It's used when you don't want to be too precise about such things.
It's used when you want to read more into something than you should (hint: there is only 1 kind of human, there is no "modern" vs "early" human) specifically for purposes of spreading doubt about Creation and facts (but not evidence) that attempt to explain a theory that has yet to take shape. There, I corrected that for you.
Researchers extracted mitochondrial DNA from the femur of a 400,000-year-old hominin
By the way, did anyone verify the measuring "stick" used to verify the 400,000 year age of this bone to ensure the measuring "stick" was itself accurate? I didn't think so. Carry on with your delusions and your faith in something that can't be proven by the best scientists that mankind can offer.
My pet peeve is that many people don't know that timezone names change when DST kicks off and on. So EST turns into EDT and so on. So using EST throughout the entire year is wrong. Lack of education I guess?
I'm unsure why some people deny the gift of free will. I guess because indirectly it allows them to deny the existence of a Creator who gave us that gift because they hate all things religious. It may also give them the ability to do whatever they damn well please by using the excuse they couldn't help themselves (i.e. weak minded). Criminals try taking advantage of this quite frequently. Many people like to view free will such that they have choices concerning whether or not to do something good but that free will magically stops at those actions which are evil. Again, that merely just proves they would prefer to satisfy their own agendas and bias to avoid punishment, retribution, etc. for their bad/evil/immoral/unethical actions brought on by their choices. But in the end, if you don't believe in free will then what's the point in having any moral code whatsoever? If you don't believe you can control what your mind tells your body to do then you should be able to argue that you have no reason to be held accountable for any wrongdoing, whether deemed wrong by you or society. Therefore what's the point in deeming something moral if you can't be held accountable for the immoral?
For those who deny free will, I ask you to prove it. Every decision you make on a daily basis proves you have free will. The mundane decisions in our lives don't disprove my statement. The fact that someone who knows you may be able to guess what your decision will be for any given choice doesn't force you into still making a specific choice, because you may still change your mind at the last minute. For the times when your friend is right when guessing what your choice will be it simply shows they know your tendencies and can infer based on their knowledge of you what you will choose. But *you* still have the final say. This is true despite your current emotion and is true despite your DNA, contrary to what criminals and homosexuals (notice 2 *separate* categories: criminals and homosexuals) would have you believe.
Free will is our greatest gift and it is also one of the fundamental properties of being a human being that so many people would prefer to ignore or outright deny as fact. Let me put it in the most basic terms possible for the laymen who choose to deny it: if we, as a species, didn't have free will, none of us wouldn't have the ability to choose when to wake up in the morning, when to eat breakfast, when to go to work, when to take vacation, when to take a new job, when to buy a new car/house, who to work for, with whom to go on your first date, who first to kiss, with whom to first have sex, whom to marry, etc. You may think that you can disprove the existence of free will by merely believing in [the Christian] God long enough to argue that if He is all powerful and has a plan then He is what defines what happens to us but you would be wrong again in your incorrect understanding of Christianity because even if He, for example, presents us with a new job opportunity He still leaves the final decision to us. He can't force us to accept the new job. Just as well, if Satan tempts us with drugs or money, we have the same free will to accept or deny those material desires. The mere fact that we have decision-making capability dictates we have free will.
More importantly, free will is completely separate from instincts and that is why humans are not animals. Of course, many people would prefer to deny that because again, it would lead to a mental conflict that involves having to accept the existence of a God that created Man and beast as separate entities rather than a natural process called evolution that created both as one in the same. Animals can only act on instincts; Man however, can choose whether to kill based on his moral compass. Only Man is held accountable for those same actions. A lot of people *hate* that they are held accountable to a higher power so they simply deny those concepts/theories/etc. that lend credence to a Creator and instead believe in those concepts that support their personal worldview of h
So the real issue you have is that other people have a problem with your decision. Okay, that makes sense and I'd be pissed off if someone had issues with a choice I made and went so far as to chastise or persecute me for it. If I know ahead of time that there are, unfortunately, ignorant people in this world then that needs to be one of the factors I take into consideration for making a decision and acting on it; that's just a fact of life. There are, however, people who will disagree with you on fundamental grounds that it is still a choice to change your sex. They won't persecute you for it. They will still accept you as a person but that doesn't mean they have to accept your decisions or your choices, nor are they obligated to do so. You may claim that lack of acceptance in and of itself is persecution but you would be wrong. It's called disagreeing. And it is a part of everyday life that everyone needs to realize and be able to recognize so that person who are surprised that not everyone accepts their actions (I'm still only talking about the people who do so respectfully) don't go crying back to mommy or the government demanding that person A or group B who disagreed with said action be punished for the disagreement.
These statements also are true for the LGB portion of the LGBT group.
If you want to share your side of things with someone who can relate to the problems you face, try talking to a Christian sometime, specifically one who has been chastised for their beliefs, ridiculed, silenced, maybe even attacked physically (because they are expected to not fight back and then are ridiculed if they do).
Your genetics aren't a choice but *how* you live your life and portray your gender *is* a choice because all those things rely on our actions, which we all have control over. "it's who someone is" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say "it's who someone wants to be". If you disagree with that then I'll have to deem you a bigot.
A piece of software can't take into consideration EVERY POSSIBLE CHOICE THAT HUMAN BEINGS CAN MAKE ABOUT THEIR LIVES because 1) it takes too much time to code up all the choices that would rarely occur [ but apparently Obamacare has tried to accommodate in its coding system all the reasons that someone needs medical treatment and that's a mess, not to mention a waste of time], 2) the number of possible choices we could ever make in a general sense are infinite anyway and 3) even if you want to speak of limiting the possible choices that humans can make about their lives to a specific question, such as marriage in this case, you still have to remember that we're dealing with choice. Everyone else isn't responsible for ensuring any given individual's choice is recognized just to make them feel better.
