Re:One persuasive argument
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 0, Troll
The evidence for evolution is all around you. It's in every living thing, it's in the fossil record, and it's in recorded natural history. If anyone has "seriously misunderstood the issues", it's you. Your blatant misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of evolutionary theory and mechanisms demonstrate that you simply don't understand it. I'm not knocking your intellect, and I'm not trying to condescend; I'm trying to point out your obvious need for some better information.
As I stated in another post in this very story, the fossil record does NOT support evolution. The current observed processes in biology do NOT support evolution. The facts are all in the minds of people.
I do not try to "dismiss" evolutionary changes by talking about selection of pre-existing traits, as if I was missing the main point. What Darwin observed was not darwinist evolution. What darwin saw was genes that already existed, and were being selected. Darwinist evolution is a story about how those genes arrived in the first place, and THAT is what I have a problem with. I do not deny at all that changes in gene frequencies can result in remarkable structural variation (though that can be interpreted in many ways). You think that merely because a child is different from his parents that evolution is supported. Yet you confuse one type of evolution with another. Selection of pre-existing traits exhibits two features (among others):
1. Rapid speciation
2. Reduction of diversity in gene pool
Neither of these support the darwinist position of slow speciation and an increase of diversity in the gene pool. I do not deny that mutations occur. I deny the plausibility of them as the mechanism by which today's already existing diversity originally came about.
I suggest you read my first post which covers some things you said:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=102702&cid=875 2031
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
First of all, I don't believe any of those things are good. You mistook me for a darwinist it seems.
Second of all:
If you're so messed up as to believe that "another race is evlutionarily inferior"
If you assume darwinism, then it would be irrational to suppose that one human race is not inferior or superior to another. So what the heck has that got to do with being 'messed up'? It's just pure logic, and the necessary conclusion of darwinism.
Third of all, if I assume darwinism, then what do I care if you don't like the conclusions I draw from evolution? If we are all the product of chance, then there is no good or evil. What I'm saying is there are no morals given darwinism. Darwin himself said, With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? (Darwin's letter to William Graham Down, dated July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including and Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin, 2 vols. (London: John Murry, Albermarle Street, 1887), 1:315-316)
So it's not a question of whether your arguments are reasonable or not. It's a question of whether it's worth me (if we assume I'm a darwinist) paying attention to them. What do I care if you don't like me? If I can fool you into thinking I'm your friend, then betray you and come out on top, then I have done no 'evil', for such does not exist. If you try to appeal to my emotions, what makes your conclusions any more trustworthy than mine, since we are both descended from lower animals? To suppose that Darwinism doesn't lead to racism is the ultimate in willful blindness. You absolutely, necessarily, have to be racist to be a Darwinist. Darwinism does not say which race is better - but at some point you have to say "this group is more worthy of survival than that group". You cannot have every group survive, because some must fail.
Yet this also brings up the question of care. Just because one accepts darwinism does not mean that they automatically think it is important to maintain evolution and the progress of the species. Why do I need to see the progression of my species? I won't be around to enjoy the greater evolution. So I may reasonably conclude that the destruction of my own race for my own greed and pleasure is better than any altruistic sacrifice for the good of future generations. Of course, I may not. The point is that there is no good or evil, and that we can't trust the convictions of our mind if we assume Darwinism.
Re:Reminds me of EYES
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
You can deny evolution all you want, it just makes you either stupid or willfully ignorant.
Damn, that's one persuasive argument. Well, I guess I was wrong, because I don't want you to think I'm stupid or willfully ignorant. Seriously - I want evidence of evolution. How often people say someone is an idiot to deny it. Then, I imagine, they conjure in their minds images of children different from parents and suppose that it is proof of 'evolution'. And they then wonder to themselves, given that evolution is obvious all around, how could poor creationists be so foolish as to deny it? If that's you, then you have seriously misunderstood the issues.
You mention an article (without reference) that demonstrates hypothetical steps of eye biological evolution, and points to the hypothetical evolutionary history of nature as proof? So, I'm still waiting for the actual proof of any of this. Of course, without actually seeing the article, how can a creationist respond?
