Anyone who believes there is even *ONE* honest law enforcement agent in the entire U.S.A, probably even the entire world, is incredibly naive.
--Signed... an unfortunate victim of a crooked cop who planted bogus evidence on my computer systems after perjuring himself on affidavit's to get search warrants for them
Ahh yes, another over generalization brought to us by a fellow slashdot user. I think you are the naive one if you believe 1 crooked cop is representative of the whole.
A batter with, say, a.300 batting average does not have a 30% chance of getting a hit each time he's up to bat.
There is a legitimate reason for that. A batting average is not a prediction for the future but a record of the past. Of course, the same applies to all other statistics in any subject for that matter.
Seen the average EULA lately? I read them - I have to, I'm the IT manager - and I'd estimate that about 60% of the time it's clear whether or not we're covered by purchasing a particular product and using it in a particular way, 20% of the time it's not entirely clear but we're probably OK and 20% of the time I have no freaking idea. Not every piece of software has a license as clear-cut as "One copy per PC".
Where I work we have to create bills of materials for each government project. These include hardware, hw maintenance, software, sw maintenance, cables, etc. We do use some applications for every project (security apps for example) so we are familiar with those vendors' licenses but we often design systems with applications never before used in the environment. We have to get familiar with the licensing of the products so the bill of materials is accurate and so the gov't won't get into trouble. In the environment I work in there is production and test equipment. One aspect that many of us at work forget about concerning licensing is that some companies actually offer some level of discount for licenses used in a test environment (Oracle database is 100% free for test use). Some also offer discounts on licenses installed on hot-standby server nodes. All companies are different and it is a pain to properly track this level of detail, not to mention the support for those test licenses also has to be taken into account. There are so many variables that can be used for software licensing that it is completely out of hand. Licensing is really the worst thing since sliced bread.
My FIRST "networked environment:" Two computers, a bi-directional crossover LPT cable and some REALLY crappy Novell software. Definitely some frustrating times just to play Warcraft I against a single friend!
Assuming your single friend was a female, I think you should have been practicing connecting to another one of her ports besides LPT.
if you think dial up modems are obsolete, you evidently have never lived in a rural area in north america.
Obsolete does not necessarily mean that it is no longer in use at all. From dictionary.com:
1. no longer in general use; fallen into disuse
In the case of dial-up modems, they are just no longer in general use given the proliferation of DSL and cable modem service for the majority of the U.S. population.
The book talks about our ideal placement in the milky way for observation, yet with sufficient protection from gamma bursts, the fortuitous placement of the moon allowing solar eclipses to reveal the corona, etc.
We are very protected given our location in the universe (which it has been shown is the center given the concentric circles of variation within the CMB radiation). Our galaxy is not near another to cause a collision any time soon. Our Solar System is far enough from the core of the galaxy to not have any issues with the fierce gravity field nor are we close to anything on the spiral arm to harm us. The planet itself is far enough from the Sun to not kill us from heat or the near absolute zero of space. The planet is protected by all the other planets from comets and asteroids (and the Sun for that matter). Our atmosphere protects from any material that gets through any of those other barriers. And most of our planet is covered by water so odds are if anything gets through the atmosphere it will cause less damage by hitting water rather than a land mass.
Some people would say those reasons are specifically why Life was able to begin. I say it is there for Life to be sustained because Life began with the same Creator who put those protections in place *for* us. But that is my opinion. This universe is a dangerous place but we are protected from it by many layers of armor. When we start playing around to see what that armor is made of we better be prepared.
So don't post your images to public areas of the service, otherwise they do not have the right to do anything with them. From their ToS which someone else already pointed out (emphasis mine):
Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.
Publicly accessible areas of the Services are those areas of the Adobe network of properties that are intended by Adobe to be available to the general public. However, publicly accessible areas of the Services do not include Services intended for private communication or areas off the Adobe network of properties such as portions of World Wide Web sites that are accessible via hypertext or other links but are not hosted or served by Adobe.
Bottom line: just don't post your images to publicly accessible areas of the service and you'll be fine. For those who this is targeting, I doubt they would care. For anyone else, you wouldn't be using this service anyway and would already have Photoshop installed (legally or otherwise) on your workstation.
