This type of topic on Slashdot always creates lots of posts bashing Creationists. Because of this, I would like to give you a rational, logical expanation about the beliefs of Creationists, to dispel the ignorance displayed here on Slashdot.
What is a Creationist? A Creationist believes that living things were designed and created by God, rather than a process such as evolution.
So God is a designer and creator? Yes, this is fundamental to the beliefs of Creationists.
What is God? An old man with a big white beard? That's just silly. God is everywhere, he is a spirit. You can't see him.
You said God was a designer and creator. Why? Sorry?
What's he do it for? Erm. What? Oh I know this one! You mustn't question the doings of God, they are unexplainable by mere mortals?
So this invisible and unexplainable thing you call God created all living creatures, but you can't explain why? You must have faith.
And you think that's a more sensible explanation of life on Earth than evoluton? I've got my faith. I don't have to question it.
So what about the fossil record? Did God create that? [Hands on ears] La la la la la la la la...
Ever sign up for a Hotmail account? You were automatically signed up for Passport as well. In other words, for the Liberty Alliance, the fight was pretty much over before it began.
But does this really give Passport a huge advantage? The only advantage I can see is that they have got someone to fill in a form, once, and probably with junk.
The most important thing is surely the websites that sign-up to use Passport/Liberty i.e. Amazon, eBay, the banks etc. To say the fight is over is somewhat defeatist at this early stage. There's still everything to play for.
One thing I think is a misconception about open source software is that it is done 'for free'. Certainly a proportion of it is, but if, for instance, you look at the linux kernal list, you will see that the vast majority of contributors are actually employees from big companies.
Before, I think Bill&Steve thought that Open Source software was crappy, so they kind of ignored it or mocked it. Now they realise that it isn't crappy, but they think they can defeat it because they believe that it isn't created by people who are getting paid (directly or indirectly) for it. I think this is a real misconception.
I find it amazing that a government department should have an official policy of only purchasing from one particular vendor. I would have thought a fundamental factor in defining a purchasing policy in any large organisation would be making sure that there is competition amongst your suppliers. It's basic business sense, isn't it?
Can we once and for all retire this moronic, pig ignorant analogy? Please?
Sorry, Mr Anonymous Coward, but can you please tell me why it is a "moronic, pig ignorant analogy?"
If copying copyrighted materials (outside of that allowed by fair-use) is illegal, then why is photocopying less illegal than copying a file? Or are your views influenced by the fact that photocopying is more socially acceptable, and so my anology highlights the injustice of this poor guy's sentence?
33 months seems like an outrageous sentence. It seems unjust. The old guy who has been in charge of the photocopier at my local library for the last 20 years would be on death row if similar criteria were applied to him.
Do you think that justice in the USA these days is too influenced by corporations?
So the President wants to change scientific advisory committees so that they more closely represent his views...
Advisor: Mr. President, we need some guideance about our policies about stem cell research.
Bush: Ok! Fine. Um. Just remind me what stem cell research is for again?
Advisor: Well, Sir, stem cell research can be helpful in lots of fields, such as the search for cancer cures.
Bush: Great! Well that's a good thing then. Curing cancer, yes, I approve of that.
Advisor: But what about the religious viewpoint sir?
Bush: What? They don't approve of curing cancer?
Advisor The issue is that stem cells come from human foetuses, Sir.
Bush: Oh, well, that's obviously bad! It's obviously a bad thing! I can't approve of that!
Advisor But Mr President, many of the pharmaceutical companies say they could produce some very profitable drugs if they could perform research with stem cells.
Bush: Oh, damn, then that makes it good. Now I'm confused! This science stuff is very frustrating! Can I take a rest for a minute?
Nope, I think I was correct in my orginal post. From the official web site (www.dnotice.org.uk):
"The DA-Notices are intended to provide to national and provincial newspaper editors, to periodicals editors, to radio and television organisations and to relevant book publishers, general guidance on those areas of national security which the Government considers it has a duty to protect. The Notices, together with a General Introduction, details of the Committee and how to contact the Secretary, are widely distributed to editors, producers and publishers and also to officials in Government departments, military commanders, chief constables and some institutions. The Notices have no legal standing and advice offered within their framework may be accepted or rejected partly or wholly."
