- Ballmer sounds like an unpatriotic ass. Perhaps/I'm wrong and he's a really nice guy, but not in this article. He's turning his back on the country that gave Ballmer opportunity to be where he is today. Industrialist Carnegie came from Scotland and loved the U.S., and maintained loyalty until his death. He would have never entertained the idea of moving factories to China for cheap labor.
It's a different world, though it's not really. Corporations and the powers that be want the world to be smaller with no borders so that they can have cheap labor and maximized profits. To hell with the people that buy their products. The idea is to become rich NOW and to hell with the future.
- Raising corporat taxes doesn't affect the consumer as badly as you believe. Yes some prices get raised, but increased taxation also leads to more cuts internally like plastic desks instead of mahogany, fewer free trips to Vegas, snd so on.
Not at all true. I've been there, in the corporate setting where costs are cut and taxes (part of overhead) are rising. Prices go up and labor costs are cut. The big thing is labor. That is the largest chunk of overhead. If a company can offshore for cheap, it will. Taxes are lost, the government takes further action to regain that lost income (because they MUST spend, spend, spend), and the downward spiral continues. The key to survival, is smaller government and tariffs on imports and exports. In fact, that is the way the system was designed. In a perfect world tariffs would not be necessary, but this is far from perfect. It is full of greedy, selfish people who run the huge, powerful corporations. Completely free trade does not work when laws are not uniform across the board. If imports were taxed (tariffs) as they should be, we would not be having this discussion.
- If California's standard of living drops, then wages will drop, and eventually the factories will move back here because WE will be the cheaper labor than the Chinese.
And we want this why? People are already hurting bad. I know because I am here. I was working in a lucrative industry with a very well paying job. I know many people who are losing house, property, family, everything. As the jobs go away, and wages suddenly drop, people go hungry. We are becoming a 3rd-world economy based upon service, and not production. Look around the world and it does not take a genius to figure out that this does not work. Outsourcing all labor and manufacturing, even for a short time (and it will) is extremely detrimental to us, the working class.
No. Laws are not made to convict the guilty, or to protect the innocent, they are made to administer justice in an otherwise unjust world. There is no such thing as security, and to remove rights and freedoms from the majority in the pursuit of more security from the few scum in society is a fools errand.
The true victims are those that believe all these "security" measures are indeed that.
Take DNA after convicted. Take fingerprints after conviction. Otherwise, leave them alone.
It is unconstitutional. DNA is personal property and protected. A person is INNOCENT until proven guilty, not the other way around. The act of being arrested is NOT proof of guilt, and in no way removes the rights of the individual being arrested (except in the eyes of The Man, no one seems to have any rights but them).
So go ahead and collect DNA. You may eventually have everyone on record, but that's no big deal for most of us.
Who decides that it is no big deal? Who decides if you are a criminal or not (or me, or the guy down the street)? When government is allowed to take even the smallest step, it never stops and only uses that small step to build a long path to no rights for the People and more power for government.
If a person is found guilty of a felony, then and ONLY then can ANY of their rights be forfeit. In addition, the loss of rights must fit the crime.
You are (possibly) one of the students that needs to be educated about Creation. To make a statement that Creation involves no science shows that you know next to nothing about it.
Sadly, this is the case with most "educated" people who scoff at Creation. Anything that is not part of the establishment is ridiculed and tossed out with the garbage. Those that try to teach it or even discuss it are fired and blackballed, and called radicals or even worse. It's not surprising though as it's been happening for centuries. Look at those who believed the world was round and how they were mocked and ridiculed by the "educated" scientists (and everyone else) at the time.
Wow, it appears my statement went soring over your head. How many others? The only choices most voters make are between two major parties - two sides of the same bad coin.
No, they are not my only choices. No, I will not vote for a candidate from either party.
It really doesn't matter what a win is. Looking at the candidates for both parties, We The People will lose no matter who is elected. After all, the voting public just continues to vote for the same two sides of the same bad coin. On the one side is Fascism, on the other Socialism. Pick your poison.
This is the very definition of the fact of evolution (i.e. the observation that life can and does change over time). The mechanism here, from our perspective, would seem to be different from the theory of evolution--that is, natural selection (et al)--but from the perspective of evolution, the mechanisms are really the same thing. Instead of climate change or the introduction of a new predator changing the bar for survivability and reproduction, it's people doing it. It's really just another environmental factor.
This is a typical case of someone being confused about what "evolution" is. Where, in the example of dogs and cats being bred into different types of dogs and cats do you see a new species evolving?
That life evolves over time is a documented fact.
See my response above. Just what is taught in schools and universities these days anyway?
It is not a scientific theory because it does not meet the requirements of a scientific theory.
Tell us why? In your research and knowledge of Evolution and Creation, tell us why either one does or does not meet the requirements of a scientific theory.
...but there is no scientific evidence for a god or intelligent designer, so that aspect of the theory should be disregarded.
By this logic then, everything in science that there is no evidence for should be summarily disregarded and never researched at all. What kind of scientist would subscribe to such a method? There is no scientific evidence that humans evolved from a single celled organism, so, by the afore mentioned logic, that aspect of the theory (of Evolution) should be disregarded. Further, there is no scientific evidence that all life on earth evolved from non-life, that it came from another planet or some asteroid, or came from a creator, therefore all such statements, assertions, theories, or hypothesis should be disregarded. Therefore, that leaves us with what?
