I was surprised when I saw Cringely had written this. I'd always assumed he knew more than this, since he's such a well known public figure.
When I read that I guessed that he must have known something I didn't, but the way he wrote it sounded like "because it looks like the old command prompt, it must be the same".
I can't say that a great deal of people are impressed with America's past frontier and their dealings with the original inhabitants and owners.
Still, that is all in the past and your main point prevails. Most people have always been like this. If you look at Chinese personality types earth is the most common along with fire, and the earth types are very resistant to change. The slashdot readers are more likely to be one of the types that love change and live for it (I certainly am one of those). I think there will always be fighting, but I think it creates a healthy balance.
I can't help but wonder about what moving to the stars will do for society and culture as a whole. Our boundaries have by and large been limited to earth - but there are enough of us that which to escape its borders that such a program will eventually take place, it will have to. After all, the pioneers are the ones who foster progress, the ones who start businesses. They cannot resist us for long!
Some ISP's participate in blocking spam from known open relay hosts. I don't think they'd actually filter much beyond that but they might. I'd be worried about them using apps to try and guess which is spam, but I'm not worried about them blocking known open relay hosts.
Sheesh, 81 spam e-mails so far today? I guess I really don't appreciate how much of a problem this is for American's, especially the ones who have been around for a while with the same address.
My e-mail address tends to change every 2-3 years. So far I've had this new one about 5 months perhaps, and only get one spam e-mail every week or so. Of course, I don't know how much of this is because my ISP is doing its part to stop spam.
Nevertheless, this sounds like a small victory. Unless I misunderstand...
I've always preferred Gnome. Well, until a couple of weeks ago when I became uncertain. I had resigned to the fact that kde was more popular and almost certain to dominate the desktop despite my preferring gnome. Yet Shawn made the point that gnome has the funding, and therefore the powerful applications. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
On another thought, perhaps we need to change the attitude we have towards making applications. Many have considered it, and some do it - separating the program from the interface, Qt or GTK. What if we create the program like games are often made today? An engine with an interface, but a powerful sdk for developing your own mods and changes. So if we have a powerful e-mail client such as evolution, have all the code and features done including interface, but designed in such a way that any new programmer could come along and create a Qt, OpenGL or whatever interface himself. We separate the code from the interface, with functions to hook them together.
This could potentially tie in with plugins, making them easier to create, since most parts of the program would be made easily accessible to the interface for new programmers.
This sounds like a "tyreth does not know C" problem more than a socket problem
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I was asking for an answer, because I am willing to learn and don't feel a need to pretend that I do know everything about programming.
Thanks. Though I remember trying to just blank the char out - or even use a new char for the second send and it still had the same problem. Which seemed really strange to me. Only a memset/memcpy (can't remember, think the latter) seemed to work.
A little while back while I was experimenting with sockets programming, I came across a strange behaviour (or I thought was strange). I discovered that even if I cleared a char array on the client receiving the message, for some reason the packet I received from the server would contain the new information, with the old tacked on the end. So in a chat example, if my first packet had the message "Hello" and the second said "Bob", then the second would actually contain "Boblo". I tried all I could to clear the char array because I was presuming that the problem was with the client. Then I discovered I could solve this with memcpy of nulls (I think) into the char array first before sending. I can't remember if I did this on the server or the client.
Sorry I'm being vague, but a person who is competent at socket programming will _probably_ know what I'm talking about. So I'm curious, is this the same problem we read about here that I encountered, or is it just a misunderstanding of mine into the details of socket programming? I'd love to understand.
I don't like this project at all, for a number of the reasons mentiond.
People will find themselves again judging a person by their appearances when text allowed us to be judged by our thoughts and spelling ability (ok so not perfect, but at least it removed a lot of other predjudices). I'm really not fond of this.
It creates a virtual economy, as another poster pointed out makes something that can be duplicated or recreated infinitely into having a value. If this is the precursor for major virtual online worlds, then it will begin the standard as placing values on things which should be free
Replaces the real world. If you want to explore new worlds, do it with your friends in real life. Computer, and fantasy, should be there to let you experience realities not normally possible. But as far as I can see this project is for talking and doing things already possible in real life with relative ease - relaxing on the beach, getting a pet dog, etc. We've been given this beautiful world by our Creator, why should we try to replace it with something inferior?
I can't see much positive from this project. I'm in favor of virtual worlds as a supplement to reality which let us experience something new, something otherwise unobtainable. But lets keep that in the world of fantasy, and not confuse it with reality, please.
Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 2
I'm sorry, I don't see any contradiction in what I said. Some "beneficial" mutations have occurred. Example: Beetles losing wings on a windy island
That is the result of a loss of genes, but a genetic mutation nonetheless. In this case, this normal disadvantage becomes an advantage. The weakness is a strength. But its hardly evolutionary. I said that chance mutations can lead to the introduction of beneficial genes that will later lead to a new species and a superior lifeform. These kinds of mutations involve the changing of existing genes, or the loss of information. Never is new information added.
Basically, the example given was about bacteria that become immune to certain anti-biotics. This has been discussed by creationists - when some of these bacteria gain a specific immunity, they become weak somewhere else. Hardly evolutionary. Mutations occur, but they involve the loss or change of information - never the introduction of information required to reach a new species, for example from homo-erectus to homo-sapien, or from a single celled lifeform to humans, or from reptiles to birds. See where I'm heading? You have a string of genes, some of those values change. Almost always the change is harmful - but sometimes this turns out to be advantegous, such as the loss of wings. Not evolutionary, more like entropy.
Here is an article for your reference and further understanding: Superbugs
I'm quite sure that you have quite a lot to learn about the creationist position, and frankly its not worth my time explaining again because it is always misunderstood. Unless you are the exception amongst the rule (which would be refreshing).
Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
I now understand that you really are very unfamiliar with the creationist position:) Mostly evidenced when you said "There simply isn't time for anything useful to have happened in that time." in reference to a 6000 year old earth. There is much you have to learn and understand about our position, but I am not surprised that you would say this.
As a summary then, trust me when I say that the acceptance of the creation model (6000 year old earth, etc) would not spell the end of science and physics as we know it. In fact there are many scientists who believe in creation as I do - a young earth. One recent example I was reading about is Richard Porter a human spine expert. He said that coming from a creationist position has helped him more than those coming from an evolutionary perspective. As he said:
Richard pointed out that evolutionary theory can be unproductive for research:
'For example, the curve of the lumbar spine towards the front - the lordosis - was thought by evolutionists to be a problem, the result of man having recently adopted an upright position. So, some researchers blamed back pain on this, saying the spine had not yet evolved satisfactorily. If therapists have the wrong starting assumption, then it's not surprising that treatments for lordosis are unhelpful. If a spine fracture causes a lumbar kyphosis (curvature in the opposite direction), that spine is significantly weakened.'
He added that the creationist perspective has always been foundational to his research:
'I start from quite a different position. From my understanding of human anatomy and physiology and my understanding of God, I say that the form of God's creation always matches its function. So you can be sure that the form of the spine is perfectly designed for its function. God has made a wonderful spine. If you start with that premise, it gives you a head start when trying to understand the mechanism of the spine.
When you start to examine the biomechanics of the curved spine, asking why it's that shape, and what's good about it, you find that the arch of the spine has a beautiful purpose. Like the arch of a bridge, it adds strength. Because of that arch in the lumbar spine, a person with a lumbar lordosis can lift proportionally more weight than a gorilla with its kyphotic (opposite curvature) spine! So it's not surprising that treating back pain with postures and exercises that restore the lordosis works exceedingly well'.
Couple of reasons I quoted this. First is to show you that the creationist position believes that all animals and humans were created complete and perfect only 6000 years ago. Since then genetic mutations have slowly entered the various creatures and caused each generation, slowly, to be weaker than its ancestors. So the first humans merely 6000 years ago were the strongest, most intelligent, and we are today the least intelligent and weakest (just because we discovered electricity and a few other things it may appear like we know more, but imagine that our ancestors could have achieved the same or more if they had discovered electricity too). So we do not believe that evolution from a single celled life to humans occurred in a short space of 6000 years. We beleive the creation was perfect at the first. There are thousands more words I could say on this, but instead I'll just encourage you to understand the creationist position properly if you are ever interested to know what we believe before you condemn it. Most people I argue with here know just enough of creationism to sound like they know what they are talking about but not enough to actually comprehend our position or successfully attack it.
The second reason why I wanted to mention this was to show you that coming from a creationist position makes science still possible - and even helps it make more sense. Consider that when you believe the universe is 4.5 billion years old and that evolution from a single cell to what we see today took place over that time - you have a view of the world you try to make the evidence fit. For example, you look at humans today as being superior to their ancestors, and inferior to the forms to come. This shapes your biases, where you look for answers, what sort of answers you expect to find. Just like Richard Porter said above, coming towards a problem from different positions results in different conclusions, sometimes harmful ones. Consider that if evolution is false that science will only be able to progress so far under that model.
