As most know, there's a lot of rubbish in this post, but still fun to read:)
But as for the system being unusable while compiling - I'm using it fine right now with a compile in the background, no problems.
If I absolutely need the system running as fast as it should (or can) while compiling, then: nice -n 19 emerge
Once I loaded a game with an emerge going in the background (without the nice I think), and I played for a while, and it was occasionally laggy, and I wondered what was going on. This was wolfenstein: ET - so a full 3d opengl cpu-intensive game was being played near playable with a compile in the background:)
That being said, I haven't done much to optimise my Gentoo box - I will, one day, I swear! For now I'm just enjoying the ease of updating programs, and not having to worry about obsolete rpm's, etc. Though I've never used urpmi or similar tools, so I don't know how they handle out of date apps? I remember that after manually upgrading my system's rpm's enough times, it would eventually reach a state where it wasn't very clean, and a full upgrade to the new distro in question (usually Mandrake) was required. As I said, I don't know what the current state of this is with RPM's since I haven't used them on my desktop since I switched to Gentoo.
Wow, more females than males on the list? It's not accurately reflecting the experiences slashdotters have reported so far:)
Though this is not really a surprise, women in general don't try technology before the mostly male dominated geek community does. Excepting, of course, MSN:)
Just make it using the Jabber protocol, release the client as a "new" IM program with . Just don't mention mozilla.
For all those that have an absurd bias against mozilla or netscape, then I just tell them about this great browser "firebird". It's just one way to get around their biases so they can give the technology the merit it deserves on it's own.
This could be a good way to encourage new games. If lots of aspiring game designers write unique ideas, then they will feel some motivation to pursue them. Some may pick up their ideas, some may not, some may become motivated to move further (start their own game company, etc).
Either way, maybe this could revive the gamemarket somewhat, providing us with fresh ideas - even for opensource games?
But yes, they would need a guide on how to present the game idea properly.
Bwahahaha, I'm going to reply out of a childish need? And I suppose that *you* didn't want the last word, did you? No, just by saying something like that so that if I don't reply it looks like I am right, and if I do reply that I am acting childish. Your powers of deduction are very poor, I am neither a child nor 14. I also have thousands of pages of literature which explain why creationism is a better model, more rational and logic. I work in the field of IT. I am paid to think with a logical, reasoning, critical mindset. What other unfounded insults have you for me? What other conclusions are you able to draw that can be so drastically wrong? Now lets get the facts straight. I said that I didn't believe in evolution, so *partly* for that reason I rejected your erroneous hypothesis. However, I proposed ways apart from evolution or creation to test your theory. I was *never* interested in proving creationism to you. It was a side comment which you decided was grounds for calling me a moron. You will NOT pursuade me by arguments of weight of number of scientists who believe in evolution. Take for example when Galileo proposed the (previously mentioned) model of the earth revolving around the sun. Contrary to popular belief, the church was not particularly strong against the idea. In fact, it was many of the secular philosophers who objected the idea. But I digress - in arguing it is not evidence in itself to call reference to the sheer numbers that accept a particular view. They could all be wrong. I do not assume that you are a moron because you beleive evolution, even though it is irrational. If I were to say, out of the blue, "you are a moron for believing evolution" but said nothing else, on whom does the weight of argument lie? On me, to prove that you are a moron, or on you, to prove that you are not a moron? If someone were to call me a moron, for what possible reason am I required to prove that I am not? The weight of argument rests on your shoulders. And now you accuse me of not giving a definition of evolution, as if I were meant to. I understand that evolution strictly refers to biological evolution, but it is an umbrella term on occasion referring to all the elements of the worldview that are required for evolution to occur - big bang, old earth, older universe, life from non-life, etc. Now for some facts - I have read quite a great deal on the topic of evolution and creation. I consider it important to understand the truth of the matter. So I know that when you call me a 14yr old with no knowledge, just a few cliche's I've heard from someone else, you make a grossly inaccurate claim. That to me proves that you are not interested in facts. You have made up your mind about what sort of person I am, what arguments I will present, etc. I said before - I present my arguments to those who play the game with respect. The simple fact is, you called me a moron totally uncalled for, and now you try and make it look like I'm the one to blame. You know nothing about me, or what I believe, or why. If you were to offer to debate with me via email (an offer I have given to many), I doubt I would accept. As I said before, I reserve this privilege for those with some decency and respect. I don't know how you see yourself, but you certainly don't come across as a fair minded person to me. Lastly, I *never* attempted in these posts to present evidence for creationism. I have deliberately avoided discussions of these scientific/philosophical questions, because the topic at hand was your insult. I'm not interested in being drawn in to an endless debate. I've debated with people on other topics (besides scientific/philosophical questions) and they have been so adamant about their position, only to discover a while later that they were wrong. I *hate* arguing with people that don't listen. I like to feel that my arguments will be given the weight they deserve, as I like to give to those who argue for evolution.
