Nonsense. It's a matter of ballance. I have no beef with what he actually said, or the meaning of what he said. It's one thing to say it (as in, to bring it up in question) and it's another entirely to believe and live by it as a tenant.
For instance, I'll talk about the potential benefits of "anarchy", even though I don't personally believe it's even possible, to say nothing of its practicality or even the possibility of its implimentation.
It could also be that, for years, there has been a large majority of teenage males driving than females.
If you look deeper, you'll find that it's actually women that get into more accidents overall - seen to culminate in the highest numbers around their 40's and hitting a plateau.
Males simply get into more disasterous accidents on an average than women do - their actual accident count is less on the average. Males also tend to become better drivers as they get older.
The whole "men | women are $attribute than women | men" is tireless in our modern society. I attribute it to gender role struggles, for the most part, with people being ousted from their traditional roles. Many ancient and "primitive" societies did not/do not have these problems. Certain things were just mutually accepted, while at the same time not enforcing the guideline as a rule.
It's my opinion that (OVERALL) men are stronger more assertive, agressive, and logically inclined, while women are more agile, sensitive, empathetic, discerning, sage, and attentive to their surroundings. Our society obviously distorts some of these things (general female empathy, wisdom), as well as demonizes some of the male attributes (agression, assertive). Still, overall, it seems women are more inclined for the subtle things of life, so as to ballance out the full-tilt nature of their biological counterparts.
If I were to say, "Some black men are criminals," it'd be one thing; were I to say, "black men are criminals" it's another thing entirely.
Same goes for this situation. If I say, "Women are bad at math," it implies that I think they're all inferior logically to all men. It's entirely different than saying, "A statistical sampling of women shows that they are, on average, bad at math compared to a similar sampling of men." Now, while I'm not bad at mathematics myself, my wife is likely better - or at least enjoys it more - and I'm not too shabby on the topic myself, "on the average".
Aside from the fact that the absolute word "bad" is used, it's just a poor choice of language for a supposedly-educated man. Either that, or he said what he'd initially intended, it was taken in context, and he's a sexist. It wouldn't surprise me.
I wonder if someone might be so kind as to roll modern package management guidelines into the LSB at the last moment so that we're not plauged by this RPM nonsense much longer...
how long has Vendetta been out? I played the beta/free release of it for a couple days roughly 5 months ago, and it was - shall we say - less than enthrawling. The game world didn't seem to complex, and there was a dire shortage of any quests, etc. to do.
Have they added a -good- deal more scripted world dynamics? it's hard for someone to become more powerful when there's nothing much more powerful to get to...
No, it's neither Halo or Mario Party, but it's certainly not anything made this century. Doom, Quake, Quake 2, and even Quake 3 to a very large degree, are all painfully dated engines. What makes you think that gamers that are obsessed with cutting-edge are going to give a damn? At most, they'll think it's a trivial curiosity and boot it twice.
If I'm versed in the admin of one LSB-compliant distro, it's trivial to migrate to another (in most respects) as the location of config files and the like is identical.
That's trival, however, compared to the power of influence it will have upon both developers and people looking to adopt linux for deployment. If a distro is LSB-compliant, then developers will be able to write simply for all LSB-compliant distros.
That's very interesting. What kind of situation is it, though? IE, what kind of school, which demographic tends to use them the most, what is the unitlity of both the Windows and Linux terminal sessions, what kind of performance differential is there, and what kind of maintanance do the Windows machines get (ie, are they riddled with spyware)? It all makes a play on the difference.
For instance, if the Windows terminals are slow, then it's unlikely they'd use them if all they're doing is checking their email.
I have read (but cannot at the moment find) a statement that perhaps one species in a thousand has fossilized so that we may find an instance of it in the geologic record. If we are missing 99.9% of all species in the geologic record, it is not at all surprising that we might not see a *perfectly* smooth continuum of change looking at the rocks.
Yes. Ok. But where do the scientists derive this information from? It's not from evidence, because - as you've agreed - there is none. It's nothing more than postulation that 99.9% of all species are missing. For all we know, it could have been quite easy for fossils to form during certain periods of the Earth's history. There are quite a few drastic climatic changes that can occur in a very short period of time, and any number of them can result in fossil-forming conditions.