The most amusing thing about invented evolutionary steps is that they ignore the smaller steps between those steps. In Darwin's time he had no idea how complex life really was at the micro level. It was easy to glibly say that a creature might form basic wings over time which then improve in functionality. It's another thing entirely to describe how that is possible at the most basic level. After all, when he looked at the finches he found proof of his theory. Yet what he was actually seeing was the selection of pre-existing traits - which was not at all what he needed as proof of his theory. I saw a horrid piece of evolutionary poetry once, it was a terrible mix of fantasy and imagination. That's what most evolutionary explanations are.
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
I fail to see what that has to do with countering anything I said.
After all, if that is the definition of evolution, it says nothing about the common ancestry of all living things, which most people put under the title of "evolution".
Personally I prefer the definition from talkorigins:
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.
I will not dispute the definition you gave. I still believe that species are degenerating over generations, and that we do not share a common ancestor with, say, sharks. Your definition says nothing about these things.
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
I agree with you that a different form of selective pressure takes place. No arguments there.
As for moral arguments, what argument can you give me that could possibly make me care what you think, unless somehow that benefits me? If my desires carry me to rape or murder someone, then why shouldn't I? You can use arguments like "you might get caught", fine. But they are only good because they appeal to my desire of self-preservation. If I believe I am in no danger, what argument can you offer? I may not even care that my genes get passed on! I just follow my carnal urges, which most darwinists arbitrarily label "wrong".
And if I am a die hard darwinist and I believe that another race is evolutionarily inferior, then what reason can you offer me that would make me care about them? After all, if we kill animals for food, what difference is a distant human? I can make friends with my close family, and destroy those who are inferior. Why should I care? I'm not asking you to give logical arguments why cooperation is more beneficial. I'm asking you why I should listen to it. If I genuinely believe that it is better to rid the earth of them. Or even if I believe it is acceptable to just ignore them, conquer them, enslave them, whatever, what response do you give?
Thank you for playing. Next!
Such arrogance is not befitting an argument. You should not declare your opponents defeat before he responds. This is merely a crowd swaying attempt.
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
When I said an absence of natural selection I was not speaking about reality, but a hypothetical situation. For us to understand what natural selection does, we must be able to imagine what would happen if it did not play a part. You have given no reason why natural selection as we understand it couldn't fulfil the role I proposed (though I'm not the first to propose it).
What proof have you that natural selection improves a species, rather than just slowing the survival of harmful genes, and reducing diversity of the gene pool?
Evolution happens, whether or not it's of divine design.
Please define "evolution", as it has different meanings in different contexts and for different things. Quite often darwinists will point to proof of one use of the word "evolution" and try to fool people into thinking it's proof for other types.
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
My point is, so what? If I want to do those things, who cares whether it helps others or not? What is wrong with murder, rape, etc?
Re:Reminds me of EYES
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 0, Troll
That's an amazing argument. You are saying that the following steps in the argument:
1. An article made a proposal on how to get from a photosensitive cell to a full eye while each stage had a noticable survival benefit
2. It was supported by an appeal to the myth of evolution
That's not very persuasive. *If* we are questioning the validity of evolution in the first place, you _cannot_ appeal to it as evidence for an argument. If the article makes a proposition like this, then it must demonstrate that such steps can take place, and that must be done through experiments. You cannot just accept the truth of darwinist evolution and point to that as the evidence for the article's proposition.
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Well, we have two breeds of Darwinists then. Those who say that natural selection and evolution no longer takes place for humans, because our culture has eliminated its role with things such as the support of those in need. Then we have your proposition, that a different form of evolution takes place. Wow, the word "evolution" can yet again be used to explain anything it wants to.
But anyway, if I suppose that evolution is true, what moral argument can you give me to stop me from murdering the weak, hurting the downtrodden, and generally getting my way when I know I can get away with it? As far as I can tell, any argument you give me I can respond with, "so?". As long as it's benefitting me, what do I care?
