If I understand correctly, just because a share is "only" worth 12cents doesn't mean the company is wothless. That depends entirely on how many shares the company has. Theoretically Microsoft could split it's shares many times over so they are woth 12cents a share, but the company would still be worth the same. I don't know if there's some laws restricting how many shares a company can have.
So if I understand correctly, you are advising me that a better path is to state my views and defend them on slashdot?
Two problems:
1. I never wanted to defend creationism in my initial post. I was simply providing a link to a creationist theory that involved a finite universe, because I thought it was on topic, directly linked, and interesting to creationists and evolutionists alike. It is not true that every time a person posts something like that, that they are required to summarise their beliefs then defend them.
2. I have taken the path of putting down my views and defending them before. So I have tried the method you suggest, multiple times. Every time I end up with a horde of "reply to your post" emails in my inbox, about half of which are insulting and inflamatory. I have had at least one guy post as AC consistently telling me he wishes I would die and other inappropriate statements. I have to endure the worst of slashdot each time. So I restrict my debating to email discussions in the hope that I can filter out the worst, and talk to those interested in genuine discussion. This is a new approach for me, and the second time only I've taken it of many postings
This time I have received far less grief, and a couple of enquiries in my inbox - so it makes me less restless, less irritated, and hopefully I can actually talk seriously with a handful. Previously after the noise dies down, I'd talk with a few people, and we'd begin to get somewhere in our discussions, but no longer be able to post replies because it's an old story. So slashdot is a terrible medium for discussion of this for so many reasons. Not to mention the need to protect one's pride when it's in front of an audience.
Why not actually find out what the talkorigins guys say? They actually think it's better than most creationist stuff - which is a far cry from your unqualified statement that it has no criticism only "because it's so bad" - http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859 -1&cof=&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org&q=%22starli ght+and+time%22&btnG=Google+Search
Almost every definition of science I've seen states that a scientific theory must be falsifiable. I looked up "scientific theory" with kdict, and wordnet says:
scientific theory
n : a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/scientif ic+theory
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_sc i_theory.htm
(please no jokes about the irony of a creationist quoting an atheist - it should be more proof for you if it comes from the mouths of those whom you respect more)
However I do not accept that you are entitled to make a statement and make no argument for it at all, or at least that you can do so and can expect to be taken at all seriously.
Bear in mind my original post had no arguments or nothing to defend. I was simply commenting on a creationist book which talked about a model that involved a finite universe - and a link to the book for anyone interested.
I enjoy the way you present problems, then pretend that there is no reply by summarising that I am "indeed deluded".
All your questions have reasonable answers, and it's not that God put it there as a test of our faith.
If you really want to know, there are answers out there found with easy google searches. If you are interested in not being an asshole and would genuinely like to see me answer them, then email me at sat AT tyreth dot homelinux dot org.
With age comes wisdom they say. Read my other posts - I've given adequate reasons for not wanting to enter debates on slashdot. I have made offers to debate by email before, which no-one takes up (who is the coward?) Seems like they just want to score points of popularity by flaming the creationist.
I was neither arguing a case nor trolling - I was just offering some information for those interested. If you aren't interest, then pass over my post and read the next one.
I am entitled to disagree whether or not I make a convincing argument to you. I have argued with others before - I don't see why I am required to make a case before every single person on this planet.
Are you really unable to believe that me posting links produces the results I said? I've posted links many times before, and it results in people responding to the arguments on the site to me directly - then I have to respond to those points, otherwise they think they've won something major. Then I'm discussing with multiple people about things I never had the time to get into in the first place.
But I'm tired of saying this. Believe whatever you want about me. I'm telling you the truth, and the only thing I'm afraid of is that tsunami of emails in my inbox saying "reply to your post on slashdot".
For the person who is seriously interested in learning about the creationist position, the information is out there if they put in time. But if they are interested in a quicker direction to "the good stuff", then I'm more than happy to help out. For people who are just interested in having an argument, or pointing out how deluded we poor creationists are, I have nothing to do.
Hrm, what are you saying about falsifiable? Falsifiable means that there is a way we can show it to be wrong. Just because a theory makes an accurate prediction about the future does not make it 'falsifiable'. If there is a scenario in which we can say "if this should happen then the theory would be wrong", then it is falsifiable. Of course, if that scenario cannot be tested, then it is not falsifiable. Saying "there's aliens in the Alpha Centauri system", and the way to falsify it would be to visit the system and see that they aren't there - that's not falsifiable.