You are referring to Page 18 of April's issue. Hmm, this reminds me of Page 16 in last month's issue where we learned how to integrate Facebook data. And wasn't the month before that how to make a calculator using Bash?
Yes, 18 of April's issue. I don't know about the month before that. The CLI calculator was a different column, from Dave Taylor, not Reuven Lerner.
But that's beside the point, go read some history on BBS's, Usenet, actual computer club meetings where people met face to face (Hello Tandy Users Group). Better app? Is that what's its come down to, who has the better social app? Go create 3rd life or Sims:Ron Jeremy or something.
I'm not interested in it which is what I stated indirectly in my original post. I don't get into social sites and I don't get into development using them. But for curiousity sake I was wondering how OpenSocial compared to this new commercial application engine. And as far as your rant is concerned, technology progresses (I won't say 'evolves' because that involves lack of design), so even though usenet is still around we have moved beyond that into instant messaging and now I'd wager the next thing beyond IM is the social websites and the applications that build up around them.
Is Arthur C. Clarke capable of wiping out all life on Earth? If not, I don't think it would be right to equate him with GRB 080319B.
Neither is GRB 080319B since it is too far away. Haley's comet at least comes closer to us than GRB 080319B and it got named after someone. If it did hit Earth it definitely would do some damage too. What does the level of catastrophe associated with a celestial event/object have to do with whether it is named after someone?
So will there be any way to get a copy of XP after June 30?
Yes, the same way there has always been a way to get it: warez. And of course existing copies still work just fine so keep transferring the license as long as your total # of PCs doesn't go up. For private parties this is usually the case. Businesses will have to fend for themselves.
If you want to continue using XP, what problems will you face?
Well the same we've always had, and for me that hasn't been many. Sure the registry gets annoying after a while but out of all the years it's been available I've only reinstalled twice I think. That is much less frequently than older versions. It is stable and runs well. I'll be running it for a long long time. Security patches will continue to be released, not that I install them anyway (I have SP2 installed right now though).
If you buy a PC with Vista installed and decide you want XP instead, what are your options?
For one, don't buy a PC with Vista installed. Build a PC or have someone build one for you if you are a private party. For another, keep your existing license of XP to transfer to the new machine or pirate a copy if you are the type to do that. Again, businesses will of course have bigger issues. Hopefully they will begin investigating Linux prior to realizing they don't want to be forced to Vista.
I'm not a web app developer nor do I get heavily into the social websites but I have a subscription to Linux Journal so I've heard and read about OpenSocial through Reuven Lerner's column. I did skim over the article and it did state a later version of this application engine will support compatibility with OpenSocial. But the question I have to those who know more about these types of things, which one (Ringside or OpenSocial) is really the better app? If I'd have to guess I'd say OpenSocial but maybe Ringside offers things that OS doesn't. Can anyone provide a quick compare/contrast?
"The company is announcing today a $44 million contract from the Pentagon to explore replacing the wires between computer chips with laser beams.
I hope this means that servers with the new chips will not actually cost 2-4x as much as an equivalent Dell server. IMHO, Sun needs to do something about the cost of their servers. I try to only use them when required because of their cost and I'm told the inflated price is due to the low yields of the SPARCs.
For a good number of girls in university, they'd probably maximise their income by forgetting about education and be prostitutes and pornographic actors (what was that Eliot Spitzer prostitute making, $5000/hour?
I heard 2 numbers, $4100/hr and $4300/hr, and a comment that she was middle of the road for price for the company she worked for. Not that it is relevant to your post...or that I pay attention to her that much. I just have a uh, good memory, yeah that's it.
this sort of impossibility twaddle is easily discredited. For example, tall buildings or arched/suspended bridges could not be erected without a scaffold or crane. But once erected those are removed. Just because there is no evidence to be found that they were there does not mean the buildings sprung into existence fully formed.
You miss the point (as you did many times in your post since I started from the bottom and worked my way up). Your analogy is incorrect. The "scaffolding" is still present in the animals I provided as examples. The "scaffolding" is also still needed and was always needed for the animal to survive. Your burden of proof involves showing these animals could survive without any one or more of the features I noted. If all those capabilities are required at once we have a problem.
Bombadier beetle.
