I'm also slightly disturbed by the fact that you copied your post paragraph verbatim from http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/58/, a web site that has as its mission statement, "To create, develop, and distribute materials to stimulate, encourage, and facilitate serious study of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God." Probably not the best source for a discussion of theoretical physics, methinks...
Right, because "let there be light" is so different than what happened when recombination occurred (and let light flow through the cosmos) or that the Big Bang occurred (proof of a beginning) which is so different from Creation itself. You don't seem to realize that everything physicists have been finding so far is supporting what the Bible says. Just because scientists don't say anything regarding God in how they view the universe started doesn't change the fact that everything they believe to have happened is exactly how Genesis describes the universe. I'm sure some of them hate the fact that their theories are supporting the Bible. In fact, Fred Hoyle didn't like the Big Bang theory because it implied a point of creation. God still exists whether you believe in Him or not; scientific theories about the universe support the Bible whether scientists like it or not. Also, Setterfield used more than just a handful of measurements to create his theory on the slowing down of light. His website shows what he did. Finally, Joao Magueijo wrote a book a few years ago about his theory about the non-constancy of the speed of light.
The problem with TFA is that it makes little logical sense. In what possible sense can time be "slowing down?" "Slowing down" is a statement that something is changing less per unit time. If you like, that dx/dt is negative.
The same way that physicists say that time slows down when a person moves faster and faster towards the speed of light. That is how time travel can work. A person who is moving ages slower than a person at rest (time moves slower).
But how can you measure the "rate" at which time itself is changing? If "change in time" (dt) is going to go in the numerator, what will go in the denominator? Can't be dt, of course. So how do you define the "rate" at which time changes? I can't think of anything. It's like asking the price of money. "Price" means "how much you get per unit money." You can't ask how much money you get per unit money. (Note to nitpickers: the price of currency, e.g. the price of dollars in drachma, is not a valid counterexample.)
Measuring time is a problem when you get down to it empirically. Just like there is a Planck length, there is also Planck time. Planck time (the value is an exercise for the reader, I'm too lazy) is the minimum window of time that can be measured (suffice to say it is very very small). Any timeslice smaller than the Planck time has no meaning just like there can only be so small a distance that can be measured in space before you get down to the constituents of what makes up space and then you can't make any shorter measurements of distance.
Measuring the rate at which time changes isn't the issue here. Besides, we have that capability now: most people work at the level of time changing at the rate we consider to be a second (defined by the # of oscillations made by a cesium atom in a particular amount of time which we define as a second). The issue is how many of those changes from 1 second to another do we have in the universe? This article says we have fewer than we thought. Supposedly time didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. If the universe ceases to exist then we, in theory, have no more time to measure. So if the end of the universe will come sooner than expected (if it comes at all) then we are running out of time.
Humans perceive a particular flow of time (my, how time flies). Scientifically we say that time passes based on information received by our eyes using photons. If the speed of light changes then we perceive time to be moving slower or faster. There is evidence that the speed of light is not constant (slowing down over the last 6000 years). If that is true then time is actually slowing down since we base perception of time (and for that matter, distance) on light.
Why does the FCC not do what it is supposed to do, regulating who can use what bands of airwaves, but is quite happy to throw a bunch of unconstitutional fines around for exposing a "forbidden" section of epidermis or saying a "forbidden" word if they don't like the show?
If not the FCC then who? Someone has to, yes, someone. We don't need (and if we get it eventually we'll soon see that we also don't want it) television without bounds. Without bounds there is chaos. The reason for the fines is the context in which content is shown on TV. The US doesn't know how to treat nudity in any way other than for entertainment and profit. That isn't what nudity is meant to be used for. Fix that problem and most people probably wouldn't mind nudity on TV but that would defeat the purpose of why *you* want it though wouldn't it? There is a time and place for yelling "fire!" just as there is a time and place for nudity. Pick the wrong time and place and you break the law. The freedom of speech does not trump everything. Violence on TV is also inappropriate. It's funny, I seem to recall many years ago when movies would be advertised with "inappropriate violence" or "gratuitous sex". Now movies are advertised with sex and violence like it is needed and not extraneous in any way.
the mandate is weak in its language. It only states the network "core" has to be capable of using IPv6 addresses and routing IPv6 data. "Core" is taken to mean all network devices from the traditional core down to access-level switches and includes routers. Of course, any other devices (firewalls, IDSs, etc.) in those paths would also have to be able to route IPv6 in order to eventually do the end-to-end tests to verify you meet requirements. There are 3 tests: send packets from outside the network to a host on the internal network, vice versa, and from a host on one LAN to a host on another LAN. After you show that works you can turn IPv6 off. I know one agency's division who is planning to do just that. They don't want IPv6 enabled. They are doing the minimum required which is to enable it, test it, disable it but leave it configured. If the government wanted more (such as IPv6 usage in applications or actually to have it in use in the network after 6/30/2008) than that they should have made better requirements. You get what you ask for.
