I invite you to take the propaganda IV that is currently feeding nonsense directly in to your bloodstream out! The sad thing is, you don't even realize that you've been indoctrinated just like those of us in "the cult of death" but there is a fundamental difference between our indoctrination and yours: namely ours is the product of four billion years of evolution and yours is the product of some naive ideologue who asks questions like "Why can't we all just get along?".
Violence and life go hand and hand since day one; when the supply curve is surpassed by the demand curve violence is the outcome. This happens in every single walk of life; go to the oceans and it happens there. Go to the african plains and it happens there. Go to the amazon rain forest it happens there.
Even you madam or sir, are a product of this "cult of death" because you see at some point in the chain of life that lead to the birth of you, there was an ancestor of yours who had to fight over resources. Their ability to win, through the prism of 'the cult of death' has allowed you to be here today.
You want us to evolve beyond the cult of death? Go invent fusion power, and maybe then we'll have the ability to alter the nature of existence for all seven billion of us on this planet so we too can join your "cult of life" but until resources are even and ubiquitous this will never happen. Me, I'm going to go live in the real world, have fun in fantasy land.
Terrorism is terrible; innocent civilians who have nothing to do with macropolitics are killed to make a point to the entrenched power.
But the truth is, we now live in a world where dealing with terrorism is "The Price to do business". Everything has its costs, some are nasty and no one wants to pay but bill collectors come anyways. You can't stop them from coming, you can't change the ideological mindset of irrational individuals but you can accept that this is something that will occur as long as their are mitigating circumstances that breed this type of fundamentalism (read:Poverty).
Is increased airport security a good thing? Sure is, quite happy to see it done and I don't mind waiting in the longer lines or showing up two hours early to the flight. But here's the truth, the United States *WILL* be hit by a terrorist attack again. There are no security measures or laws or budgetary adjustments that can be made that will prevent terrorism.
Let me make an analogy; there is a price to do business on earth. That price is, eventually, we will get by a big rock that will kill lots and lots and lots of life on this planet. It's a product of the universe we live in, and with todays technology if the rock is big enough we can't do a whole lot about it. It's a known risk, that can only be accepted. Same goes for terrorism.
So my suggestion is, get off the soapbox and return to reality.
So than we can go through this nonsense all over again when we need to get off biofuels? That's just stupid. We need to be working to create viable alternatives that meet our needs not catering to special interest groups (which is exactly what we do with oil in the Mideast and is what is beginning to occur with biofuels in the US and elsewhere). Not to mention that fact that if we come to only use biofuels than the cost of food will go through the roof. Hmmm, I can sell corn on the open market for human consumption at a pittance of what I can sell my corn to the people who make biofuel....which one shall I ever do?
The only people who gain from this stuff are the farmers growing this stuff; EVERYONE else loses. The environment, the consumer, the future generations.
I'm all for getting us off the mideast's teet but let's not trade speed in for heorin, let's just get off the speed:p
Hello Anonymous Coward who clearly has never played both Rugby and American Football; American Football is far far far more violent then Rugby could ever be. Why? Because you wear pads. Pads and helmets give the player a feeling of invincibility hence they fly in to tackles at full speed with reckless abandon. Any rugby coach worth his salt, will yank a guy out of practice and teach him NOT to tackle like that. Why? Because first, you'll be breaking your nose when tackling and second you'll break your spine if you come in that hard with improper form.
Rugby has lots of cosmetic injuries; lots of bruises, lots of scratches, lots of blood on jearsey's. My experience was, serious injuries had to do with torn ACL, MCL and PCL's. Not good injuries to have but I never met a rugby player who lacerated organs because a hit was so hard (probably has happened but it's rare, happens about 5-6 times a year in the NFL).
Here's a great way to think of it, Rugby is a contact sport. There's lots of contact, lots of hitting but the mechanics of the game make it so field position is relatively unimportant and possession is everything. American Football is the exact opposite, field position is everything and possession is not nearly as important. You don't get first downs in Rugby, you just need to keep the ball in your teams possession and as long as you don't turn things in to a total clusterf&ck the ref let things happen. American Football, you get four downs to get ten yards, if you don't you lose possession thus football has become a collision sport. You need to hit the guy with the ball so hard that he doesn't move another inch, only inside the five meter line in rugby does that matter.