Oxidative enzymes and fizzy action are good ways to digest something in your mouth cavity. It would be no surprise if the bombadier's enzymes were developed for digestion and then later recruited for defense. Many animals regurgitate or spray digestive juices as defensive or offensive weapons. Even single celled organisms secrete highly indesructable proteases to destroy the competition. Others, like the Spike bearing ones have cannons they can shoot this from. If single celled organisms can evolve this its not a stretch to imagine a beetle pulling it off.
It isn't a question of where the enzymes evolved from. The problem is the enzymes evolving all at once with the beetles other features to prevent itself from blowing up which you did not address. All you did was state that other organisms have the same capability. So what? That doesn't prove evolution gave it to them let alone gave it to the beetle in such a way that it wouldn't kill itself when using it's slowly growing explosion capability.
Giraffe.
Many animals, like diving douplhins, seals, whales pull off similar stunts at orders of magnitude greater pressure differentials. Thus not only had such mechanisms evolved while we were all sea-bred creatures, and vestigal mechanisms potentialially latent in our DNA, but the specific machanism in Giraffes is not the only way to skin the pressure cat. For example, airplane pilots who work at High-Gs know that clenching muscles can prevent vaso-dialiation consequently fainting. It's not hard to imagine that early long necked creatures could survive without this adaptation, and the means to re-evolve it was possible in DNA.
Wow, you are living way out there if you think we came from the sea. Hello merman. Oh wait, merman/maids are supposed to be fiction. I forgot we were picking and choosing what is real and what isn't.
Well if clenching muscles is the only thing needed then why do giraffes have the features they have? Why would evolution have developed them if they were unneeded? Where's the physical evidence it needed what it has instead of what water-based creatures use?
Woodpeckers:
this one can be dismissed. There are lots of birds that eat tree bugs by whatever means they can dig them out. trees come in all denisities. You don't need to evolve to be a wood pecker in one go.
The point isn't that only woodpeckers can eat bugs out of a tree.The point is that a present-day woodpecker's specific method of doing so would kill it if it did not have all at once the bodily features it has. If there is proof it could peck as fast (and with the same force) as it can now without having a skull structure that present-day woodpeckers have or that it didn't always close its eyes to prevent them from bursting out of its head then I'll concede the point.
Rapid Canyon formation.
I happen to live on the base of a caldera. My house is perched 200 feet over a straight drop to the steep walled canyon bottom. This was carved by a combination of massive floods and slow erosion. Simmila
i cannot understand why ANYBODY would want to vote for the party that has done more to destroy the USA in the last 7 years than any other party in my memory the USA seems to now stand for war,torture, xenophobia, racism, corruption and financial mismanagement full of the same corrupt actors as the nixon era...
First, you mischaracterize enforcing immigration laws with xenophobia. You may want to fix that before you go spouting off about it. The US is a land of immigrants and we have laws for subsequent immigrants. No one says we don't want anyone else in this country but if they come here they must abide by the rules that everyone else abides by. That isn't being afraid of them. That is requiring *them* to play by the same rules *you and I* play by.
And if a Democrat gets in (like Clinton) we'll end up with corruption (by association with her husband but maybe she'll bring her own too, morally or financially) and financial mismanagement by instituting universal healthcare which will raise taxes thru the roof. Had it not been for terrorism we wouldn't be at war right now so you can't blame the President for that. No one asked for it. Now you can blame Republicans for that because Democrats usually sit back and just take it up the ass however going to war still takes approval by Congress. I haven't yet seen any indication of racism in the last 8 years either. And yes, I agree there was torture. Those who were in the WTC buildings when the planes hit and were subsequently doused with flaming jet fuel were truly tortured.
They also don't call for the execution of cartoonists that portray Jesus disrespectfully...
No, but they've come pretty close.
Nothing in the story you linked said anything regarding the execution or death of cartoonists or anyone else for that matter. So given that, what exactly is your definition of "close"? Blaming someone for something and saying they should die (specifying punishment) are 2 different things and that article on the washington post site only mentioned Falwell and Robertson blaming various groups of people. Claiming American evangelicals only blow up abortion clinics is akin to saying men kill people by drunk driving when everyone knows full well that is an incorrect characterization. We may as well say that women blow up abortion clinics which would also be incorrect because not all women do. Why characterize those who blow up abortion clinics as american evangelicals? They may claim themselves to be (which is a basis for their action) but anyone who does that is not and as such you shouldn't portray them as an evangelical either. Whoever decides to bomb anyone else is an extremist who does not represent the whole. That is all.
