: deny the existence of a higher power completely, or at some point accept that there is a higher power of some sort out there.
This is that point where I sit down and say, "Causality necessitates that I believe in a creator." Denying that there was a creator of some shape or form denies the reality that something can't come from nothing.
But honestly, speaking to the childish likes of you really doesn't prove too fruitful, as you weren't even to read and comprehend what I said, as you've gone and essentially trying to pin something on me which is the opposite of what I said. Well, at least you can read. You wouldn't happen to have a career in law or politics, would you?
Why does water cool people down? Because heat is convected from the human body into the water, which then evaporates. This disipates the heat energy.
Have you ever lived in a hot, dry climate? Anything short of water cooling of some sort will NOT cool them down at a fast enough rate. They have ambient dry heat indexes of 120F on a regular, daily basis over there. Have you ever gotten into a vehicle during the middle of the summer, and the steering wheel is too hot to touch? You'll immediately roll the window down because it's almost too hot to breath. It rarely gets above 105F in the US. Now, think of being in an armored vehicle, with the motor running, and the heat on, with the windows down, wearing a combat pack, long clothing, boots, gloves, and a helmet - and with 5 other men in the vehicle with you. THAT is the kind of heat they are in over there.
Look at a photo from Iraq of our troops. Notice how everyone is wearing gloves? There's a reason for that: their guns and other gear are too hot to touch.
The only way they could really do it would be with water of some sort. The only practical way to do it is to drink it, as pouring it on yourself or your clothing will a) get you dirty - really dirty - really quickly, b) do little, as it will evaporate too quickly, c) waste valuable water, and d) decrease their agility and ability to move quickly.
The assumption where evolution falls flat is that the "changing fossil record" is just that: it's a fossil record which changes, not necessitating either evolution or simply different species in a single location over a broad period of time.
A million years from now, when an alien species comes down here and looks out our fossils after we're long gone, are they going to make these following conclusions?
Cattle are the descendants of Bison; we've found their fossils in the same region, and only a couple hundred thousand years appart. They're very similar in skeletal structure and function, so we make this conclusion.
Domestic dogs are the descendants of North American Timberwolves, as they are found in a similar geographic region and are both canines. It would appear that when humans died off, their domestic pets went wild again and pushed the Timberwolves to extinction, being the weaker of the two in terms of surviveability.
Neither would be true; yes, cattle and domestic dogs have undergone a genetic evolution since the beginning of man, but both those species have been tweaked and mutilated by the intentional intervention of man.
Don't get me wrong; I believe that microevolution occurs; it's readily observeable. I just don't think speciation has provided us with anything factual so as to be convincing. The simplest explanation is often the right one, and in this case the simple explanation is that other species moved into the same areas.
Which isn't to say I don't think speciation isn't plauseable, I just don't think it's probable.
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise: the people (women and stupid men, mostly) that bitch about "gender gap" do not want equality.
If they wanted equality, you'd see studies like this done about fields like plumbing, carpentry, construction, and other "unskilled" jobs. You don't see this kind of thing about a (technical) field like massage thearapy or salon duties (both of which pay pretty well) - because women already have the majority in fields like that. What the bitches that trump stuff like this really want is to trump men financially - to "wear the pants", if you will - and their behavior shows it. Women like this are simply bitter hags that have a bone to pick - and likely a full skeleton of bones in the closet.
Not to point out the obvious, but the obvious in our world is sometimes overlooked for politically motivated reasons these days.
The obvious conclusion is that there are less women in CS these days because the benefits are less than the penalty. In other words, the main reason there were more women in IT during the dotcom boom was because there was less competition amongst employees (in a mathematics-dominated field), and the field was seen as immediately beneficial and growing. Anyone with a modicum of technical or mathematic ability got into IT/CS because even those that were not the "best and brightest" in mathematics could get jobs in the field. (This is further illustrated by the supposed sallary gap between men and women in technical/CS fields: quite simply, the women pick the jobs that are less technically challenging, and thus pay less.)
Women, being the sensical (and sensual! but that's something else entirely) creatures that they are when it comes to something as unemotional as picking a career, saw the obviousness of the situation: unless they really liked mathematics, there was little incentive to go into CS.
There's also very little "staying power" in the skills acquired with a CS degree (theory aside - most employers don't seem to give a damn about anything but acronyms anyway), and for many women who were intent on getting married while they are still able to have children fairly comfortably, the payoff of a CS/IT degree was further decreased: you can't really jump back into the field after having and raising kids like you can into something that's less skill-based and more theory-based, like business or management.