In addition, it can be said that there is evidence of a creator. Common designs, the extensive complexity of nature and the universe, Natural Selection, lack of transitional fossils, lack of a natural mechanism, time constraints, etc.
Give students the means to understand what evidence is, what facts are, and how theories can be drawn from those facts, tested, and invalidated as appropriate.
There are three basic possibilities of how the Earth, and life on it, came to be: Someone made it, it made itself, or it's eternal and always has been and always will be. All agree, and science proves, that the third option can not be. This leaves us two scientific theories. Since both are theories, they should both be taught equally, and both as theories. Theology and religion have nothing to do with it. In fact, throw out the Bible and religion completely, and we're still left with two possible scientific theories.
From reading your response, you could use some of this education as well. Evolution is not fact, it is theory. Creation is also theory. Abiogenesis is full of theories, including various versions of evolution and creation. None of them are fact. None of us were there when it happened. Summarily dismissing any of them without research is completely contrary to what the classes you mention (should) teach.
Note that the "Theory of Evolution" and the "Theory of Creation" are defined (in summary), when arguing the validity of either, as follows:
The former is the theory that all life came from non-life and evolved into a single organism, and from there into the many varied species we have on Earth today.
The later is the theory that all the various species of life were created, and did not evolve from a
You are generalizing based upon what you've heard from a very vocal minority that does not represent the views of Christianity or Creationists as a whole.
I am a Creationist. I have many friends that are Creationists. I learned both theories in school. In fact I learned them both in a Christian school and a public school. In both cases, the science backing both theories was given and the science is based upon the same data. Not all of evolution is incompatible with creation. Only the uninformed and the religious zealous (which are the vocal minority) are guilty of most of your assertions.
As for the teaching of evolution and creation in school, or anything else with religious connotations, it is not for the State (meaning any US governmental body) to decide. Government can not, constitutionally, decide to teach something that is contrary to any religion above any other topic that is not. That would be putting one religion above another. Only the People (meaning the voting public) has the power to decide such a thing. In addition, if I, as a parent, decide I do not want my child to learn something that is contrary to our religious beliefs, then government has no constitutional right to force us to do so. In other words, government has no right to force me or my children to learn about evolution any more than they have the right to force you to learn about creation. Only the parents have the power to dictate what is taught in school, from a legal standpoint. From a practical standpoint, only a parent should have the right to dictate what their child is taught in or outside of school.
IMEO, both theories should be taught with equal time. The fact that both are theories must be emphasized. The difference between fact and theory needs to be properly taught, as well as the scientific method. Sadly, for the most part, this has been lost. In fact, in an effort to keep creation out of the schools, evolution has been touted as fact (as you seem to believe), creation as the belief only of nut cases and wackos, and it seems theory, scientific method, and natural selection are rarely, if ever, even added into the equation.
I'm sorry, but we'll need just a bit more than that to assert that evolution is a fact. it's a theory, not a fact. That humans evolved from apes, and before them (long before, according to the theory, a single cell) has yet to be even remotely proven as fact. It is a fact that no species has been scientifically proven to have evolved from any other species.
Modern dogs, cats, and horses have been bread, by humans, and that's why they've changed so much. In addition, they are all of the same species (Yes, I know dogs are not of the same species as cats are not the same species as horses). Most of them would not, and can not, survive in the wild. We humans have bread out the aspects of them that would allow them to survive in the wild. As for wild dogs, cats, and horses, they are a product of natural selection, not evolution - again there is no scientific evidence that they have evolved from another species. There is plenty that they have evolved from earlier forms of the same species.
There is also no scientific evidence that dinosaurs evolved from another species, or that any modern species has evolved from them. There is evidence that ancient species have changed due to natural selection into different forms of the same species (e.g. alligators, sharks), but into a completely new species? No.
I believe in the theory of creation (today called "Intelligent Design" as a lame attempt to throw off the other school of thought I guess). Note the bold faced word there. It's a scientific theory. It is based upon the same evidence as that of the theory of evolution. Creation supports natural selection, it does not oppose it. Over the years as I have thought about it, and read about and seen new scientific studies, I believe it may even support some form of evolutionary theory. There is not enough scientific proof of either theory to qualify either one as scientific fact.
It would really be nice if scientists, politicians, and people in general would get it straight and teach the right thing instead of screwing it all up and generally confusing the world, and themselves. It would be great if I didn't have to keep re-educating my children to correct what the school is teaching them - that evolution is fact and they don't even know what a theory is because the schools are not teching them!
Government needs to stop playing parent and stick to what their real job is (if anyone in government even knows what their job is!). I'll be damned if I'm going to let government tell me how to raise my kids.
ISPs are not government entities, though I get that in the digital age, the line of who is a state actor and what is a state action is less clear. So there is no 4th amendment protection against what the ISPs do with your data (though there may be some statutory or common law tort theories for privacy violations). ISPs can provide you service under any terms they see fit, and you certainly don't have a constitutional right to broadband internet access.