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
That is the largest load of rubbish propoganda. Darwinists are not zealots? Ha! Among Darwinist evolutionists I encounter the greatest zealotry and unwillingness to listen. When I talk to evolutionists in depth, they say that biology doesn't know exactly how evolution occurred, but we do know it occurred because of the fossil record. Yet the fossil record shows no evidence of evolution, and it's claimed this is expected because of the way fossils are formed. How convenient. Stephen Gould said:
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed".
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.
Darwinist evolutionary has amazing explanatory power, but absolutely no predictive power. Do you really think Darwin would have predicted that today's fossil evidence would be only Archaeopteryx and an out of order, incorrect reptile->mammal sequence? Yet Darwinist evolution which once predicted a multitude of fossil evidences now predicts an absence of them. Wow, you have me convinced. So now I am supposed to look at the lack of evidence for evolution and be persuaded? Think again.
As for zealotry, woe to anyone who questions the holy grail of Darwinist evolution, for he shall be beat down on by hordes of angry slashdotters, atheists and agnostics worldwide, and not to mention a handful of theistic evolutionists. Ever tried holding a conversation with 5 people at once, all desparate to defend their pet theory? Ever looked at a christian forum where evolutionists hang day and night to correct people on creationism? That's zealotry.
If you really want to persuade people you need to show evidence for darwinist evolution. Not general stories with no predictive power. Take some risks. Make a prediction that if false will demonstrate evolution a lie. I've had numerous people say that if this or that was discovered, evolution would be false. In all those cases I could easily conceive stories that darwinists would conjure to explain the new thing.
Ah, I just had a thought. My discussions on slashdot about evolution seem to be of a more primitive nature than those I'm used to of recent times. So undoubtedly one of you will point to something akin to Darwin's finches and natural selection as evidence. To which my reply is:
What if natural selection does not improve the species? What if all living things were created in their best form, and have been heading downhill since then? Natural selection then plays the role not of improving a species, but of slowing its decline - such that if the power of natural selection was absent, the fall of a species would be hurried. Yet if natural selection was present, the species would still degrade, but at a much slower rate.
I'm getting tired of paying more money for the same thing. This is beginning to remind me of the cyclical Microsoft tax. The game should be cheaper, so as to sell more units, and to reflect the fact that it's not a revolutionary change, but rather an evolutionary step.
My position is that if you write/own the code you get to say how it's used. I don't think there's *any* argument against that, and I can see why they want to promote themselves in this world where perception is all.
At the same time, anybody has the right to choose whether they want to use software that is under a particular license. No one has to sign on the dotted line. So they've chosen to not use the new XFree86. They are allowed to do that, and they are allowed to fork.
I had an experience of that first hand with Haegemonia.
Examples: 1. You have a small squadron of ships to escort a slower vessel to a nearby star. A meteor is coming, you are told to destroy the meteor because it's on a collision course with what you've been asked to defend. The meteor is moving terribly slow...in all the vastness of space, this ship can't hit the brakes for 10 seconds to avoid a collision? Or do we have a ship-seeking meteor? 2. You (as commander of a fleet) are being instructed by your science advisor on research. Your attitude is essentially, "What do I need research for? I kill things. Science is for nerds". So the science advisor explains kindly and patiently that science is not just test tubes and laboratories, but also helps improve ships and weapons. To which you respond. "Pfft. Science" in a skeptical tone. What kind of army recruits someone in a space age that doesn't understand the benefits of advanced technology?!? 3. You fight an enemy, absolutely trounce his fleet with no challenge. The enemy officer responds after the battle, "You fought well." To which you respond "Yes, it was a tough but fair battle". Fair??? You annihilated the enemy without lifting an eyebrow.
After these three events, right near the start of the game, I couldn't continue playing. It was too surreal to keep me interested.
Unknown hole = key hidden under potplant near front door, maybe a passer by saw, or someone watching Well known and patched = key kept in pockets when going out Well known and unpatched = key left in front door
The first is a risk, and is not satisfactory for people who don't want just an illusion of safety. If people are paying attention or putting in the effort to watch when announcements of security holes are made, then they will find out.