I have also read an opinion piece about D-Notices by the editor of a national publication (I don't remember which), in which he said he basically ignored them. It is a system that apparently used to work - when it was a gentlemen's agreement type thing - but doesn't really any more.
I never got the whole big deal about "The Land of The Free". What's so "free" in the states that isn't in any other western country (Canada, Germany, U.K., Sweden, The Netherlands, France, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium, etc.etc.).
I travel a *lot* and personally I feel more free and more save in Europe then I do in the states, especially in my home country The Netherlands. And that has nothing to do with the 11th. I've felt like this for years.
I agree with you, and I have posted opinions like this to Slashdot before. However, it's best just not to bother posting this type of stuff. You will just get insulted and called communist/ liberal/ socialist/ Eurotrash/ America-hater and whatever. Just don't post this kind of opinion. Lots of Americans just aren't tolerant of it. (Ironic isn't it? For people that go on about freedom of speech so much!)
For instance, with regard to freedom of speech, the UK government can use something called a D-notice to suppress press reports that it doesn't like
As I understand it D-notices was/is a somewhat bizarre scheme, a kind of gentleman's agreement between newspaper editors and the Department of Defense whereby the DoD would supply the newspaper editors with privilaged access to certain information if they agreed not to publish it. It wasn't a legal thing as far as I am aware - the editors could (and some did) tell the DoD to stuff their D-notices.
With regards to freedom of speech in the UK it is something that is pretty fundamental. For instance UK journalists and newscasters are really hard questioners and don't give politicians an easy time in the way they do in many countries...
nternet (web), yes HTML no, subset of SGML a non government research product MP3, nope fraunhoffer AG non-government contract JPG, nope Joint Motion Picture Expert Group an industry trade group MPEG, see above.
This is all wrong. SGML was a standard formulated by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and it's main adopters were the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the US Department of Defense.
HTML and the Web came out of CERN, a project in Switzerland funded by the governments of many nations.
Development of MP3 was principally in Germany at the Fraunhofer Institut Integrierte Schaltungen funded by the European Union.
JPEG is a standards group, made up of representatives of national standards bodies in a variety of countries and academic and industry groups. Ditto MPEG.
Yes of course companies would have networked their computers without government help. But it would have taken many more years to have the kind of open standards that have made the web so successful because it is not in the interests of private companies to create standards from which they do not financially profit.
internet (web), yes HTML no, subset of SGML a non government research product MP3, nope fraunhoffer AG non-government contract JPG, nope Joint Motion Picture Expert Group an industry trade group MPEG, see above
This is all wrong. SGML was a standard formulated by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and it's main adopters were the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the US Department of Defense.
HTML and the Web came out of CERN, a project in Switzerland funded by the governments of many nations.
Development of MP3 was principally in Germany at the Fraunhofer Institut Integrierte Schaltungen funded by the European Union.
JPEG is a standards group, made up of representatives of national standards bodies in a variety of countries and academic and industry groups. Ditto MPEG.
Yes of course companies would have networked their computers without government help. But it would have taken many more years to have the kind of open standards that have made the web so successful because it is not in the interests of private companies to create standards from which they do not financially profit.
If it wasn't for governments subsidizing software development, we wouldn't have the internet, the web, HTML, MP3, JPG, MPEG...
All of these things came from government funded projects. I know that many people find it hard to believe, or don't want to believe it, but it is actually government funded projects which drives most of the innovation in the software industry, not Microsoft, Oracle, etc. This is why I believe all the recent government interest in Linux and Open Source is really the death knell for most "off-the-shelf" software.
OK. The vast proportion of Microsoft's revenues come from two sources, Windows OS and Microsoft Office. There are now two serious competitors for both these sources which are maturing extremely rapidly. They are considerably cheaper than Microsoft's offerings.
If I was an MS stockholder or employee, I would be worried.