Besides, you said yourself, just because the observation of one theories predictions turned out accurate did not elimininate other theories - so that's nothing to do with falsification.
Thanks for respecting that. Would you mind emailing me at sat at tyreth dot homelinux dot org? Usually when I post links, people feel a need to reply to me with arguments on the website, which also becomes tiresome. I'm happy to discuss in a more controlled way though:) If you tell me a bit about what you have seen and thought, I might be able to direct you more accurately to useful resources.
Are you referring to this current thread? I am talking about all the other times I've posted. Every time I talk about creationism, I invariably have to defend against 5 attacks or so. It's incredibly tiresome.
Just because this post I made all of 30 minutes ago hasn't yet reached Biblical proportions, doesn't mean what I said was invalid.
I'm very interested in email discussions - offers I've made previously in slashdot - but no-one was interested in it. I've only ever found two others willing to talk via email - one of them conceded he didn't know enough, the other the discussion just wore out. But no-one on slashdot has ever taken me up.
I considered that email debate offer a nice, legitimate way, of backing up my claim that I'm happy to discuss in a more organised way.
It is true no-one has shouted here, and I respect that;) Shouting was more of an analogy of the nature of a 'discussion' that entails more noise than one can handle. It begins to sound like a shouting, or a din, in ones ears, than anything civil.
I fear I shouldn't have posted again - I can already hear the rumblings of a hundred emails in my inbox - the very reason that I despise discussing the details on slashdot. Every man has his limit. It's like a DoS in an argument, 5 people shouting at one person.
I do my best to avoid arguments on details in slashdot, because it invariably ends up one person against 5, and it's impossible to keep up with the discussion AND have something fruitful come out. Also, people have a reputation to protect when posting in public, so it reduces the chance of anyone changing their opinion.
I will say a couple of things though.
* any discussion of origins is not scientific in nature. Science deals with the observable and falsifiable. Example: "archaeopteryx is the transitional form between reptiles and birds". That is a completely unscientific statement - there is no way to test it or falsify it. Now that doesn't mean it's invalid - but you utilise philosophical methods to prove or disprove the statement. But the statement has nothing to do with science
* I never claim that dealings with origins are science. They are philosophical in nature, and employ scientific evidences to make the case. It's a subtle but important difference.
* There is much evidence that the universe is old, but not the earth. And that's not something I'm willing to go into detail in on slashdot for the afforementioned reasons. The tiresome argument of "there's so much evidence" just doesn't cut it. I've looked around for the evidence, and found it wanting. Why shouldn't I be entitled to disagree if I think that the evidences used are circumstantial at best?
* One final note - I am yet to meet an evolutionist who truly understands the creationist position. I've met many who think they do, but not a single one does. When they talk to me, they say "well, that's not what other creationists have said". I'm constantly surprised by this - because what I say is very close to what the major creationist organisations have researched and believe. It makes me think that they've often argued against imaginary points. If the scientific america's "15 answers to creationist nonsense" is any indication of what the average evolutionist thinks we teach, then it's no surprise there's so much FUD about our position.
So I'd recommend you look into our position, and also seriously examine the evolutionist one to see if all those "evidences" are really so strong.
Oh yeah, the universe is only 70 billion light years across, so better buy up the real estate now while it's still cheap!
Sure, you make jokes now, but just wait till your kids are asking you why they have to go to school in the slums of the universe.
On a serious note, creationist research Russel Humphreys proposed a model of space that was in line with the creationist model of a young earth. For years creationists acknowledged that astrophysics was the weakest part of our research (sure, I know all the hundreds of replies I'll get about weaknesses in other areas - trust me, I've heard them before). His model was based on two assumptions that were different from our current ones:
1. That the universe began from a theoretical white hole, not a black hole
2. That the universe is finite in size.
By changing these two assumptions about our universe and it's origins resulted in a young earth and an old universe.
Surprisingly, the main criticisms for this model come from old earth creationists, and not others.
For those who haven't read it, I highly recommend checking it out here.
There's a buzz at the moment on irc.quakenet.org #hl2-source and other places about the beta being leaked.
I would submit it as a story, but someone else probably has, and I've never had a story accepted yet:)
The NFO was on nforce.nl for a short time, but has since been removed. The leak has been confirmed here, and a few claim to have it (but they could be lying).
I've also seen a screenshot of the folders with all the map files in it, and the names look very much like what one would expect the long gameplay demo to be made from.
Not good news for valve:( I am disappointed that the game had to be delayed - and for all of you who have taken the source or download the beta, I hope you remember your duty to purchase the game when it does come out.