Your spelling and grammar are annoying, but I think I've interpreted the gist of what you are saying.
This story is completely different, and you failed to notice the logical difference. In the cases of Windows switching to Linux, Slasdot "front page" stories which show management evaluating Open Source options and deciding it is superior to proprietry.
In the case of this Ask Slashdot, it is a company that has NOT (as far as we can see) evaluated the benefits of Open Source vs proprietry - and have forced a migration based on a previously existing policy. Not an informed decision. So this 'story' is of an entirely different calibre.
Of course, if a company did use Linux desktops, and then re-evaluated and decided to return to Windows, that would warrant a "front page" story.
MUD servers, unfortunately, break the usefulness of the GPL on a technicality. You can simply run a MUD server at home and let other people connect to it. That means you're not giving away a binary of your MUD server. The GPL only requires you to give source to the same people you give a binary to. You never have to give away a binary, so you never give away source. The GPL's intended purpose is foiled.
I've had thoughts about this at one time or another. What happens if/when services for most people are done remotely. Thin clients, applications over internet, and so on? This may be the future of computing for most people, and the GPL doesn't cover it.
Your comment is pointlessly wrong on so many levels.
Games teach you skills, whether physical (hand eye coordination), emotional (confidence in ability to complete a task, or not), and mental (learn how to problem solve in ways others do not). You experience a wide variety of things you can never touch. The rewards are not immediate, but the fruit bear out in the long run.
I suppose you think reading is useless? After all, it's the same principle - reading a book does not affect THIS world. Not immediately, anyway. When you finished, there's no new car in the garage, no revolutions have been won or lost as a result, and the hungry are still hungry. But it has long term consequences, just like games. Games stimulate imagination, or they can stifle it. They have the power to improve or damage, just as much as anything else in this world.
Thats exactly right. I've put down my lack of gaming interest to two things: 1. Most games that I buy don't run in Linux, and I never take the time to boot up windows, so I never play 2. As you said - there's no fun games being made, not like their used to be. I've been lamenting over this for a while. People have lost focus on what's fun. I find certain genres keep building on each other - in particular first person shooters. Other genres, like space turn based strategy (Master of Orion, etc), are hardly touched. Same with the old Sierra type adventure games. We need something new. And I personally think independant developers have a potential market in these dead genres. Because the bar of entry is so much lower than another FPS, it is easier for a small group to code. Independant developers could then work to sell their games online, cheap - much like http://www.garagegames.com/.
note: I'm not a neo-Darwinist, or what is generaly known as an evolutionist.
In this situation we may find that the mosquito gene pool may be diverse enough to contain a small number of mosquito larvae that are not destroyed by these devices (taking into account that other insects are unaffected, this may mean that the margin of error is small). Thus the gene pool will be reduced in eliminating most types of mosquito's except those that can survive. Just as we see most bacteria killed by anti-biotics, but a few immune ones surviving.
Just thought that would be an interesting side note. I don't know how easy these devices would be to tune them to destroy 'new' types of mosquitos.
His use of that old adage fails on a logical level when used in reference to open source software: 1. You get what you pay for 2. Open source costs nothing Therefore 3. You get nothing.
It is obvious that three is false, so either 1 and/or 2 must also be false. We know 2 is true, so 1 must be false.
If we admit the possibility of malicious code being inserted (didn't sendmail have this in one release?) then: a. The government has a far better chance of spotting it in open source than closed source software b. The eyes of the world will be on that code, multiplying the chance of discovery greatly. The more commonly the code is used, the greater the chance of discovery
The argument he uses is laughable. He talks about the temptation to build in special debugging and monitoring capabilities. This is precisely the sort of actions that will be less common with Open Source, because everyone can see it. So his fears about Open Source are far better placed in closed source.
And finally: 'This problem isn't new. In fact, it's far older than any computer technology. The Latin phrase Quis custodiet ipsos custodies, which translates to "Who will guard the guards?" shows that people have been struggling with the same problem for centuries. You can set up as many layers of security as you like, but at some point, you have to trust the layers themselves.'