No, but they do go on psychological warfare, going apeshit at other religions for no good reason. Same with the Jews and same with the Muslims. They all do it.
As for suicide bombing, it's totally irrelevant. You're talking about a minority of extremists.
It is also a minority who go "apeshit" at other religions for no good reason. A minority of any group is going to be against the majority of another group. Take slashdot users for example, there are a few people on here who don't like people who are members of a religion. I'm sure that the majority of slashdot users are indifferent to religion and members of the various religions but a select few for some reason hate religion (someone who posted to this submission said he abhors all religions, why? Hard to say). I'm sure a select few Linux users hate Windows users. Hate is prevalent in this world and is not confined to having a basis in religion.
You responded to someone who said that evangelicals do not get up in arms over a newspaper depicting Jesus in a bad light which is the perfect target for those newspapers because they know Christians are taught to not fight back. Thus the newspapers act like bullies in elementary school probably because of nothing else to do (slow news day) and for popularity. Muslims get up in arms over something like that because they are taught differently, namely that violence is the solution to everything.
So, being SubGenius myself and rather abhorrent of any and all religions,
Do you have major issues with things you don't understand, or maybe deep-seated anger against someone of faith who you feel wronged you in the past to cause such abhorrence with no obvious reason?
Name one. That's all I want to see. One single creature that you claim wouldn't have survived to reproduce to its current state.
Bombardier beatle - read the defense mechanism section. Without having a series of explosions it would blow itself up. Without the catalysts it would blow itself up. It needs everything it has at once so it doesn't blow itself up.
Giraffe - read the circulatory system section. Without the rete mirabile in the giraffe's skull it would get too much blood in its brain when it lowers its head to drink or faint when it raises its head at the sight of a predator. It needs that rete mirabile for it's existence otherwise evolution kills it off.
Woodpecker - read the Physiology and behavior section. There is one thing that isn't listed there which is that a woodpecker closes its eyelids in between every peck. Scientists state this is not to prevent debris from hitting the eyes but to prevent the force from pecking from knocking the eyes out of the bird's skull. With that requirement and it's need for a special skeletal structure it would kill itself when it pecks on a tree without all those features at once.
There are others but I won't take the time to list them. I'll move on.
I would also like to see a citation for the Great Flood claims made above as well. I've never seen a geologist claim there was one, though I've seen them talk about substantial flooding in the areas surrounding Mesopotamia. The only person I know personally that believes in a great flood is also rigid in his belief that the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs are a trick played on us by God.
You actually think a scientist would stake his reputation on saying the Great Flood caused the Grand Canyon to form which would make evolution impossible? No wonder you can't find a claim for this but if you look hard enough you can. Rock formations such as those in Monument Valley, Zion Canyon, and Bryce Canyon in the US southwest show various evidence of rapid formation. There are also sub-surface problems:
1. flat layers of sediment such as coal indicate those layers were never the surface of the earth if they are flat (i.e. level) because the earth isn't level. Even with rock above pressing down on the lower layers there should be major undulations, indicative of millions of years of erosion but there isn't. "A puzzling characteristic of the erathern boundaries and of many other major biostratigraphic boundaries is the general lack of physical evidence of sub-aerial exposure. Traces of deep leaching, scour, channeling and residual gravels tend to be lacking, even if the underlying rocks are cherty limestones. These boundaries are paraconformities that are usually identifiable only by palaeontological evidence."[1]
2. rock doesn't require millions of years to form. New rock material is added everyday to stalactites and stalagmites in caves and it is visible enough of change to be measurable over a few months time frame. Calcium-rich water can easily form new rocks over a few months' time frame. Gem stones like malachite can be formed on demand by humans. Humans can now make diamonds in the lab without waiting millions of years so why are we told it takes millions of years for rocks to form in Nature?