The logic behind saying that 99.9% of the fossil records are missing is what is termed "circular logic". It's a chicken and egg problem. It's no different than seeing 1000 cups laid out on a table, listing one and finding a penny, and postulating, "Well, there must be a penny under each cup." It's pure fallacy.
I'm waiting for Celebrity Survivor: International Space Station, myself.
Madonna: We've run out of dehydrated ice cream again. One of you bastards has been stealing it. The next supply shuttle doesn't arrive for another month. I don't think normal rations will last but another two weeks for the 5 of us at the rate that stuff is disappearing! Clint Eastwood: You don't think, you say? Sean Patrick Flanery: Eye. It looks like we'll have ta be poppin' people out o' the hatch sooner'n later. Kevin Bacon: What? You can't be serious! Sean Patrick Flanery: I am. No time like the present to get done what you might put off til tomorrow. Clint Eastwood: What do you have in mind? Any ideas, Bacon? Kevin Bacon: I plead the 5th. Sean Patrick Flanery: I say we throw these whiners to the vaccum and let them reach a decision on who comes back in. Carrot Top: [floating into the room] Yeah! Throw them out. Sean Patrick Flanery: [while hoisting Madonna into the airlock by her belt] Oh, so you'll be joinin' them, I see. Clint Eastwood: Good idea. [throws Bacon in by the hair]. Carrot Top: Er, can I make a phone call first? Clint Eastwood: Why, do you feel lucky? [grabs CT and throws in into the lock] Clint Eastwood: [closes the lock] Looks like you've been voted off the island. [ slaps the red "Depresurize Lock" button on the wall] Sean Patrick Flanery: So they have. Have any more of that ice cream? Clint Eastwood: I sure do. [pulls out a packet, hands it to Sean, and lights up a cigar]
I wonder if the so-called "chemtrails" have had any effect on this situation. I can't vouch for the chemical content of the trails, but it does seem fairly peculiar to me how these specific planes fly in tic-tac-toe patterns and have a drastically different contrail appearance than a normal jet. The trails just hang there for hours, and are thicker with more of a grey color to them...
My personal belief is that my "intelligent designer" exists outside what we deem "existence"- outside our linear time stream. I believe that time is simply another entity, like gravity, that can be manipulated or controlled. Quantum physics type shit. I don't really understand it, but that's what I "believe".
I believe that our universe and all the physical laws that it contains are, in very grotesque summary, like the "galaxy" trinket that was the focus of the Men in Black movie. It's just kind of a groundless postulation, but it allows for such physical law boundaries. It would allow for a universe where things are entirely different - where principles such as time, matter, and gravity, and such might not even exist.
Anyway, that's what I Believe, in a fairly crude nutshell. Back to work.:)
But they're not contrary world views. Creationism is a contrary world view to evolution, and they are often pitted against each other. Quite often, schools don't dedicate -any- time to creationism, while essentially call evolution fact by not refering to it as a theory at all.
It's also been proven that evolution takes place, and is responsible for biodiversity on the planet earth.
No, it hasn't been. It's been observed, after the fact, and it's postulated that evolution is responsible for the biodiversity on earth. Sure, we can make fruit flies immune to pesticides and various other toxins. Sure, we can cross-breed flowers. These things are "proof". But they're not proof of the broad earthly diversity.
Proof of such diversity would be the transversal from one species to something completely different without any in-betweens. Why no in-between micro-changes? Because there's no evidence -for- such changes in the fossil records, at all. There is absolutely no "evidence" for the biological diversity on Earth when using the Evolutionary method.
Has our quality of life really improved all that much? Sure, we live longer, but how often do we hear people lament about life's later years being worthless? If you equate "quality of life" with "living longer so we can stall death further", I'm not buying it.
Have all the societal, technical, et al. advanced really helped us that much, as people and as a society? Are we better, happier people? I'm not so sure.
ID is based off the idea that things appar to be designed. That is, existence is an order of magnitude more complex than could conceiveably be random. Unless there were some sort of guiding force (whether it be a fundamental law of physics we haven't discovered yet which is directly contrary to entropy), or there was something bigger than this existence - something outside this existence - which designed it. Even if you consider all the laws of physics and biology, it still leaves a whole realm of metaphysical elements to life which can't yet be explained.
My formal teaching tells me that things simply can't exist from nothing within this model of physical representation. Maybe there are parallel or higher planes with different laws for time, space, and matter - I don't know. What I do know is that it takes less faith for me to believe in an intelligent designer than it does for me to believe in the random creation of matter or energy. Since such randomness doesn't adhere to our laws of physics, there's really only one choice for someone with half a mind.