Since we're all speculating like crazy on how the evil Americans did it, I figured I'd speculate that the evil north Koreans sent a fleet of fishing boats to the mid east and dropped anchors on these telco lines in order to get the Iranians pissed off so they'd attacked an American vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, precipitating world war III...given that GWB has about 11 months left, they figured to get it down now.
Yep, that sounds every bit as ridiculous AT THIS POINT.
Let's wait for a little more information, I'm sure by Monday international news outlets will be giving a more thorough report on what is occurring, though I doubt Fox News ever will...
Well, I'll tell you from the top that I'm conflating militia acitivies and terrorists groups; I'm all ears for why I'm incorrect in that assumption but as I see it these two types of organizations do the exact same thing. The difference lies within the dogma, not in what they are attempting to accomplish.
The technocracy is required for any organization to accomplish it's agenda of terror but without the masses there would be no means of delivering terror. The guy who builds the bomb rarely straps the bomb to himself because his skill set is too valuable. Allow the technocracy to exist but remove the masses of desperate people and these organizations would collapse upon themselves. Just because a part is easily replaced does not mean that it is not integral to the success of the machine.
The highly educated elite have been dictating to the masses what to do since the dawn of human civilizations.
That being said, if you can bust my comment up I'm down to get educated:)
Your point is spot on my friend; the leaders of these groups today may be highly educated as another poster countered but the core constituency are the poor and those with no options. If you create opportunities for these people, extremists groups do not have the necessary man power to carry out their perverted acts.
At the end of the day, most human beings just want the chance to go about their lives with some choices and some options.
You are correct, the leaders of these organizations are highly educated, but let me try and fill in some gaps because I think Pinkocommie's point is excellent and very important. The core constituency of these leaders is poor, young men with no options for education or marriage. These are the shock troops that carry out the agenda of these leaders; by themselves these men have no power. Their power is derived from the legions and legions of young people who have absolutely no options.
Similar phenomena can be seen in the inner city drug wars;often the men who end up leading these gangs1 are highly educated but the young men who choose to actually slang crack on the corner are the ones who feel that this is the only opportunity they have to get out of this life. On the individual level, different forces are at work but from the macro level it appears to me to be the same pattern.
Without the masses of young people supporting them, these leaders have no political clout. And, when there are plenty of opportunities, young people tend to spend their time seizing those opportunities to make a better life for themselves but when a society does not provide this they become restless and violent [yes, this is what young men do, at least this is what every young man I've ever known does...we get bored....we want to blow shit up...we want to break stuff...maybe that was just me and my friends but...] and are willing to do some really really stupid shit.
Whether people like it or not, we are divided up in to two groups: Leaders and followers. The leaders will be the highly educated and influential and they will and do exist in all aspects of society and in all walks of life. The followers are the rest of us who do what we are told; when we have no options and we're told that we have no options because of the evil than we go and fight that organization. Oh well, just my two cents:)
1: I've heard the author of this book on NPR about three times at this point, and something that he always mentions is the gang leader who he works with [JT] is college educated; I don't see that mentioned anywhere on the Amazon site and felt it was important to cite given the circumstances of this discussion.
Well, as EA said, TV is losing the young folks to the internet and video games...and well it is Fox News...they don't really worry about this thing we call "Facts".
I disagree with your take on this one; I would argue that all hard science originally starts in the field of philosophy from a theoretical framework. Thus, the reason science hasn't proved the existence of the soul is because the field of epistemology has yet to come up with claims that can be proved or disproved by scientific rigor. It is not the job of the scientist to disprove ideas that originate in faith; it is the job of the faithful to create a hypothesis that can be tested in the real world IF they want ideas such as the soul to be explored by scientists.
I'm sure there are many different ways to shear a sheep but at the end of the day you're still shearing sheep. Assassin's Creed is shearing sheep...you might be doing things slightly different (ie I entered combat with the group of muggers by throwing daggers at them this time!) but you're still doing the same thing...over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Oh yeah, and when the difficulty scaler is "Throw 25 guards at the protagonist" than there were some elements of the game that were not thought out to fruition. It was a hell of a try and for the first six hours I LOVED AC but by the seventh assassination I just wanted the insanity to end:P
Right but the question was "When will going sysadmin replace going postal" and the answer is never because they are fundamentally different entities. Yes, this is a total ass clown thing to do and yes it does lots of REAL damage. People do not end up dead with bullet holes in them; people may be dead because some health services group isn't able to pull their record and gives them medication that they are allergic to but that won't capture the imagination of the American public. Walking in to a public building and opening up with fire arms, has, unfortunately caught the imagination of our society.