3. At the present average rate of erosion and measured over billions of years, all the continents should have been washed into the oceans by now. "Even if it is accepted that estimates of the contemporary rate of degradation of land surfaces are several orders too high to provide an accurate yardstick of erosion in the geological past, there has surely been ample time for the very ancient features preserved in the present landscape to have been eradicated several times over. Yet the silcrated land surface of central Australia has survived perhaps 20 million ye
Well then persuade the editors to create a holiday or Easter or some other category that better fits this particular post and any other post that doesn't fall squarely into a particular category. Given a finite # of categories and that number being very very small, it is hard to categorize every conceivable submission appropriately. And it has happened before on this site so I can't figure out why you got modded for stating an obvious, known problem.
Just in case you were not aware of it, you are retarded.
Wow, I think we have the winner for the Most Open Minded AC of the year. Kudos for coming back with a scientific argument backing up your contribution to the discussion. Coming from an AC, it means a lot, truly, it does. I'm saddened that there is no mod called Retarded that you can give to me because then I'd give one right back to you since you contributed so much more than I have. Rest assured, I'll probably end up with another mod that will vindicate you.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh yes, another over generalization brought to us by a fellow slashdot user. I think you are the naive one if you believe 1 crooked cop is representative of the whole.
Or in the case of this year and others, 365 days.
There is a legitimate reason for that. A batting average is not a prediction for the future but a record of the past. Of course, the same applies to all other statistics in any subject for that matter.
Where I work we have to create bills of materials for each government project. These include hardware, hw maintenance, software, sw maintenance, cables, etc. We do use some applications for every project (security apps for example) so we are familiar with those vendors' licenses but we often design systems with applications never before used in the environment. We have to get familiar with the licensing of the products so the bill of materials is accurate and so the gov't won't get into trouble. In the environment I work in there is production and test equipment. One aspect that many of us at work forget about concerning licensing is that some companies actually offer some level of discount for licenses used in a test environment (Oracle database is 100% free for test use). Some also offer discounts on licenses installed on hot-standby server nodes. All companies are different and it is a pain to properly track this level of detail, not to mention the support for those test licenses also has to be taken into account. There are so many variables that can be used for software licensing that it is completely out of hand. Licensing is really the worst thing since sliced bread.
It takes two to tango. It's not just that men have blurry vision. Women have fuzzy logic, too.
There, fixed that for you.
Assuming your single friend was a female, I think you should have been practicing connecting to another one of her ports besides LPT.
Obsolete does not necessarily mean that it is no longer in use at all. From dictionary.com:
1. no longer in general use; fallen into disuseIn the case of dial-up modems, they are just no longer in general use given the proliferation of DSL and cable modem service for the majority of the U.S. population.
We are very protected given our location in the universe (which it has been shown is the center given the concentric circles of variation within the CMB radiation). Our galaxy is not near another to cause a collision any time soon. Our Solar System is far enough from the core of the galaxy to not have any issues with the fierce gravity field nor are we close to anything on the spiral arm to harm us. The planet itself is far enough from the Sun to not kill us from heat or the near absolute zero of space. The planet is protected by all the other planets from comets and asteroids (and the Sun for that matter). Our atmosphere protects from any material that gets through any of those other barriers. And most of our planet is covered by water so odds are if anything gets through the atmosphere it will cause less damage by hitting water rather than a land mass.
Some people would say those reasons are specifically why Life was able to begin. I say it is there for Life to be sustained because Life began with the same Creator who put those protections in place *for* us. But that is my opinion. This universe is a dangerous place but we are protected from it by many layers of armor. When we start playing around to see what that armor is made of we better be prepared.
So don't post your images to public areas of the service, otherwise they do not have the right to do anything with them. From their ToS which someone else already pointed out (emphasis mine):
Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed. Publicly accessible areas of the Services are those areas of the Adobe network of properties that are intended by Adobe to be available to the general public. However, publicly accessible areas of the Services do not include Services intended for private communication or areas off the Adobe network of properties such as portions of World Wide Web sites that are accessible via hypertext or other links but are not hosted or served by Adobe.Bottom line: just don't post your images to publicly accessible areas of the service and you'll be fine. For those who this is targeting, I doubt they would care. For anyone else, you wouldn't be using this service anyway and would already have Photoshop installed (legally or otherwise) on your workstation.