Case in point, since when do we need more than 1 bit of information to store the possible values associated with gender? Gender is binary: male or female. Even the disorders listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_disorders still ultimately categorizes the person's resulting gender into male or female. And more to the point of my argument regarding choice, if you want to change your gender, that's your decision. Don't expect everyone and everything else to accommodate that choice. That changing is only skin deep anyway even if you have surgery. As someone else already stated, it doesn't change your genetic code. I'm unsure why we have to muddy the waters with what people look like as the method for defining sex rather than looking at genetic code, which doesn't change.
People have been bringing this up at city council meetings only to be told by the council members that this type of activity is necessary to keep us safe - the typical GOP line.
Hate to burst your bubble but that isn't relegated to just a GOP anymore (if it ever was). Liberals are pushing more and more for a police state, not the GOP. Liberals like having control and a police state gives them control.
Yay, more info to make the liberals and eco-crazies tell the rest of us how we must live in order to save the planet at the expense of our bank account and/or our comfort. We are more worried about the so-called issues the polar bears are experiencing than we are about the million babies aborted each year, which is REAL, not propaganda. Anyone who believes this is actionable info has their priorities messed up.
This is supposed to be a phone I can carry in my pocket not a home theater in my pocket. I'm not an Android fan anyway but I wouldn't want any phone to have a 5" screen because I'm not going to use it to watch TV/movies. Granted, I watch youtube videos sometimes on my iphone 5 but I don't need a 5" screen to do that nor would I want one. It wouldn't fit comfortably in my pocket.
to gather information to 'one-up' your competition or to make yourself look good to your friends then you aren't very good. And in this case, breaking the law by breaking into companies is cheating.
I was a gov't contractor for 8 years and worked in small cube farms (when at the contractor facility) but eventually got located to the actual gov't facility where 3k+ people worked. There were certainly distractions in both situations due to people (including myself) talking to their coworkers about certain things, not always work related. Our work still got completed. However, given the nature of our projects where we had project mgmt, software engineering, system engineering (me), integration and testing, and the infrastructure teams all working together every day, we needed that face time where 2 or 3 of us would sometimes have ad-hoc meetings to hash out some issue that cropped up that involved using a whiteboard.
Fast forward through about 3-4 years of being onsite with the customer to when I took a job with a silicon valley company (I live on the East Coast). The first year of that position I was actually assigned to be an onsite tech for the same gov't agency and in the same facility I had been working as a contractor for the last 8 years. So not much changed. The contract expired last year and hasn't been renewed yet. So the plan was if that happened I'd just work from home as a member of the tech support team. So that's what I do now. Our structure is that the majority of the members work onsite in the silicon valley office. But even some of them don't commute everyday (if anything, due to traffic) and so work remotely from their homes. One person lives in the central US and only commutes every couple months and then there is me on the East Coast. I have only visited my company HQ 3 times since I started and will have a 4th trip next week.
How do things go in that situation? I won't deny that face time is always a good thing when working out problems but most of the time in tech support if you have enough experience then you can handle most issues on your own anyway. All of us sometimes have an issue we aren't sure about so we rely on IM and email to find out if someone has already encountered the issue before. We'll still chat over IM to still simulate the office banter to keep ourselves entertained but we are able to focus on support cases better, I think, because we can *choose* when to have the typical office distractions. Of course, our office distractions over IM are definitely more invisible than people laughing loudly in the cube next door. And, at least for me, 3 people carrying on loudly doesn't bother me because I'm at home.
Is working from home perfect for everyone and for every job? Definitely not. Even if someone has a job like I do in tech support their home life may not be conducive to the job and vice versa. Luckily, I have a reasonably well set up home office and I've worked out how to organize and layout everything with the space I have. My wife eventually moved her office downstairs away from me so we wouldn't distract each other. We don't have kids but we do have 3 dogs. So we don't have kids constantly running around and being loud but the dogs do need tending to. My job allows me to do that as a way to take a break from being on the phone with customers. An important item to note here is that our manager and our manager's manager trust us to work when we're not in the office. And they of course can see if we do by looking at our support case statistics. They understand that, at least for us in tech support, it can be stressful, and working from home can be a stress reliever (again, if your home life is conducive to that). Those who can't manage time wisely and get easily distracted will probably have trouble working in an office environment or at home. But if their family life isn't conducive to working from home then they will probably have a more difficult time at home because kids don't always understand that daddy has to be left alone for a while but co-workers do understand that (except for occasional office pranks).
Another thing that helps greatly in my opinion is that, since I'm in the tech support dept, most conversations that occur between us and the
we need to stop the entire human race from living because we pollute the air too much so our planet just isn't able to survive anymore. Apparently all these studies are supposed to convince enough people among us believe the planet is more important than human life so the government then takes it upon itself to mandate we have to pay more to use energy to stay warm/cool, fine companies that use more energy or pollute more than others, subsidize 'green' energy sources that just aren't ready for mass acceptance just so we can transport ourselves around the planet, pay more to light up our homes and offices, etc. and feel guilty while doing it.
Maybe, just maybe, if the earth is getting warmer maybe it's just due to the fact there are 6 billions of us on the planet and our bodies give off heat (increasing the entropy of the universe) rather than the contraptions we build indirectly causing the earth to warm up due to pollution? Oh wait, that's not the right argument to make. That just creates a justification to kill human beings in order to minimize the impact on the environment.
Articles about evolution are always like that. They are also always devoid of any predictions, like a true theory should be able to make, like the theory of relativity could make and we could later prove as technology got better (even if it took 50+ years in some cases).