There's something about the Germans that makes them good at software engineering, in fact any type of engineering. Of the open source projects I've seen, some of the best ones have been German. They should make a good job of this.
I also thought it was a shame that he didn't seem to take this question seriously. It was one of the most interesting questions of the lot - especially for someone who is supposed to be a scientist.
I think the key point is it sounds like the chicken is wrapped in lots of layers of leaves. This would provide insulation against the extreme heat. The outside leaves would I presume carbonize - this could also provide some protection.
Sounds like a fascinating idea to me and I see no reason why it shouldn't work if there is insulation between the bird and the molten rock.
Well, if you coded to standards the first place (with CSS, try relative positioning, and define the "left" attribute by how many pixels to the left you want it to be) it would look great with Mozilla, IE4-IE6 and Opera 5-6...
You miss my point. Yes, I know there are other solutions. It doesn't matter. Twice recently I've gone to pitch to new clients and naturally they've wanted to look at websites we've designed using their own computers, and those computers have had Netscape 4.7 on them. What do I do? Do I say, "Hey, can you wait ten minutes whilst we install a new browser on your machine? Our sites will look shit in Netscape 4.7 but it's your fault because nobody else uses that these days. It's really easy to install another"??? No, personally I prefer to breathe a sigh of relief that I've designed the site in a way that works on all browsers, and win the job.
Slashdot Mirror
This type of topic on Slashdot always creates lots of posts bashing Creationists. Because of this, I would like to give you a rational, logical expanation about the beliefs of Creationists, to dispel the ignorance displayed here on Slashdot.
What is a Creationist?
A Creationist believes that living things were designed and created by God, rather than a process such as evolution.
So God is a designer and creator?
Yes, this is fundamental to the beliefs of Creationists.
What is God? An old man with a big white beard?
That's just silly. God is everywhere, he is a spirit. You can't see him.
You said God was a designer and creator. Why?
Sorry?
What's he do it for?
Erm. What? Oh I know this one! You mustn't question the doings of God, they are unexplainable by mere mortals?
So this invisible and unexplainable thing you call God created all living creatures, but you can't explain why?
You must have faith.
And you think that's a more sensible explanation of life on Earth than evoluton?
I've got my faith. I don't have to question it.
So what about the fossil record? Did God create that?
[Hands on ears] La la la la la la la la...
Hmm. Interesting site, but it demonstrates that there isn't much of a "Microsoft community" because hardly anyone posts there.
Ever sign up for a Hotmail account? You were automatically signed up for Passport as well.
In other words, for the Liberty Alliance, the fight was pretty much over before it began.
But does this really give Passport a huge advantage? The only advantage I can see is that they have got someone to fill in a form, once, and probably with junk.
The most important thing is surely the websites that sign-up to use Passport/Liberty i.e. Amazon, eBay, the banks etc. To say the fight is over is somewhat defeatist at this early stage. There's still everything to play for.
Yep. Definately value for money. I've not met many people that aren't happy with the service the BBC provides.
One thing I think is a misconception about open source software is that it is done 'for free'. Certainly a proportion of it is, but if, for instance, you look at the linux kernal list, you will see that the vast majority of contributors are actually employees from big companies.
Before, I think Bill&Steve thought that Open Source software was crappy, so they kind of ignored it or mocked it. Now they realise that it isn't crappy, but they think they can defeat it because they believe that it isn't created by people who are getting paid (directly or indirectly) for it. I think this is a real misconception.
I find it amazing that a government department should have an official policy of only purchasing from one particular vendor. I would have thought a fundamental factor in defining a purchasing policy in any large organisation would be making sure that there is competition amongst your suppliers. It's basic business sense, isn't it?
The music is certainly the best of any of it's genre.
Too right. Now someone's gone and mentioned Blake's 7 I can't get the blasted music out of my head. It was great.
Can we once and for all retire this moronic, pig ignorant analogy? Please?
Sorry, Mr Anonymous Coward, but can you please tell me why it is a "moronic, pig ignorant analogy?"