Adobe InDesign from the CS3 Master collection also starts slower on OSX compared to Windows. Not sure why.
And the Shelby (no, not that Shelby) Ultimate Aero can go faster than that (272 mph) with room for more.
Yes, 18 of April's issue. I don't know about the month before that. The CLI calculator was a different column, from Dave Taylor, not Reuven Lerner.
But that's beside the point, go read some history on BBS's, Usenet, actual computer club meetings where people met face to face (Hello Tandy Users Group). Better app? Is that what's its come down to, who has the better social app? Go create 3rd life or Sims:Ron Jeremy or something.I'm not interested in it which is what I stated indirectly in my original post. I don't get into social sites and I don't get into development using them. But for curiousity sake I was wondering how OpenSocial compared to this new commercial application engine. And as far as your rant is concerned, technology progresses (I won't say 'evolves' because that involves lack of design), so even though usenet is still around we have moved beyond that into instant messaging and now I'd wager the next thing beyond IM is the social websites and the applications that build up around them.
Neither is GRB 080319B since it is too far away. Haley's comet at least comes closer to us than GRB 080319B and it got named after someone. If it did hit Earth it definitely would do some damage too. What does the level of catastrophe associated with a celestial event/object have to do with whether it is named after someone?
From TFA:
So will there be any way to get a copy of XP after June 30?Yes, the same way there has always been a way to get it: warez. And of course existing copies still work just fine so keep transferring the license as long as your total # of PCs doesn't go up. For private parties this is usually the case. Businesses will have to fend for themselves.
If you want to continue using XP, what problems will you face?Well the same we've always had, and for me that hasn't been many. Sure the registry gets annoying after a while but out of all the years it's been available I've only reinstalled twice I think. That is much less frequently than older versions. It is stable and runs well. I'll be running it for a long long time. Security patches will continue to be released, not that I install them anyway (I have SP2 installed right now though).
If you buy a PC with Vista installed and decide you want XP instead, what are your options?For one, don't buy a PC with Vista installed. Build a PC or have someone build one for you if you are a private party. For another, keep your existing license of XP to transfer to the new machine or pirate a copy if you are the type to do that. Again, businesses will of course have bigger issues. Hopefully they will begin investigating Linux prior to realizing they don't want to be forced to Vista.
I'm not a web app developer nor do I get heavily into the social websites but I have a subscription to Linux Journal so I've heard and read about OpenSocial through Reuven Lerner's column. I did skim over the article and it did state a later version of this application engine will support compatibility with OpenSocial. But the question I have to those who know more about these types of things, which one (Ringside or OpenSocial) is really the better app? If I'd have to guess I'd say OpenSocial but maybe Ringside offers things that OS doesn't. Can anyone provide a quick compare/contrast?
I hope this means that servers with the new chips will not actually cost 2-4x as much as an equivalent Dell server. IMHO, Sun needs to do something about the cost of their servers. I try to only use them when required because of their cost and I'm told the inflated price is due to the low yields of the SPARCs.
I heard 2 numbers, $4100/hr and $4300/hr, and a comment that she was middle of the road for price for the company she worked for. Not that it is relevant to your post...or that I pay attention to her that much. I just have a uh, good memory, yeah that's it.
Rubbish.
this sort of impossibility twaddle is easily discredited. For example, tall buildings or arched/suspended bridges could not be erected without a scaffold or crane. But once erected those are removed. Just because there is no evidence to be found that they were there does not mean the buildings sprung into existence fully formed.
You miss the point (as you did many times in your post since I started from the bottom and worked my way up). Your analogy is incorrect. The "scaffolding" is still present in the animals I provided as examples. The "scaffolding" is also still needed and was always needed for the animal to survive. Your burden of proof involves showing these animals could survive without any one or more of the features I noted. If all those capabilities are required at once we have a problem.
Bombadier beetle.
Oxidative enzymes and fizzy action are good ways to digest something in your mouth cavity. It would be no surprise if the bombadier's enzymes were developed for digestion and then later recruited for defense. Many animals regurgitate or spray digestive juices as defensive or offensive weapons. Even single celled organisms secrete highly indesructable proteases to destroy the competition. Others, like the Spike bearing ones have cannons they can shoot this from. If single celled organisms can evolve this its not a stretch to imagine a beetle pulling it off.