You hit upon all the words that point to the main issue I had with the article and every article like it that still can send a tingle up the leg of every God-hating, atheist on this site and that is the fact that they can't confirm any of these studies. They always have to include some non-committed phrasing because they have to continue to guess (and have *faith* they are right). They are no further closer to knowing how life evolved now as they were 100 years ago. Scientists in particular feel that just because they can trace common DNA snippets and show that fossil records of different ages means evolution must be real and that there are certain species that came into existence in a serial manner with others rather than all of them appearing in parallel. The only problem with that methodology is that I can prove it doesn't prove anything in particular. Case in point: I can give 100 people the same 1 frame from the same movie that none of them (or I) have seen before and ask them to tell me the plot and I'll get 100 different answers because they are working with a small snippet of the entire set of information but yet I'm basically asking them to give me the other 99.9999999% of the movie. It's not going to happen and I shouldn't expect to be so arrogant as to pick one of their answers and unilaterally deem it correct because all the other answers I got were just as correct. Since I hadn't seen the movie either OR was there to see it made then how would I know what the correct answer is? And of course, the entire sequencing and aging of the fossil record is based on a dating scheme that we all presume is reliable and consistent. But how do you measure your measuring stick to ensure it is accurate and always has been for as long as you need it to be (multiple millennium)? Or do you just become arrogant again and assume it's always been accurate because you get the values you wanted to see rather than what know you should get?
I'm tired of the constant same level of information that doesn't tell us anything about when our ancestors supposedly acquired the required attributes at the right time and explain why we are the way we are or otherwise we would be dead. When are scientists going to explain that? I assume they 1) can't and 2) don't want to because they know they can't and if they attempted to their theory would fall apart. But of course they will dismiss any competing theory as hogwash because any competing theory requires faith, a faith in God that is, rather than a faith in Man.
Then more people would question evolution, without being called stupid, an idiot, insane, a Bible thumper, etc. by those who they disagree with. People would realize we aren't just animals like all the other animals and that human life, above all else, is sacred. And that maybe we do actually possess the ability to choose right from wrong, possess a moral compass,and have free will, rather than falling back on the excuse that we're mere animals and therefore can't control the things we want to be able to get away with saying we can't control when it is convenient to use that excuse and all because we didn't evolve from animals.
And now because I mentioned God in response to an article about evolution I'll be modded down and the person who says "this will bring out the bible thumpers" will be modded up, because that's the bigoted world we live in. I'm not supposed to be questioning the liberal way of thinking. I'm not as smart as they are so I have to be told everything rather than think for myself because thinking for myself makes me look to God for answers and that's wrong. I have to look to government and Man for all the answers because they know best. All the issues I raised are all related whether you like it or not.
This calls for Impeachment and trial of everyone involved. It will not happen of course, because murder is not as big a deal as getting a blowjob from an intern.
If murder mattered then anyone supporting abortion would be looked upon negatively and anyone who committed abortion would be arrested. Women who like Obama for his stance on abortion don't care about their children. They only care about their body. They are selfish. And Obama caters to them because he wants their vote. He can't get the vote of the baby but he can get the vote of the supposed "mother" so he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by supporting people who want to rid themselves of the inconvenience of birthing a child. Obama has given his support behind the federally approved method of killing human beings. It's a form of eugenics. Kill off the babies if *your* life will be too inconvenienced by a disability the baby may have when born but try to sound nice about it when you say that you are killing them for their own good. Maybe gang bangers should try that excuse next time they do a drive-by and kill little kids. They are just doing the little kids a favor by not allowing them to grow up in the slums with drugs, violence and no father figure, right? Right?
That's a really weird and out-of-touch assumption. Do you not realize that many of us are numb from GWBs tenure, and Obama's issues don't seem so bad by comparison so we let them go.
What?
1. Obama is forcing healthcare on a population whose majority said they didn't want it. His "health care reform" involved a gov't taking over health care, which was unwarranted and unwanted.
2. He is signing executive orders for gun control rather than letting Congress make laws.
3. He is against the saving of unborn children but rallies against guns that kill children. He picks the battles that get him the greatest popularity and votes (women can vote but unborn babies cannot) regardless of their moral or ethical consequences.
4, He has raised federal income tax levels. It doesn't matter on who the taxes were raised or that they don't affect you. It's the principle of the matter. Next time it might be YOU.
5. His spending is out of control. He has spent more in 4 years than Bush ever did in 8 years. Using Bush as an excuse to spend money doesn't fly anymore. Apparently it's patriotic again to raise the debt ceiling level.
6. Obama said he was change we can believe in but he just excuses himself of everything and never takes responsibility for something unless it can benefit him. He doesn't know how to accept responsibility for a failure. The stimulus plan did nothing besides waste money on *temporary* jobs. No good came of any of that. 7. He likes to throw around the fact that the economy would have been worse w/o the stimulus but no one can prove a negative like that so he panders to the idiots who love him because he is black when he says things like that.
8. He is enacting additional environmental regulations that are causing our utility costs to go up but no one knows he is the cause. People just assume the electric company wants more evil profits.
9. More people than at any point in history are now on food stamps. How is that a sign that our economy is doing well? Assume for the sake of argument Obama is just doing what Bush or Clinton did as far as food stamps or anything else is concerned. Why is he happy to maintain status quo? Why doesn't he want to put those food stamp people back to work instead of letting them live off our dime? Why isn't he wanting to make that kind of change?
On top of that, the fixed system gives us a fraud who panders to loons from the Republicans, so of course people flock to the Democrats as the only major party that hasn't been taken over by delusional people.