Deborah Platt Majoras has refused to recuse herself from the agency's review
Perhaps you mean "excuse"? Spell-checkers are great, but they won't do everything for you.
Dictionaries are great too, but they won't do everything for you. If you ever read/watched/listened to anything regarding conflicts of interest (especially with regard to the legal system) you would know that "recuse" is the word that is always used in situations like this.
I can't beleive how many businesses get scammed by the snake oil called "Cisco Routers"
Why spend $500 on a 8xx-model router, when a $50 D-Link or Linksys works OUT OF THE BOX just as good as a Cisco Router with some high priced CCNA consultant setting it up for $200 per hour.
They may have been "special" 10 years ago, but nowadays they are a rip off
I can do anything with a LinkSys that you can do with a high prices Cisco router both come with 10/100 ports and do NAT, firewalling, and even VPN
why why why buy a Cisco router?
Probably for those little things called routing protocols. Obviously a Linksys (now owned by Cisco) router is fine for a small business but a large enough business and especially enterprise-level businesses need higher-end devices to do global routing and connect to service providers directly through frame relay or whatever. When is the last time you were able to successfully plug a frame relay circuit into a Linksys WRT54g router? Obviously this is an extreme comparison and your comparison is with a 8xx-model router but it really still comes down to functionality. Yeah, there are some things in the Linksys but it knows diddly about routing protocols and forget about the fact it really is a switch more than anything else (IMO). I hope your "high priced Cisco router" doesn't mean the $500 8xx-model you mention at the beginning of your post.
How exactly would they force me to divulge my passphrase? Torture? Put me in jail? What?
Yes, they would put you in jail. If they subpoenaed you because you are a witness to a crime and you do not show up to take the stand or you just don't say anything while on the stand they just put you in jail for obstruction of justice. Maybe this is different because it is your own information they are asking for and not someone else's but I'd guess they would put you in jail.
The founders were smarter than that. The US Constitution instead assumes that people have these rights (as expressed in the Declaration of Independence), and limits government interference with them. Read the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law...", later clarified to mean that no branch of the government at any level can do those things (interfere with speech, religion, the press, gathering).
The problem is the interpretation of "Congress shall make no law..". It is pretty cut and dry to me (make a law; don't make a law). But it seems even when there is no law stating a person must submit to Christianity and instead when there is merely a display of the 10 Commandments (or some similar passive act), some people take it to mean Congress made a law at some point forcing people to become a Christian against their will. That has to be what they are implying given they cry about how their first amendment rights are being violated. And the bad thing is that the courts in some cases actually do uphold that lame complaint despite no bill ever being signed into law. Even taking "Congress shall make no law..." to mean no branch of gov't can interfere with religion does not help those who complain about something like I mentioned above. Displaying religious symbols does not interfere with a person's religion.
The "Climate Crisis" interpretation is that, due to the sudden rise of atmospheric carbon, we're in danger of not just a few degrees of warmth or sea level jumping a hundred feet, but a cascading series of feedback loops that will render Earth wholly uninhabitable.
Fear. Fear drives the media and government funding.
We know the temperature is going up. We know that carbon in the air is going up. We know that we're tossing an awful lot of carbon into the air We can see a clear correlation between temperature and carbon going back a few thousand years.
As many others point out here all the time in response to comments on other submissions, correlation is not equal to causation. See below for more on this.
Don't YOU think that's enough to, I don't know, stop tossing carbon into the air and see what happens? If it turns out to do nothing, we can just let you burn dinosaurs again. I know I'd rather lose my next paycheck than die.
Actually, no I don't think that is enough. It is mere correlation and maybe not even that giving consideration to errors in data and any biases involved. I'd prefer to spend money on something we know will make a difference. And before we do that I'd want to make sure there is a problem in the first place, not to mention one that can be fixed by humans. Just as there have been Ice Ages in the past, there have also been temperature increases which were not severe enough to cause life to die out. Why should this situation (if there is one) be any different, just because the population is higher now we think we may have caused the issue to be exacerbated?
Just 20 or 30 years ago we were discussing global cooling and the chances of another Ice Age. Maybe we should wait a few years more before we throw billions into curbing what we think is causing global warming. I'm all for changing what we can do reduce the reliance on oil (because of the cost of it and gasoline) but not for this so called global warming "crisis". There are many climatologists who do not agree with global warming. Why aren't we focusing on that research instead? Remember, these computer models are created by humans who make mistakes and have biases (they want funding) and their models are supposed to show global forceasts 100 years from now when we can't even make accurate 30 day weather (yes, I know that isn't the same as climate) forecasts.
First, Global Warming is passe, try Global Climate Change. That's a better term for your crowd because when it snows in April you can relate it to Global Climate Change. It has the added benefit of being completely true since no one is going to argue for Global Climate Stasis.
Which means we don't have anything new and we can all move along. I seem to recall at least one Ice Age in the past which means global climate change isn't new. When people say temperature decreases are part of global warming it is a cop out for global warming proponents who really don't know what is going on which makes them right no matter what happens. Convenient isn't it?
it's the gene that makes some people not have any self-control and willpower.