It isn't a question of where the enzymes evolved from. The problem is the enzymes evolving all at once with the beetles other features to prevent itself from blowing up which you did not address. All you did was state that other organisms have the same capability. So what? That doesn't prove evolution gave it to them let alone gave it to the beetle in such a way that it wouldn't kill itself when using it's slowly growing explosion capability.
Giraffe.
Many animals, like diving douplhins, seals, whales pull off similar stunts at orders of magnitude greater pressure differentials. Thus not only had such mechanisms evolved while we were all sea-bred creatures, and vestigal mechanisms potentialially latent in our DNA, but the specific machanism in Giraffes is not the only way to skin the pressure cat. For example, airplane pilots who work at High-Gs know that clenching muscles can prevent vaso-dialiation consequently fainting. It's not hard to imagine that early long necked creatures could survive without this adaptation, and the means to re-evolve it was possible in DNA.
Wow, you are living way out there if you think we came from the sea. Hello merman. Oh wait, merman/maids are supposed to be fiction. I forgot we were picking and choosing what is real and what isn't.
Well if clenching muscles is the only thing needed then why do giraffes have the features they have? Why would evolution have developed them if they were unneeded? Where's the physical evidence it needed what it has instead of what water-based creatures use?
Woodpeckers:
this one can be dismissed. There are lots of birds that eat tree bugs by whatever means they can dig them out. trees come in all denisities. You don't need to evolve to be a wood pecker in one go.
The point isn't that only woodpeckers can eat bugs out of a tree.The point is that a present-day woodpecker's specific method of doing so would kill it if it did not have all at once the bodily features it has. If there is proof it could peck as fast (and with the same force) as it can now without having a skull structure that present-day woodpeckers have or that it didn't always close its eyes to prevent them from bursting out of its head then I'll concede the point.
Rapid Canyon formation.
I happen to live on the base of a caldera. My house is perched 200 feet over a straight drop to the steep walled canyon bottom. This was carved by a combination of massive floods and slow erosion. Simmila
First, you mischaracterize enforcing immigration laws with xenophobia. You may want to fix that before you go spouting off about it. The US is a land of immigrants and we have laws for subsequent immigrants. No one says we don't want anyone else in this country but if they come here they must abide by the rules that everyone else abides by. That isn't being afraid of them. That is requiring *them* to play by the same rules *you and I* play by.
And if a Democrat gets in (like Clinton) we'll end up with corruption (by association with her husband but maybe she'll bring her own too, morally or financially) and financial mismanagement by instituting universal healthcare which will raise taxes thru the roof. Had it not been for terrorism we wouldn't be at war right now so you can't blame the President for that. No one asked for it. Now you can blame Republicans for that because Democrats usually sit back and just take it up the ass however going to war still takes approval by Congress. I haven't yet seen any indication of racism in the last 8 years either. And yes, I agree there was torture. Those who were in the WTC buildings when the planes hit and were subsequently doused with flaming jet fuel were truly tortured.
Nothing in the story you linked said anything regarding the execution or death of cartoonists or anyone else for that matter. So given that, what exactly is your definition of "close"? Blaming someone for something and saying they should die (specifying punishment) are 2 different things and that article on the washington post site only mentioned Falwell and Robertson blaming various groups of people. Claiming American evangelicals only blow up abortion clinics is akin to saying men kill people by drunk driving when everyone knows full well that is an incorrect characterization. We may as well say that women blow up abortion clinics which would also be incorrect because not all women do. Why characterize those who blow up abortion clinics as american evangelicals? They may claim themselves to be (which is a basis for their action) but anyone who does that is not and as such you shouldn't portray them as an evangelical either. Whoever decides to bomb anyone else is an extremist who does not represent the whole. That is all.
It is also a minority who go "apeshit" at other religions for no good reason. A minority of any group is going to be against the majority of another group. Take slashdot users for example, there are a few people on here who don't like people who are members of a religion. I'm sure that the majority of slashdot users are indifferent to religion and members of the various religions but a select few for some reason hate religion (someone who posted to this submission said he abhors all religions, why? Hard to say). I'm sure a select few Linux users hate Windows users. Hate is prevalent in this world and is not confined to having a basis in religion.