If copying copyrighted materials (outside of that allowed by fair-use) is illegal, then why is photocopying less illegal than copying a file? Or are your views influenced by the fact that photocopying is more socially acceptable, and so my anology highlights the injustice of this poor guy's sentence?
33 months seems like an outrageous sentence. It seems unjust. The old guy who has been in charge of the photocopier at my local library for the last 20 years would be on death row if similar criteria were applied to him.
Do you think that justice in the USA these days is too influenced by corporations?
When is Linux 2.6 likely to be released? I know that there is no fixed date, but what are the criteria?
My second question... Does it really matter when the 'official' release comes out, when distribution makers "roll-their-own" anyway?
Sorry if these sound like dumb questions to some of you, but I'd be interested to find out.
Amazing. My post has gone from 5 (with three funny mods) to 1 (various troll, overrated and flamebate mods).
Seems that some people don't have much of a sense of humor. It's a sad situation when people get upset about jokes about the President.
Did this post have a point aside from bashing the President?
Erm. No. Sorry.
So the President wants to change scientific advisory committees so that they more closely represent his views...
Advisor: Mr. President, we need some guideance about our policies about stem cell research.
Bush: Ok! Fine. Um. Just remind me what stem cell research is for again?
Advisor: Well, Sir, stem cell research can be helpful in lots of fields, such as the search for cancer cures.
Bush: Great! Well that's a good thing then. Curing cancer, yes, I approve of that.
Advisor: But what about the religious viewpoint sir?
Bush: What? They don't approve of curing cancer?
Advisor The issue is that stem cells come from human foetuses, Sir.
Bush: Oh, well, that's obviously bad! It's obviously a bad thing! I can't approve of that!
Advisor But Mr President, many of the pharmaceutical companies say they could produce some very profitable drugs if they could perform research with stem cells.
Bush: Oh, damn, then that makes it good. Now I'm confused! This science stuff is very frustrating! Can I take a rest for a minute?
No. It involves the Offical Secrets Act,[..]
Nope, I think I was correct in my orginal post. From the official web site (www.dnotice.org.uk):
"The DA-Notices are intended to provide to national and provincial newspaper editors, to periodicals editors, to radio and television organisations and to relevant book publishers, general guidance on those areas of national security which the Government considers it has a duty to protect. The Notices, together with a General Introduction, details of the Committee and how to contact the Secretary, are widely distributed to editors, producers and publishers and also to officials in Government departments, military commanders, chief constables and some institutions. The Notices have no legal standing and advice offered within their framework may be accepted or rejected partly or wholly."
I have also read an opinion piece about D-Notices by the editor of a national publication (I don't remember which), in which he said he basically ignored them. It is a system that apparently used to work - when it was a gentlemen's agreement type thing - but doesn't really any more.
Hmmm. I don't think I would call Johnny Vaughan, Richard and Judy or Ali G news journalists.
Mind you, I remember Ali G asking Edward Heath if she ever fancied giving Thatcher a quickie, which is a pretty tough question...
I never got the whole big deal about "The Land of The Free". What's so "free" in the states that isn't in any other western country (Canada, Germany, U.K., Sweden, The Netherlands, France, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium, etc.etc.).
I travel a *lot* and personally I feel more free and more save in Europe then I do in the states, especially in my home country The Netherlands. And that has nothing to do with the 11th. I've felt like this for years.
I agree with you, and I have posted opinions like this to Slashdot before. However, it's best just not to bother posting this type of stuff. You will just get insulted and called communist/ liberal/ socialist/ Eurotrash/ America-hater and whatever. Just don't post this kind of opinion. Lots of Americans just aren't tolerant of it. (Ironic isn't it? For people that go on about freedom of speech so much!)
For instance, with regard to freedom of speech, the UK government can use something called a D-notice to suppress press reports that it doesn't like
As I understand it D-notices was/is a somewhat bizarre scheme, a kind of gentleman's agreement between newspaper editors and the Department of Defense whereby the DoD would supply the newspaper editors with privilaged access to certain information if they agreed not to publish it. It wasn't a legal thing as far as I am aware - the editors could (and some did) tell the DoD to stuff their D-notices.