Uh haven't you ever heard that old saying that if you were to put enough monkey's in to a room on type writers that EVENTUALLY they would produce the entire works of Bill Shakespeare?
If you put enough symbols of any kind together, and you look at them long enough, you will find patterns that are the result of randomness not some deeper message. So yeah, you're bible code theories make you look and sound like a hack...
I mean, isn't that the entire basis for the various mythologies of the world? Ancient cultures observed phenomena that they believed had a priori correlation and created a framework to explain the world. It's a fundamental aspect of our nature as seen by its recurrence throughout human cultures.
So really, all you're doing, is taking codified text and creating new meaning in its vastness. What I mean by codified text is the works of the New Testament, and revelations in particular, are considered by many scholars as being coded depictions of life under Graeco-Roman rule.
The historical-critical approach, which became dominant among scholars of religion since the end of the 18th century, attempts to understand Revelation in it's first century historical context within the genre of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. This approach takes the address to seven historical communities in Asia Minor and assertions that "the time is near" literally - unlike historicist or futurist approaches. Consequently the work is viewed as a warning not to conform to surrounding Greco-Roman society which John "unveils" as beastly, demonic, and subject to divine judgment. There is further information on these topics in the entries on higher criticism and apocalyptic literature. Ref.
Granted there are other interpretations but my experience from sitting in class rooms with Jesuit Brothers who have devoted their entire life to the study of the New Testament is that they tend to teach this view point. So in other words, it's not your religious convictions that I take umbrage with but rather where and how you attempt to glean pertinent information about the knowable world.
The bibles salvation does not lie in coded messages; it lies in the underlying message of love thy neighbor and do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
God Dammit it's not about Greed! It's about our responsibility to the CORPORATION!
GEEEEEEEEEZ! You silly Europeans! Leaving your poor, defenseless corporations to not maximize every ounce of profit for the share holder! Shame on you!
Well that's nice to know and all and I know plenty of programs that are self-contained within the directory; many video games are put together this way (basically anything put together THQ and many others) but my post is a direct response to the GP's quote of "it's a safe bet that no one would argue that copying an.exe to a Windows drive, even if it does not access the registry, constitutes "installation".
Maybe my interpretation is overly pedantic, as I bet the whole directory would work, but there is a distinction between the two IMO.
Most software in windows is not completely self-contained and Firefox.exe most certainly is not; it needs code libraries that need to be linked up through the OS. This means that the user either had administrative access [which is the fault of the admin, not the user], the software was previously installed by the admins or it's the student's own PC, in which case the teacher has no business telling him how to get a job done.
I have to believe that you haven't been doing IT in a Windows environment in some time as I can only think of a handful of windows based applications that are bundled in a completely self-contained way [ie you can just copy the.exe file, which is the process you described, and have it run]. Even old dos software would have code libraries that it'd make calls in to, without those files the program would crash.
Which means I just deal with IT problems myself, because I can usually *not* count on getting any level of help beyond the simple scripted responses one gets when they e-mail technical support Let me also say, that people in IT deal with "know-it-alls" all the time; it is a very vexing thing. I know this comes off as quite trollish, but your perspective on this issue indicates to me that you could possess the "know-it-all" IT personality which is the reason why you get canned responses and little help. The understanding laid out in your post does not reflect the reality of a windows environment and in fact shows a gross misunderstanding of how an application works in Windows. In the world of the Mac you're 100% correct, but why would someone be told to run Internet Explorer on a mac? Last I checked, Microsoft pulled any support on IE for the mac years ago.
Ok, way to take things to their extremes; can we do incredible damage to the planet, are we doing incredible damage to the planet and will there be consequences for us and our grandchildren? Yes.
Will we make the world "wholly uninhabitable"? I find that very hard to believe; I do believe we could cause extinctions reaching upwards of 90%-95% of the populations and possibly even create conditions that make it so human beings can only survive in select pockets around the world. Hell, we may even be in the 95% of species that goes extinct but "wholly uninhabitable"? I don't think so.
