To jump from natural creation of amino acids, lipids, cell-membrane-like microspheres and a wide assortment of organic compounds to evolution of human beings is an enormous leap of faith.
Science is no threat to my faith. I can think of no significant scientific discovery that hasn't boltstered my faith by revealing more of the complex design of our universe.
To believe that the cosmos, life, and my soul all come from random interactions and as yet undiscovered scientific principles requires more blind faith in science than I have in my religion.
"It's ineffectiveness is due to the fact that many abuse their power, and undermine consensus, and it is NOT only the undemocratic ones that are doing this, as the repeated arbitrarily used veto-right by a certain country demonstrates when it comes to condemning Israel."
And Russia vetos Iran resolutions, and China vetos North Korea resolutions, and the dictators won't interfere in Rwanda and nothing gets done.
"If you were right, then, according to your theory, the matter of Isreal and Libanon would long since been dealt with, if the UN only would consist of 'democratic' or 'free' countries."
The UN supported the creation of Israel, demanded Lebanon takeover it's own security, and did nothing to make it happen.
"So, one could clearly see that it would yield no different result, even according to your own theory. The same goes for when the USA attacked Irak: if they had pushed it through the UN, it was at least France who would put his veto against an invasion. "
Again, the UN supported the terms of the Iraq cease fire, threatend force if Iraq didn't comply, then did nothing to make it happen.
"You're dreaming if you think that only choosing a part of the world would make things more smoothly: the last great rows and disagreements (and subsequent veto's) were exactly between democratic countries."
The last gread disagreements were between the US and it allies against non-democratic and democratic countries being bribed through a UN program.
I noticed you did not take up my challenge to name an effective UN program.
"you shouldn't be surprised if that makes peacefull consensus about world-affairs more difficult."
Where has the UN made peacefull consensus more easy?
"If you start with good 'constitutional' internetrules in the first place (and the USA could demand that, before giving it to the UN), then that would be rather an advantage. It would mean those good rules wouldn't get changed, and that additional good rules would have to have a broad consensus, and thus be universally seen as good."
This makes no sence. A UN commision on the internet will likely be lead by an information repressing regime, just like the human rights commision was led by a human rights repressing regime. All in the continual effort of the UN to poke its finger in the eye of the USA.
The internet is very successful without the UN. It can only cause harm. What would the internet look like if the UN had started it based on consensus? We wouldn't have one. It would still be tied up in negotiations.
There is no standard to join the UN, that's the problem. That's why it's ineffective. The majority is ruled by non-democratic countries that will not support any sort of progress that threatens them.
The UN right now encompases China and it can't come to consensus or agreement.
NATO get things done. NATO gets good things done.
I'm not interested in an organization that represents the world. I'm interested in organizations that support world freedom. Frankly I don't care if the dictators and facists of the world don't have a voice.
The UN has no buisness controlling the internet. Currently the internet is successful, name one venture of the UN that is successful.
Your arbitrary 3/4 majority will mean absolutly nothing will ever get done, good or bad.
The Unites States, Great Britian, Germany, Israel, and France and other free democracies are morally superior to China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Jordan, and other repressive regimes.
Just because some dictator holds sway over a small group of slaves does not entitle him to a vote equal to the freely elected government of the United States.
There is right, there is wrong. The Internet should not be relegated to control of the wrong.
In order to build a free future, free things like the Internet must not be stifled by nations with "other opinions".
I have Verizon service. I have TiVO service. I can't imagine how this add-on could be worth $60 a year to me. That's the same price as Verizon web access. The arrogance of these two to just assume people will pay whatever they ask! Can't wait till advancing technology and the free market make both of them a memory.
Still ridiculous. Each country has it's own realities and priorities to deal with. My point is, the US is a major producer of scientific research. Papers schmapers.
Possibly if the wonderful EU would punch its weight protecting science from islamo facisim the US would have more resources to put toward producing science. Talk about anti-science regimes!
A. Name a country where policy is not driven by religion to any degree. If you find one, rate their success.
B. Religion is not about making sure things don't change. Back up that ridicuous notion.
C. What's so dangerous to you about questioning religious beliefs? I know no religous people who have no questions about their beliefs. In some cases there are answers to the questions, this increases faith. In some cases there are no answers, this requires faith. Questions are a constant.
D. Science is no enemy of religion. Science is the study of natural phenomena, religion has nothing to do with natural phenomena.
Ridiculous. Even if papers = science, which it doesn't, you have to group all the countries of the European Union to produce a small lead. The EU is not a country, nor is Asia Pacific. Get a map.
Just because some of us won't deny our observation that the Universe is too wonderful to have happened by accident in favor of pack of theories with enormous holes doesn't mean we're anti-science.
Believing that evolution completly explains our existence requires just as large a leap of faith in the unknown as believing in other alternatives. So now we're in a discussion over faith versus faith, not science versus faith.
Slashdot Mirror
So what part of my lifestyle must I sacrifice in the attempt to prevent this phenomena?
Each of the unobserved and unproven ones.
To jump from natural creation of amino acids, lipids, cell-membrane-like microspheres and a wide assortment of organic compounds to evolution of human beings is an enormous leap of faith.
Science is no threat to my faith. I can think of no significant scientific discovery that hasn't boltstered my faith by revealing more of the complex design of our universe.
To believe that the cosmos, life, and my soul all come from random interactions and as yet undiscovered scientific principles requires more blind faith in science than I have in my religion.
You fell right into that trap. If the Internet is controlled by population China will control the Internet. That's exaclty what we want (sarcasm)!
"It's ineffectiveness is due to the fact that many abuse their power, and undermine consensus, and it is NOT only the undemocratic ones that are doing this, as the repeated arbitrarily used veto-right by a certain country demonstrates when it comes to condemning Israel."