You are delusional and so are democrats. Actually, progressives or liberals is a more accurate term.
You apparently assume carbon-14 dating is reliable and accurate. What would you do if you found out it was multiple orders of magnitude inaccurate? We assume that carbon breaks down at a consistent rate to be reliable enough for measuring the passing of time. But what proof do we have that it *did* break down at a consistent rate?
A tree older than the world? That must be the one Eve picked the fruit from!
Your sarcasm and our dating methods assume without a shadow of a doubt that carbon-14 dating can be 100% accurate and 100% reliable. When your measuring stick is not accurate, how do you know in order to attempt fixing it?
Yes, that's why we call it science. If it were never wrong, it would be religion.
Except that when attempts or actual proof of being incorrect is exposed concerning issues that could render science incorrect while proving religion correct scientists are silenced by death threats or career assassination threats. And due to these threats, some potential evidence that could have been discovered that proved certain aspects of Christianity as true never even get attempted in the first place for fear of retribution from the scientific community. And yet I thought that science enjoyed furthering their knowledge, they just don't like it when their knowledge ends up being wrong and religion ends up being right otherwise, as long as they can continue making science the de facto source of facts, they are perfectly fine with it. I mean, science has brought us this supposed theory of evolution that now allows people to equate humans to mere animals, when the 2 are not the same despite the DNA showing that we are 90%+ the same.
Case in point, humans can distinguish right from wrong and animals *only* act on instinct. Why wouldn't scientists, with the media assisting, want to keep perpetuating the idea that evolution rules us and silence any attempt at researching opposing views? Because they feel they have an obligation to ensure people get fed secular propaganda at the expense of any potential to learn opposing theories because all the opposing ideas are based on religion and thus, conveniently, have no basis in scientific discussions. It's quite brilliant how the supporters of evolution and surrounding theories have rationalized that in their own heads. They fear being proven wrong in this subject area otherwise they should say 'have at it' just to appease their opponents and enjoy watching them make themselves look like fools. If the scientific community was so confident about a theory like evolution we'd be seeing more opposing ideas being researched and published just to give equal time to them and rule them out using peer reviews. That is what the scientific process is about right? Oh, I'm sorry, that is only acceptable when the opposing ideas aren't based on religion. When they are based on religion they are simply silenced as being crazy fairy tales, which is strange considering scientists have to have faith in some of their very own theories.
Raid cards that were $750 new can be found for $35
That's because the ones costing $35 are software-based RAID controllers. True hardware-based RAID controllers are still over $100, if not $200. Obviously still quite a discount from 20 years ago but still not as cheap as you might think (still have to leave room for the software-based cards to be priced in).
What if I wasn't trying to connect to localhost? Why then would I would to have LAMP installed on my machine? Installing software is not a sane default. It's a security risk because it's being installed without testing.
Every article I read about a new finding in nature has a scientists or researcher quoted as saying "it must have developed this way" or "it probably worked this way" or whatever. In fact, they really have no idea what really happened but they say something to help add to the web of lies that has been developed over the years to try fitting everything that is found into a incoherent theory which can't predict anything. Facts aren't evidence people. There is nothing that directly proves that any given organism on earth evolved from any other living or non-living organism. The sheer fact there is shared DNA doesn't prove anything; it just shows we have shared DNA. And if one organism did evolve from another then maybe this new curriculum will actually shed more light on how that actually occurred because I've yet to see any details regarding every single step of the evolutionary process that every organism experienced, which I'd expect to find by now if this theory is so "coherent and comprehensive". Tell me again why there is only one or two examples of homoerectus and other such supposed precursors to homosapien? Where is the army of skeletons? Surely we weren't preceded by a mere handful of pre-human organisms but that's all that's been found. Seems a little fishy to me.
This is nonsense to believe any of this is worth teaching yet to the extent that they believe it is worth. Just another method of trying to convince kids that God doesn't exist and He had no hand in anything therefore we are just animals like all other animals with no souls and our lives aren't anything sacred to uphold, which means abortion is perfect fine and so is killing based on arbitrary definitions of quality of life (just like farm animals). And that means you can do anything you want, legal or not, moral or not, because when you die, you won't have anything bad happen to you because if God doesn't exist then there isn't any Heaven or Hell or Satan so everyone is on equal footing at that point. See how all that works out great for the atheists and progressives who hate religion? Start with the reasoning that a "scientific theory" is fact and must be taught in schools to make kids think that there is no other alternative. All downhill from there.
Traits are still selected. They're just different traits than the ones that would have been selected if humanity were still living in caves.
Really? They are different based on what mechanism that would recognize the change in the environment from cave, farmland, city, etc.? How does the environment have any direct influence on the traits that are selected? Tell me exactly how A imparts a force on B. There is no proof that the selection changes based on any criteria, or that a selection occurs in the first place because all we can observe are the current results and we just assume that there were previous samples (e.g. fossils) that lead to the current results (i.e. the animals we observe living today). We don't ever consider that what we see today are the beginning *and* end results and that no selections occurred because no changes ever occurred, i.e. evolution doesn't exist. Note that I'm not denying small mutations don't exist (there *is* proof of that) but that doesn't mean, and there is no proof of such, that given enough of them we end up with a new species. We have lots of species on this Earth today and for some reason some of us believe that they are all related but had to develop into how what they were/are from potentially other organisms that are also alive (e.g. humans and apes) but again, no direct evidence. Shared DNA doesn't prove evolution. Facts, in general, aren't necessarily evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
It's used when you don't want to be too precise about such things.
It's used when you want to read more into something than you should (hint: there is only 1 kind of human, there is no "modern" vs "early" human) specifically for purposes of spreading doubt about Creation and facts (but not evidence) that attempt to explain a theory that has yet to take shape. There, I corrected that for you.