I am of the view that discussions of origins - evolution, creation, etc are all philosophical. However, these philosophical arguments employ scientific evidence.
Just one thing to keep in mind, you certainly weren't lying I can tell when you said you haven't encountered the creationist position yet. It is clear that you don't know much about it. So my advice is that when you try to understand what we believe you may try to do it in the context of evolution, which is going to lead to confusion. I'll see if I can think of an analogy....I guess cultural differences are the best. When you go to a foreign country you may find it very very hard to fit in. Everything about this culture may be so foreign, and you will try to understand it in relation to your native culture - but this will only lead to confusion. Ok, maybe a bad example:) Either way, please understand our position first!
Go well.
(if you are interested about the spine expert, I read it in this magazine. - Standing upright for creation)
Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
You have misunderstood the creationist position. We acknowledge mutations occur like this. There is plenty of creationist literature talking about this topic. If you are genuinely interested you can find it yourself. If you can't work it out then e-mail the crew at www.answersingenesis.com and ask them why this doesn't prove evolution. Needless to say, this experiment of yours does not confirm evolution or deny creation.
Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
As I said just before:
I'm used to being ridiculed as a believer of fairy tales when the people who say it obviously don't understand what I am saying.
I'm tired of arguing with people who like to ridicule and insult first, and then start the argument. So forget it, I'm not going to answer for you.
Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 2
You are correct about science not taking into account God in its predictions. However, I would be disturbed if believing in God implied that science, and indeed logic, would have no place. You are implying that when God acts that our predictions will fail. I believe that the world is rational with God and irrational without.
Moving on, I do believe you can prove God. When you say that He cannot be proven to exist, you are working underthe assumption that everything can be explained through science. I put it to you that the earth is only 6000 years old (or close enough), and that evolution over millions of years therefore did not occur. If (lets pretend) that I could demonstrate to you that the earth was indeed only 6000 years old, and that therefore the history that the Bible presents is correct, would you consider this a proof for the existence of God? Or do you have another scientific explanation for how the earth could have been created so recently without God?
Consider also that God's miracles as recorded in the Bible do break the laws of physics, but they do not break all laws. The very fact that we can reason, argue, and understand logic I think is a testimony that there is a logical and rational explanation for everything. So when God performs a miracle, such as parting the red sea, even though it is not physically possible, it is still possible within the laws that God has defined in the universe - including the spiritual realm, to do. An example may be helpful. It is simply not physically possible for man to fly on his own. Yet we can devise wings, aeroplanes, etc, that allow us to apparently "break" this law. Yet we do not break a law, it all makes sense. So too the spiritual realm even though it appears to defy physics, if we could understand more of the laws of the physical and spiritual realms it would make sense, be logical and rational. See where I'm headed?
As for more proof - there is the evidence of the spiritual realm. Largely ignored in the western society, there are definately supernatural occurances. I do acknowledge that many/most supposedly supernatural/miraculous healings and other events today can be explained through the physical realm - hypnotism, suggestion, etc. Yet there are some things that are definately spiritual (supernatural is the common word, but that means above natural, while I think the spiritual is natural, but not physical obviously). For example, people in operating rooms who have been unconscious and floated above their bodies watching doctors operate on them. Then, when they return to their body and wake up they are able to describe to the doctor what was going on, things they couldn't have known through any physical means.
I am happy for you to be sceptical about these stories, it is worthwhile to be. But you may just find some spiritual events that are not explainable through the physical. Believing in the spiritual realm I think provides a very good evidence for God. So would it if I could demonstrate that the earth were only 6000 years old. Another excellent evidence is our sense of morals. Our sense of morality is simply not in line with what evolution would have required for the last 4.5 billion years.
Well, I spent an hour surfing the link that someone provided, and there seems to be other "creationists" around, that doesn't subscribe to your version of the theory...
There are, no doubt. Just like there are evolutionists that claim humans were created and formed by aliens...like that Canadian cult at the moment claiming to have the first human clone. The most widely acknowledged, recognised, and researched creationists ascribe to the same views I present - including an acceptance of natural selection. This includes icr.org answersingenesis.com and creationscience.com. If my views or opinions at any time differ with theirs then I submit myself to their superior understanding, since I am only laiety while they have dedicated their work to this topic.