Nice change of the rules. Remember, you started by calling me a moron - but giving no evidence why. Now you've made a few general statements like "in school we did some comparisons of life forms and it was very convincing" - and now it's my turn to present something?
True, I said you were behaving in an ignorant, foolish manner - and I think you are. But that's plain to see from your posts - insulting me without proof, then demanding proof from me as if I started it all. You are the one who made the initial claim.
I am already involved in e-mail discussions on evolution with two people, I'm not really interested in a third. Besides, I pick those I discuss with carefully - I try to limit it to those (rare) evolutionists who do not call me a moron, allude to fairy tails and magic, etc.
Notice how you've not even tried to explain your view? You just claim its logical and well thought out, but you don't actually explain or demonstrate anything...yet.
And how do you know it isn't, if you have never heard it, or tried to understand it?
I started this discussion as something completely different. I made the comment that I don't believe in evolution meaning a rejection of your reasoning for why men are violent and women are not. I presented an experiment that would work regardless of your belief in creation or evolution. Then you call me a moron - this current OT thread is born.
You started it, you present the evidence. If you are so certain I am a moron - or that what I believe is moronic, then you prove it. I'm not interested in proving creationist model to you - but I am to others who treat me with respect.
And by evidence I mean something concrete for evolution. Not vague statements like "the evidence is overwhelming", or "tons of transitional fossils have been discovered". Let's limit it to facts.
You think you are actually being pursuasive in your post? You like every other ignorant evolutionist claim that we appeal to magic, and there is nothing more to our theories. Are you really that simple that you think we hold on to spells and fairy tales? There are many scientists with Ph.D's who believe the creation model (yes, model, not myth - a model may be right or wrong, it has nothing to do with myths). In order to obtain those Ph.D's they had to think.
Now you call me a moron, now you take it back because you think I'm exasperated. Now take it from my perspective. 90% of the time I encounter an evolutionist, I have to deal with insults like moron, magic, fairy tales, spells, blah blah blah. And not a single one of them understands. And then they have the absolute stupidity, like yourself, to say "what's to understand?".
You probably consider yourself fair minded, but not from where I stand. I think evolution is a load of unbelievable nonsense - but I at least make the effort to understand why so many people believe it. You owe me the same courtesy, if you have any care for how you look. Or are you just interested in scoring browny points in front of other slashdotters, because it's cool to insult a creationist, then "take it back" when they react as if you are somehow better than them?
I've dealt with people like you before. I don't need your sympathy, or your words of "Jeez that really got to you" - you obviously haven't changed your mind about anything. As the proverbs say,
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. " - Proverbs 1:7
That's how I feel about you, despising wisdom. You come here mocking me without evidence, patronising me again in this post, and show your unconditional bias with tales of magic. If I were to show you how creationism is logical, and how our criticisms are real, logical, and scientific, I'll bet you wouldn't listen. I'm betting you have absolutely no idea what would be a challenge to evolution, what is expected by it - or what creationism expects or what would cause it to be rejected.
Seriously - I want to know how you perceive yourself. When you talk to people, do you see yourself as a person of understanding, or as an arrogant arsehole? Because you come off as the latter towards me. You really don't understand how much frustration I have had to put up with when ignorant evolutionists just can't grasp the concepts of creationism. It's not that it's irrational, it's just that their minds are so locked in their ways they can't consider something new. And so when you come along with fresh insults, it carries with it the weight of all those others who have gone before you, whose footsteps you walk in. And I'm sure, like every single one (no exceptions yet), you misunderstand even the basic principles of the creationist model. And you have the nerve and arrogance to call a model a story of magic of which you have no idea, not even an incling of understanding.
I don't care about your good motives, you have no right to call me a moron. There are very few who can actually argue with me and win. I think through things. And I have thought about creationism a great deal.