Once an ISP begins providing the government information (or other services) without a warrant through some deal with the government, they become an agent of the government. At that point they are subject to upholding the Constitution. If this were not so, then government could hire any agency - Blackwater - to do anything they'd like - police US citizens - and that agency would have no obligation under the Constitution to not abuse our rights. It doesn't take a rocket scientisi to figure out where that would go, and it doesn't take one to figure out the intent of the 4th Amendment (or the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution).
Though with the abuses we've seen in the past 8 years, maybe it does?
Why do so many people call it Darwin's theory?! It's not his. He came up with the theory of Natural Selection, which was used by others to develop the theory of Evolution.
I really would like to know, is this what students are taught these days? Are they taught so little about the two that they are confused as to what is what? I can say that many are confused between theory and fact, but that's been the case for many decades, so it is nothing new.
My question is, what product does this company sell that they can claim to have lost revenue on? Or is IP law so crap that there is no need to even have made an attempt at creating a product to be able to sue someone for damages? I mean, I can understand royalties, but damages?
To answer your question, probably nothing. The GUIs in Linux are a function of the X Windows system (X.org these days). X is free. The session managers and window managers that operate in conjunction with X are also free. X, and the window managers that work with it, are based upon the old Xerox windowing system (IIRC), and there were suites years ago that opened the way for the free versions of X we have today. In addition, these same suites allowed Apple, M$, IBM (with OS/2), and any other company you can think of to begin writing GUIs.
Another point, RH and Novell sell service contracts and other commercial code when you purchase a Linux OS from them. They are not necessarily selling the Linux OS or X.org, or the session managers, or the other free stuff. They are charging for the stuff that they bundle with Linux that do not have GPL (or other like licenses). They are charging for the service contract, for the CDs, and for the other commercial stuff that is bundled with Linux.
I would expect the big guns of IBM, the likes of the FSF, and others to chime in on this and put IP [non-]Innovation LLC and M$ in their proper place - in a dump somewhere with the rest of the garbage.
It's time to kill software patents completely, before software innovation in this country is completely destroyed (it's already severely limited thanks to the likes of garbage like M$ and IP Innovation LLC).
Absolute codswollop. You've apparently never actually read anything about evolution. Bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics, viruses mutating over time, moths changing colors based on pollution, human sickle-cell anemia, etc, etc, etc. Every domesticated animal is an example of evolution at work. Every siamese cat, every pekinese dog, every thoroughbred racehorse is an example of evolution in action. There are dozens of other, better examples - for good, understandable books on the subject for the lay audience you'll want to read anything by Richard Dawkins.
All of these examples are examples of mutations within a species. There is no evidence that supports the evolutionary theory that any species has mutated into another species. The basis of the Theory of Evolution is that species evolved through mutation and Natural Selection into other species, and in the case of "Human Evolution", eventually evolving into the current species known as homo sapien sapien.
Again, this can't be observed, measured, or repeated, even with genetic engineering and a lot of help by technology.
FWIW, I do not discount all the parts of Evolution, and I do discount some parts of Creation, based upon the scientific evidence we have at our disposal.
The "theory" of evolution is a "fact" for any meaningful use of the word fact (though of course some of the mechanisms of HOW the overall process takes place are up in the air). Humans descended from more primitive primates, and they descended from more primitive mammals, and all the forms of life on earth that we've detected so far ultimately descended from a common ancestor.
References please. Show me the proof that all of these assertions are true and have been scientifically proven. You can't, because they have not. Where's the incontrovertible proof that any speceis has ever evolved into another species?
That is as much a provable fact as the Earth revolving around the Sun is, that gravity causes objects to be attracted to each other in proportion to their mass
Interesting how you believe this. Gravity does not cuase this, warped space causes this and gravity is something that we observe as a result of warped space.
But that evolution occurred on Earth, that we share common ancestors with other primates is a FACT -- as surely a fact as that tectonic plates have shifted and volcanoes have erupted and the Sun is a giant nuclear reactor and gravity will hold you down on the surface of the Earth. You don't have to believe it, the universe doesn't need your faith to make gravity work. But you'll be looked at might funny in educated company if you clutch at every tree and worry it will disappear.
Is this what is taught in schools these days? Wow, what a fallacy and misconception and how the scientific method and definition of a "theory" has been twisted since I went to school. There is no proof that we share ancestors with other primates (if you say there is, show me, provide links, something). Gravity dos not hold me down on the surface of the earth (again, gravity is a function of other forces).
How about starting off by realizing that Evolution and Creation (or "Intelligent Design") are scientific theories and not scientific fact. The biggest problem I see in science today is failing to properly delineate between fact and theory.
Another problem I see specific to the theory of Evolution, is that of people calling it "Darwin's Theory of Evolution". At least here they get the "Theory" part right, but they get it wrong when they attribute it to Darwin. (His theory was that of Natural Selection, which there is a ton of evidence for, and which was used to derive Evolution.)
I think it's probably hard to design an IDE that appeals to everyone. Clearly VS appeals to some wide developer demographic, or else it wouldn't be the success that it is.