As for your blue-scaled lizard midgets? What motivation do I have to believe in that? What significance does it have? And furthermore, what correlary scientific evidence is there to support it? None, unlikelyhood that there was a creating force in our existence. Unless, of course, you've discovered a new correlary to the world of physics that nobody yet knows of.
I heard on the radio last night that one of them was at the courthouse on drunk driving charges.
I also heard that they were charged with more than was mentioned in the OP, but with things like disturbing the peace, harassment, and inciting violence. (Not quite sure, but I'm sure harassment was in there).
The discongruity alone makes me suspect as to the honesty of those that arrested these guys.
Basically virus writers? Tell me how they're different. I don't think they are, in the least.
I've got the personal suspicion that anti-virus companies are doing the same exact thing. They're just a bit more covert about it. Though, that might not be the case nowadays, what with the prevailant virus-writer cultures.
n : someone who is the first to think of or make something
And:
author n.
1.
1. The writer of a book, article, or other text.
2. One who practices writing as a profession.
2. One who writes or constructs an electronic document or system, such as a website.
So, tell me. Is it possible for a corporate entity to write a book? Is it possible for a corporate entity to be a "someone"? No, I didn't think so. A corporation is a composition of the skills of it's aggrigate members.
The problem here is that corporations are allowed to act financially like a "person", when indeed they're no more a person than a country is a province/state.
Na, prosecution and enforcement are too expensive and labor-intensive. I'd personally sooner expect biometric IDs, chips in our arms, and various other fascist monitoring tools. Seriously. That's the trend, at least.
"Computer hackers"? Sounds a hell of a lot like "common thieves" to me. I believe the police call it "breaking and entering", as they were indeed physically on the premise? Or did I read that wrong?
Were this a network-based crime, I'd think the police wouldn't be on it - but the FBI.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. It's a matter of ballance. I have no beef with what he actually said, or the meaning of what he said. It's one thing to say it (as in, to bring it up in question) and it's another entirely to believe and live by it as a tenant.
For instance, I'll talk about the potential benefits of "anarchy", even though I don't personally believe it's even possible, to say nothing of its practicality or even the possibility of its implimentation.
Are you saying she said that there's a significant genetic difference between males and females?
I'm not so sure I buy that.
It could also be that, for years, there has been a large majority of teenage males driving than females.
If you look deeper, you'll find that it's actually women that get into more accidents overall - seen to culminate in the highest numbers around their 40's and hitting a plateau.
Males simply get into more disasterous accidents on an average than women do - their actual accident count is less on the average. Males also tend to become better drivers as they get older.
The whole "men | women are $attribute than women | men" is tireless in our modern society. I attribute it to gender role struggles, for the most part, with people being ousted from their traditional roles. Many ancient and "primitive" societies did not/do not have these problems. Certain things were just mutually accepted, while at the same time not enforcing the guideline as a rule.
It's my opinion that (OVERALL) men are stronger more assertive, agressive, and logically inclined, while women are more agile, sensitive, empathetic, discerning, sage, and attentive to their surroundings. Our society obviously distorts some of these things (general female empathy, wisdom), as well as demonizes some of the male attributes (agression, assertive). Still, overall, it seems women are more inclined for the subtle things of life, so as to ballance out the full-tilt nature of their biological counterparts.
I'm not sure where homosexuals fit into this.
Not his personal views, my ass.
It's all in the phrasing of the slur.
If I were to say, "Some black men are criminals," it'd be one thing; were I to say, "black men are criminals" it's another thing entirely.
Same goes for this situation. If I say, "Women are bad at math," it implies that I think they're all inferior logically to all men. It's entirely different than saying, "A statistical sampling of women shows that they are, on average, bad at math compared to a similar sampling of men." Now, while I'm not bad at mathematics myself, my wife is likely better - or at least enjoys it more - and I'm not too shabby on the topic myself, "on the average".
Aside from the fact that the absolute word "bad" is used, it's just a poor choice of language for a supposedly-educated man. Either that, or he said what he'd initially intended, it was taken in context, and he's a sexist. It wouldn't surprise me.