What I have discovered is that every single evolutionist I have ever encountered simply does not understand creationism. And considering that track record, I work from the assumption that you are no different. And for you to call me a moron is, in my eyes, setting yourself up for very deep embarrasment if you should ever hear creationism presented in a way you can understand.
I don't know who you've argued with, but they sure couldn't have been presenting an accurate description of the creation model - either that, or you are slow of learning and find difficulty understanding new concepts.
I'm only guessing here - but imagine if I blamed evolutionists for a moronic theory when I'd only ever argued about it with those who said that, for example, a monkey if it loses it's tail in a fight will have children with no tails.
You can take it as proof of whatever you want. It won't change facts.
My opinion of you instantly dropped to below 0, since you are unable to comprehend that something you believe may be wrong, and as a result you blame me for your own failings.
I think you are working out your answers backwards. You are saying, that because women and men have both been involved in billions of years of evolution and natural selection that they both must have a propensity to violence of a roughly equal value - but physical circumstances cause them to act differently. However, I would dare say you have no evidence of this.
I would bet that if we could devise an adequate study (eg, take a group of women who are as strong as a group of men for a few years and observe their reactions) then we would find men would act violently more than women.
Besides, your example doesn't help since I don't actually believe in evolution. That is why I think you act without evidence. You are working from a flawed position and making a hypothesis. The facts are that men act more violently - your suggestion is that this is because of men's natural strength causes them to act on it more than women.
I don't know...just doesn't sound like there's any proof of your assertion. And as the parent poster said, it's related to testosterone. There, that would be a good test - give some women more testosterone (if they are willing) and see if they act more violently. I'm quite confident that your hypothesis would be proven incorrect.
We know that in times past, gladiator sports were popular. We often look back on the idea of men fighting to the death as a bad thing, and find it abhorrent that people could stand by and watch. Same with executions in the middle ages.
Yet these computer games, we do exactly the same thing. Imagine 100 years from now if violence was removed from games. People will look back on the mindless violence we participate in in a similar way to how we perceive those who enjoyed gladiator sports.
Now you and I would argue that computer games don't accurately represent reality (but we're getting close), but more importantly we don't actually watch someone die - we just imagine it.
I think that violence is something inescapable, ultimately. Men (and I refer here to males, not mankind) love violence. In small or large doses. Most here have probably participated in fights with friends - wrestling, etc, in a show of strength. To me, I think that violence is an innate part of our nature - whether we participate in reality or in computer games.
I reason then, that computer games help reduce violence, not increase it. One can release their frustration in a less harmful manner through computer games. Without computer games, a person fosters thoughts of violence in their mind with no outlet.
Claims like these make Microsoft sound like emperor Palpatine, whispering messages of pride and rebellion into the ears of young Anakin - hidden in the background, watching silently and forgotten by most.
Just because the current ones are poor PDA's and poor phones does not mean that we (they) won't eventually get it right. But the question is irrelevant - is it a PDA with a phone built in, or a phone with a PDA built in?
If they merge, then neither is rendering the other obsolete. It just means that either one on it's own is no longer as important - once the cost is not important.
Ah, this is so true. I personally let the phone ring so someone else can answer it (if they're home). I have a tendancy to sleep in late sometimes (a curse of setting my own work hours - because I never have a stable sleep pattern). When the phone breaks into my sleep it is really irritating. Now the sound of a telephone ringing annoys me considerably. I just really don't like them.
Mobile phone is the same, except now people can annoy me while I'm out as well as home.
Look, every time I talk I try to treat you evolutionists with respect. Stop making generalised claims of nonsense when you don't know what you speak about. I refer of course to you saying "Too bad the model comes out of thin air."
Biblical literalism does not negate the value of science. In fact, it was biblical literalists who started the scientific movement. It was us who believed the universe could be understood, that it was rational. You know not of what you speak. First of all, we appeal to miracles only when the Bible indicates them. So for the flood, for the initial creation, etc. Any other time we work on the assumption that God has not interfered in miraculous ways.
However, to counter this with claims of a Great Flood and an Ark is absurd.
Why exactly is it absurd, hmm? Do you know what AiG/ICR or other creation scientists with Ph.D's, etc, teach? Do you understand our model? If your only encounter is with the young earth creationists that you describe, I shouldn't be surprised. But that's like me considering evolution to be the same as what the guy down the street who thinks we were made by aliens believes. Should I use him as a representative of your views? Go to the source.