It's not necessarily that it's so good, I think it's that it's backed by M$ marketing, that it's for the most popular operating system, and it allows programming using MFC and everything else M$. It's one of the few choices for Windows application development.
I loath developing for Windows or on a Windows system. I've use many different IDEs and other development applications on different platforms (Windows, Linux, various UNIX systems, some mini and mainframe systems) including some applications for embedded development. There are a few things I like about the M$ IDEs (I started many years ago, so I have seen several versions of Vidual Studio and VC++), but I've found other IDEs much more useful. In addition, any time I can develop on a platform other than Windows, I will. I do not like the limitations the Windows environment places on me when I'm developing, not to mention I've always spent more time debugging OS and compiler problems than I have my own code problems.
I will continue to stay clear of anything M$ as much as possible until I see a clear history of them playing nice with everyone else on the block. I will also try my best to stay clear of Mono or anything not M$ but based upon M$ "IP" (it's bad enough I have to use Evolution because the company I work for insists on using the POS Exchange for groupware). To date they have never played nice with anyone. The aim of the company is to direct the world into paying them money for anything and everything possible. They have a clear history of coopting or killing competition, and there's no reason to think they've changed now.
I don't like the idea. I do not like the idea of computerized cars. It's bad enough the way it is now.
Compared the avionics industry, cars are cheap, and they are cheap for a reason. Cars need to be cheap for the average person to afford one. Throw in the complicated electronics of the type that aircraft use - highly developed, exetensively tested, strictly certified - and the price tag of the average car goes up exponentially. Considering that the automotive companies realize this, how much development and testing are they really going to put into these new computer systems and software? There is a saying "Fast, Cheap, Good, pick any two."
As an embedded systems developer myself, I don't like the idea of having a cheap embedded system operating all the controls in my car. We have enough trouble with the simple systems we have now. Add an OS, computerize all the components in the car, make it cheap enough for the average Joe to afford, and watch the maintenance problems increase, and the potential for accidents due to failures as well.
Forget about the garage mechanic one of these things. It'll be a case where everyone is forced to take the thing to the dealer for something as simple as replacing a battery. The average hourly rate in my area for dealer service is $80, now add to that the additional "expertise" to troubleshoot the computer systems in all these components, and we're talking $100/hr easy. Design an embedded system that's more reliable than that of aircraft - it would have to be the way the average driver treats and maintains their car - and the price tag of all cars will double at least.
I've spent many years coding and playing games. I've been using computers since the XT came out. My jobs over the years, as well as some of my hobbies, have heavily involved the use of computers. I have found that within the past year or so my wrist has started becoming sore after shorter and shorter periods at the computer. Especially when using a grpahics program that involves a lot of mousing. In addition, my wrist will become stiff and I will have to crack it to alleviate the stiffness.
So, I told my company I needed a new mouse. I spent several weeks researching, and selected the Evoluent mouse. To summarize my feelings about it: it's great. My wrist no longer gets tired or pained. In fact, over tha past few weeks I've had to do a lot of graphics work (I'm usually programming) and I've been able to spend up to 10 hours a day at the computer with no problems to my wrist as I would have had before I got the mouse. It took almost no time at all to learn to use it, and I rather like having what would normally be the right mouse button under my thumb. The mouse is far more sensitive than the older Logitech ball mouse that I had, but that was easy to adjust with the mouse settings in Linux. Speaking of Linux, yes, it worked as soon as I plugged it into the USB port, no problems at all.
The only down side is that I have two computers and use a KVM. The KVM does not support USB, so I still have my older, conventional mouse connected to the KVM for use when I switch to the other (Windows) computer. I rarely use Windows, so it's not really a big deal (and eventually I may not need Windows at all anyway).
PGA
P.S. - I believe we got the mouse for $50. Not sure where as purchasing did the research to find the best price.
Don't forget that the PC that must be purchased for the classroom will come with an operating system, most likely Windows Vista. So, M$ still makes money from the PC sale, and they increase market share by programming the students to use only M$ products. It's a win-win for M$ and a lose-lose for everyone else.
Such evil geniuses there at M$. (Then again, it doesn't take much to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public, let alone a government)
1. If you have a Windows installation CD, get it and set it aside. You will need it for a later step.
2. Boot the computer.
3. Make a Windows Boot Floppy.
4. Restart the computer with the floppy and boot it to the command line.
5. Type fdisk at the command prompt and hit.
6. Follow the on-screen instructions for deleting all partitions on all hard drives.
7. Remove the floppy and set it aside for the moment.
8. Reboot the computer and install any operating system that is not made by Microsoft.
9. Take the installation CD (from step 1) and the floppy and burn them both.
Slashdot Mirror
Dang it! I screwed up the editing on that one. Hit the wrong button and submitted it before it was ready.
/me slaps himself upside the head with a dead fish.
- Ballmer sounds like an unpatriotic ass. Perhaps /I'm wrong and he's a really nice guy, but not in this article. He's turning his back on the country that gave Ballmer opportunity to be where he is today. Industrialist Carnegie came from Scotland and loved the U.S., and maintained loyalty until his death. He would have never entertained the idea of moving factories to China for cheap labor.