So i'm curious to know if you would consider any of the above things proofs, or at least excellent evidence, of God's existence or not? I certainly think He can be proven to exist, or at least shown to fit the available evidence much better. Actually, perhaps one of the greatest proofs is when He came to earth as the man Jesus the Christ - and the resurrection. Another topic worth pursuing if you want evidence for God's existence. What better evidence than from when he walked among us, died and then rose from the dead? A good starting point that I would recommend to give you an idea of where to look if you are genuinely looking for evidence and the answers would be this book. It gives you an overview of the issues involved, and the answers given. Excellent resource, but also a great starting point if you want to look more in depth. It is the journey of one journalist who was an atheist as he goes to find out whether the things he believes about christianity are true or not - inspired to do so when his wife becomes a christian.
Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 2
So even though evolution as a theory may be proven "wrong" at a later date, it'll still be mostly "right." As Newtons' laws still are.
You know, you might have actually hit the nail on the head here. Most evolutionsts (or perhaps all) that I have encountered have simply not understood the creationist argument. In fact it surprises them that creationists also believe that natural selection occurs, and is quite natural. They think that we reject natural selection. One even suggested that I believed a different brand (one of many) of creationism to the rest. This is false, since the most recognised creationists all agree that natural selection occurs. It's a process, its maths, it simply happens.
Now when you say evolution, you are most likely talking about natural selection. Natural selection is proven, demonstrated. What has not been demonstrated is that chance mutations can lead to the introduction of benefical genes that will later lead to a new species and a superior lifeform. Natural selection is merely the selection of genes. Where the two sides differ is where the genes originally came from. Creationists say they were present in the beginning from the two parent species, while evolutionists say these genes came from chance mutations.
Now, getting back to what you were saying - if evolution were proven false then it will still leave a remnant that is "mostly right". This remnant would be natural selection. This process appears to support evolution, but in fact it is expected of the creationist model too. And I think this is one of the main reasons why evolutionists are so confused as to how the creationist could reject evolution when there seems to be so much evidence.
Now let me start by saying that I'm not really an expert on evolution, since I'm european I've never had to be. There are no creationists here to speak of, and hence I'm not well versed in their way of thinking. I am a "scientist" however, so I'm somewhat qualified to speak about that.
I'm used to being ridiculed as a believer of fairy tales when the people who say it obviously don't understand what I am saying. I hope that since you have not encountered us much you are willing, and will remain willing, to discuss these opinions with respect towards each other as we all try to understand the truth - because that is ultimately what is important. I don't believe creationism because I need to, but because I genuinely believe it is true and has the weight of evidence. If I was proven wrong then I would believe in evolution. I encourage you to find out more about the creationist argument. If you genuinely learn our model then you will probably be surprised at how coherent it is and how well it fits the observable facts. But please don't become like everyone else I have encountered - who is quick to speak without understanding even the basics of the creationist model. As I mentioned before, like those who think that the creationist model of the universe rejects natural selection.
Question is, is the Australian deaths by firearms more or less than the US (taking into account population)?
Guns just aren't seen here in Australia. Occasionally a man will own a rifle or a shotgun or something that he keeps locked away and uses when he goes hunting - but you never see guns in the street. We simply don't have them.
So I'm not sure what your stats are trying to prove? If you can demonstrate that Australia's gun problem is worse compared to a country like America where you can carry personal firearms, then fine. Otherwise I think this is just rubbish - doesn't fit with what I see. I don't deny the facts you present. What I dispute is that they somehow demonstrate that not being allowed to carry personal firearms decreases the life expectancy of civilians.
Walking down the street I simply do not expect to see someone with a gun, and that is the reality I am confronted with. There are some exceptions, but this is by far the rule 99.99% of the time for everyone here.
On the other hand, I acknowledge that if America were to eliminate personal firearms it would take a while before the benefits would outweigh the problems. This is because you are all used to carrying guns, so many will continue - and guns will already be present everywhere. It will take a long time for you to be similar to how we are.
I'm talking more about culture, ease of use, and whats naturally already available. Obviously anything possible on a PC can probably be made possible on a console and vice versa. So this discussion is more related to which has the best advantages easily available, the best culture, and what we prefer.
It is obvious that the console is the perfect solution under some circumstances. However, it does not meet my gaming needs, and I don't see this happening in the forseeable future. Even if those changes you mention are made, it will all be a lot more difficult and less cultural than the PC solution. Especially the 2. Control point - fiddling with keyboards and modding it with patches, hardware, etc, is nowhere near as simple as a PC. Nor would mods spread as much since they would need to run on similarily hacked machines.
The advantages of console are obvious: cheaper hardware, quick to boot (no need to deal with OS menu selection, icons, etc), easy to take with you.