Let's say that within 500 years we have done so much damage to the planet that 98% of all life dies, including humans. Within 20,000 years the planet would be absolutely teeming with life and there would be almost no trace of humanity.
I suppose if we fucked things up so bad as to create atmospheric levels on par with venus, the planet probably wouldn't recover with complex life forms but organisms exist under extraordinary conditions and that life will repopulate the planet with whatever type of life is best suited to survive.
Stopping carbon emissions totally, isn't feasible in the short term; we're probably 150-200 years from having both the infrastructure built and the technology to do this. And as long as environmental organizations take umbrage with Nuclear Power, the United States will be required to rely on coal technologies for energy production. Cutting back on energy usage will help, driving less and using alternative modes of transportation help but to expect humanity to cut itself off from energy because of an impending crisis is naive.
As another poster has already alluded to, this is not an apples-to-apples situation. A sheep farmer chooses to cull her flock in order to maximize profit; not so their flocks will continue having offspring in to the unforeseen future. It's an economic decision based on the knowledge that A) there is value in turning the sheep in to meat for human consumption and B) there is value in only keeping the really healthy ones for the purposes of sheering and selling the wool.
This should not be confused with the process of evolution that occurs in the natural world because they are quite different; if a catastrophic sheep virus were to spread around the world the culling process could serve to hurt the population because the traits selected by the farmer might not necessarily be the traits needed to combat the virus.
Uh I think this might possibly sort of be what you're talking about but I don't really understand it:)
I love the internet.
A mutant allele of the chemokine receptor CCR5 gene (CCR5-Delta32), which confers resistance to HIV-1 infection, is believed to have originated from a single mutation event in historic times, and rapidly expanded in Caucasian populations, owing to an unknown selective advantage. Among other candidates, the plague bacillus Yersinia pestis was implicated as a potential source of strong selective pressure on European populations during medieval times. Here, we report amplifications of the CCR5-Delta32 DNA sequence from up to 2900-year-old skeletal remains from different burial sites in central Germany and southern Italy. Furthermore, the allele frequency of CCR5-Delta32 in victims of the 14th century plague pandemic in Lubeck/northern Germany was not different from a historic control group. Our findings indicate that this mutation was prevalent already among prehistoric Europeans. The results also argue against the possibility of plague representing a major selective force that caused rapid increase in CCR5-Delta32 gene frequencies within these populations. Linked here
Slashdot Mirror
I invite you to take the propaganda IV that is currently feeding nonsense directly in to your bloodstream out! The sad thing is, you don't even realize that you've been indoctrinated just like those of us in "the cult of death" but there is a fundamental difference between our indoctrination and yours: namely ours is the product of four billion years of evolution and yours is the product of some naive ideologue who asks questions like "Why can't we all just get along?".
Violence and life go hand and hand since day one; when the supply curve is surpassed by the demand curve violence is the outcome. This happens in every single walk of life; go to the oceans and it happens there. Go to the african plains and it happens there. Go to the amazon rain forest it happens there.
Even you madam or sir, are a product of this "cult of death" because you see at some point in the chain of life that lead to the birth of you, there was an ancestor of yours who had to fight over resources. Their ability to win, through the prism of 'the cult of death' has allowed you to be here today.
You want us to evolve beyond the cult of death? Go invent fusion power, and maybe then we'll have the ability to alter the nature of existence for all seven billion of us on this planet so we too can join your "cult of life" but until resources are even and ubiquitous this will never happen. Me, I'm going to go live in the real world, have fun in fantasy land.
Terrorism is terrible; innocent civilians who have nothing to do with macropolitics are killed to make a point to the entrenched power.
But the truth is, we now live in a world where dealing with terrorism is "The Price to do business". Everything has its costs, some are nasty and no one wants to pay but bill collectors come anyways. You can't stop them from coming, you can't change the ideological mindset of irrational individuals but you can accept that this is something that will occur as long as their are mitigating circumstances that breed this type of fundamentalism (read:Poverty).
Is increased airport security a good thing? Sure is, quite happy to see it done and I don't mind waiting in the longer lines or showing up two hours early to the flight. But here's the truth, the United States *WILL* be hit by a terrorist attack again. There are no security measures or laws or budgetary adjustments that can be made that will prevent terrorism.