At any rate, they embrace Biblical literalism, which negates the value of any valid scientific points they might raise.
I would love to know how you can justify that quote given this:
"The philosophy of experimental science... began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation.... It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption." - - L. Eisely: Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It (Anchor, NY: Doubleday, 1961)
Gould had this to say about the man who wrote Principles of Geology, the very book that inspired Darwin's old earth ideas:
"Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most brilliant briefs published by an advocate.... Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The gologic record does seem to requrie catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists. "S.J. Gould, Natural History (February 1975): p.16.
Creation scientists founded science, so you can thank them for that. We have reason to believe in a rational universe, and do not desire to resort to "miracles" answers to explain things. I feel sorry that you have only encountered young earthers as you say that resort to miracles, but do not confuse the words of the disciple with those of the master.
Hmm, perhaps you are encountering some very uninformed creationists, or else they didn't realise what it is they were objecting to:)
We certainly don't claim that speciation is impossible. In fact, our predictions based on our model fit the data much more accurately. Here is a summary, but if you find it confusing I'll be happy to clarify. Basically, creationists expect speciation as a process of sorting already existing information.
I'm really not sure of the creationists you encounter, but you will find the major creationist organisations like AiG and ICR do not reject speciation or natural selection, but embrace them as observed processes.
Will be great for a lone ranger, but sometimes certain passwords need to be shared and this would eliminate it. Unless, at the time the password is shared, you measure timing for that new user as well - but each successive time would weaken the strength of this new layer of security.
Not much of a problem though. Sounds good to me in some ways.
What do we blather on about that is a load of bull? I'm curious to know. Spell it out carefully.
A new species is declared usually when two groups of animals with a common ancestor diverge so they no longer are willing or able to breed with each other. It is all a bit arbitrary, but serves a purpose.
Could you explain this for me please? I've seen the matrix reloaded twice, but due to lack of sleep I lost concentration at a certain point of his speech twice:(
I'm sorry, I find it "too tiring" when asked to provide even one correct prediction? When I said if you e-mail me I will tell you some? That doesn't make sense...
And if you studied creation in some depth, can you tell me how creationism explains Darwin's finches?
Slashdot Mirror
As most know, there's a lot of rubbish in this post, but still fun to read :)
:)
But as for the system being unusable while compiling - I'm using it fine right now with a compile in the background, no problems.
If I absolutely need the system running as fast as it should (or can) while compiling, then:
nice -n 19 emerge
Once I loaded a game with an emerge going in the background (without the nice I think), and I played for a while, and it was occasionally laggy, and I wondered what was going on. This was wolfenstein: ET - so a full 3d opengl cpu-intensive game was being played near playable with a compile in the background
That being said, I haven't done much to optimise my Gentoo box - I will, one day, I swear! For now I'm just enjoying the ease of updating programs, and not having to worry about obsolete rpm's, etc. Though I've never used urpmi or similar tools, so I don't know how they handle out of date apps? I remember that after manually upgrading my system's rpm's enough times, it would eventually reach a state where it wasn't very clean, and a full upgrade to the new distro in question (usually Mandrake) was required. As I said, I don't know what the current state of this is with RPM's since I haven't used them on my desktop since I switched to Gentoo.
Wow, more females than males on the list? It's not accurately reflecting the experiences slashdotters have reported so far :)
:)
Though this is not really a surprise, women in general don't try technology before the mostly male dominated geek community does. Excepting, of course, MSN
Just make it using the Jabber protocol, release the client as a "new" IM program with . Just don't mention mozilla.
For all those that have an absurd bias against mozilla or netscape, then I just tell them about this great browser "firebird". It's just one way to get around their biases so they can give the technology the merit it deserves on it's own.
This could be a good way to encourage new games. If lots of aspiring game designers write unique ideas, then they will feel some motivation to pursue them. Some may pick up their ideas, some may not, some may become motivated to move further (start their own game company, etc).
Either way, maybe this could revive the gamemarket somewhat, providing us with fresh ideas - even for opensource games?
But yes, they would need a guide on how to present the game idea properly.