Very interesting. It's a good thing for us that they're not learning command-line stuff, though. :)
I wonder if someone might be so kind as to roll modern package management guidelines into the LSB at the last moment so that we're not plauged by this RPM nonsense much longer...
how long has Vendetta been out? I played the beta/free release of it for a couple days roughly 5 months ago, and it was - shall we say - less than enthrawling. The game world didn't seem to complex, and there was a dire shortage of any quests, etc. to do.
Have they added a -good- deal more scripted world dynamics? it's hard for someone to become more powerful when there's nothing much more powerful to get to...
No, it's neither Halo or Mario Party, but it's certainly not anything made this century. Doom, Quake, Quake 2, and even Quake 3 to a very large degree, are all painfully dated engines. What makes you think that gamers that are obsessed with cutting-edge are going to give a damn? At most, they'll think it's a trivial curiosity and boot it twice.
The point is this:
If I'm versed in the admin of one LSB-compliant distro, it's trivial to migrate to another (in most respects) as the location of config files and the like is identical.
That's trival, however, compared to the power of influence it will have upon both developers and people looking to adopt linux for deployment. If a distro is LSB-compliant, then developers will be able to write simply for all LSB-compliant distros.
That's very interesting. What kind of situation is it, though? IE, what kind of school, which demographic tends to use them the most, what is the unitlity of both the Windows and Linux terminal sessions, what kind of performance differential is there, and what kind of maintanance do the Windows machines get (ie, are they riddled with spyware)? It all makes a play on the difference.
For instance, if the Windows terminals are slow, then it's unlikely they'd use them if all they're doing is checking their email.
I have read (but cannot at the moment find) a statement that perhaps one species in a thousand has fossilized so that we may find an instance of it in the geologic record. If we are missing 99.9% of all species in the geologic record, it is not at all surprising that we might not see a *perfectly* smooth continuum of change looking at the rocks.
Yes. Ok. But where do the scientists derive this information from? It's not from evidence, because - as you've agreed - there is none. It's nothing more than postulation that 99.9% of all species are missing. For all we know, it could have been quite easy for fossils to form during certain periods of the Earth's history. There are quite a few drastic climatic changes that can occur in a very short period of time, and any number of them can result in fossil-forming conditions.
The logic behind saying that 99.9% of the fossil records are missing is what is termed "circular logic". It's a chicken and egg problem. It's no different than seeing 1000 cups laid out on a table, listing one and finding a penny, and postulating, "Well, there must be a penny under each cup." It's pure fallacy.
I'm waiting for Celebrity Survivor: International Space Station, myself.
Madonna: We've run out of dehydrated ice cream again. One of you bastards has been stealing it. The next supply shuttle doesn't arrive for another month. I don't think normal rations will last but another two weeks for the 5 of us at the rate that stuff is disappearing!
Clint Eastwood: You don't think, you say?
Sean Patrick Flanery: Eye. It looks like we'll have ta be poppin' people out o' the hatch sooner'n later.
Kevin Bacon: What? You can't be serious!
Sean Patrick Flanery: I am. No time like the present to get done what you might put off til tomorrow.
Clint Eastwood: What do you have in mind? Any ideas, Bacon?
Kevin Bacon: I plead the 5th.
Sean Patrick Flanery: I say we throw these whiners to the vaccum and let them reach a decision on who comes back in.
Carrot Top: [floating into the room] Yeah! Throw them out.
Sean Patrick Flanery: [while hoisting Madonna into the airlock by her belt] Oh, so you'll be joinin' them, I see.
Clint Eastwood: Good idea. [throws Bacon in by the hair].
Carrot Top: Er, can I make a phone call first?
Clint Eastwood: Why, do you feel lucky? [grabs CT and throws in into the lock]
Clint Eastwood: [closes the lock] Looks like you've been voted off the island. [ slaps the red "Depresurize Lock" button on the wall]
Sean Patrick Flanery: So they have. Have any more of that ice cream?
Clint Eastwood: I sure do. [pulls out a packet, hands it to Sean, and lights up a cigar]
I wonder if the so-called "chemtrails" have had any effect on this situation. I can't vouch for the chemical content of the trails, but it does seem fairly peculiar to me how these specific planes fly in tic-tac-toe patterns and have a drastically different contrail appearance than a normal jet. The trails just hang there for hours, and are thicker with more of a grey color to them...
My personal belief is that my "intelligent designer" exists outside what we deem "existence"- outside our linear time stream. I believe that time is simply another entity, like gravity, that can be manipulated or controlled. Quantum physics type shit. I don't really understand it, but that's what I "believe".