However, I will stick with a PC. Few of the reasons: * Power - you simply cannot get more power on a console. The new GeForce FX will come out and allow us PC users to boost the power of our games instantly. Combine this with nVidia's Cg when it becomes used more and the difference will be noticeable in old and new games alike * Control - I can do many things with games not possible on a consol (or not easily). Example - server, game stats, modding, program - customization. Consoles are made to work and not be touched. * Input devices - PC's have the mouse. Console pads can work on a PC too. But the mouse is simply the best input device for games like Quake, Halflife, etc. I could not use a console stick and still get as many frags. Even if you can get the mouse for the console, the games are designed with the gamepad in mind. PC games are designed with the mouse and keyboard in mind. Much more control.
Gar, this is so frustrating! Been waiting for so long for the client. This was an opportunity that the Linux community had to be in at the start to help with the flow of mods.
Still, I must really thank bioware. The fact that BINK and Miles only run on windows will do a great service to Linux. This will draw attention to the fact that some companies (such as Bioware) are remaining committed to bringing the game to Linux. As a consequence, it will draw attention to all those people who think it is acceptable to produce products that run on windows only, or windows and linux. And yes, I am also thinking of all those web designers who think Internet Explorer is the only web browser being used, and everyone should just download it - after all its free.
So even though the difficulty of bringing out the client may be a downside, I think that Bioware's persistance could serve to aid us, along with putting to shame solutions like BINK and Miles.
I have friends waiting for me to get the Linux client. We could play before that, but once I have the client I am much more likely to get involved. Then we can get a campaign started. Until that time, even my windows friends who purchased the game are not doing much more in the meantime.
Slashdot Mirror
I was surprised when I saw Cringely had written this. I'd always assumed he knew more than this, since he's such a well known public figure.
When I read that I guessed that he must have known something I didn't, but the way he wrote it sounded like "because it looks like the old command prompt, it must be the same".
How could he make such a large oversight?
Yep thanks, but as you suspected I did already know this :)
Heh, I love that idea :) I'll be sure to implement it when I get my own domain.
In this interview they talk with the authors of the Conectiva Crystal icons, and about using karbon to make them. They link to this screenshot.
Even though this is my first venture into vector art, I must say I like it - it looks like it could even make an artist out of me!
I can't say that a great deal of people are impressed with America's past frontier and their dealings with the original inhabitants and owners.
Still, that is all in the past and your main point prevails. Most people have always been like this. If you look at Chinese personality types earth is the most common along with fire, and the earth types are very resistant to change. The slashdot readers are more likely to be one of the types that love change and live for it (I certainly am one of those). I think there will always be fighting, but I think it creates a healthy balance.
I can't help but wonder about what moving to the stars will do for society and culture as a whole. Our boundaries have by and large been limited to earth - but there are enough of us that which to escape its borders that such a program will eventually take place, it will have to. After all, the pioneers are the ones who foster progress, the ones who start businesses. They cannot resist us for long!
Some ISP's participate in blocking spam from known open relay hosts. I don't think they'd actually filter much beyond that but they might. I'd be worried about them using apps to try and guess which is spam, but I'm not worried about them blocking known open relay hosts.
Sheesh, 81 spam e-mails so far today? I guess I really don't appreciate how much of a problem this is for American's, especially the ones who have been around for a while with the same address.
My e-mail address tends to change every 2-3 years. So far I've had this new one about 5 months perhaps, and only get one spam e-mail every week or so. Of course, I don't know how much of this is because my ISP is doing its part to stop spam.
Nevertheless, this sounds like a small victory. Unless I misunderstand...
I've always preferred Gnome. Well, until a couple of weeks ago when I became uncertain. I had resigned to the fact that kde was more popular and almost certain to dominate the desktop despite my preferring gnome. Yet Shawn made the point that gnome has the funding, and therefore the powerful applications. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
On another thought, perhaps we need to change the attitude we have towards making applications. Many have considered it, and some do it - separating the program from the interface, Qt or GTK. What if we create the program like games are often made today? An engine with an interface, but a powerful sdk for developing your own mods and changes. So if we have a powerful e-mail client such as evolution, have all the code and features done including interface, but designed in such a way that any new programmer could come along and create a Qt, OpenGL or whatever interface himself. We separate the code from the interface, with functions to hook them together.
This could potentially tie in with plugins, making them easier to create, since most parts of the program would be made easily accessible to the interface for new programmers.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I was asking for an answer, because I am willing to learn and don't feel a need to pretend that I do know everything about programming.
Thanks. Though I remember trying to just blank the char out - or even use a new char for the second send and it still had the same problem. Which seemed really strange to me. Only a memset/memcpy (can't remember, think the latter) seemed to work.