He requires some grand conspiracy by all the discoverers of any potential security hole. "Ssh, do not tell the world, and I will shower you with riches!" - Osama Bin Laden.
It is certainly much much easier for a worker in a company to insert malicious code and get away with it than it is with Open Source software.
I understand these saddening figures, but I am not a part of the Christian culture that accepts these things. There are still small groups that are against the trend, and I imagine that things are far worse in the US than here in Australia.
I would absolutely hate to go through what you have. You don't deserve such treatment like that.
Infidelity doesn't have to be the norm. While Christianity is not immune from it, there is something to be said of a Christian couple. I have a girlfriend who holds the same beliefs as me - we both love and fear (a taboo word on slashdot in reference to God) God, and respect His commandments. We both know how important it is to remain pure for each other, and to not break those bonds of trust after marriage.
We all know that infidelity is wrong, but Christianity really does provide, personally, the extra impetus needed to enjoy things as they were meant to be. And that excludes a wife cheating on you.
Don't think of it as a game. You've been wronged, but that doesn't mean you then have to go and hurt others because you've been hurt. I really don't envy your position, and pray for you to have strength.
Slashdot Mirror
As I stated in another post in this very story, the fossil record does NOT support evolution. The current observed processes in biology do NOT support evolution. The facts are all in the minds of people.
I do not try to "dismiss" evolutionary changes by talking about selection of pre-existing traits, as if I was missing the main point. What Darwin observed was not darwinist evolution. What darwin saw was genes that already existed, and were being selected. Darwinist evolution is a story about how those genes arrived in the first place, and THAT is what I have a problem with. I do not deny at all that changes in gene frequencies can result in remarkable structural variation (though that can be interpreted in many ways). You think that merely because a child is different from his parents that evolution is supported. Yet you confuse one type of evolution with another. Selection of pre-existing traits exhibits two features (among others):
1. Rapid speciation
2. Reduction of diversity in gene pool
Neither of these support the darwinist position of slow speciation and an increase of diversity in the gene pool. I do not deny that mutations occur. I deny the plausibility of them as the mechanism by which today's already existing diversity originally came about.
I suggest you read my first post which covers some things you said:5 2031
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=102702&cid=87
Second of all:
If you assume darwinism, then it would be irrational to suppose that one human race is not inferior or superior to another. So what the heck has that got to do with being 'messed up'? It's just pure logic, and the necessary conclusion of darwinism.
Third of all, if I assume darwinism, then what do I care if you don't like the conclusions I draw from evolution? If we are all the product of chance, then there is no good or evil. What I'm saying is there are no morals given darwinism. Darwin himself said,
With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? (Darwin's letter to William Graham Down, dated July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including and Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin, 2 vols. (London: John Murry, Albermarle Street, 1887), 1:315-316)
So it's not a question of whether your arguments are reasonable or not. It's a question of whether it's worth me (if we assume I'm a darwinist) paying attention to them. What do I care if you don't like me? If I can fool you into thinking I'm your friend, then betray you and come out on top, then I have done no 'evil', for such does not exist. If you try to appeal to my emotions, what makes your conclusions any more trustworthy than mine, since we are both descended from lower animals? To suppose that Darwinism doesn't lead to racism is the ultimate in willful blindness. You absolutely, necessarily, have to be racist to be a Darwinist. Darwinism does not say which race is better - but at some point you have to say "this group is more worthy of survival than that group". You cannot have every group survive, because some must fail.
Yet this also brings up the question of care. Just because one accepts darwinism does not mean that they automatically think it is important to maintain evolution and the progress of the species. Why do I need to see the progression of my species? I won't be around to enjoy the greater evolution. So I may reasonably conclude that the destruction of my own race for my own greed and pleasure is better than any altruistic sacrifice for the good of future generations. Of course, I may not. The point is that there is no good or evil, and that we can't trust the convictions of our mind if we assume Darwinism.