Researchers extracted mitochondrial DNA from the femur of a 400,000-year-old hominin
By the way, did anyone verify the measuring "stick" used to verify the 400,000 year age of this bone to ensure the measuring "stick" was itself accurate? I didn't think so. Carry on with your delusions and your faith in something that can't be proven by the best scientists that mankind can offer.
My pet peeve is that many people don't know that timezone names change when DST kicks off and on. So EST turns into EDT and so on. So using EST throughout the entire year is wrong. Lack of education I guess?
I'm unsure why some people deny the gift of free will. I guess because indirectly it allows them to deny the existence of a Creator who gave us that gift because they hate all things religious. It may also give them the ability to do whatever they damn well please by using the excuse they couldn't help themselves (i.e. weak minded). Criminals try taking advantage of this quite frequently. Many people like to view free will such that they have choices concerning whether or not to do something good but that free will magically stops at those actions which are evil. Again, that merely just proves they would prefer to satisfy their own agendas and bias to avoid punishment, retribution, etc. for their bad/evil/immoral/unethical actions brought on by their choices. But in the end, if you don't believe in free will then what's the point in having any moral code whatsoever? If you don't believe you can control what your mind tells your body to do then you should be able to argue that you have no reason to be held accountable for any wrongdoing, whether deemed wrong by you or society. Therefore what's the point in deeming something moral if you can't be held accountable for the immoral?
For those who deny free will, I ask you to prove it. Every decision you make on a daily basis proves you have free will. The mundane decisions in our lives don't disprove my statement. The fact that someone who knows you may be able to guess what your decision will be for any given choice doesn't force you into still making a specific choice, because you may still change your mind at the last minute. For the times when your friend is right when guessing what your choice will be it simply shows they know your tendencies and can infer based on their knowledge of you what you will choose. But *you* still have the final say. This is true despite your current emotion and is true despite your DNA, contrary to what criminals and homosexuals (notice 2 *separate* categories: criminals and homosexuals) would have you believe.
Free will is our greatest gift and it is also one of the fundamental properties of being a human being that so many people would prefer to ignore or outright deny as fact. Let me put it in the most basic terms possible for the laymen who choose to deny it: if we, as a species, didn't have free will, none of us wouldn't have the ability to choose when to wake up in the morning, when to eat breakfast, when to go to work, when to take vacation, when to take a new job, when to buy a new car/house, who to work for, with whom to go on your first date, who first to kiss, with whom to first have sex, whom to marry, etc. You may think that you can disprove the existence of free will by merely believing in [the Christian] God long enough to argue that if He is all powerful and has a plan then He is what defines what happens to us but you would be wrong again in your incorrect understanding of Christianity because even if He, for example, presents us with a new job opportunity He still leaves the final decision to us. He can't force us to accept the new job. Just as well, if Satan tempts us with drugs or money, we have the same free will to accept or deny those material desires. The mere fact that we have decision-making capability dictates we have free will.
More importantly, free will is completely separate from instincts and that is why humans are not animals. Of course, many people would prefer to deny that because again, it would lead to a mental conflict that involves having to accept the existence of a God that created Man and beast as separate entities rather than a natural process called evolution that created both as one in the same. Animals can only act on instincts; Man however, can choose whether to kill based on his moral compass. Only Man is held accountable for those same actions. A lot of people *hate* that they are held accountable to a higher power so they simply deny those concepts/theories/etc. that lend credence to a Creator and instead believe in those concepts that support their personal worldview of h
So the real issue you have is that other people have a problem with your decision. Okay, that makes sense and I'd be pissed off if someone had issues with a choice I made and went so far as to chastise or persecute me for it. If I know ahead of time that there are, unfortunately, ignorant people in this world then that needs to be one of the factors I take into consideration for making a decision and acting on it; that's just a fact of life. There are, however, people who will disagree with you on fundamental grounds that it is still a choice to change your sex. They won't persecute you for it. They will still accept you as a person but that doesn't mean they have to accept your decisions or your choices, nor are they obligated to do so. You may claim that lack of acceptance in and of itself is persecution but you would be wrong. It's called disagreeing. And it is a part of everyday life that everyone needs to realize and be able to recognize so that person who are surprised that not everyone accepts their actions (I'm still only talking about the people who do so respectfully) don't go crying back to mommy or the government demanding that person A or group B who disagreed with said action be punished for the disagreement.
These statements also are true for the LGB portion of the LGBT group.
If you want to share your side of things with someone who can relate to the problems you face, try talking to a Christian sometime, specifically one who has been chastised for their beliefs, ridiculed, silenced, maybe even attacked physically (because they are expected to not fight back and then are ridiculed if they do).
Ultimately, these are all still categorized as male or female despite the various combinations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_disorders
It is not a choice. It's who someone is.
Your genetics aren't a choice but *how* you live your life and portray your gender *is* a choice because all those things rely on our actions, which we all have control over. "it's who someone is" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say "it's who someone wants to be". If you disagree with that then I'll have to deem you a bigot.
A piece of software can't take into consideration EVERY POSSIBLE CHOICE THAT HUMAN BEINGS CAN MAKE ABOUT THEIR LIVES because 1) it takes too much time to code up all the choices that would rarely occur [ but apparently Obamacare has tried to accommodate in its coding system all the reasons that someone needs medical treatment and that's a mess, not to mention a waste of time], 2) the number of possible choices we could ever make in a general sense are infinite anyway and 3) even if you want to speak of limiting the possible choices that humans can make about their lives to a specific question, such as marriage in this case, you still have to remember that we're dealing with choice. Everyone else isn't responsible for ensuring any given individual's choice is recognized just to make them feel better.