Anyway, flame on. FWIW, I'm a guy who happens to be not so mathematically inclined, and I've changed my degree from CS for this very reason as well (the technical ability reason, not the childbirth reason).
Nobody is denying that climate change is occuring. What people are denying is that the climate change is a general warming trend (very few people), and that we (humans) are responsible for it (many people).
Scientists in the 70s were bitching about "global cooling", then warming in the '80s and early 90s, then cooling again for a couple years... and now it's warming. What hte hell is wrong with this picture? Could it be that it's not consistent, and that if it were scientific, there would at least be a trend of agreement from year to year, instead of blatant flip-flopping and contradiction? Could it be that the "models" they use to inerpret this stuff are made out of whole cloth for funding and political purposes?
Simply put, there is no evidence whatsoever that human influence on the environment is causing the global climate change. In fact, there's strong historical evidence to say that we aren't, as we're still coming out of a mini-iceage.
teflon-coated bullets aren't. They're not armor piercing; they're more fiction than anything, really.
Armor piercing shells will still probably kill people, because shells are big. Armor-piercing bullets, however, are usually steel core lead, I believe.
A bullet is typically roughly a square centimeter in frontal surface area (give or take, yadda yadda), and they do not exert nearly as much pressure as 250 tons per square centimeter. I'm fairly certain of this, as no small arm (ie, personal firearm) can withstand even a fraction of that pressure without going "boom" in a very bad way.
Another thing to consider is the velocity of that incoming pressure, which wasn't really discussed. I think it's probably important, but I don't really know enough about physics to debate it one way or the other. I suspect that a higher velocity on a smaller mass (ie, the same pressure) might well result in something being able to penetrate it.
However, if this stuff were able to be made into completely bulletproof vests (ie, nothing short of an ah64 could penetrate it), then we'd still have people getting shot and dying as a result - though, quite possibly, much more painful deaths. Bruising and internal bleeding can be pretty bad, even if the current armor's ballistic plating stop the bullet, often killing them from something like kidney failure or intestinal rupture.
I'm more concerned about the fraud that Ebay is perpetrating with the colusion of PayPal. They'll lock down someone's account and not respond to inquiry requests as to the account's status, and provide no method for re-opening PayPal accounts due to a fraudulent and unproveable claim.
Er, I can "zero in" on something in the distance with a pair of field glasses. I don't need a scoped rifle. IE, the telescope has range-finding capability. BFD, grow up.
You are terribly confused. You're assuming that because one particular strain of "Creationism" which has been popularly rejected (the 8k years nonsense - or whatever it is) for quite a while being false means that all creationistic science is false.
I really don't know where to start with your analogy, because it's simply flawed. A better analogy to modern evolutionary teaching would be to take two beakers , put corks in them, and then burry them for someone to come around and find 2 million years later, and for the person that finds them to conclude that one was derived from the other - simply because they were chemically similar and found in the same place. There's no way to verify it, just an assumption.
For one, it was found in Borneo. That's kinda far for something to migrate without swimming.
I'd bet it's either a breed similar to lemurs, or quite possibly a lemur itself. It's kind of hard to believe that lemurs only exist on a single island throughout the world.
Put lemurs in a different environment, and they're probably going to be capable of evolving into something that eats meat. I mean, we supposedly evolved from a lemur-like creature, so it's at least plauseable. There used to be Indian trade routes throughout that region of the world, long ago, so it's plauseable that Lemurs were at one time a domesticated animal used for food, or possibly for pets... not implauseable that one might escape.
Anything that doesn't work as advertised is going to be "over priced", regardless of what that item is. When someone buys something, they're paying for what is said the device will do. When they don't get the product delivered as advertised, they are effectively paying more than they were willing to pay for said received services, because they paid for more than they received. Thus, it is over priced.
Also, it's over priced simply because it cost $400! I don't know what world you live in, but it is fully possible to build a PC for gaming which functions much better than the 360 ever could for only a marginal amount more.
Simplify your work experience. If you're using KDE or some other "bloated" wm/dm, consider stripping as much of the 'fluff' away as possible.
I personally prefer using xfce4 as it's lightweight and simple, but still featureful enough to have a 'modern' look. It's also quite fast compared to gnome and kde, taking very little memory. All I have for a "user interface" is the launchbar on autohide (which contains all the programs I run) and a taskbar with all the regular applications I run - and only those.
Also, it's quite keyboard-friendly. reducing your reliance on the hairless rodent will increase your ability to get work done quickly, I've found. Using hte mouse takes a lot of time!