Damn, that's one persuasive argument. Well, I guess I was wrong, because I don't want you to think I'm stupid or willfully ignorant. Seriously - I want evidence of evolution. How often people say someone is an idiot to deny it. Then, I imagine, they conjure in their minds images of children different from parents and suppose that it is proof of 'evolution'. And they then wonder to themselves, given that evolution is obvious all around, how could poor creationists be so foolish as to deny it? If that's you, then you have seriously misunderstood the issues.
You mention an article (without reference) that demonstrates hypothetical steps of eye biological evolution, and points to the hypothetical evolutionary history of nature as proof? So, I'm still waiting for the actual proof of any of this. Of course, without actually seeing the article, how can a creationist respond?
The most amusing thing about invented evolutionary steps is that they ignore the smaller steps between those steps. In Darwin's time he had no idea how complex life really was at the micro level. It was easy to glibly say that a creature might form basic wings over time which then improve in functionality. It's another thing entirely to describe how that is possible at the most basic level. After all, when he looked at the finches he found proof of his theory. Yet what he was actually seeing was the selection of pre-existing traits - which was not at all what he needed as proof of his theory. I saw a horrid piece of evolutionary poetry once, it was a terrible mix of fantasy and imagination. That's what most evolutionary explanations are.
After all, if that is the definition of evolution, it says nothing about the common ancestry of all living things, which most people put under the title of "evolution".
Personally I prefer the definition from talkorigins:
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.
I will not dispute the definition you gave. I still believe that species are degenerating over generations, and that we do not share a common ancestor with, say, sharks. Your definition says nothing about these things.
As for moral arguments, what argument can you give me that could possibly make me care what you think, unless somehow that benefits me? If my desires carry me to rape or murder someone, then why shouldn't I? You can use arguments like "you might get caught", fine. But they are only good because they appeal to my desire of self-preservation. If I believe I am in no danger, what argument can you offer? I may not even care that my genes get passed on! I just follow my carnal urges, which most darwinists arbitrarily label "wrong".
And if I am a die hard darwinist and I believe that another race is evolutionarily inferior, then what reason can you offer me that would make me care about them? After all, if we kill animals for food, what difference is a distant human? I can make friends with my close family, and destroy those who are inferior. Why should I care? I'm not asking you to give logical arguments why cooperation is more beneficial. I'm asking you why I should listen to it. If I genuinely believe that it is better to rid the earth of them. Or even if I believe it is acceptable to just ignore them, conquer them, enslave them, whatever, what response do you give?
Such arrogance is not befitting an argument. You should not declare your opponents defeat before he responds. This is merely a crowd swaying attempt.
What proof have you that natural selection improves a species, rather than just slowing the survival of harmful genes, and reducing diversity of the gene pool?
Please define "evolution", as it has different meanings in different contexts and for different things. Quite often darwinists will point to proof of one use of the word "evolution" and try to fool people into thinking it's proof for other types.
My point is, so what? If I want to do those things, who cares whether it helps others or not? What is wrong with murder, rape, etc?
That's an amazing argument. You are saying that the following steps in the argument:
1. An article made a proposal on how to get from a photosensitive cell to a full eye while each stage had a noticable survival benefit
2. It was supported by an appeal to the myth of evolution
That's not very persuasive. *If* we are questioning the validity of evolution in the first place, you _cannot_ appeal to it as evidence for an argument. If the article makes a proposition like this, then it must demonstrate that such steps can take place, and that must be done through experiments. You cannot just accept the truth of darwinist evolution and point to that as the evidence for the article's proposition.
But anyway, if I suppose that evolution is true, what moral argument can you give me to stop me from murdering the weak, hurting the downtrodden, and generally getting my way when I know I can get away with it? As far as I can tell, any argument you give me I can respond with, "so?". As long as it's benefitting me, what do I care?
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.
Darwinist evolutionary has amazing explanatory power, but absolutely no predictive power. Do you really think Darwin would have predicted that today's fossil evidence would be only Archaeopteryx and an out of order, incorrect reptile->mammal sequence? Yet Darwinist evolution which once predicted a multitude of fossil evidences now predicts an absence of them. Wow, you have me convinced. So now I am supposed to look at the lack of evidence for evolution and be persuaded? Think again.