It's a different world, though it's not really. Corporations and the powers that be want the world to be smaller with no borders so that they can have cheap labor and maximized profits. To hell with the people that buy their products. The idea is to become rich NOW and to hell with the future. - Raising corporat taxes doesn't affect the consumer as badly as you believe. Yes some prices get raised, but increased taxation also leads to more cuts internally like plastic desks instead of mahogany, fewer free trips to Vegas, snd so on.
Not at all true. I've been there, in the corporate setting where costs are cut and taxes (part of overhead) are rising. Prices go up and labor costs are cut. The big thing is labor. That is the largest chunk of overhead. If a company can offshore for cheap, it will. Taxes are lost, the government takes further action to regain that lost income (because they MUST spend, spend, spend), and the downward spiral continues. The key to survival, is smaller government and tariffs on imports and exports. In fact, that is the way the system was designed. In a perfect world tariffs would not be necessary, but this is far from perfect. It is full of greedy, selfish people who run the huge, powerful corporations. Completely free trade does not work when laws are not uniform across the board. If imports were taxed (tariffs) as they should be, we would not be having this discussion. - If California's standard of living drops, then wages will drop, and eventually the factories will move back here because WE will be the cheaper labor than the Chinese.
And we want this why? People are already hurting bad. I know because I am here. I was working in a lucrative industry with a very well paying job. I know many people who are losing house, property, family, everything. As the jobs go away, and wages suddenly drop, people go hungry. We are becoming a 3rd-world economy based upon service, and not production. Look around the world and it does not take a genius to figure out that this does not work. Outsourcing all labor and manufacturing, even for a short time (and it will) is extremely detrimental to us, the working class.
PGA
No. Laws are not made to convict the guilty, or to protect the innocent, they are made to administer justice in an otherwise unjust world. There is no such thing as security, and to remove rights and freedoms from the majority in the pursuit of more security from the few scum in society is a fools errand.
The true victims are those that believe all these "security" measures are indeed that.
Take DNA after convicted. Take fingerprints after conviction. Otherwise, leave them alone.
PGA
It is unconstitutional. DNA is personal property and protected. A person is INNOCENT until proven guilty, not the other way around. The act of being arrested is NOT proof of guilt, and in no way removes the rights of the individual being arrested (except in the eyes of The Man, no one seems to have any rights but them).
So go ahead and collect DNA. You may eventually have everyone on record, but that's no big deal for most of us.
Who decides that it is no big deal? Who decides if you are a criminal or not (or me, or the guy down the street)? When government is allowed to take even the smallest step, it never stops and only uses that small step to build a long path to no rights for the People and more power for government.
If a person is found guilty of a felony, then and ONLY then can ANY of their rights be forfeit. In addition, the loss of rights must fit the crime.
PGA
You are (possibly) one of the students that needs to be educated about Creation. To make a statement that Creation involves no science shows that you know next to nothing about it.
Sadly, this is the case with most "educated" people who scoff at Creation. Anything that is not part of the establishment is ridiculed and tossed out with the garbage. Those that try to teach it or even discuss it are fired and blackballed, and called radicals or even worse. It's not surprising though as it's been happening for centuries. Look at those who believed the world was round and how they were mocked and ridiculed by the "educated" scientists (and everyone else) at the time.
PGA
When you vote for the candidate (Dem or Rep), you vote for the party.
There is an exception: a vote for Bush turns out to have been a vote for a dictator, IMO.
PGA
Wow, it appears my statement went soring over your head. How many others? The only choices most voters make are between two major parties - two sides of the same bad coin.
No, they are not my only choices. No, I will not vote for a candidate from either party.
PGA
It really doesn't matter what a win is. Looking at the candidates for both parties, We The People will lose no matter who is elected. After all, the voting public just continues to vote for the same two sides of the same bad coin. On the one side is Fascism, on the other Socialism. Pick your poison.
PGA
This is the very definition of the fact of evolution (i.e. the observation that life can and does change over time). The mechanism here, from our perspective, would seem to be different from the theory of evolution--that is, natural selection (et al)--but from the perspective of evolution, the mechanisms are really the same thing. Instead of climate change or the introduction of a new predator changing the bar for survivability and reproduction, it's people doing it. It's really just another environmental factor.
This is a typical case of someone being confused about what "evolution" is. Where, in the example of dogs and cats being bred into different types of dogs and cats do you see a new species evolving?
That life evolves over time is a documented fact.
See my response above. Just what is taught in schools and universities these days anyway?
It is not a scientific theory because it does not meet the requirements of a scientific theory.
Tell us why? In your research and knowledge of Evolution and Creation, tell us why either one does or does not meet the requirements of a scientific theory.
...but there is no scientific evidence for a god or intelligent designer, so that aspect of the theory should be disregarded.
By this logic then, everything in science that there is no evidence for should be summarily disregarded and never researched at all. What kind of scientist would subscribe to such a method? There is no scientific evidence that humans evolved from a single celled organism, so, by the afore mentioned logic, that aspect of the theory (of Evolution) should be disregarded. Further, there is no scientific evidence that all life on earth evolved from non-life, that it came from another planet or some asteroid, or came from a creator, therefore all such statements, assertions, theories, or hypothesis should be disregarded. Therefore, that leaves us with what?