I thought open source programmers intentionally avoided looking at other proprietry code, such as this, so that they could not be accused of knowingly infrindging patents, copying code, etc.
The best it could probably do for us is a statement by some anonymous programmer commenting on whether it's feasible for Valve to make a port given the code (ie, whether it's heavily DirectX dependent or if OpenGL could be made to work).
Really, doesn't give us much more than an argument, but may prove useful in that respect.
I think valve should try to turn this bad situation into something good - make the best of a bad situation.
Slashdot Mirror
If I understand correctly, just because a share is "only" worth 12cents doesn't mean the company is wothless. That depends entirely on how many shares the company has. Theoretically Microsoft could split it's shares many times over so they are woth 12cents a share, but the company would still be worth the same. I don't know if there's some laws restricting how many shares a company can have.
Two problems:
1. I never wanted to defend creationism in my initial post. I was simply providing a link to a creationist theory that involved a finite universe, because I thought it was on topic, directly linked, and interesting to creationists and evolutionists alike. It is not true that every time a person posts something like that, that they are required to summarise their beliefs then defend them.
2. I have taken the path of putting down my views and defending them before. So I have tried the method you suggest, multiple times. Every time I end up with a horde of "reply to your post" emails in my inbox, about half of which are insulting and inflamatory. I have had at least one guy post as AC consistently telling me he wishes I would die and other inappropriate statements. I have to endure the worst of slashdot each time. So I restrict my debating to email discussions in the hope that I can filter out the worst, and talk to those interested in genuine discussion. This is a new approach for me, and the second time only I've taken it of many postings
This time I have received far less grief, and a couple of enquiries in my inbox - so it makes me less restless, less irritated, and hopefully I can actually talk seriously with a handful. Previously after the noise dies down, I'd talk with a few people, and we'd begin to get somewhere in our discussions, but no longer be able to post replies because it's an old story. So slashdot is a terrible medium for discussion of this for so many reasons. Not to mention the need to protect one's pride when it's in front of an audience.
Why not actually find out what the talkorigins guys say? They actually think it's better than most creationist stuff - which is a far cry from your unqualified statement that it has no criticism only "because it's so bad" - http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859 -1&cof=&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org&q=%22starli ght+and+time%22&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/scientif ic+theoryc i_theory.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_s
(please no jokes about the irony of a creationist quoting an atheist - it should be more proof for you if it comes from the mouths of those whom you respect more)
Bear in mind my original post had no arguments or nothing to defend. I was simply commenting on a creationist book which talked about a model that involved a finite universe - and a link to the book for anyone interested.
A very interesting post, I need to do some more reading about philosophy and educate myself on these matters.
All your questions have reasonable answers, and it's not that God put it there as a test of our faith.
If you really want to know, there are answers out there found with easy google searches. If you are interested in not being an asshole and would genuinely like to see me answer them, then email me at sat AT tyreth dot homelinux dot org.
I was neither arguing a case nor trolling - I was just offering some information for those interested. If you aren't interest, then pass over my post and read the next one.
I am entitled to disagree whether or not I make a convincing argument to you. I have argued with others before - I don't see why I am required to make a case before every single person on this planet.
But I'm tired of saying this. Believe whatever you want about me. I'm telling you the truth, and the only thing I'm afraid of is that tsunami of emails in my inbox saying "reply to your post on slashdot".
For the person who is seriously interested in learning about the creationist position, the information is out there if they put in time. But if they are interested in a quicker direction to "the good stuff", then I'm more than happy to help out. For people who are just interested in having an argument, or pointing out how deluded we poor creationists are, I have nothing to do.
Besides, you said yourself, just because the observation of one theories predictions turned out accurate did not elimininate other theories - so that's nothing to do with falsification.
Thanks for respecting that. Would you mind emailing me at sat at tyreth dot homelinux dot org? Usually when I post links, people feel a need to reply to me with arguments on the website, which also becomes tiresome. I'm happy to discuss in a more controlled way though :) If you tell me a bit about what you have seen and thought, I might be able to direct you more accurately to useful resources.
Just because this post I made all of 30 minutes ago hasn't yet reached Biblical proportions, doesn't mean what I said was invalid.
I'm very interested in email discussions - offers I've made previously in slashdot - but no-one was interested in it. I've only ever found two others willing to talk via email - one of them conceded he didn't know enough, the other the discussion just wore out. But no-one on slashdot has ever taken me up.
I considered that email debate offer a nice, legitimate way, of backing up my claim that I'm happy to discuss in a more organised way.