:)
I believe that our universe and all the physical laws that it contains are, in very grotesque summary, like the "galaxy" trinket that was the focus of the Men in Black movie. It's just kind of a groundless postulation, but it allows for such physical law boundaries. It would allow for a universe where things are entirely different - where principles such as time, matter, and gravity, and such might not even exist.
Anyway, that's what I Believe, in a fairly crude nutshell. Back to work.
But they're not contrary world views. Creationism is a contrary world view to evolution, and they are often pitted against each other. Quite often, schools don't dedicate -any- time to creationism, while essentially call evolution fact by not refering to it as a theory at all.
It's also been proven that evolution takes place, and is responsible for biodiversity on the planet earth.
No, it hasn't been. It's been observed, after the fact, and it's postulated that evolution is responsible for the biodiversity on earth. Sure, we can make fruit flies immune to pesticides and various other toxins. Sure, we can cross-breed flowers. These things are "proof". But they're not proof of the broad earthly diversity.
Proof of such diversity would be the transversal from one species to something completely different without any in-betweens. Why no in-between micro-changes? Because there's no evidence -for- such changes in the fossil records, at all. There is absolutely no "evidence" for the biological diversity on Earth when using the Evolutionary method.
Has our quality of life really improved all that much? Sure, we live longer, but how often do we hear people lament about life's later years being worthless? If you equate "quality of life" with "living longer so we can stall death further", I'm not buying it.
Have all the societal, technical, et al. advanced really helped us that much, as people and as a society? Are we better, happier people? I'm not so sure.
Except it isn't.
ID is based off the idea that things appar to be designed. That is, existence is an order of magnitude more complex than could conceiveably be random. Unless there were some sort of guiding force (whether it be a fundamental law of physics we haven't discovered yet which is directly contrary to entropy), or there was something bigger than this existence - something outside this existence - which designed it. Even if you consider all the laws of physics and biology, it still leaves a whole realm of metaphysical elements to life which can't yet be explained.
My formal teaching tells me that things simply can't exist from nothing within this model of physical representation. Maybe there are parallel or higher planes with different laws for time, space, and matter - I don't know. What I do know is that it takes less faith for me to believe in an intelligent designer than it does for me to believe in the random creation of matter or energy. Since such randomness doesn't adhere to our laws of physics, there's really only one choice for someone with half a mind.
As for your blue-scaled lizard midgets? What motivation do I have to believe in that? What significance does it have? And furthermore, what correlary scientific evidence is there to support it? None, unlikelyhood that there was a creating force in our existence. Unless, of course, you've discovered a new correlary to the world of physics that nobody yet knows of.
I heard on the radio last night that one of them was at the courthouse on drunk driving charges.
I also heard that they were charged with more than was mentioned in the OP, but with things like disturbing the peace, harassment, and inciting violence. (Not quite sure, but I'm sure harassment was in there).
The discongruity alone makes me suspect as to the honesty of those that arrested these guys.
There's nothing much more official than the smell and color of money, unfortunately. :-/
Basically virus writers? Tell me how they're different. I don't think they are, in the least.
I've got the personal suspicion that anti-virus companies are doing the same exact thing. They're just a bit more covert about it. Though, that might not be the case nowadays, what with the prevailant virus-writer cultures.
Um, yeah, right. Ok.
inventor
n : someone who is the first to think of or make something
And:
author n.
1.
1. The writer of a book, article, or other text.
2. One who practices writing as a profession.
2. One who writes or constructs an electronic document or system, such as a website.
So, tell me. Is it possible for a corporate entity to write a book? Is it possible for a corporate entity to be a "someone"? No, I didn't think so. A corporation is a composition of the skills of it's aggrigate members.
The problem here is that corporations are allowed to act financially like a "person", when indeed they're no more a person than a country is a province/state.
Na, prosecution and enforcement are too expensive and labor-intensive. I'd personally sooner expect biometric IDs, chips in our arms, and various other fascist monitoring tools. Seriously. That's the trend, at least.
"Computer hackers"? Sounds a hell of a lot like "common thieves" to me. I believe the police call it "breaking and entering", as they were indeed physically on the premise? Or did I read that wrong?
Were this a network-based crime, I'd think the police wouldn't be on it - but the FBI.