Case in point, since when do we need more than 1 bit of information to store the possible values associated with gender? Gender is binary: male or female. Even the disorders listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_disorders still ultimately categorizes the person's resulting gender into male or female. And more to the point of my argument regarding choice, if you want to change your gender, that's your decision. Don't expect everyone and everything else to accommodate that choice. That changing is only skin deep anyway even if you have surgery. As someone else already stated, it doesn't change your genetic code. I'm unsure why we have to muddy the waters with what people look like as the method for defining sex rather than looking at genetic code, which doesn't change.
People have been bringing this up at city council meetings only to be told by the council members that this type of activity is necessary to keep us safe - the typical GOP line.
Hate to burst your bubble but that isn't relegated to just a GOP anymore (if it ever was). Liberals are pushing more and more for a police state, not the GOP. Liberals like having control and a police state gives them control.
Yay, more info to make the liberals and eco-crazies tell the rest of us how we must live in order to save the planet at the expense of our bank account and/or our comfort. We are more worried about the so-called issues the polar bears are experiencing than we are about the million babies aborted each year, which is REAL, not propaganda. Anyone who believes this is actionable info has their priorities messed up.
I'm in north central wv as well. I was outside from 5 to 930 and saw nothing but the usual stars.
This is supposed to be a phone I can carry in my pocket not a home theater in my pocket. I'm not an Android fan anyway but I wouldn't want any phone to have a 5" screen because I'm not going to use it to watch TV/movies. Granted, I watch youtube videos sometimes on my iphone 5 but I don't need a 5" screen to do that nor would I want one. It wouldn't fit comfortably in my pocket.
to gather information to 'one-up' your competition or to make yourself look good to your friends then you aren't very good. And in this case, breaking the law by breaking into companies is cheating.
I was a gov't contractor for 8 years and worked in small cube farms (when at the contractor facility) but eventually got located to the actual gov't facility where 3k+ people worked. There were certainly distractions in both situations due to people (including myself) talking to their coworkers about certain things, not always work related. Our work still got completed. However, given the nature of our projects where we had project mgmt, software engineering, system engineering (me), integration and testing, and the infrastructure teams all working together every day, we needed that face time where 2 or 3 of us would sometimes have ad-hoc meetings to hash out some issue that cropped up that involved using a whiteboard.
Fast forward through about 3-4 years of being onsite with the customer to when I took a job with a silicon valley company (I live on the East Coast). The first year of that position I was actually assigned to be an onsite tech for the same gov't agency and in the same facility I had been working as a contractor for the last 8 years. So not much changed. The contract expired last year and hasn't been renewed yet. So the plan was if that happened I'd just work from home as a member of the tech support team. So that's what I do now. Our structure is that the majority of the members work onsite in the silicon valley office. But even some of them don't commute everyday (if anything, due to traffic) and so work remotely from their homes. One person lives in the central US and only commutes every couple months and then there is me on the East Coast. I have only visited my company HQ 3 times since I started and will have a 4th trip next week.
How do things go in that situation? I won't deny that face time is always a good thing when working out problems but most of the time in tech support if you have enough experience then you can handle most issues on your own anyway. All of us sometimes have an issue we aren't sure about so we rely on IM and email to find out if someone has already encountered the issue before. We'll still chat over IM to still simulate the office banter to keep ourselves entertained but we are able to focus on support cases better, I think, because we can *choose* when to have the typical office distractions. Of course, our office distractions over IM are definitely more invisible than people laughing loudly in the cube next door. And, at least for me, 3 people carrying on loudly doesn't bother me because I'm at home.
Is working from home perfect for everyone and for every job? Definitely not. Even if someone has a job like I do in tech support their home life may not be conducive to the job and vice versa. Luckily, I have a reasonably well set up home office and I've worked out how to organize and layout everything with the space I have. My wife eventually moved her office downstairs away from me so we wouldn't distract each other. We don't have kids but we do have 3 dogs. So we don't have kids constantly running around and being loud but the dogs do need tending to. My job allows me to do that as a way to take a break from being on the phone with customers. An important item to note here is that our manager and our manager's manager trust us to work when we're not in the office. And they of course can see if we do by looking at our support case statistics. They understand that, at least for us in tech support, it can be stressful, and working from home can be a stress reliever (again, if your home life is conducive to that). Those who can't manage time wisely and get easily distracted will probably have trouble working in an office environment or at home. But if their family life isn't conducive to working from home then they will probably have a more difficult time at home because kids don't always understand that daddy has to be left alone for a while but co-workers do understand that (except for occasional office pranks).
Another thing that helps greatly in my opinion is that, since I'm in the tech support dept, most conversations that occur between us and the
hopes to have the first flagship Google Stores open for the holidays
Why would they care about being open for Earth Day? I know companies like to be 'green' nowadays but what is so special about opening on April 22?
we need to stop the entire human race from living because we pollute the air too much so our planet just isn't able to survive anymore. Apparently all these studies are supposed to convince enough people among us believe the planet is more important than human life so the government then takes it upon itself to mandate we have to pay more to use energy to stay warm/cool, fine companies that use more energy or pollute more than others, subsidize 'green' energy sources that just aren't ready for mass acceptance just so we can transport ourselves around the planet, pay more to light up our homes and offices, etc. and feel guilty while doing it.
Maybe, just maybe, if the earth is getting warmer maybe it's just due to the fact there are 6 billions of us on the planet and our bodies give off heat (increasing the entropy of the universe) rather than the contraptions we build indirectly causing the earth to warm up due to pollution? Oh wait, that's not the right argument to make. That just creates a justification to kill human beings in order to minimize the impact on the environment.