It is true no-one has shouted here, and I respect that ;) Shouting was more of an analogy of the nature of a 'discussion' that entails more noise than one can handle. It begins to sound like a shouting, or a din, in ones ears, than anything civil.
I'm not unwilling to discuss apparent weaknesses - just not on slashdot. I have boundaries, and I don't have an infinite amount of time to waste.
Please also read this post I just made.
I fear I shouldn't have posted again - I can already hear the rumblings of a hundred emails in my inbox - the very reason that I despise discussing the details on slashdot. Every man has his limit. It's like a DoS in an argument, 5 people shouting at one person.
I will say a couple of things though.
* any discussion of origins is not scientific in nature. Science deals with the observable and falsifiable. Example: "archaeopteryx is the transitional form between reptiles and birds". That is a completely unscientific statement - there is no way to test it or falsify it. Now that doesn't mean it's invalid - but you utilise philosophical methods to prove or disprove the statement. But the statement has nothing to do with science
* I never claim that dealings with origins are science. They are philosophical in nature, and employ scientific evidences to make the case. It's a subtle but important difference.
* There is much evidence that the universe is old, but not the earth. And that's not something I'm willing to go into detail in on slashdot for the afforementioned reasons. The tiresome argument of "there's so much evidence" just doesn't cut it. I've looked around for the evidence, and found it wanting. Why shouldn't I be entitled to disagree if I think that the evidences used are circumstantial at best?
* One final note - I am yet to meet an evolutionist who truly understands the creationist position. I've met many who think they do, but not a single one does. When they talk to me, they say "well, that's not what other creationists have said". I'm constantly surprised by this - because what I say is very close to what the major creationist organisations have researched and believe. It makes me think that they've often argued against imaginary points. If the scientific america's "15 answers to creationist nonsense" is any indication of what the average evolutionist thinks we teach, then it's no surprise there's so much FUD about our position.
So I'd recommend you look into our position, and also seriously examine the evolutionist one to see if all those "evidences" are really so strong.
Sure, you make jokes now, but just wait till your kids are asking you why they have to go to school in the slums of the universe.
On a serious note, creationist research Russel Humphreys proposed a model of space that was in line with the creationist model of a young earth. For years creationists acknowledged that astrophysics was the weakest part of our research (sure, I know all the hundreds of replies I'll get about weaknesses in other areas - trust me, I've heard them before). His model was based on two assumptions that were different from our current ones:
1. That the universe began from a theoretical white hole, not a black hole
2. That the universe is finite in size.
By changing these two assumptions about our universe and it's origins resulted in a young earth and an old universe.
Surprisingly, the main criticisms for this model come from old earth creationists, and not others.
For those who haven't read it, I highly recommend checking it out here.
I was not at all expecting to get modded up for what I said. There was nothing at all useful in my post. So, I agree with you! Amusing though.
Patents are so ridiculous, as you all already know, and so is this one.
Nothing insightful in my post, just a chance to gripe about how absurd this is.
I would submit it as a story, but someone else probably has, and I've never had a story accepted yet :)
The NFO was on nforce.nl for a short time, but has since been removed. The leak has been confirmed here, and a few claim to have it (but they could be lying).
I've also seen a screenshot of the folders with all the map files in it, and the names look very much like what one would expect the long gameplay demo to be made from.
Not good news for valve :( I am disappointed that the game had to be delayed - and for all of you who have taken the source or download the beta, I hope you remember your duty to purchase the game when it does come out.
I thought open source programmers intentionally avoided looking at other proprietry code, such as this, so that they could not be accused of knowingly infrindging patents, copying code, etc.
The best it could probably do for us is a statement by some anonymous programmer commenting on whether it's feasible for Valve to make a port given the code (ie, whether it's heavily DirectX dependent or if OpenGL could be made to work).
Really, doesn't give us much more than an argument, but may prove useful in that respect.
I think valve should try to turn this bad situation into something good - make the best of a bad situation.
...who won't make a Linux version - though they don't owe it to us, it is quite a disappointment.
I enjoy it because it's just a console client.
Tinyfugue
Although the activity is rated very high, perhaps there's something good in CVS? I haven't checked.
Either way, the story talked about the released v1.1 which is, as you say, old. However, I didn't know it was on sourceforge until today.
However, people don't use Linux for games because Linux doesn't have games.
Therefore, by that reasoning, putting viagra in the hands of slashdotters would result in them living 'active' lives.
That's because there's nothing to do with them once we stop tinkering and configuring.