If you just spent $400 on a new console, you already spent quite a few bucks. You should not have to dick about with a console which crashes every 20 fucking minutes.
This kind of thing has absolutely no excuse! We're talking about Microsoft here, the world's biggest computer company (by several metrics, at least). Not only are they filthy rich, but they've got some of the best and brightest and could theoretically burn money to keep their buildings warm during the winter and not suffer all that much. It's just short of fraud (in my mind) to sell something which has been both falsely represented and over-priced.
Wow, if they're having these kinds of overheating issues now, in the middle of the winter, imagine what kind of hell will occur come summertime! No amount of string will help that issue; in order to use the 360, people will have to have box fans blowing on the damn things almost constantly in a "cool" (for the summertime, at least) room - at best.
One has to wonder what exactly MS was thinking (or not thinking, as the case may be), and how they planned to make these consoles last long enough to get their money out of them through game purchases.
We aren't seen as hicks so much because of our lifestyle, but our views: primarily, because the majority of the country (including the Midwest) isn't socialist.
I think is largely because many Midwesterners are closer to the source of production, as opposed to those in cities who manage that production or have "high tech" jobs which are quite divorced from a life closer to actual subsistence.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, shit. I've got to reset my goddamn clock again.
It is apparent that you do not understand how evolution works.
Any immunity to pesticides (or anything, for that matter) is only effective within the realm of continued use of that pesticide. Throughout that period of time, the weed is much more succeptable to things like drought, disease, and other chemicals (ie, it's weaker). Remove those pesticides from the environment, and the weed will revert to its natural state.
You can kind-of, sort-of see the same thing in some people; some of us can smoke (you know, cigarettes), resulting in a higher resistance to other resperatory-type illness, while at the same time lowering overall immunity to other things at the same time.
Yeah, but Qt doesn't have two important features which GTK+ boasts, namely:
- Has a file dialog that is as un-intuitiive and cumbersome to navigate as possible; ironically, it is very similar to the file dialog in OS X.
- Provides users a feeling of superiority due to the previous mentioned feature
1) If micro but not macro evolution occurs, how does microevolution *prevented* from becoming macroevolution. That is something that ID has never answered.
No, it's been answered; nobody cares to listen, though, as it tends to punch a hole in their beliefs.
Straight-dope evolutionists like to say that "evolution can be proven". That argument, as thin as it is, can not be proven, however. There has not been a single instance of macroevolution, or even macroevolution through continued microevolution; every such attempt made by man to do so through selective breeding for their specific environment has resulted in dysfunctional breeds that are anything but "fit". They're more prone to sickness, have more genetic mutations, often have birthing problems, and die younger.
2) If the fossil record was simply species moving around, where did all these species come from anyway? And where have they all gone? Was there some insane number species at the creation of this planet, gradually dwindling as they traipsed about the earth?
Yes.
You've got two choices in life: deny the existence of a higher power completely, or at some point accept that there is a higher power of some sort out there.
This is that point where I sit down and say, "Causality necessitates that I believe in a creator." Denying that there was a creator of some shape or form denies the reality that something can't come from nothing.
But honestly, speaking to the childish likes of you really doesn't prove too fruitful, as you weren't even to read and comprehend what I said, as you've gone and essentially trying to pin something on me which is the opposite of what I said. Well, at least you can read. You wouldn't happen to have a career in law or politics, would you?
You have, apparently, not thought this through.
Why does water cool people down? Because heat is convected from the human body into the water, which then evaporates. This disipates the heat energy.
Have you ever lived in a hot, dry climate? Anything short of water cooling of some sort will NOT cool them down at a fast enough rate. They have ambient dry heat indexes of 120F on a regular, daily basis over there. Have you ever gotten into a vehicle during the middle of the summer, and the steering wheel is too hot to touch? You'll immediately roll the window down because it's almost too hot to breath. It rarely gets above 105F in the US. Now, think of being in an armored vehicle, with the motor running, and the heat on, with the windows down, wearing a combat pack, long clothing, boots, gloves, and a helmet - and with 5 other men in the vehicle with you. THAT is the kind of heat they are in over there.
Look at a photo from Iraq of our troops. Notice how everyone is wearing gloves? There's a reason for that: their guns and other gear are too hot to touch.
The only way they could really do it would be with water of some sort. The only practical way to do it is to drink it, as pouring it on yourself or your clothing will a) get you dirty - really dirty - really quickly, b) do little, as it will evaporate too quickly, c) waste valuable water, and d) decrease their agility and ability to move quickly.
A million years from now, when an alien species comes down here and looks out our fossils after we're long gone, are they going to make these following conclusions?