Sorry I'm being vague, but a person who is competent at socket programming will _probably_ know what I'm talking about. So I'm curious, is this the same problem we read about here that I encountered, or is it just a misunderstanding of mine into the details of socket programming? I'd love to understand.
Thanks
Neither would I. But this particular instance of a virtual world does not feel like the makings of a healthy environment to me.
I can't see much positive from this project. I'm in favor of virtual worlds as a supplement to reality which let us experience something new, something otherwise unobtainable. But lets keep that in the world of fantasy, and not confuse it with reality, please.
That is the result of a loss of genes, but a genetic mutation nonetheless. In this case, this normal disadvantage becomes an advantage. The weakness is a strength. But its hardly evolutionary. I said that chance mutations can lead to the introduction of beneficial genes that will later lead to a new species and a superior lifeform . These kinds of mutations involve the changing of existing genes, or the loss of information. Never is new information added.
Basically, the example given was about bacteria that become immune to certain anti-biotics. This has been discussed by creationists - when some of these bacteria gain a specific immunity, they become weak somewhere else. Hardly evolutionary. Mutations occur, but they involve the loss or change of information - never the introduction of information required to reach a new species, for example from homo-erectus to homo-sapien, or from a single celled lifeform to humans, or from reptiles to birds. See where I'm heading? You have a string of genes, some of those values change. Almost always the change is harmful - but sometimes this turns out to be advantegous, such as the loss of wings. Not evolutionary, more like entropy.
Here is an article for your reference and further understanding: Superbugs
I'm quite sure that you have quite a lot to learn about the creationist position, and frankly its not worth my time explaining again because it is always misunderstood. Unless you are the exception amongst the rule (which would be refreshing).
As a summary then, trust me when I say that the acceptance of the creation model (6000 year old earth, etc) would not spell the end of science and physics as we know it. In fact there are many scientists who believe in creation as I do - a young earth. One recent example I was reading about is Richard Porter a human spine expert. He said that coming from a creationist position has helped him more than those coming from an evolutionary perspective. As he said:
Couple of reasons I quoted this. First is to show you that the creationist position believes that all animals and humans were created complete and perfect only 6000 years ago. Since then genetic mutations have slowly entered the various creatures and caused each generation, slowly, to be weaker than its ancestors. So the first humans merely 6000 years ago were the strongest, most intelligent, and we are today the least intelligent and weakest (just because we discovered electricity and a few other things it may appear like we know more, but imagine that our ancestors could have achieved the same or more if they had discovered electricity too). So we do not believe that evolution from a single celled life to humans occurred in a short space of 6000 years. We beleive the creation was perfect at the first. There are thousands more words I could say on this, but instead I'll just encourage you to understand the creationist position properly if you are ever interested to know what we believe before you condemn it. Most people I argue with here know just enough of creationism to sound like they know what they are talking about but not enough to actually comprehend our position or successfully attack it.
The second reason why I wanted to mention this was to show you that coming from a creationist position makes science still possible - and even helps it make more sense. Consider that when you believe the universe is 4.5 billion years old and that evolution from a single cell to what we see today took place over that time - you have a view of the world you try to make the evidence fit. For example, you look at humans today as being superior to their ancestors, and inferior to the forms to come. This shapes your biases, where you look for answers, what sort of answers you expect to find. Just like Richard Porter said above, coming towards a problem from different positions results in different conclusions, sometimes harmful ones. Consider that if evolution is false that science will only be able to progress so far under that model.
I am of the view that discussions of origins - evolution, creation, etc are all philosophical. However, these philosophical arguments employ scientific evidence.
Just one thing to keep in mind, you certainly weren't lying I can tell when you said you haven't encountered the creationist position yet. It is clear that you don't know much about it. So my advice is that when you try to understand what we believe you may try to do it in the context of evolution, which is going to lead to confusion. I'll see if I can think of an analogy....I guess cultural differences are the best. When you go to a foreign country you may find it very very hard to fit in. Everything about this culture may be so foreign, and you will try to understand it in relation to your native culture - but this will only lead to confusion. Ok, maybe a bad example :) Either way, please understand our position first!
Go well.
(if you are interested about the spine expert, I read it in this magazine. - Standing upright for creation)
You have misunderstood the creationist position. We acknowledge mutations occur like this. There is plenty of creationist literature talking about this topic. If you are genuinely interested you can find it yourself. If you can't work it out then e-mail the crew at www.answersingenesis.com and ask them why this doesn't prove evolution. Needless to say, this experiment of yours does not confirm evolution or deny creation.