In addition, it can be said that there is evidence of a creator. Common designs, the extensive complexity of nature and the universe, Natural Selection, lack of transitional fossils, lack of a natural mechanism, time constraints, etc.
Give students the means to understand what evidence is, what facts are, and how theories can be drawn from those facts, tested, and invalidated as appropriate.
There are three basic possibilities of how the Earth, and life on it, came to be: Someone made it, it made itself, or it's eternal and always has been and always will be. All agree, and science proves, that the third option can not be. This leaves us two scientific theories. Since both are theories, they should both be taught equally, and both as theories. Theology and religion have nothing to do with it. In fact, throw out the Bible and religion completely, and we're still left with two possible scientific theories.
From reading your response, you could use some of this education as well. Evolution is not fact, it is theory. Creation is also theory. Abiogenesis is full of theories, including various versions of evolution and creation. None of them are fact. None of us were there when it happened. Summarily dismissing any of them without research is completely contrary to what the classes you mention (should) teach.
Also, I find this Wikipedia article a bit enlightening on the difference between fact and theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact/.
Note that the "Theory of Evolution" and the "Theory of Creation" are defined (in summary), when arguing the validity of either, as follows:
The former is the theory that all life came from non-life and evolved into a single organism, and from there into the many varied species we have on Earth today.
The later is the theory that all the various species of life were created, and did not evolve from a
You are generalizing based upon what you've heard from a very vocal minority that does not represent the views of Christianity or Creationists as a whole.
I am a Creationist. I have many friends that are Creationists. I learned both theories in school. In fact I learned them both in a Christian school and a public school. In both cases, the science backing both theories was given and the science is based upon the same data. Not all of evolution is incompatible with creation. Only the uninformed and the religious zealous (which are the vocal minority) are guilty of most of your assertions.
As for the teaching of evolution and creation in school, or anything else with religious connotations, it is not for the State (meaning any US governmental body) to decide. Government can not, constitutionally, decide to teach something that is contrary to any religion above any other topic that is not. That would be putting one religion above another. Only the People (meaning the voting public) has the power to decide such a thing. In addition, if I, as a parent, decide I do not want my child to learn something that is contrary to our religious beliefs, then government has no constitutional right to force us to do so. In other words, government has no right to force me or my children to learn about evolution any more than they have the right to force you to learn about creation. Only the parents have the power to dictate what is taught in school, from a legal standpoint. From a practical standpoint, only a parent should have the right to dictate what their child is taught in or outside of school.
IMEO, both theories should be taught with equal time. The fact that both are theories must be emphasized. The difference between fact and theory needs to be properly taught, as well as the scientific method. Sadly, for the most part, this has been lost. In fact, in an effort to keep creation out of the schools, evolution has been touted as fact (as you seem to believe), creation as the belief only of nut cases and wackos, and it seems theory, scientific method, and natural selection are rarely, if ever, even added into the equation.
PGA
I'm sorry, but we'll need just a bit more than that to assert that evolution is a fact. it's a theory, not a fact. That humans evolved from apes, and before them (long before, according to the theory, a single cell) has yet to be even remotely proven as fact. It is a fact that no species has been scientifically proven to have evolved from any other species.
Modern dogs, cats, and horses have been bread, by humans, and that's why they've changed so much. In addition, they are all of the same species (Yes, I know dogs are not of the same species as cats are not the same species as horses). Most of them would not, and can not, survive in the wild. We humans have bread out the aspects of them that would allow them to survive in the wild. As for wild dogs, cats, and horses, they are a product of natural selection, not evolution - again there is no scientific evidence that they have evolved from another species. There is plenty that they have evolved from earlier forms of the same species.
There is also no scientific evidence that dinosaurs evolved from another species, or that any modern species has evolved from them. There is evidence that ancient species have changed due to natural selection into different forms of the same species (e.g. alligators, sharks), but into a completely new species? No.
I believe in the theory of creation (today called "Intelligent Design" as a lame attempt to throw off the other school of thought I guess). Note the bold faced word there. It's a scientific theory. It is based upon the same evidence as that of the theory of evolution. Creation supports natural selection, it does not oppose it. Over the years as I have thought about it, and read about and seen new scientific studies, I believe it may even support some form of evolutionary theory. There is not enough scientific proof of either theory to qualify either one as scientific fact.
It would really be nice if scientists, politicians, and people in general would get it straight and teach the right thing instead of screwing it all up and generally confusing the world, and themselves. It would be great if I didn't have to keep re-educating my children to correct what the school is teaching them - that evolution is fact and they don't even know what a theory is because the schools are not teching them!
PGA
Government needs to stop playing parent and stick to what their real job is (if anyone in government even knows what their job is!). I'll be damned if I'm going to let government tell me how to raise my kids.
PGA
ISPs are not government entities, though I get that in the digital age, the line of who is a state actor and what is a state action is less clear. So there is no 4th amendment protection against what the ISPs do with your data (though there may be some statutory or common law tort theories for privacy violations). ISPs can provide you service under any terms they see fit, and you certainly don't have a constitutional right to broadband internet access.