Cattle are the descendants of Bison; we've found their fossils in the same region, and only a couple hundred thousand years appart. They're very similar in skeletal structure and function, so we make this conclusion.
Domestic dogs are the descendants of North American Timberwolves, as they are found in a similar geographic region and are both canines. It would appear that when humans died off, their domestic pets went wild again and pushed the Timberwolves to extinction, being the weaker of the two in terms of surviveability.
Neither would be true; yes, cattle and domestic dogs have undergone a genetic evolution since the beginning of man, but both those species have been tweaked and mutilated by the intentional intervention of man.
Don't get me wrong; I believe that microevolution occurs; it's readily observeable. I just don't think speciation has provided us with anything factual so as to be convincing. The simplest explanation is often the right one, and in this case the simple explanation is that other species moved into the same areas.
Which isn't to say I don't think speciation isn't plauseable, I just don't think it's probable.
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking too - but only for a moment.
Slight caveat: then you can just block one domain and be rid of most ads.
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise: the people (women and stupid men, mostly) that bitch about "gender gap" do not want equality.
If they wanted equality, you'd see studies like this done about fields like plumbing, carpentry, construction, and other "unskilled" jobs. You don't see this kind of thing about a (technical) field like massage thearapy or salon duties (both of which pay pretty well) - because women already have the majority in fields like that. What the bitches that trump stuff like this really want is to trump men financially - to "wear the pants", if you will - and their behavior shows it. Women like this are simply bitter hags that have a bone to pick - and likely a full skeleton of bones in the closet.
the majority of young boys don't want to play with Barbies in pink dresses.
Sure they do. Where have you been? I played with barbies all the time. If by "play" you mean "incinerate with an acetylene torch".
Not to point out the obvious, but the obvious in our world is sometimes overlooked for politically motivated reasons these days.
The obvious conclusion is that there are less women in CS these days because the benefits are less than the penalty. In other words, the main reason there were more women in IT during the dotcom boom was because there was less competition amongst employees (in a mathematics-dominated field), and the field was seen as immediately beneficial and growing. Anyone with a modicum of technical or mathematic ability got into IT/CS because even those that were not the "best and brightest" in mathematics could get jobs in the field. (This is further illustrated by the supposed sallary gap between men and women in technical/CS fields: quite simply, the women pick the jobs that are less technically challenging, and thus pay less.)
Women, being the sensical (and sensual! but that's something else entirely) creatures that they are when it comes to something as unemotional as picking a career, saw the obviousness of the situation: unless they really liked mathematics, there was little incentive to go into CS.
There's also very little "staying power" in the skills acquired with a CS degree (theory aside - most employers don't seem to give a damn about anything but acronyms anyway), and for many women who were intent on getting married while they are still able to have children fairly comfortably, the payoff of a CS/IT degree was further decreased: you can't really jump back into the field after having and raising kids like you can into something that's less skill-based and more theory-based, like business or management.
Anyway, flame on. FWIW, I'm a guy who happens to be not so mathematically inclined, and I've changed my degree from CS for this very reason as well (the technical ability reason, not the childbirth reason).
Nobody is denying that climate change is occuring. What people are denying is that the climate change is a general warming trend (very few people), and that we (humans) are responsible for it (many people).
Scientists in the 70s were bitching about "global cooling", then warming in the '80s and early 90s, then cooling again for a couple years... and now it's warming. What hte hell is wrong with this picture? Could it be that it's not consistent, and that if it were scientific, there would at least be a trend of agreement from year to year, instead of blatant flip-flopping and contradiction? Could it be that the "models" they use to inerpret this stuff are made out of whole cloth for funding and political purposes?
Simply put, there is no evidence whatsoever that human influence on the environment is causing the global climate change. In fact, there's strong historical evidence to say that we aren't, as we're still coming out of a mini-iceage.
teflon-coated bullets aren't. They're not armor piercing; they're more fiction than anything, really.
Armor piercing shells will still probably kill people, because shells are big. Armor-piercing bullets, however, are usually steel core lead, I believe.
A bullet is typically roughly a square centimeter in frontal surface area (give or take, yadda yadda), and they do not exert nearly as much pressure as 250 tons per square centimeter. I'm fairly certain of this, as no small arm (ie, personal firearm) can withstand even a fraction of that pressure without going "boom" in a very bad way.
Another thing to consider is the velocity of that incoming pressure, which wasn't really discussed. I think it's probably important, but I don't really know enough about physics to debate it one way or the other. I suspect that a higher velocity on a smaller mass (ie, the same pressure) might well result in something being able to penetrate it.