I'm used to being ridiculed as a believer of fairy tales when the people who say it obviously don't understand what I am saying.
I'm tired of arguing with people who like to ridicule and insult first, and then start the argument. So forget it, I'm not going to answer for you.
Moving on, I do believe you can prove God. When you say that He cannot be proven to exist, you are working underthe assumption that everything can be explained through science. I put it to you that the earth is only 6000 years old (or close enough), and that evolution over millions of years therefore did not occur. If (lets pretend) that I could demonstrate to you that the earth was indeed only 6000 years old, and that therefore the history that the Bible presents is correct, would you consider this a proof for the existence of God? Or do you have another scientific explanation for how the earth could have been created so recently without God?
Consider also that God's miracles as recorded in the Bible do break the laws of physics, but they do not break all laws. The very fact that we can reason, argue, and understand logic I think is a testimony that there is a logical and rational explanation for everything. So when God performs a miracle, such as parting the red sea, even though it is not physically possible, it is still possible within the laws that God has defined in the universe - including the spiritual realm, to do. An example may be helpful. It is simply not physically possible for man to fly on his own. Yet we can devise wings, aeroplanes, etc, that allow us to apparently "break" this law. Yet we do not break a law, it all makes sense. So too the spiritual realm even though it appears to defy physics, if we could understand more of the laws of the physical and spiritual realms it would make sense, be logical and rational. See where I'm headed?
As for more proof - there is the evidence of the spiritual realm. Largely ignored in the western society, there are definately supernatural occurances. I do acknowledge that many/most supposedly supernatural/miraculous healings and other events today can be explained through the physical realm - hypnotism, suggestion, etc. Yet there are some things that are definately spiritual (supernatural is the common word, but that means above natural, while I think the spiritual is natural, but not physical obviously). For example, people in operating rooms who have been unconscious and floated above their bodies watching doctors operate on them. Then, when they return to their body and wake up they are able to describe to the doctor what was going on, things they couldn't have known through any physical means.
I am happy for you to be sceptical about these stories, it is worthwhile to be. But you may just find some spiritual events that are not explainable through the physical. Believing in the spiritual realm I think provides a very good evidence for God. So would it if I could demonstrate that the earth were only 6000 years old. Another excellent evidence is our sense of morals. Our sense of morality is simply not in line with what evolution would have required for the last 4.5 billion years.
There are, no doubt. Just like there are evolutionists that claim humans were created and formed by aliens...like that Canadian cult at the moment claiming to have the first human clone. The most widely acknowledged, recognised, and researched creationists ascribe to the same views I present - including an acceptance of natural selection. This includes icr.org answersingenesis.com and creationscience.com. If my views or opinions at any time differ with theirs then I submit myself to their superior understanding, since I am only laiety while they have dedicated their work to this topic.
So i'm curious to know if you would consider any of the above things proofs, or at least excellent evidence, of God's existence or not? I certainly think He can be proven to exist, or at least shown to fit the available evidence much better. Actually, perhaps one of the greatest proofs is when He came to earth as the man Jesus the Christ - and the resurrection. Another topic worth pursuing if you want evidence for God's existence. What better evidence than from when he walked among us, died and then rose from the dead? A good starting point that I would recommend to give you an idea of where to look if you are genuinely looking for evidence and the answers would be this book. It gives you an overview of the issues involved, and the answers given. Excellent resource, but also a great starting point if you want to look more in depth. It is the journey of one journalist who was an atheist as he goes to find out whether the things he believes about christianity are true or not - inspired to do so when his wife becomes a christian.
You know, you might have actually hit the nail on the head here. Most evolutionsts (or perhaps all) that I have encountered have simply not understood the creationist argument. In fact it surprises them that creationists also believe that natural selection occurs, and is quite natural. They think that we reject natural selection. One even suggested that I believed a different brand (one of many) of creationism to the rest. This is false, since the most recognised creationists all agree that natural selection occurs. It's a process, its maths, it simply happens.
Now when you say evolution, you are most likely talking about natural selection. Natural selection is proven, demonstrated. What has not been demonstrated is that chance mutations can lead to the introduction of benefical genes that will later lead to a new species and a superior lifeform. Natural selection is merely the selection of genes. Where the two sides differ is where the genes originally came from. Creationists say they were present in the beginning from the two parent species, while evolutionists say these genes came from chance mutations.