Once an ISP begins providing the government information (or other services) without a warrant through some deal with the government, they become an agent of the government. At that point they are subject to upholding the Constitution. If this were not so, then government could hire any agency - Blackwater - to do anything they'd like - police US citizens - and that agency would have no obligation under the Constitution to not abuse our rights. It doesn't take a rocket scientisi to figure out where that would go, and it doesn't take one to figure out the intent of the 4th Amendment (or the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution).
Though with the abuses we've seen in the past 8 years, maybe it does?
PGA
Why do so many people call it Darwin's theory?! It's not his. He came up with the theory of Natural Selection, which was used by others to develop the theory of Evolution.
I really would like to know, is this what students are taught these days? Are they taught so little about the two that they are confused as to what is what? I can say that many are confused between theory and fact, but that's been the case for many decades, so it is nothing new.
PGA
My question is, what product does this company sell that they can claim to have lost revenue on? Or is IP law so crap that there is no need to even have made an attempt at creating a product to be able to sue someone for damages? I mean, I can understand royalties, but damages?
To answer your question, probably nothing. The GUIs in Linux are a function of the X Windows system (X.org these days). X is free. The session managers and window managers that operate in conjunction with X are also free. X, and the window managers that work with it, are based upon the old Xerox windowing system (IIRC), and there were suites years ago that opened the way for the free versions of X we have today. In addition, these same suites allowed Apple, M$, IBM (with OS/2), and any other company you can think of to begin writing GUIs.
Another point, RH and Novell sell service contracts and other commercial code when you purchase a Linux OS from them. They are not necessarily selling the Linux OS or X.org, or the session managers, or the other free stuff. They are charging for the stuff that they bundle with Linux that do not have GPL (or other like licenses). They are charging for the service contract, for the CDs, and for the other commercial stuff that is bundled with Linux.
I would expect the big guns of IBM, the likes of the FSF, and others to chime in on this and put IP [non-]Innovation LLC and M$ in their proper place - in a dump somewhere with the rest of the garbage.
It's time to kill software patents completely, before software innovation in this country is completely destroyed (it's already severely limited thanks to the likes of garbage like M$ and IP Innovation LLC).
PGA
The artists are lucky if they ever collect at all. It's the labels that are collecting and stealing from the artists.
Yes, the stations do pay the labels for the music, so as far as I'm concerned, there's no case.
It's crap like this that promotes music piracy. This is far from a deterrent, it's incentive, but the labels are too stupid to figure out the obvious.
PGA
Absolute codswollop. You've apparently never actually read anything about evolution. Bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics, viruses mutating over time, moths changing colors based on pollution, human sickle-cell anemia, etc, etc, etc. Every domesticated animal is an example of evolution at work. Every siamese cat, every pekinese dog, every thoroughbred racehorse is an example of evolution in action. There are dozens of other, better examples - for good, understandable books on the subject for the lay audience you'll want to read anything by Richard Dawkins.
All of these examples are examples of mutations within a species. There is no evidence that supports the evolutionary theory that any species has mutated into another species. The basis of the Theory of Evolution is that species evolved through mutation and Natural Selection into other species, and in the case of "Human Evolution", eventually evolving into the current species known as homo sapien sapien.
Again, this can't be observed, measured, or repeated, even with genetic engineering and a lot of help by technology.
FWIW, I do not discount all the parts of Evolution, and I do discount some parts of Creation, based upon the scientific evidence we have at our disposal.
PGA
The "theory" of evolution is a "fact" for any meaningful use of the word fact (though of course some of the mechanisms of HOW the overall process takes place are up in the air). Humans descended from more primitive primates, and they descended from more primitive mammals, and all the forms of life on earth that we've detected so far ultimately descended from a common ancestor.
References please. Show me the proof that all of these assertions are true and have been scientifically proven. You can't, because they have not. Where's the incontrovertible proof that any speceis has ever evolved into another species?
That is as much a provable fact as the Earth revolving around the Sun is, that gravity causes objects to be attracted to each other in proportion to their mass
Interesting how you believe this. Gravity does not cuase this, warped space causes this and gravity is something that we observe as a result of warped space.
But that evolution occurred on Earth, that we share common ancestors with other primates is a FACT -- as surely a fact as that tectonic plates have shifted and volcanoes have erupted and the Sun is a giant nuclear reactor and gravity will hold you down on the surface of the Earth. You don't have to believe it, the universe doesn't need your faith to make gravity work. But you'll be looked at might funny in educated company if you clutch at every tree and worry it will disappear.
Is this what is taught in schools these days? Wow, what a fallacy and misconception and how the scientific method and definition of a "theory" has been twisted since I went to school. There is no proof that we share ancestors with other primates (if you say there is, show me, provide links, something). Gravity dos not hold me down on the surface of the earth (again, gravity is a function of other forces).
PGA
How about starting off by realizing that Evolution and Creation (or "Intelligent Design") are scientific theories and not scientific fact. The biggest problem I see in science today is failing to properly delineate between fact and theory.
Another problem I see specific to the theory of Evolution, is that of people calling it "Darwin's Theory of Evolution". At least here they get the "Theory" part right, but they get it wrong when they attribute it to Darwin. (His theory was that of Natural Selection, which there is a ton of evidence for, and which was used to derive Evolution.)