However, if this stuff were able to be made into completely bulletproof vests (ie, nothing short of an ah64 could penetrate it), then we'd still have people getting shot and dying as a result - though, quite possibly, much more painful deaths. Bruising and internal bleeding can be pretty bad, even if the current armor's ballistic plating stop the bullet, often killing them from something like kidney failure or intestinal rupture.
I'm more concerned about the fraud that Ebay is perpetrating with the colusion of PayPal. They'll lock down someone's account and not respond to inquiry requests as to the account's status, and provide no method for re-opening PayPal accounts due to a fraudulent and unproveable claim.
Er, I can "zero in" on something in the distance with a pair of field glasses. I don't need a scoped rifle. IE, the telescope has range-finding capability. BFD, grow up.
You are terribly confused. You're assuming that because one particular strain of "Creationism" which has been popularly rejected (the 8k years nonsense - or whatever it is) for quite a while being false means that all creationistic science is false.
I really don't know where to start with your analogy, because it's simply flawed. A better analogy to modern evolutionary teaching would be to take two beakers , put corks in them, and then burry them for someone to come around and find 2 million years later, and for the person that finds them to conclude that one was derived from the other - simply because they were chemically similar and found in the same place. There's no way to verify it, just an assumption.
No, probably not.
For one, it was found in Borneo. That's kinda far for something to migrate without swimming.
I'd bet it's either a breed similar to lemurs, or quite possibly a lemur itself. It's kind of hard to believe that lemurs only exist on a single island throughout the world.
Put lemurs in a different environment, and they're probably going to be capable of evolving into something that eats meat. I mean, we supposedly evolved from a lemur-like creature, so it's at least plauseable. There used to be Indian trade routes throughout that region of the world, long ago, so it's plauseable that Lemurs were at one time a domesticated animal used for food, or possibly for pets... not implauseable that one might escape.
Is it just me, or do the photos closely resemble a lemur?
Anything that doesn't work as advertised is going to be "over priced", regardless of what that item is. When someone buys something, they're paying for what is said the device will do. When they don't get the product delivered as advertised, they are effectively paying more than they were willing to pay for said received services, because they paid for more than they received. Thus, it is over priced.
Also, it's over priced simply because it cost $400! I don't know what world you live in, but it is fully possible to build a PC for gaming which functions much better than the 360 ever could for only a marginal amount more.
Simplify your work experience. If you're using KDE or some other "bloated" wm/dm, consider stripping as much of the 'fluff' away as possible.
I personally prefer using xfce4 as it's lightweight and simple, but still featureful enough to have a 'modern' look. It's also quite fast compared to gnome and kde, taking very little memory. All I have for a "user interface" is the launchbar on autohide (which contains all the programs I run) and a taskbar with all the regular applications I run - and only those.
Also, it's quite keyboard-friendly. reducing your reliance on the hairless rodent will increase your ability to get work done quickly, I've found. Using hte mouse takes a lot of time!
Anyone want to take bets on how many articles will be posted within the first week of it's release about how buggy, unstable, and insecure the OS is?
We already know MS has stripped damn near every one of the planned interesting features from it (for a later release, of course).
This is absolute nonsense.
If you just spent $400 on a new console, you already spent quite a few bucks. You should not have to dick about with a console which crashes every 20 fucking minutes.
This kind of thing has absolutely no excuse! We're talking about Microsoft here, the world's biggest computer company (by several metrics, at least). Not only are they filthy rich, but they've got some of the best and brightest and could theoretically burn money to keep their buildings warm during the winter and not suffer all that much. It's just short of fraud (in my mind) to sell something which has been both falsely represented and over-priced.
Wow, if they're having these kinds of overheating issues now, in the middle of the winter, imagine what kind of hell will occur come summertime! No amount of string will help that issue; in order to use the 360, people will have to have box fans blowing on the damn things almost constantly in a "cool" (for the summertime, at least) room - at best.
One has to wonder what exactly MS was thinking (or not thinking, as the case may be), and how they planned to make these consoles last long enough to get their money out of them through game purchases.
We aren't seen as hicks so much because of our lifestyle, but our views: primarily, because the majority of the country (including the Midwest) isn't socialist.
I think is largely because many Midwesterners are closer to the source of production, as opposed to those in cities who manage that production or have "high tech" jobs which are quite divorced from a life closer to actual subsistence.
It's all about class war, Ace. The Midwesterners are merely on the losing side, and losers never get fair treatment from the media.
I don't know about that. It's the Midwesterners that have all the guns, food production, and inter-coastal transport, after all.