A correction, at the start "I don't reply it looks like I am right" should read "I don't reply it looks like you are right"
Bwahahaha, I'm going to reply out of a childish need? And I suppose that *you* didn't want the last word, did you? No, just by saying something like that so that if I don't reply it looks like I am right, and if I do reply that I am acting childish.
Your powers of deduction are very poor, I am neither a child nor 14. I also have thousands of pages of literature which explain why creationism is a better model, more rational and logic. I work in the field of IT. I am paid to think with a logical, reasoning, critical mindset. What other unfounded insults have you for me? What other conclusions are you able to draw that can be so drastically wrong?
Now lets get the facts straight. I said that I didn't believe in evolution, so *partly* for that reason I rejected your erroneous hypothesis. However, I proposed ways apart from evolution or creation to test your theory. I was *never* interested in proving creationism to you. It was a side comment which you decided was grounds for calling me a moron.
You will NOT pursuade me by arguments of weight of number of scientists who believe in evolution. Take for example when Galileo proposed the (previously mentioned) model of the earth revolving around the sun. Contrary to popular belief, the church was not particularly strong against the idea. In fact, it was many of the secular philosophers who objected the idea. But I digress - in arguing it is not evidence in itself to call reference to the sheer numbers that accept a particular view. They could all be wrong.
I do not assume that you are a moron because you beleive evolution, even though it is irrational. If I were to say, out of the blue, "you are a moron for believing evolution" but said nothing else, on whom does the weight of argument lie? On me, to prove that you are a moron, or on you, to prove that you are not a moron? If someone were to call me a moron, for what possible reason am I required to prove that I am not? The weight of argument rests on your shoulders.
And now you accuse me of not giving a definition of evolution, as if I were meant to. I understand that evolution strictly refers to biological evolution, but it is an umbrella term on occasion referring to all the elements of the worldview that are required for evolution to occur - big bang, old earth, older universe, life from non-life, etc.
Now for some facts - I have read quite a great deal on the topic of evolution and creation. I consider it important to understand the truth of the matter. So I know that when you call me a 14yr old with no knowledge, just a few cliche's I've heard from someone else, you make a grossly inaccurate claim. That to me proves that you are not interested in facts. You have made up your mind about what sort of person I am, what arguments I will present, etc.
I said before - I present my arguments to those who play the game with respect. The simple fact is, you called me a moron totally uncalled for, and now you try and make it look like I'm the one to blame. You know nothing about me, or what I believe, or why. If you were to offer to debate with me via email (an offer I have given to many), I doubt I would accept. As I said before, I reserve this privilege for those with some decency and respect. I don't know how you see yourself, but you certainly don't come across as a fair minded person to me.
Lastly, I *never* attempted in these posts to present evidence for creationism. I have deliberately avoided discussions of these scientific/philosophical questions, because the topic at hand was your insult. I'm not interested in being drawn in to an endless debate. I've debated with people on other topics (besides scientific/philosophical questions) and they have been so adamant about their position, only to discover a while later that they were wrong. I *hate* arguing with people that don't listen. I like to feel that my arguments will be given the weight they deserve, as I like to give to those who argue for evolution.
True, I said you were behaving in an ignorant, foolish manner - and I think you are. But that's plain to see from your posts - insulting me without proof, then demanding proof from me as if I started it all. You are the one who made the initial claim.
I am already involved in e-mail discussions on evolution with two people, I'm not really interested in a third. Besides, I pick those I discuss with carefully - I try to limit it to those (rare) evolutionists who do not call me a moron, allude to fairy tails and magic, etc.
And how do you know it isn't, if you have never heard it, or tried to understand it?
I started this discussion as something completely different. I made the comment that I don't believe in evolution meaning a rejection of your reasoning for why men are violent and women are not. I presented an experiment that would work regardless of your belief in creation or evolution. Then you call me a moron - this current OT thread is born.
You started it, you present the evidence. If you are so certain I am a moron - or that what I believe is moronic, then you prove it. I'm not interested in proving creationist model to you - but I am to others who treat me with respect.
And by evidence I mean something concrete for evolution. Not vague statements like "the evidence is overwhelming", or "tons of transitional fossils have been discovered". Let's limit it to facts.
You think you are actually being pursuasive in your post? You like every other ignorant evolutionist claim that we appeal to magic, and there is nothing more to our theories. Are you really that simple that you think we hold on to spells and fairy tales? There are many scientists with Ph.D's who believe the creation model (yes, model, not myth - a model may be right or wrong, it has nothing to do with myths). In order to obtain those Ph.D's they had to think.