PGA
I think it's probably hard to design an IDE that appeals to everyone. Clearly VS appeals to some wide developer demographic, or else it wouldn't be the success that it is.
It's not necessarily that it's so good, I think it's that it's backed by M$ marketing, that it's for the most popular operating system, and it allows programming using MFC and everything else M$. It's one of the few choices for Windows application development.
I loath developing for Windows or on a Windows system. I've use many different IDEs and other development applications on different platforms (Windows, Linux, various UNIX systems, some mini and mainframe systems) including some applications for embedded development. There are a few things I like about the M$ IDEs (I started many years ago, so I have seen several versions of Vidual Studio and VC++), but I've found other IDEs much more useful. In addition, any time I can develop on a platform other than Windows, I will. I do not like the limitations the Windows environment places on me when I'm developing, not to mention I've always spent more time debugging OS and compiler problems than I have my own code problems.
I will continue to stay clear of anything M$ as much as possible until I see a clear history of them playing nice with everyone else on the block. I will also try my best to stay clear of Mono or anything not M$ but based upon M$ "IP" (it's bad enough I have to use Evolution because the company I work for insists on using the POS Exchange for groupware). To date they have never played nice with anyone. The aim of the company is to direct the world into paying them money for anything and everything possible. They have a clear history of coopting or killing competition, and there's no reason to think they've changed now.
Paul G. "I don't do Windows" Allen
I don't like the idea. I do not like the idea of computerized cars. It's bad enough the way it is now.
Compared the avionics industry, cars are cheap, and they are cheap for a reason. Cars need to be cheap for the average person to afford one. Throw in the complicated electronics of the type that aircraft use - highly developed, exetensively tested, strictly certified - and the price tag of the average car goes up exponentially. Considering that the automotive companies realize this, how much development and testing are they really going to put into these new computer systems and software? There is a saying "Fast, Cheap, Good, pick any two."
As an embedded systems developer myself, I don't like the idea of having a cheap embedded system operating all the controls in my car. We have enough trouble with the simple systems we have now. Add an OS, computerize all the components in the car, make it cheap enough for the average Joe to afford, and watch the maintenance problems increase, and the potential for accidents due to failures as well.
Forget about the garage mechanic one of these things. It'll be a case where everyone is forced to take the thing to the dealer for something as simple as replacing a battery. The average hourly rate in my area for dealer service is $80, now add to that the additional "expertise" to troubleshoot the computer systems in all these components, and we're talking $100/hr easy. Design an embedded system that's more reliable than that of aircraft - it would have to be the way the average driver treats and maintains their car - and the price tag of all cars will double at least.
PGA
I've spent many years coding and playing games. I've been using computers since the XT came out. My jobs over the years, as well as some of my hobbies, have heavily involved the use of computers. I have found that within the past year or so my wrist has started becoming sore after shorter and shorter periods at the computer. Especially when using a grpahics program that involves a lot of mousing. In addition, my wrist will become stiff and I will have to crack it to alleviate the stiffness.
So, I told my company I needed a new mouse. I spent several weeks researching, and selected the Evoluent mouse. To summarize my feelings about it: it's great. My wrist no longer gets tired or pained. In fact, over tha past few weeks I've had to do a lot of graphics work (I'm usually programming) and I've been able to spend up to 10 hours a day at the computer with no problems to my wrist as I would have had before I got the mouse. It took almost no time at all to learn to use it, and I rather like having what would normally be the right mouse button under my thumb. The mouse is far more sensitive than the older Logitech ball mouse that I had, but that was easy to adjust with the mouse settings in Linux. Speaking of Linux, yes, it worked as soon as I plugged it into the USB port, no problems at all.
The only down side is that I have two computers and use a KVM. The KVM does not support USB, so I still have my older, conventional mouse connected to the KVM for use when I switch to the other (Windows) computer. I rarely use Windows, so it's not really a big deal (and eventually I may not need Windows at all anyway).
PGA
P.S. - I believe we got the mouse for $50. Not sure where as purchasing did the research to find the best price.
Don't forget that the PC that must be purchased for the classroom will come with an operating system, most likely Windows Vista. So, M$ still makes money from the PC sale, and they increase market share by programming the students to use only M$ products. It's a win-win for M$ and a lose-lose for everyone else.
Such evil geniuses there at M$. (Then again, it doesn't take much to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public, let alone a government)
PGA
Sure, here's the instructions:
.
1. If you have a Windows installation CD, get it and set it aside. You will need it for a later step.
2. Boot the computer.
3. Make a Windows Boot Floppy.
4. Restart the computer with the floppy and boot it to the command line.
5. Type fdisk at the command prompt and hit
6. Follow the on-screen instructions for deleting all partitions on all hard drives.
7. Remove the floppy and set it aside for the moment.
8. Reboot the computer and install any operating system that is not made by Microsoft.
9. Take the installation CD (from step 1) and the floppy and burn them both.
PGA
As a Linux user, let me see if I can speed up your research. The reason we use Linux is...
We like stuff that works.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
PGA