Articles about evolution are always like that. They are also always devoid of any predictions, like a true theory should be able to make, like the theory of relativity could make and we could later prove as technology got better (even if it took 50+ years in some cases).
You hit upon all the words that point to the main issue I had with the article and every article like it that still can send a tingle up the leg of every God-hating, atheist on this site and that is the fact that they can't confirm any of these studies. They always have to include some non-committed phrasing because they have to continue to guess (and have *faith* they are right). They are no further closer to knowing how life evolved now as they were 100 years ago. Scientists in particular feel that just because they can trace common DNA snippets and show that fossil records of different ages means evolution must be real and that there are certain species that came into existence in a serial manner with others rather than all of them appearing in parallel. The only problem with that methodology is that I can prove it doesn't prove anything in particular. Case in point: I can give 100 people the same 1 frame from the same movie that none of them (or I) have seen before and ask them to tell me the plot and I'll get 100 different answers because they are working with a small snippet of the entire set of information but yet I'm basically asking them to give me the other 99.9999999% of the movie. It's not going to happen and I shouldn't expect to be so arrogant as to pick one of their answers and unilaterally deem it correct because all the other answers I got were just as correct. Since I hadn't seen the movie either OR was there to see it made then how would I know what the correct answer is? And of course, the entire sequencing and aging of the fossil record is based on a dating scheme that we all presume is reliable and consistent. But how do you measure your measuring stick to ensure it is accurate and always has been for as long as you need it to be (multiple millennium)? Or do you just become arrogant again and assume it's always been accurate because you get the values you wanted to see rather than what know you should get?
I'm tired of the constant same level of information that doesn't tell us anything about when our ancestors supposedly acquired the required attributes at the right time and explain why we are the way we are or otherwise we would be dead. When are scientists going to explain that? I assume they 1) can't and 2) don't want to because they know they can't and if they attempted to their theory would fall apart. But of course they will dismiss any competing theory as hogwash because any competing theory requires faith, a faith in God that is, rather than a faith in Man.
Then more people would question evolution, without being called stupid, an idiot, insane, a Bible thumper, etc. by those who they disagree with. People would realize we aren't just animals like all the other animals and that human life, above all else, is sacred. And that maybe we do actually possess the ability to choose right from wrong, possess a moral compass,and have free will, rather than falling back on the excuse that we're mere animals and therefore can't control the things we want to be able to get away with saying we can't control when it is convenient to use that excuse and all because we didn't evolve from animals.
And now because I mentioned God in response to an article about evolution I'll be modded down and the person who says "this will bring out the bible thumpers" will be modded up, because that's the bigoted world we live in. I'm not supposed to be questioning the liberal way of thinking. I'm not as smart as they are so I have to be told everything rather than think for myself because thinking for myself makes me look to God for answers and that's wrong. I have to look to government and Man for all the answers because they know best. All the issues I raised are all related whether you like it or not.
This calls for Impeachment and trial of everyone involved. It will not happen of course, because murder is not as big a deal as getting a blowjob from an intern.
If murder mattered then anyone supporting abortion would be looked upon negatively and anyone who committed abortion would be arrested. Women who like Obama for his stance on abortion don't care about their children. They only care about their body. They are selfish. And Obama caters to them because he wants their vote. He can't get the vote of the baby but he can get the vote of the supposed "mother" so he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by supporting people who want to rid themselves of the inconvenience of birthing a child. Obama has given his support behind the federally approved method of killing human beings. It's a form of eugenics. Kill off the babies if *your* life will be too inconvenienced by a disability the baby may have when born but try to sound nice about it when you say that you are killing them for their own good. Maybe gang bangers should try that excuse next time they do a drive-by and kill little kids. They are just doing the little kids a favor by not allowing them to grow up in the slums with drugs, violence and no father figure, right? Right?
That's a really weird and out-of-touch assumption. Do you not realize that many of us are numb from GWBs tenure, and Obama's issues don't seem so bad by comparison so we let them go.
What? 1. Obama is forcing healthcare on a population whose majority said they didn't want it. His "health care reform" involved a gov't taking over health care, which was unwarranted and unwanted. 2. He is signing executive orders for gun control rather than letting Congress make laws. 3. He is against the saving of unborn children but rallies against guns that kill children. He picks the battles that get him the greatest popularity and votes (women can vote but unborn babies cannot) regardless of their moral or ethical consequences. 4, He has raised federal income tax levels. It doesn't matter on who the taxes were raised or that they don't affect you. It's the principle of the matter. Next time it might be YOU. 5. His spending is out of control. He has spent more in 4 years than Bush ever did in 8 years. Using Bush as an excuse to spend money doesn't fly anymore. Apparently it's patriotic again to raise the debt ceiling level. 6. Obama said he was change we can believe in but he just excuses himself of everything and never takes responsibility for something unless it can benefit him. He doesn't know how to accept responsibility for a failure. The stimulus plan did nothing besides waste money on *temporary* jobs. No good came of any of that. 7. He likes to throw around the fact that the economy would have been worse w/o the stimulus but no one can prove a negative like that so he panders to the idiots who love him because he is black when he says things like that. 8. He is enacting additional environmental regulations that are causing our utility costs to go up but no one knows he is the cause. People just assume the electric company wants more evil profits. 9. More people than at any point in history are now on food stamps. How is that a sign that our economy is doing well? Assume for the sake of argument Obama is just doing what Bush or Clinton did as far as food stamps or anything else is concerned. Why is he happy to maintain status quo? Why doesn't he want to put those food stamp people back to work instead of letting them live off our dime? Why isn't he wanting to make that kind of change?