As for zealotry, woe to anyone who questions the holy grail of Darwinist evolution, for he shall be beat down on by hordes of angry slashdotters, atheists and agnostics worldwide, and not to mention a handful of theistic evolutionists. Ever tried holding a conversation with 5 people at once, all desparate to defend their pet theory? Ever looked at a christian forum where evolutionists hang day and night to correct people on creationism? That's zealotry.
If you really want to persuade people you need to show evidence for darwinist evolution. Not general stories with no predictive power. Take some risks. Make a prediction that if false will demonstrate evolution a lie. I've had numerous people say that if this or that was discovered, evolution would be false. In all those cases I could easily conceive stories that darwinists would conjure to explain the new thing.
Ah, I just had a thought. My discussions on slashdot about evolution seem to be of a more primitive nature than those I'm used to of recent times. So undoubtedly one of you will point to something akin to Darwin's finches and natural selection as evidence. To which my reply is:
What if natural selection does not improve the species? What if all living things were created in their best form, and have been heading downhill since then? Natural selection then plays the role not of improving a species, but of slowing its decline - such that if the power of natural selection was absent, the fall of a species would be hurried. Yet if natural selection was present, the species would still degrade, but at a much slower rate.
That was my first thought too when I read the story. Nice analogy by the way, explains the distinction perfectly.
That was my first reaction too.
I'm getting tired of paying more money for the same thing. This is beginning to remind me of the cyclical Microsoft tax. The game should be cheaper, so as to sell more units, and to reflect the fact that it's not a revolutionary change, but rather an evolutionary step.
I had an experience of that first hand with Haegemonia.
Examples:
1. You have a small squadron of ships to escort a slower vessel to a nearby star. A meteor is coming, you are told to destroy the meteor because it's on a collision course with what you've been asked to defend. The meteor is moving terribly slow...in all the vastness of space, this ship can't hit the brakes for 10 seconds to avoid a collision? Or do we have a ship-seeking meteor?
2. You (as commander of a fleet) are being instructed by your science advisor on research. Your attitude is essentially, "What do I need research for? I kill things. Science is for nerds". So the science advisor explains kindly and patiently that science is not just test tubes and laboratories, but also helps improve ships and weapons. To which you respond. "Pfft. Science" in a skeptical tone. What kind of army recruits someone in a space age that doesn't understand the benefits of advanced technology?!?
3. You fight an enemy, absolutely trounce his fleet with no challenge. The enemy officer responds after the battle, "You fought well." To which you respond "Yes, it was a tough but fair battle". Fair??? You annihilated the enemy without lifting an eyebrow.
After these three events, right near the start of the game, I couldn't continue playing. It was too surreal to keep me interested.
Unknown hole = key hidden under potplant near front door, maybe a passer by saw, or someone watching
Well known and patched = key kept in pockets when going out
Well known and unpatched = key left in front door
The first is a risk, and is not satisfactory for people who don't want just an illusion of safety. If people are paying attention or putting in the effort to watch when announcements of security holes are made, then they will find out.
This story is completely different, and you failed to notice the logical difference. In the cases of Windows switching to Linux, Slasdot "front page" stories which show management evaluating Open Source options and deciding it is superior to proprietry.
In the case of this Ask Slashdot, it is a company that has NOT (as far as we can see) evaluated the benefits of Open Source vs proprietry - and have forced a migration based on a previously existing policy. Not an informed decision. So this 'story' is of an entirely different calibre.
Of course, if a company did use Linux desktops, and then re-evaluated and decided to return to Windows, that would warrant a "front page" story.
I've had thoughts about this at one time or another. What happens if/when services for most people are done remotely. Thin clients, applications over internet, and so on? This may be the future of computing for most people, and the GPL doesn't cover it.
Your comment is pointlessly wrong on so many levels.