With regards to freedom of speech in the UK it is something that is pretty fundamental. For instance UK journalists and newscasters are really hard questioners and don't give politicians an easy time in the way they do in many countries...
nternet (web), yes HTML no, subset of SGML a non government research product MP3, nope fraunhoffer AG non-government contract JPG, nope Joint Motion Picture Expert Group an industry trade group MPEG, see above.
This is all wrong. SGML was a standard formulated by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and it's main adopters were the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the US Department of Defense.
HTML and the Web came out of CERN, a project in Switzerland funded by the governments of many nations.
Development of MP3 was principally in Germany at the Fraunhofer Institut Integrierte Schaltungen funded by the European Union.
JPEG is a standards group, made up of representatives of national standards bodies in a variety of countries and academic and industry groups. Ditto MPEG.
Yes of course companies would have networked their computers without government help. But it would have taken many more years to have the kind of open standards that have made the web so successful because it is not in the interests of private companies to create standards from which they do not financially profit.
internet (web), yes HTML no, subset of SGML a non government research product MP3, nope fraunhoffer AG non-government contract JPG, nope Joint Motion Picture Expert Group an industry trade group MPEG, see above
This is all wrong. SGML was a standard formulated by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and it's main adopters were the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the US Department of Defense.
HTML and the Web came out of CERN, a project in Switzerland funded by the governments of many nations.
Development of MP3 was principally in Germany at the Fraunhofer Institut Integrierte Schaltungen funded by the European Union.
JPEG is a standards group, made up of representatives of national standards bodies in a variety of countries and academic and industry groups. Ditto MPEG.
Yes of course companies would have networked their computers without government help. But it would have taken many more years to have the kind of open standards that have made the web so successful because it is not in the interests of private companies to create standards from which they do not financially profit.
pubjames, you anti-american, communist piece of shit. Hasn't anybody shot you yet?
I've got a pet troll! He follows me around and does little poo-poos. Cute! "My Pet Troll" - sounds catchy. Perhaps I should patent it.
If it wasn't for governments subsidizing software development, we wouldn't have the internet, the web, HTML, MP3, JPG, MPEG...
All of these things came from government funded projects. I know that many people find it hard to believe, or don't want to believe it, but it is actually government funded projects which drives most of the innovation in the software industry, not Microsoft, Oracle, etc. This is why I believe all the recent government interest in Linux and Open Source is really the death knell for most "off-the-shelf" software.
Keep it in perspective.
OK. The vast proportion of Microsoft's revenues come from two sources, Windows OS and Microsoft Office. There are now two serious competitors for both these sources which are maturing extremely rapidly. They are considerably cheaper than Microsoft's offerings.
If I was an MS stockholder or employee, I would be worried.
There's something about the Germans that makes them good at software engineering, in fact any type of engineering. Of the open source projects I've seen, some of the best ones have been German. They should make a good job of this.
I also thought it was a shame that he didn't seem to take this question seriously. It was one of the most interesting questions of the lot - especially for someone who is supposed to be a scientist.
I think the key point is it sounds like the chicken is wrapped in lots of layers of leaves. This would provide insulation against the extreme heat. The outside leaves would I presume carbonize - this could also provide some protection.
Sounds like a fascinating idea to me and I see no reason why it shouldn't work if there is insulation between the bird and the molten rock.
Well, if you coded to standards the first place (with CSS, try relative positioning, and define the "left" attribute by how many pixels to the left you want it to be) it would look great with Mozilla, IE4-IE6 and Opera 5-6. ..
You miss my point. Yes, I know there are other solutions. It doesn't matter. Twice recently I've gone to pitch to new clients and naturally they've wanted to look at websites we've designed using their own computers, and those computers have had Netscape 4.7 on them. What do I do? Do I say, "Hey, can you wait ten minutes whilst we install a new browser on your machine? Our sites will look shit in Netscape 4.7 but it's your fault because nobody else uses that these days. It's really easy to install another"??? No, personally I prefer to breathe a sigh of relief that I've designed the site in a way that works on all browsers, and win the job.