On top of that, the fixed system gives us a fraud who panders to loons from the Republicans, so of course people flock to the Democrats as the only major party that hasn't been taken over by delusional people.
You are delusional and so are democrats. Actually, progressives or liberals is a more accurate term.
You apparently assume carbon-14 dating is reliable and accurate. What would you do if you found out it was multiple orders of magnitude inaccurate? We assume that carbon breaks down at a consistent rate to be reliable enough for measuring the passing of time. But what proof do we have that it *did* break down at a consistent rate?
A tree older than the world? That must be the one Eve picked the fruit from!
Your sarcasm and our dating methods assume without a shadow of a doubt that carbon-14 dating can be 100% accurate and 100% reliable. When your measuring stick is not accurate, how do you know in order to attempt fixing it?
Yes, that's why we call it science. If it were never wrong, it would be religion.
Except that when attempts or actual proof of being incorrect is exposed concerning issues that could render science incorrect while proving religion correct scientists are silenced by death threats or career assassination threats. And due to these threats, some potential evidence that could have been discovered that proved certain aspects of Christianity as true never even get attempted in the first place for fear of retribution from the scientific community. And yet I thought that science enjoyed furthering their knowledge, they just don't like it when their knowledge ends up being wrong and religion ends up being right otherwise, as long as they can continue making science the de facto source of facts, they are perfectly fine with it. I mean, science has brought us this supposed theory of evolution that now allows people to equate humans to mere animals, when the 2 are not the same despite the DNA showing that we are 90%+ the same.
Case in point, humans can distinguish right from wrong and animals *only* act on instinct. Why wouldn't scientists, with the media assisting, want to keep perpetuating the idea that evolution rules us and silence any attempt at researching opposing views? Because they feel they have an obligation to ensure people get fed secular propaganda at the expense of any potential to learn opposing theories because all the opposing ideas are based on religion and thus, conveniently, have no basis in scientific discussions. It's quite brilliant how the supporters of evolution and surrounding theories have rationalized that in their own heads. They fear being proven wrong in this subject area otherwise they should say 'have at it' just to appease their opponents and enjoy watching them make themselves look like fools. If the scientific community was so confident about a theory like evolution we'd be seeing more opposing ideas being researched and published just to give equal time to them and rule them out using peer reviews. That is what the scientific process is about right? Oh, I'm sorry, that is only acceptable when the opposing ideas aren't based on religion. When they are based on religion they are simply silenced as being crazy fairy tales, which is strange considering scientists have to have faith in some of their very own theories.
Raid cards that were $750 new can be found for $35
That's because the ones costing $35 are software-based RAID controllers. True hardware-based RAID controllers are still over $100, if not $200. Obviously still quite a discount from 20 years ago but still not as cheap as you might think (still have to leave room for the software-based cards to be priced in).
What if I wasn't trying to connect to localhost? Why then would I would to have LAMP installed on my machine? Installing software is not a sane default. It's a security risk because it's being installed without testing.
'comprehensive and coherent scientific theory'
Every article I read about a new finding in nature has a scientists or researcher quoted as saying "it must have developed this way" or "it probably worked this way" or whatever. In fact, they really have no idea what really happened but they say something to help add to the web of lies that has been developed over the years to try fitting everything that is found into a incoherent theory which can't predict anything. Facts aren't evidence people. There is nothing that directly proves that any given organism on earth evolved from any other living or non-living organism. The sheer fact there is shared DNA doesn't prove anything; it just shows we have shared DNA. And if one organism did evolve from another then maybe this new curriculum will actually shed more light on how that actually occurred because I've yet to see any details regarding every single step of the evolutionary process that every organism experienced, which I'd expect to find by now if this theory is so "coherent and comprehensive". Tell me again why there is only one or two examples of homoerectus and other such supposed precursors to homosapien? Where is the army of skeletons? Surely we weren't preceded by a mere handful of pre-human organisms but that's all that's been found. Seems a little fishy to me.
This is nonsense to believe any of this is worth teaching yet to the extent that they believe it is worth. Just another method of trying to convince kids that God doesn't exist and He had no hand in anything therefore we are just animals like all other animals with no souls and our lives aren't anything sacred to uphold, which means abortion is perfect fine and so is killing based on arbitrary definitions of quality of life (just like farm animals). And that means you can do anything you want, legal or not, moral or not, because when you die, you won't have anything bad happen to you because if God doesn't exist then there isn't any Heaven or Hell or Satan so everyone is on equal footing at that point. See how all that works out great for the atheists and progressives who hate religion? Start with the reasoning that a "scientific theory" is fact and must be taught in schools to make kids think that there is no other alternative. All downhill from there.
Traits are still selected. They're just different traits than the ones that would have been selected if humanity were still living in caves.
Really? They are different based on what mechanism that would recognize the change in the environment from cave, farmland, city, etc.? How does the environment have any direct influence on the traits that are selected? Tell me exactly how A imparts a force on B. There is no proof that the selection changes based on any criteria, or that a selection occurs in the first place because all we can observe are the current results and we just assume that there were previous samples (e.g. fossils) that lead to the current results (i.e. the animals we observe living today). We don't ever consider that what we see today are the beginning *and* end results and that no selections occurred because no changes ever occurred, i.e. evolution doesn't exist. Note that I'm not denying small mutations don't exist (there *is* proof of that) but that doesn't mean, and there is no proof of such, that given enough of them we end up with a new species. We have lots of species on this Earth today and for some reason some of us believe that they are all related but had to develop into how what they were/are from potentially other organisms that are also alive (e.g. humans and apes) but again, no direct evidence. Shared DNA doesn't prove evolution. Facts, in general, aren't necessarily evidence.