Now you call me a moron, now you take it back because you think I'm exasperated. Now take it from my perspective. 90% of the time I encounter an evolutionist, I have to deal with insults like moron, magic, fairy tales, spells, blah blah blah. And not a single one of them understands. And then they have the absolute stupidity, like yourself, to say "what's to understand?".
You probably consider yourself fair minded, but not from where I stand. I think evolution is a load of unbelievable nonsense - but I at least make the effort to understand why so many people believe it. You owe me the same courtesy, if you have any care for how you look. Or are you just interested in scoring browny points in front of other slashdotters, because it's cool to insult a creationist, then "take it back" when they react as if you are somehow better than them?
I've dealt with people like you before. I don't need your sympathy, or your words of "Jeez that really got to you" - you obviously haven't changed your mind about anything. As the proverbs say,
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. " - Proverbs 1:7
That's how I feel about you, despising wisdom. You come here mocking me without evidence, patronising me again in this post, and show your unconditional bias with tales of magic. If I were to show you how creationism is logical, and how our criticisms are real, logical, and scientific, I'll bet you wouldn't listen. I'm betting you have absolutely no idea what would be a challenge to evolution, what is expected by it - or what creationism expects or what would cause it to be rejected.
Seriously - I want to know how you perceive yourself. When you talk to people, do you see yourself as a person of understanding, or as an arrogant arsehole? Because you come off as the latter towards me. You really don't understand how much frustration I have had to put up with when ignorant evolutionists just can't grasp the concepts of creationism. It's not that it's irrational, it's just that their minds are so locked in their ways they can't consider something new. And so when you come along with fresh insults, it carries with it the weight of all those others who have gone before you, whose footsteps you walk in. And I'm sure, like every single one (no exceptions yet), you misunderstand even the basic principles of the creationist model. And you have the nerve and arrogance to call a model a story of magic of which you have no idea, not even an incling of understanding.
I don't care about your good motives, you have no right to call me a moron. There are very few who can actually argue with me and win. I think through things. And I have thought about creationism a great deal.
What I have discovered is that every single evolutionist I have ever encountered simply does not understand creationism. And considering that track record, I work from the assumption that you are no different. And for you to call me a moron is, in my eyes, setting yourself up for very deep embarrasment if you should ever hear creationism presented in a way you can understand.
I don't know who you've argued with, but they sure couldn't have been presenting an accurate description of the creation model - either that, or you are slow of learning and find difficulty understanding new concepts.
I'm only guessing here - but imagine if I blamed evolutionists for a moronic theory when I'd only ever argued about it with those who said that, for example, a monkey if it loses it's tail in a fight will have children with no tails.
You can take it as proof of whatever you want. It won't change facts.
My opinion of you instantly dropped to below 0, since you are unable to comprehend that something you believe may be wrong, and as a result you blame me for your own failings.
I think you are working out your answers backwards. You are saying, that because women and men have both been involved in billions of years of evolution and natural selection that they both must have a propensity to violence of a roughly equal value - but physical circumstances cause them to act differently. However, I would dare say you have no evidence of this.
I would bet that if we could devise an adequate study (eg, take a group of women who are as strong as a group of men for a few years and observe their reactions) then we would find men would act violently more than women.
Besides, your example doesn't help since I don't actually believe in evolution. That is why I think you act without evidence. You are working from a flawed position and making a hypothesis. The facts are that men act more violently - your suggestion is that this is because of men's natural strength causes them to act on it more than women.
I don't know...just doesn't sound like there's any proof of your assertion. And as the parent poster said, it's related to testosterone. There, that would be a good test - give some women more testosterone (if they are willing) and see if they act more violently. I'm quite confident that your hypothesis would be proven incorrect.
We know that in times past, gladiator sports were popular. We often look back on the idea of men fighting to the death as a bad thing, and find it abhorrent that people could stand by and watch. Same with executions in the middle ages.
Yet these computer games, we do exactly the same thing. Imagine 100 years from now if violence was removed from games. People will look back on the mindless violence we participate in in a similar way to how we perceive those who enjoyed gladiator sports.
Now you and I would argue that computer games don't accurately represent reality (but we're getting close), but more importantly we don't actually watch someone die - we just imagine it.
