I don't want the U.S. spending money on national healthcare. You want to know why? Europe. Don't use a post that shows Europe more oppressive than the U.S. as an opportunity to jab the U.S. because it's really silly. Nationalized healthcare is a joke. If it were so great why do Canadians often jump the border to get healthcare here? Because there are relatively routine surgeries that they would have to wait months or years for there. Before you start lamenting the lack of socialism in America, go back and read the parent.
I find it interesting that I present only the idea that the two sides should be arguing from the point of logic and intellect and you in your vehement irrationality assume I'm taking a position. I have a position, but my point was not to purport it here but to illustrate the rediculous ways people like to put forth their position. This professor chose to be childish. Someone else pointed out that creationists tend to be much the same. I put forth the idea that so do evolutionists and voila, you appear. Your childish behavior can hardly do a thing to further your position, that's my whole point. I've given no argument for or against either position. That really wasn't the point of this thread, I simply said there are intelligent people on both sides. You take the position that all creationists are idiots, apparently, and that they should fear your superior position simply because if they don't you'll call them a moron.
As far as my position, I believe both sides are systems of faith. Faith being, a belief based on the direction you feel the evidence is pointing you. I believe evolution exists and is the best explanation of how species change and adapt to their surrounding. I do not, however, believe it explains the formation of all species. To me problem I have the most trouble with is that evolution theory is dependent upon events of force for which there is no evidence. In order to explain large changes evolutionists will say there had to be a catalystic event such as radiation exposure or the like to account for gaps in the evolutionary chain. Now you will no doubt have an "in your face" explanation, but my point is that to believe this takes a leap in that you're holding on to the notion it must exist to explain what you see. I think this represents a major flaw in the theory but who knows, there may be evidence for these someday. There are many other holes in the theory. That doesn't mean it's not true, but it does mean that just because someone doesn't accept wholesale evolution as fact that they are idiots.
Thank you for making my point, which is if you're arguing from a point of anger and hostility somebody somewhere will either stop taking you seriously or beat you at your game or their game, more to the point. You're points are simply a more eloquent "in your big fat face" but they really don't bring much to the table. Look, there are intelligent arguments on both sides. It's should take intelligent, open-minded thinkers on both sides to sway a person's opinion. Not "Oh, GeekBoi24 is going to think I'm an idiot if I disagree."
I'd disagree. I've seen far more pettiness on the side of evolution's supporters here on Slashdot and on other sites than I have from creationists. Some are vehement in their position. I've also found that many are so closeminded as to not even entertain the flaws that are very inherent in evolution theory. Look, believing in evolution isn't to believe in some infalible force. To ignore the gaps and flaws in the theory is to be intellectually dishonest. From that standpoint one can hardly point the finger at creationists and call them closedminded. For the record, I've heard debate from some pretty intelligent Intelligent Design defenders. Despite what the 20-something scientist wannabe's around would like to think, there are some big hitters in the camp. Some are very well-established scientists, mathematicians, and physicists. Yet, I've heard so many evolutionists and professors like this guy resort to lowering the argument to "well, they just want to push religion." If that's the only retort you have, don't step into the ring with some of these guys. No matter which side you hail from, know you "enemy" people. There are idiots on both sides and there are some really great thinkers on both sides. Like so many debates, people go in with the idea "I have to win" as opposed to "I wonder what the truth really is."
One of his emails talked about how he couldn't wait to teach this course to throw his position against ID in "their big fat face." Okay, if you profess (ahemm) to be a professor and you can't muster up any more intelligent way to communicate than that I submitt you have no business teaching at a university. Kindergarten? Maybe.
This is a rather expensive and unsporting con. I mean, most grifters like the chase. This company is spending an awful lot of money building technology to extract money from morons.
Dude, I'm with ya! In Atlanta there's a hit radio station about every other frequency on FM. It's really sad. That is a beef I kinda have with CC and any other station. I mean, how much Britany and Gwen do you need in one market!?
Careful your ignorance is showing. The truth is, the number of Clear Channel stations over all hardly equates to a monopoly. I believe the last number I heard, granted about a year old now, was 1750 or so and that's world-wide. Clear Channel is an easy scapegoat because they were deemed "Conservative Friendly" by liberal watchdogs because of the Rally For America rallies, which, btw they didn't sponsor. However, since many of the talk show hosts that encouraged and sponsored the rallies themselves were CC hosts, they got blackballed as sponsors. Eh, what's truth anyway, right? As long as their's more on your side.