You responded to someone who said that evangelicals do not get up in arms over a newspaper depicting Jesus in a bad light which is the perfect target for those newspapers because they know Christians are taught to not fight back. Thus the newspapers act like bullies in elementary school probably because of nothing else to do (slow news day) and for popularity. Muslims get up in arms over something like that because they are taught differently, namely that violence is the solution to everything.
Do you have major issues with things you don't understand, or maybe deep-seated anger against someone of faith who you feel wronged you in the past to cause such abhorrence with no obvious reason?
Name one. That's all I want to see. One single creature that you claim wouldn't have survived to reproduce to its current state.
Bombardier beatle - read the defense mechanism section. Without having a series of explosions it would blow itself up. Without the catalysts it would blow itself up. It needs everything it has at once so it doesn't blow itself up.
Giraffe - read the circulatory system section. Without the rete mirabile in the giraffe's skull it would get too much blood in its brain when it lowers its head to drink or faint when it raises its head at the sight of a predator. It needs that rete mirabile for it's existence otherwise evolution kills it off.
Woodpecker - read the Physiology and behavior section. There is one thing that isn't listed there which is that a woodpecker closes its eyelids in between every peck. Scientists state this is not to prevent debris from hitting the eyes but to prevent the force from pecking from knocking the eyes out of the bird's skull. With that requirement and it's need for a special skeletal structure it would kill itself when it pecks on a tree without all those features at once.
There are others but I won't take the time to list them. I'll move on.
I would also like to see a citation for the Great Flood claims made above as well. I've never seen a geologist claim there was one, though I've seen them talk about substantial flooding in the areas surrounding Mesopotamia. The only person I know personally that believes in a great flood is also rigid in his belief that the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs are a trick played on us by God.
You actually think a scientist would stake his reputation on saying the Great Flood caused the Grand Canyon to form which would make evolution impossible? No wonder you can't find a claim for this but if you look hard enough you can. Rock formations such as those in Monument Valley, Zion Canyon, and Bryce Canyon in the US southwest show various evidence of rapid formation. There are also sub-surface problems:
1. flat layers of sediment such as coal indicate those layers were never the surface of the earth if they are flat (i.e. level) because the earth isn't level. Even with rock above pressing down on the lower layers there should be major undulations, indicative of millions of years of erosion but there isn't. "A puzzling characteristic of the erathern boundaries and of many other major biostratigraphic boundaries is the general lack of physical evidence of sub-aerial exposure. Traces of deep leaching, scour, channeling and residual gravels tend to be lacking, even if the underlying rocks are cherty limestones. These boundaries are paraconformities that are usually identifiable only by palaeontological evidence."[1]
2. rock doesn't require millions of years to form. New rock material is added everyday to stalactites and stalagmites in caves and it is visible enough of change to be measurable over a few months time frame. Calcium-rich water can easily form new rocks over a few months' time frame. Gem stones like malachite can be formed on demand by humans. Humans can now make diamonds in the lab without waiting millions of years so why are we told it takes millions of years for rocks to form in Nature?
3. At the present average rate of erosion and measured over billions of years, all the continents should have been washed into the oceans by now. "Even if it is accepted that estimates of the contemporary rate of degradation of land surfaces are several orders too high to provide an accurate yardstick of erosion in the geological past, there has surely been ample time for the very ancient features preserved in the present landscape to have been eradicated several times over. Yet the silcrated land surface of central Australia has survived perhaps 20 million ye
Well then persuade the editors to create a holiday or Easter or some other category that better fits this particular post and any other post that doesn't fall squarely into a particular category. Given a finite # of categories and that number being very very small, it is hard to categorize every conceivable submission appropriately. And it has happened before on this site so I can't figure out why you got modded for stating an obvious, known problem.
Wow, I think we have the winner for the Most Open Minded AC of the year. Kudos for coming back with a scientific argument backing up your contribution to the discussion. Coming from an AC, it means a lot, truly, it does. I'm saddened that there is no mod called Retarded that you can give to me because then I'd give one right back to you since you contributed so much more than I have. Rest assured, I'll probably end up with another mod that will vindicate you.