I think that violence is something inescapable, ultimately. Men (and I refer here to males, not mankind) love violence. In small or large doses. Most here have probably participated in fights with friends - wrestling, etc, in a show of strength. To me, I think that violence is an innate part of our nature - whether we participate in reality or in computer games.
I reason then, that computer games help reduce violence, not increase it. One can release their frustration in a less harmful manner through computer games. Without computer games, a person fosters thoughts of violence in their mind with no outlet.
Just a thought.
Claims like these make Microsoft sound like emperor Palpatine, whispering messages of pride and rebellion into the ears of young Anakin - hidden in the background, watching silently and forgotten by most.
Just because the current ones are poor PDA's and poor phones does not mean that we (they) won't eventually get it right. But the question is irrelevant - is it a PDA with a phone built in, or a phone with a PDA built in?
If they merge, then neither is rendering the other obsolete. It just means that either one on it's own is no longer as important - once the cost is not important.
Ah, this is so true. I personally let the phone ring so someone else can answer it (if they're home). I have a tendancy to sleep in late sometimes (a curse of setting my own work hours - because I never have a stable sleep pattern). When the phone breaks into my sleep it is really irritating. Now the sound of a telephone ringing annoys me considerably. I just really don't like them.
Mobile phone is the same, except now people can annoy me while I'm out as well as home.
Heck, I don't have any qualifications, art or otherwise, but I'm very good with computers (relatively speaking, of course).
Biblical literalism does not negate the value of science. In fact, it was biblical literalists who started the scientific movement. It was us who believed the universe could be understood, that it was rational. You know not of what you speak. First of all, we appeal to miracles only when the Bible indicates them. So for the flood, for the initial creation, etc. Any other time we work on the assumption that God has not interfered in miraculous ways.
Why exactly is it absurd, hmm? Do you know what AiG/ICR or other creation scientists with Ph.D's, etc, teach? Do you understand our model? If your only encounter is with the young earth creationists that you describe, I shouldn't be surprised. But that's like me considering evolution to be the same as what the guy down the street who thinks we were made by aliens believes. Should I use him as a representative of your views? Go to the source.
I would love to know how you can justify that quote given this:
"The philosophy of experimental science ... began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation. ... It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption." - - L. Eisely: Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It (Anchor, NY: Doubleday, 1961)
Gould had this to say about the man who wrote Principles of Geology, the very book that inspired Darwin's old earth ideas:
"Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most brilliant briefs published by an advocate. ... Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The gologic record does seem to requrie catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists. "S.J. Gould, Natural History (February 1975): p.16.
Creation scientists founded science, so you can thank them for that. We have reason to believe in a rational universe, and do not desire to resort to "miracles" answers to explain things. I feel sorry that you have only encountered young earthers as you say that resort to miracles, but do not confuse the words of the disciple with those of the master.
We certainly don't claim that speciation is impossible. In fact, our predictions based on our model fit the data much more accurately. Here is a summary, but if you find it confusing I'll be happy to clarify. Basically, creationists expect speciation as a process of sorting already existing information.
I'm really not sure of the creationists you encounter, but you will find the major creationist organisations like AiG and ICR do not reject speciation or natural selection, but embrace them as observed processes.
Will be great for a lone ranger, but sometimes certain passwords need to be shared and this would eliminate it. Unless, at the time the password is shared, you measure timing for that new user as well - but each successive time would weaken the strength of this new layer of security.
Not much of a problem though. Sounds good to me in some ways.
What do we blather on about that is a load of bull? I'm curious to know. Spell it out carefully.
A new species is declared usually when two groups of animals with a common ancestor diverge so they no longer are willing or able to breed with each other. It is all a bit arbitrary, but serves a purpose.
Anyone have a rough idea how close the KDE team is to starting the release schedule for 3.2?
Actually, people who tend not to give a rats ass about their software being legal pirate windows.
Could you explain this for me please? I've seen the matrix reloaded twice, but due to lack of sleep I lost concentration at a certain point of his speech twice :(
No, there's been 6 Matrix's (matrices?), not Zion's. That's what I heard, anyway.
I'm sorry, I find it "too tiring" when asked to provide even one correct prediction? When I said if you e-mail me I will tell you some? That doesn't make sense...
And if you studied creation in some depth, can you tell me how creationism explains Darwin's finches?