Reality-based community? And which one would that be? It's interesting how you would scoff at any hint of subjectivity, closed-mindedness, and censorship but the minute someone offers up simple discussion about possible flaws in your argumentation and you want to kill the discourse. Whether your religious of not, that is hardly objective. Grow up. No really, you should try it.
So Science shouldn't be taught in a private school? And why not? What if the school worshipped an un-named god who they think created the Big Bang and left Earth to it's own? What if they believed god is really a being from another planet? Or, horror of horrors, they actually are a Christian AND a scientist? In fact, there happens to be tens of thousands of them. When you're stupid, you should consider saying (writing) less.
It would seem that the solution is right before everyone's eyes on public WiFi. Why couldn't there be limited speeds on the WiFi, tempting customers to move to land-based Internet for more speed? Frankly, this is probably already the case. How fast with N.O. WiFi be anyway? Just a thought.
Wanna stop them? Make them post the BEFORE rebate price in a larger font than the after price. I hate rebates and frankly think they are way overused in this market segment. As for sucking it up and getting over it, how about just selling it at the price you have advertised? YOU suck it, Mr. Baker. You lure me into a store with this big $99.99 sticker price and wonder why I walk out when I find out my out of pocket expense is $159.00.
Okay, what is needed is Outlook/Exchange features in an open source package. Many are trying to do this. Others manage to by pulling the right tools together. The problem is that many have this perception that Exchange is the end-all to email. It is tough to be but ultimately Exchange is a shit-fat email server. Personally, I wouldn't run it. I'd go out of my way not to simply because I can save so much money NOT running it. The real way to kill it is to have IBM or Novell build something (besides Groupwise). Even if Novell had to revamp Groupwise to do it. The perception is that Groupwise is specialised and passe' so people just aren't going to move to it. That said, an email client for Linux that would seamlessly connect to Exchange and work would go a long way to helping Linux adoption. I think that point is well founded.
Call it an addiction, then you can mitigate responsibility, create a marketplace for consultation, and apply for grant money to "research" it. In the 80's they did the same thing with the word "disease" calling Alcoholism a disease. The fact that SOMEone will reply to this and defend that practice is a testament to its crafty success.
"The company that invented software vulnerability has launched a new AntiVirus application. Microsoft executives say the new initiative, when combined with the relaxed security in such products as Office, Internet Explorer, IIS, and Outlook Express, allows the company's revenue streams to come full circle; making them both the cause-of and solution-to most of your computer's security problems."
I heard on the radio just this morning about this story that scientists do NOT believe this is the effect of Global Warming. But hey, it sure get's those believers stirred up, so who cares about intellectual honesty! This is global science, not objectivity.
And that was my sig for quite awhile. I change it occassionally. Unfortunately, when you change it all of your past posts as well.
However, why mod it as flamebait? My sig has nothing to do with my post. Perhaps my post didn't contribute much either, but I'd still argue IE vulnerabilities are just too commonplace, which was my point.
As for my views on racism, it primarily applies to the U.S. It's a general statement and certainly there are exceptions. I do not wish to convey that racism is non-existent, nor is that what I said. Rather, racism doesn't exist on the scale in the U.S. that the left would have you believe. Furthermore, the very definition of racism is being changed by the left to help keep them in power. The "N" word is a big no-no, as it should be, but pelting a black politician with Oreo cookies and calling him an "Uncle Tom" is acceptable by the left. Selective racism, which is my point. The vast majority of people on the street just get along. My point. You can disagree if you wish. My point isn't dependent upon your believing it. It stands on its own just fine. I can't speak for other countries because I don't live there. I do find it typical that rather than contemplate the statement for a moment, you wish to attack it and me. Hopefully more object readers will take note.
IE is vulnerable and this is news, why? Seriously, people, if you're using IE to actually surf the Web I would argue you're probably already vulnerable because your system is running Windows, all your settings are probably default, and you probably don't care.
Inflamatory? You really shouldn't take things so seriously. Not only that but standing on your desk and calling someone inflamatory isn't going to make it so. Such a big splash for such a paultry issue. I'm sorry, and somewhat puzzled, that you were so offended.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want the U.S. spending money on national healthcare. You want to know why? Europe. Don't use a post that shows Europe more oppressive than the U.S. as an opportunity to jab the U.S. because it's really silly. Nationalized healthcare is a joke. If it were so great why do Canadians often jump the border to get healthcare here? Because there are relatively routine surgeries that they would have to wait months or years for there. Before you start lamenting the lack of socialism in America, go back and read the parent.