Let me make an analogy; there is a price to do business on earth. That price is, eventually, we will get by a big rock that will kill lots and lots and lots of life on this planet. It's a product of the universe we live in, and with todays technology if the rock is big enough we can't do a whole lot about it. It's a known risk, that can only be accepted. Same goes for terrorism.
So my suggestion is, get off the soapbox and return to reality.
Yeah, I understand...I just had my knee-jerk slashdot reaction :)
Kinda asshat on my part...
And that's the sound of the point that the VP was attempting to make flying over your head.
So than we can go through this nonsense all over again when we need to get off biofuels? That's just stupid. We need to be working to create viable alternatives that meet our needs not catering to special interest groups (which is exactly what we do with oil in the Mideast and is what is beginning to occur with biofuels in the US and elsewhere). Not to mention that fact that if we come to only use biofuels than the cost of food will go through the roof. Hmmm, I can sell corn on the open market for human consumption at a pittance of what I can sell my corn to the people who make biofuel....which one shall I ever do?
:p
The only people who gain from this stuff are the farmers growing this stuff; EVERYONE else loses. The environment, the consumer, the future generations.
I'm all for getting us off the mideast's teet but let's not trade speed in for heorin, let's just get off the speed
Hello Anonymous Coward who clearly has never played both Rugby and American Football; American Football is far far far more violent then Rugby could ever be. Why? Because you wear pads. Pads and helmets give the player a feeling of invincibility hence they fly in to tackles at full speed with reckless abandon. Any rugby coach worth his salt, will yank a guy out of practice and teach him NOT to tackle like that. Why? Because first, you'll be breaking your nose when tackling and second you'll break your spine if you come in that hard with improper form.
Rugby has lots of cosmetic injuries; lots of bruises, lots of scratches, lots of blood on jearsey's. My experience was, serious injuries had to do with torn ACL, MCL and PCL's. Not good injuries to have but I never met a rugby player who lacerated organs because a hit was so hard (probably has happened but it's rare, happens about 5-6 times a year in the NFL).
Here's a great way to think of it, Rugby is a contact sport. There's lots of contact, lots of hitting but the mechanics of the game make it so field position is relatively unimportant and possession is everything. American Football is the exact opposite, field position is everything and possession is not nearly as important. You don't get first downs in Rugby, you just need to keep the ball in your teams possession and as long as you don't turn things in to a total clusterf&ck the ref let things happen. American Football, you get four downs to get ten yards, if you don't you lose possession thus football has become a collision sport. You need to hit the guy with the ball so hard that he doesn't move another inch, only inside the five meter line in rugby does that matter.
Since we're all speculating like crazy on how the evil Americans did it, I figured I'd speculate that the evil north Koreans sent a fleet of fishing boats to the mid east and dropped anchors on these telco lines in order to get the Iranians pissed off so they'd attacked an American vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, precipitating world war III...given that GWB has about 11 months left, they figured to get it down now.
Yep, that sounds every bit as ridiculous AT THIS POINT.
Let's wait for a little more information, I'm sure by Monday international news outlets will be giving a more thorough report on what is occurring, though I doubt Fox News ever will...
Well, I'll tell you from the top that I'm conflating militia acitivies and terrorists groups; I'm all ears for why I'm incorrect in that assumption but as I see it these two types of organizations do the exact same thing. The difference lies within the dogma, not in what they are attempting to accomplish.
:)
The technocracy is required for any organization to accomplish it's agenda of terror but without the masses there would be no means of delivering terror. The guy who builds the bomb rarely straps the bomb to himself because his skill set is too valuable. Allow the technocracy to exist but remove the masses of desperate people and these organizations would collapse upon themselves. Just because a part is easily replaced does not mean that it is not integral to the success of the machine.
The highly educated elite have been dictating to the masses what to do since the dawn of human civilizations.
That being said, if you can bust my comment up I'm down to get educated
Your point is spot on my friend; the leaders of these groups today may be highly educated as another poster countered but the core constituency are the poor and those with no options. If you create opportunities for these people, extremists groups do not have the necessary man power to carry out their perverted acts.
At the end of the day, most human beings just want the chance to go about their lives with some choices and some options.