Now, getting back to what you were saying - if evolution were proven false then it will still leave a remnant that is "mostly right". This remnant would be natural selection. This process appears to support evolution, but in fact it is expected of the creationist model too. And I think this is one of the main reasons why evolutionists are so confused as to how the creationist could reject evolution when there seems to be so much evidence.
I'm used to being ridiculed as a believer of fairy tales when the people who say it obviously don't understand what I am saying. I hope that since you have not encountered us much you are willing, and will remain willing, to discuss these opinions with respect towards each other as we all try to understand the truth - because that is ultimately what is important. I don't believe creationism because I need to, but because I genuinely believe it is true and has the weight of evidence. If I was proven wrong then I would believe in evolution. I encourage you to find out more about the creationist argument. If you genuinely learn our model then you will probably be surprised at how coherent it is and how well it fits the observable facts. But please don't become like everyone else I have encountered - who is quick to speak without understanding even the basics of the creationist model. As I mentioned before, like those who think that the creationist model of the universe rejects natural selection.
Question is, is the Australian deaths by firearms more or less than the US (taking into account population)?
Guns just aren't seen here in Australia. Occasionally a man will own a rifle or a shotgun or something that he keeps locked away and uses when he goes hunting - but you never see guns in the street. We simply don't have them.
So I'm not sure what your stats are trying to prove? If you can demonstrate that Australia's gun problem is worse compared to a country like America where you can carry personal firearms, then fine. Otherwise I think this is just rubbish - doesn't fit with what I see. I don't deny the facts you present. What I dispute is that they somehow demonstrate that not being allowed to carry personal firearms decreases the life expectancy of civilians.
Walking down the street I simply do not expect to see someone with a gun, and that is the reality I am confronted with. There are some exceptions, but this is by far the rule 99.99% of the time for everyone here.
On the other hand, I acknowledge that if America were to eliminate personal firearms it would take a while before the benefits would outweigh the problems. This is because you are all used to carrying guns, so many will continue - and guns will already be present everywhere. It will take a long time for you to be similar to how we are.
I'm talking more about culture, ease of use, and whats naturally already available. Obviously anything possible on a PC can probably be made possible on a console and vice versa. So this discussion is more related to which has the best advantages easily available, the best culture, and what we prefer.
It is obvious that the console is the perfect solution under some circumstances. However, it does not meet my gaming needs, and I don't see this happening in the forseeable future. Even if those changes you mention are made, it will all be a lot more difficult and less cultural than the PC solution. Especially the 2. Control point - fiddling with keyboards and modding it with patches, hardware, etc, is nowhere near as simple as a PC. Nor would mods spread as much since they would need to run on similarily hacked machines.
The advantages of console are obvious: cheaper hardware, quick to boot (no need to deal with OS menu selection, icons, etc), easy to take with you.
However, I will stick with a PC. Few of the reasons:
* Power - you simply cannot get more power on a console. The new GeForce FX will come out and allow us PC users to boost the power of our games instantly. Combine this with nVidia's Cg when it becomes used more and the difference will be noticeable in old and new games alike
* Control - I can do many things with games not possible on a consol (or not easily). Example - server, game stats, modding, program - customization. Consoles are made to work and not be touched.
* Input devices - PC's have the mouse. Console pads can work on a PC too. But the mouse is simply the best input device for games like Quake, Halflife, etc. I could not use a console stick and still get as many frags. Even if you can get the mouse for the console, the games are designed with the gamepad in mind. PC games are designed with the mouse and keyboard in mind. Much more control.
Let me know if I missed anything.
By putting to shame I meant shame them for not being cross-platform enough, not by creating something better to shame them.
Shouldn't be hard, but I'm pretty sure even those postcard "movies" are using BINK.
Gar, this is so frustrating! Been waiting for so long for the client. This was an opportunity that the Linux community had to be in at the start to help with the flow of mods.
Still, I must really thank bioware. The fact that BINK and Miles only run on windows will do a great service to Linux. This will draw attention to the fact that some companies (such as Bioware) are remaining committed to bringing the game to Linux. As a consequence, it will draw attention to all those people who think it is acceptable to produce products that run on windows only, or windows and linux. And yes, I am also thinking of all those web designers who think Internet Explorer is the only web browser being used, and everyone should just download it - after all its free.
So even though the difficulty of bringing out the client may be a downside, I think that Bioware's persistance could serve to aid us, along with putting to shame solutions like BINK and Miles.
I have friends waiting for me to get the Linux client. We could play before that, but once I have the client I am much more likely to get involved. Then we can get a campaign started. Until that time, even my windows friends who purchased the game are not doing much more in the meantime.