I find it interesting that I present only the idea that the two sides should be arguing from the point of logic and intellect and you in your vehement irrationality assume I'm taking a position. I have a position, but my point was not to purport it here but to illustrate the rediculous ways people like to put forth their position. This professor chose to be childish. Someone else pointed out that creationists tend to be much the same. I put forth the idea that so do evolutionists and voila, you appear. Your childish behavior can hardly do a thing to further your position, that's my whole point. I've given no argument for or against either position. That really wasn't the point of this thread, I simply said there are intelligent people on both sides. You take the position that all creationists are idiots, apparently, and that they should fear your superior position simply because if they don't you'll call them a moron.
As far as my position, I believe both sides are systems of faith. Faith being, a belief based on the direction you feel the evidence is pointing you. I believe evolution exists and is the best explanation of how species change and adapt to their surrounding. I do not, however, believe it explains the formation of all species. To me problem I have the most trouble with is that evolution theory is dependent upon events of force for which there is no evidence. In order to explain large changes evolutionists will say there had to be a catalystic event such as radiation exposure or the like to account for gaps in the evolutionary chain. Now you will no doubt have an "in your face" explanation, but my point is that to believe this takes a leap in that you're holding on to the notion it must exist to explain what you see. I think this represents a major flaw in the theory but who knows, there may be evidence for these someday. There are many other holes in the theory. That doesn't mean it's not true, but it does mean that just because someone doesn't accept wholesale evolution as fact that they are idiots.
Thank you for making my point, which is if you're arguing from a point of anger and hostility somebody somewhere will either stop taking you seriously or beat you at your game or their game, more to the point. You're points are simply a more eloquent "in your big fat face" but they really don't bring much to the table. Look, there are intelligent arguments on both sides. It's should take intelligent, open-minded thinkers on both sides to sway a person's opinion. Not "Oh, GeekBoi24 is going to think I'm an idiot if I disagree."
I don't know where you're going, but Google still has a plain, no ad page when I go to their main page.
I'd disagree. I've seen far more pettiness on the side of evolution's supporters here on Slashdot and on other sites than I have from creationists. Some are vehement in their position. I've also found that many are so closeminded as to not even entertain the flaws that are very inherent in evolution theory. Look, believing in evolution isn't to believe in some infalible force. To ignore the gaps and flaws in the theory is to be intellectually dishonest. From that standpoint one can hardly point the finger at creationists and call them closedminded. For the record, I've heard debate from some pretty intelligent Intelligent Design defenders. Despite what the 20-something scientist wannabe's around would like to think, there are some big hitters in the camp. Some are very well-established scientists, mathematicians, and physicists. Yet, I've heard so many evolutionists and professors like this guy resort to lowering the argument to "well, they just want to push religion." If that's the only retort you have, don't step into the ring with some of these guys. No matter which side you hail from, know you "enemy" people. There are idiots on both sides and there are some really great thinkers on both sides. Like so many debates, people go in with the idea "I have to win" as opposed to "I wonder what the truth really is."
One of his emails talked about how he couldn't wait to teach this course to throw his position against ID in "their big fat face." Okay, if you profess (ahemm) to be a professor and you can't muster up any more intelligent way to communicate than that I submitt you have no business teaching at a university. Kindergarten? Maybe.
This is a rather expensive and unsporting con. I mean, most grifters like the chase. This company is spending an awful lot of money building technology to extract money from morons.
Dude, I'm with ya! In Atlanta there's a hit radio station about every other frequency on FM. It's really sad. That is a beef I kinda have with CC and any other station. I mean, how much Britany and Gwen do you need in one market!?
Boo!
Careful your ignorance is showing. The truth is, the number of Clear Channel stations over all hardly equates to a monopoly. I believe the last number I heard, granted about a year old now, was 1750 or so and that's world-wide. Clear Channel is an easy scapegoat because they were deemed "Conservative Friendly" by liberal watchdogs because of the Rally For America rallies, which, btw they didn't sponsor. However, since many of the talk show hosts that encouraged and sponsored the rallies themselves were CC hosts, they got blackballed as sponsors. Eh, what's truth anyway, right? As long as their's more on your side.