Games teach you skills, whether physical (hand eye coordination), emotional (confidence in ability to complete a task, or not), and mental (learn how to problem solve in ways others do not). You experience a wide variety of things you can never touch. The rewards are not immediate, but the fruit bear out in the long run.
I suppose you think reading is useless? After all, it's the same principle - reading a book does not affect THIS world. Not immediately, anyway. When you finished, there's no new car in the garage, no revolutions have been won or lost as a result, and the hungry are still hungry. But it has long term consequences, just like games. Games stimulate imagination, or they can stifle it. They have the power to improve or damage, just as much as anything else in this world.
Thats exactly right. I've put down my lack of gaming interest to two things:
1. Most games that I buy don't run in Linux, and I never take the time to boot up windows, so I never play
2. As you said - there's no fun games being made, not like their used to be. I've been lamenting over this for a while. People have lost focus on what's fun.
I find certain genres keep building on each other - in particular first person shooters. Other genres, like space turn based strategy (Master of Orion, etc), are hardly touched. Same with the old Sierra type adventure games. We need something new. And I personally think independant developers have a potential market in these dead genres. Because the bar of entry is so much lower than another FPS, it is easier for a small group to code. Independant developers could then work to sell their games online, cheap - much like http://www.garagegames.com/.
We need something new, something fun.
Right. Also, I think businesses at least will be more interested in conformity, unity and consistency.
note: I'm not a neo-Darwinist, or what is generaly known as an evolutionist.
In this situation we may find that the mosquito gene pool may be diverse enough to contain a small number of mosquito larvae that are not destroyed by these devices (taking into account that other insects are unaffected, this may mean that the margin of error is small). Thus the gene pool will be reduced in eliminating most types of mosquito's except those that can survive. Just as we see most bacteria killed by anti-biotics, but a few immune ones surviving.
Just thought that would be an interesting side note. I don't know how easy these devices would be to tune them to destroy 'new' types of mosquitos.
His use of that old adage fails on a logical level when used in reference to open source software:
1. You get what you pay for
2. Open source costs nothing
Therefore
3. You get nothing.
It is obvious that three is false, so either 1 and/or 2 must also be false. We know 2 is true, so 1 must be false.
If we admit the possibility of malicious code being inserted (didn't sendmail have this in one release?) then:
a. The government has a far better chance of spotting it in open source than closed source software
b. The eyes of the world will be on that code, multiplying the chance of discovery greatly. The more commonly the code is used, the greater the chance of discovery
The argument he uses is laughable. He talks about the temptation to build in special debugging and monitoring capabilities. This is precisely the sort of actions that will be less common with Open Source, because everyone can see it. So his fears about Open Source are far better placed in closed source.
And finally:
'This problem isn't new. In fact, it's far older than any computer technology. The Latin phrase Quis custodiet ipsos custodies, which translates to "Who will guard the guards?" shows that people have been struggling with the same problem for centuries. You can set up as many layers of security as you like, but at some point, you have to trust the layers themselves.'
He requires some grand conspiracy by all the discoverers of any potential security hole. "Ssh, do not tell the world, and I will shower you with riches!" - Osama Bin Laden.
It is certainly much much easier for a worker in a company to insert malicious code and get away with it than it is with Open Source software.
I understand these saddening figures, but I am not a part of the Christian culture that accepts these things. There are still small groups that are against the trend, and I imagine that things are far worse in the US than here in Australia.
I would absolutely hate to go through what you have. You don't deserve such treatment like that. Infidelity doesn't have to be the norm. While Christianity is not immune from it, there is something to be said of a Christian couple. I have a girlfriend who holds the same beliefs as me - we both love and fear (a taboo word on slashdot in reference to God) God, and respect His commandments. We both know how important it is to remain pure for each other, and to not break those bonds of trust after marriage. We all know that infidelity is wrong, but Christianity really does provide, personally, the extra impetus needed to enjoy things as they were meant to be. And that excludes a wife cheating on you. Don't think of it as a game. You've been wronged, but that doesn't mean you then have to go and hurt others because you've been hurt. I really don't envy your position, and pray for you to have strength.