And Russia vetos Iran resolutions, and China vetos North Korea resolutions, and the dictators won't interfere in Rwanda and nothing gets done.
"If you were right, then, according to your theory, the matter of Isreal and Libanon would long since been dealt with, if the UN only would consist of 'democratic' or 'free' countries."
The UN supported the creation of Israel, demanded Lebanon takeover it's own security, and did nothing to make it happen.
"So, one could clearly see that it would yield no different result, even according to your own theory. The same goes for when the USA attacked Irak: if they had pushed it through the UN, it was at least France who would put his veto against an invasion. "
Again, the UN supported the terms of the Iraq cease fire, threatend force if Iraq didn't comply, then did nothing to make it happen.
"You're dreaming if you think that only choosing a part of the world would make things more smoothly: the last great rows and disagreements (and subsequent veto's) were exactly between democratic countries."
The last gread disagreements were between the US and it allies against non-democratic and democratic countries being bribed through a UN program.
I noticed you did not take up my challenge to name an effective UN program.
"you shouldn't be surprised if that makes peacefull consensus about world-affairs more difficult."
Where has the UN made peacefull consensus more easy?
"If you start with good 'constitutional' internetrules in the first place (and the USA could demand that, before giving it to the UN), then that would be rather an advantage. It would mean those good rules wouldn't get changed, and that additional good rules would have to have a broad consensus, and thus be universally seen as good."
This makes no sence. A UN commision on the internet will likely be lead by an information repressing regime, just like the human rights commision was led by a human rights repressing regime. All in the continual effort of the UN to poke its finger in the eye of the USA.
The internet is very successful without the UN. It can only cause harm. What would the internet look like if the UN had started it based on consensus? We wouldn't have one. It would still be tied up in negotiations.
People are entitled to a vote. That's my point. All people are entitled to a vote.
Kim Jong-Il is not entitled to 1/192 of the world vote on the direction of the internet just because he enslaves a 23 million people.
Kim Jong-Il even though immoral, is still entitled to his 1/6,600,000,000 of the world vote.
There is no standard to join the UN, that's the problem. That's why it's ineffective. The majority is ruled by non-democratic countries that will not support any sort of progress that threatens them.
The UN right now encompases China and it can't come to consensus or agreement.
NATO get things done. NATO gets good things done.
I'm not interested in an organization that represents the world. I'm interested in organizations that support world freedom. Frankly I don't care if the dictators and facists of the world don't have a voice.
The UN has no buisness controlling the internet. Currently the internet is successful, name one venture of the UN that is successful.
Your arbitrary 3/4 majority will mean absolutly nothing will ever get done, good or bad.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
The Unites States, Great Britian, Germany, Israel, and France and other free democracies are morally superior to China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Jordan, and other repressive regimes.
Just because some dictator holds sway over a small group of slaves does not entitle him to a vote equal to the freely elected government of the United States.
There is right, there is wrong. The Internet should not be relegated to control of the wrong.
In order to build a free future, free things like the Internet must not be stifled by nations with "other opinions".
There are more non-free speach countries than free speach countries. You want them to control the internet?
(Of course I did mean North Korea, thanks for the kind correction.)
So just how big a vote do you want to give China, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia in the way the global internet is run?
I have Verizon service. I have TiVO service. I can't imagine how this add-on could be worth $60 a year to me. That's the same price as Verizon web access. The arrogance of these two to just assume people will pay whatever they ask! Can't wait till advancing technology and the free market make both of them a memory.
egg != embryo
fertilized egg == embryo
Yes, but how old did the ice appear to be when God created it?
All photographs are manipulations. None capture the exact data represented by the obect in real life.
Before photographing the item it lit, framed, lensed, exposed, and captured at a point in time. Plenty of room for manipulation.
So what's the difference between physical manipulation before the capture and digital manipulation after?
There is only honesty and dishonesty. Manipulation is a given.
Q:Why re-invent the wheel?
A:Ego
Also, it's not European companies, it's a European govenrment subsidising European companies.
Yet another fashion industry press release designed to convince everyone we should buy more expensive clothes.
Still ridiculous. Each country has it's own realities and priorities to deal with. My point is, the US is a major producer of scientific research. Papers schmapers.
Possibly if the wonderful EU would punch its weight protecting science from islamo facisim the US would have more resources to put toward producing science. Talk about anti-science regimes!
A. Name a country where policy is not driven by religion to any degree. If you find one, rate their success.
B. Religion is not about making sure things don't change. Back up that ridicuous notion.
C. What's so dangerous to you about questioning religious beliefs? I know no religous people who have no questions about their beliefs. In some cases there are answers to the questions, this increases faith. In some cases there are no answers, this requires faith. Questions are a constant.
D. Science is no enemy of religion. Science is the study of natural phenomena, religion has nothing to do with natural phenomena.
Ridiculous. Even if papers = science, which it doesn't, you have to group all the countries of the European Union to produce a small lead. The EU is not a country, nor is Asia Pacific. Get a map.
Just because some of us won't deny our observation that the Universe is too wonderful to have happened by accident in favor of pack of theories with enormous holes doesn't mean we're anti-science.
Believing that evolution completly explains our existence requires just as large a leap of faith in the unknown as believing in other alternatives. So now we're in a discussion over faith versus faith, not science versus faith.
Now this, just after I got my cones of silence working.
Does anyone thing IT decision makers are actually influnced by any of this?
It's a complete ruse.
This type of advertisement is targeted directly at investors.
It is not inteded to nor should it be judged on its effect on actual technology customers.
Do you thing GE advertizes jet engines to increase jet engine sales?
I have to disagree. The electrical, thermal and strength properties of this material make its applications limitless.
I'll bet it becomes as important a material as doped silicon.
Invitations on ebay are now selling for over $20