You are correct, the leaders of these organizations are highly educated, but let me try and fill in some gaps because I think Pinkocommie's point is excellent and very important. The core constituency of these leaders is poor, young men with no options for education or marriage. These are the shock troops that carry out the agenda of these leaders; by themselves these men have no power. Their power is derived from the legions and legions of young people who have absolutely no options.
:)
Similar phenomena can be seen in the inner city drug wars;often the men who end up leading these gangs1 are highly educated but the young men who choose to actually slang crack on the corner are the ones who feel that this is the only opportunity they have to get out of this life. On the individual level, different forces are at work but from the macro level it appears to me to be the same pattern.
Without the masses of young people supporting them, these leaders have no political clout. And, when there are plenty of opportunities, young people tend to spend their time seizing those opportunities to make a better life for themselves but when a society does not provide this they become restless and violent [yes, this is what young men do, at least this is what every young man I've ever known does...we get bored....we want to blow shit up...we want to break stuff...maybe that was just me and my friends but...] and are willing to do some really really stupid shit.
Whether people like it or not, we are divided up in to two groups: Leaders and followers. The leaders will be the highly educated and influential and they will and do exist in all aspects of society and in all walks of life. The followers are the rest of us who do what we are told; when we have no options and we're told that we have no options because of the evil than we go and fight that organization. Oh well, just my two cents
1: I've heard the author of this book on NPR about three times at this point, and something that he always mentions is the gang leader who he works with [JT] is college educated; I don't see that mentioned anywhere on the Amazon site and felt it was important to cite given the circumstances of this discussion.
Well, as EA said, TV is losing the young folks to the internet and video games...and well it is Fox News...they don't really worry about this thing we call "Facts".
Ha! I'm a moron, not epistemology; I meant Phenomenology...
;)
That philosophy degree is starting to get a wee bit dusty
I disagree with your take on this one; I would argue that all hard science originally starts in the field of philosophy from a theoretical framework. Thus, the reason science hasn't proved the existence of the soul is because the field of epistemology has yet to come up with claims that can be proved or disproved by scientific rigor. It is not the job of the scientist to disprove ideas that originate in faith; it is the job of the faithful to create a hypothesis that can be tested in the real world IF they want ideas such as the soul to be explored by scientists.
I'm sure there are many different ways to shear a sheep but at the end of the day you're still shearing sheep. Assassin's Creed is shearing sheep...you might be doing things slightly different (ie I entered combat with the group of muggers by throwing daggers at them this time!) but you're still doing the same thing...over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
:P
Oh yeah, and when the difficulty scaler is "Throw 25 guards at the protagonist" than there were some elements of the game that were not thought out to fruition. It was a hell of a try and for the first six hours I LOVED AC but by the seventh assassination I just wanted the insanity to end
Right but the question was "When will going sysadmin replace going postal" and the answer is never because they are fundamentally different entities. Yes, this is a total ass clown thing to do and yes it does lots of REAL damage. People do not end up dead with bullet holes in them; people may be dead because some health services group isn't able to pull their record and gives them medication that they are allergic to but that won't capture the imagination of the American public. Walking in to a public building and opening up with fire arms, has, unfortunately caught the imagination of our society.
Apples and oranges...
If you put enough symbols of any kind together, and you look at them long enough, you will find patterns that are the result of randomness not some deeper message. So yeah, you're bible code theories make you look and sound like a hack...
I mean, isn't that the entire basis for the various mythologies of the world? Ancient cultures observed phenomena that they believed had a priori correlation and created a framework to explain the world. It's a fundamental aspect of our nature as seen by its recurrence throughout human cultures.
So really, all you're doing, is taking codified text and creating new meaning in its vastness. What I mean by codified text is the works of the New Testament, and revelations in particular, are considered by many scholars as being coded depictions of life under Graeco-Roman rule. The historical-critical approach, which became dominant among scholars of religion since the end of the 18th century, attempts to understand Revelation in it's first century historical context within the genre of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. This approach takes the address to seven historical communities in Asia Minor and assertions that "the time is near" literally - unlike historicist or futurist approaches. Consequently the work is viewed as a warning not to conform to surrounding Greco-Roman society which John "unveils" as beastly, demonic, and subject to divine judgment. There is further information on these topics in the entries on higher criticism and apocalyptic literature. Ref.