Reality-based community? And which one would that be? It's interesting how you would scoff at any hint of subjectivity, closed-mindedness, and censorship but the minute someone offers up simple discussion about possible flaws in your argumentation and you want to kill the discourse. Whether your religious of not, that is hardly objective. Grow up. No really, you should try it.
So Science shouldn't be taught in a private school? And why not? What if the school worshipped an un-named god who they think created the Big Bang and left Earth to it's own? What if they believed god is really a being from another planet? Or, horror of horrors, they actually are a Christian AND a scientist? In fact, there happens to be tens of thousands of them. When you're stupid, you should consider saying (writing) less.
It would seem that the solution is right before everyone's eyes on public WiFi. Why couldn't there be limited speeds on the WiFi, tempting customers to move to land-based Internet for more speed? Frankly, this is probably already the case. How fast with N.O. WiFi be anyway? Just a thought.
This guy is an idiot. But hey, his title ends in 'ist' so he must have a point, right?
Wanna stop them? Make them post the BEFORE rebate price in a larger font than the after price. I hate rebates and frankly think they are way overused in this market segment. As for sucking it up and getting over it, how about just selling it at the price you have advertised? YOU suck it, Mr. Baker. You lure me into a store with this big $99.99 sticker price and wonder why I walk out when I find out my out of pocket expense is $159.00.
Okay, what is needed is Outlook/Exchange features in an open source package. Many are trying to do this. Others manage to by pulling the right tools together. The problem is that many have this perception that Exchange is the end-all to email. It is tough to be but ultimately Exchange is a shit-fat email server. Personally, I wouldn't run it. I'd go out of my way not to simply because I can save so much money NOT running it. The real way to kill it is to have IBM or Novell build something (besides Groupwise). Even if Novell had to revamp Groupwise to do it. The perception is that Groupwise is specialised and passe' so people just aren't going to move to it. That said, an email client for Linux that would seamlessly connect to Exchange and work would go a long way to helping Linux adoption. I think that point is well founded.
Just as surely as Al Gore invented the Internet, Bub! ;)
Call it an addiction, then you can mitigate responsibility, create a marketplace for consultation, and apply for grant money to "research" it. In the 80's they did the same thing with the word "disease" calling Alcoholism a disease. The fact that SOMEone will reply to this and defend that practice is a testament to its crafty success.
"The company that invented software vulnerability has launched a new AntiVirus application. Microsoft executives say the new initiative, when combined with the relaxed security in such products as Office, Internet Explorer, IIS, and Outlook Express, allows the company's revenue streams to come full circle; making them both the cause-of and solution-to most of your computer's security problems."
Careful...I feel a "Flamebait" mod coming.
Of course, you have an excellent point, but SOMEONE will not like it.
I heard on the radio just this morning about this story that scientists do NOT believe this is the effect of Global Warming. But hey, it sure get's those believers stirred up, so who cares about intellectual honesty! This is global science, not objectivity.
And that was my sig for quite awhile. I change it occassionally. Unfortunately, when you change it all of your past posts as well.
However, why mod it as flamebait? My sig has nothing to do with my post. Perhaps my post didn't contribute much either, but I'd still argue IE vulnerabilities are just too commonplace, which was my point.
As for my views on racism, it primarily applies to the U.S. It's a general statement and certainly there are exceptions. I do not wish to convey that racism is non-existent, nor is that what I said. Rather, racism doesn't exist on the scale in the U.S. that the left would have you believe. Furthermore, the very definition of racism is being changed by the left to help keep them in power. The "N" word is a big no-no, as it should be, but pelting a black politician with Oreo cookies and calling him an "Uncle Tom" is acceptable by the left. Selective racism, which is my point. The vast majority of people on the street just get along. My point. You can disagree if you wish. My point isn't dependent upon your believing it. It stands on its own just fine. I can't speak for other countries because I don't live there.
I do find it typical that rather than contemplate the statement for a moment, you wish to attack it and me. Hopefully more object readers will take note.
Innovation via impersonation.
IE is vulnerable and this is news, why? Seriously, people, if you're using IE to actually surf the Web I would argue you're probably already vulnerable because your system is running Windows, all your settings are probably default, and you probably don't care.
Inflamatory? You really shouldn't take things so seriously. Not only that but standing on your desk and calling someone inflamatory isn't going to make it so. Such a big splash for such a paultry issue.
I'm sorry, and somewhat puzzled, that you were so offended.