Granted there are other interpretations but my experience from sitting in class rooms with Jesuit Brothers who have devoted their entire life to the study of the New Testament is that they tend to teach this view point. So in other words, it's not your religious convictions that I take umbrage with but rather where and how you attempt to glean pertinent information about the knowable world.
The bibles salvation does not lie in coded messages; it lies in the underlying message of love thy neighbor and do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
God Dammit it's not about Greed! It's about our responsibility to the CORPORATION!
GEEEEEEEEEZ! You silly Europeans! Leaving your poor, defenseless corporations to not maximize every ounce of profit for the share holder! Shame on you!
Oh well, watcha gonna do?
Ahh well then, that blows my whole comment up :)
I'll go back to being a n00b
Well that's nice to know and all and I know plenty of programs that are self-contained within the directory; many video games are put together this way (basically anything put together THQ and many others) but my post is a direct response to the GP's quote of "it's a safe bet that no one would argue that copying an .exe to a Windows drive, even if it does not access the registry, constitutes "installation".
Maybe my interpretation is overly pedantic, as I bet the whole directory would work, but there is a distinction between the two IMO.
I have to believe that you haven't been doing IT in a Windows environment in some time as I can only think of a handful of windows based applications that are bundled in a completely self-contained way [ie you can just copy the
Ok, way to take things to their extremes; can we do incredible damage to the planet, are we doing incredible damage to the planet and will there be consequences for us and our grandchildren? Yes.
Will we make the world "wholly uninhabitable"? I find that very hard to believe; I do believe we could cause extinctions reaching upwards of 90%-95% of the populations and possibly even create conditions that make it so human beings can only survive in select pockets around the world. Hell, we may even be in the 95% of species that goes extinct but "wholly uninhabitable"? I don't think so.
Let's say that within 500 years we have done so much damage to the planet that 98% of all life dies, including humans. Within 20,000 years the planet would be absolutely teeming with life and there would be almost no trace of humanity.
I suppose if we fucked things up so bad as to create atmospheric levels on par with venus, the planet probably wouldn't recover with complex life forms but organisms exist under extraordinary conditions and that life will repopulate the planet with whatever type of life is best suited to survive.
Stopping carbon emissions totally, isn't feasible in the short term; we're probably 150-200 years from having both the infrastructure built and the technology to do this. And as long as environmental organizations take umbrage with Nuclear Power, the United States will be required to rely on coal technologies for energy production. Cutting back on energy usage will help, driving less and using alternative modes of transportation help but to expect humanity to cut itself off from energy because of an impending crisis is naive.
As another poster has already alluded to, this is not an apples-to-apples situation. A sheep farmer chooses to cull her flock in order to maximize profit; not so their flocks will continue having offspring in to the unforeseen future. It's an economic decision based on the knowledge that A) there is value in turning the sheep in to meat for human consumption and B) there is value in only keeping the really healthy ones for the purposes of sheering and selling the wool.
This should not be confused with the process of evolution that occurs in the natural world because they are quite different; if a catastrophic sheep virus were to spread around the world the culling process could serve to hurt the population because the traits selected by the farmer might not necessarily be the traits needed to combat the virus.
When Mark Twain said there were three types of lies, I think he was on to something: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics"
I love the internet. A mutant allele of the chemokine receptor CCR5 gene (CCR5-Delta32), which confers resistance to HIV-1 infection, is believed to have originated from a single mutation event in historic times, and rapidly expanded in Caucasian populations, owing to an unknown selective advantage. Among other candidates, the plague bacillus Yersinia pestis was implicated as a potential source of strong selective pressure on European populations during medieval times. Here, we report amplifications of the CCR5-Delta32 DNA sequence from up to 2900-year-old skeletal remains from different burial sites in central Germany and southern Italy. Furthermore, the allele frequency of CCR5-Delta32 in victims of the 14th century plague pandemic in Lubeck/northern Germany was not different from a historic control group. Our findings indicate that this mutation was prevalent already among prehistoric Europeans. The results also argue against the possibility of plague representing a major selective force that caused rapid increase in CCR5-Delta32 gene frequencies within these populations. Linked here
Wow, that is absolutely abhorrent. I am speechless...