A December 6th article in Nature explores the relationship between a specific gene and those of us prone to repeatedly making the same mistakes. From the article: "Drug addicts, alcoholics and compulsive gamblers are known to be more likely than other people to have this genetic mutation..."
I don't call drug addicts, alcoholics, and gamblers people who make mistakes. I call them people who don't have any willpower to stop doing something that is bad despite what temporary "rewards" those things give people.
Oh yeah, I forgot! Thanks for clearing that up. Also, did you ever notice that in the US its ok for prime time tv to show someone's bullet riddled corpse, but its not ok for two people to be shown having sex, or even showing nudity? Its like the act of procreation and creating life is taboo, but the act of ending life isn't - and we wonder why we have issues with violence in our nation. Hell, its considered distasteful to even show things like "The Miracle of Life" without it being in a highly academic context.
I'm not saying violence is okay but you have 2 things going against your argument. 1) Sex and nudity are portrayed uncensored more and more on television for some reason. I guess the media producers have nothing left up their sleeve to make shows entertaining anymore so they turn to imitating Skinemax (Nip/Tuck). 2) Did you ever notice that in the US on prime time tv, everytime they would have a scene related to sex its merely for the sexual gratification and not for actual procreation? In movies when nudity and sex scenes are not censored they are merely there for the sake of having nudity (it doesn't add anything to the movie) so it's being done for all the wrong reasons. Sex and nudity in the US media is used for money and shock value so don't act like the few times when US television doesn't show it is because procreation is taboo. If it was on TV for reasons of procreation you might have an argument. Sex isn't ever depicted as the procreation method and if it is depicted for any other reason (which it is) then it is simply exploited for ratings (i.e. money). Obviously the violence is too but at least sex is sometimes censored but unfortunately as I mentioned above, even that is becoming allowed despite its exploitive nature.
But MP3 is superior to WMA. It means that we will be able to listen to it when WE decide to, not when MS decides that we can.
I'm usually a rabid MS-hater, but let's not spout FUD or falsehoods here. WMA is just a codec, and plays just fine on my Ubuntu machine. I'm pretty sure there's nothing that MS can do to take that away from me (technically, at least).
I actually took the GP to mean that we don't have to worry about DRM with MP3, unlike WMA where you may have to acquire a license to listen to a song and may even be limited to how many listenings you have of the song. Do DRM'ed WMA songs work okay in Ubuntu? That may sound stupid but I'm seriously asking since I haven't touched Linux that way (no, not that way) in a while.
After that...I wonder how long before the various branches of government will require this DNA data be turned over for the US Homeland security national DNA database??
You mean CODIS? I would guess that they can only have it turned over with a warrant and only under the assumption they believe the suspect is a customer of 23andme. Just like any other database that *already* exists which contains information on a suspect (credit cards, telephone, etc.). Do you think your paranoia will carry over into the next Administration?
DNA is relatively unstable. I[sic] doesn't survive completely intact for 65 million years no matter how you preserve it.
Mosquitoes trapped in amber wouldn't be great sources of DNA - it would have still decomposed over time.
And yet some people still think that DNA (and RNA, can't forget that) was somehow able to be created so it survive the period of time (at least decades and more like hundreds of millennia if evolution is to be believed) prior to being encased in the first cellular structure so it could begin replicating. hmmmm.
DSL and FIOS are examples of star toplogy; you do not share your incoming line with anyone else at all. The bandwidth converges only at the local node where high bandwidth fiber is provided to the node.
Do you see why cable is at a disadvantage here?
I just know that around 9-10PM at night my parents basically have no DSL connectivity because the Verizon network in their area is now saturated despite it being fine over a year ago when they first signed up. It isn't that it is just slow (slowness is a first sign which probably lasts about 5 minutes). It just doesn't work; the modem/router loses its DHCP lease and *if* it regains the lease it loses it shortly afterwards. I was surfing fine from 7 to shortly before 10PM on Thanksgiving day but at 10PM (almost on the hour) I could no longer connect to any websites. The router had lost its lease and I never got it to work again during the time I was there for the next hour. My parents said that behavior was typical but they don't use it late at night so they don't mind it much. If it were me I'd be raising hell.
Wow. I guess it was easier for moderators to mod you down rather than allow fellow/.ers to address your argument.:-/
If you are referring to the -1, that was due to other posts, regarding the same topic (and others) but just not with any scientific evidence to back up the claims. The truth hurts I guess. I don't see any mods yet on this post you responded to.
--set up their own religious persecution. I know you're no doubt a product of the sub-standard southern public school system,
Hmmm, another/. member assumption gone afoul in an attempt to make an insult true. I'm actually from the North. Are you now going to call the northern public school system sub-standard too? Anyway, the important difference with the Puritans (not to say persecution is sometimes good; it's always bad) is that in Europe it was the government doing the persecution hence the reason for the first amendment. People don't realize what a separation between church and state really means because they forget. The Puritans may have done some persecution of their own (I don't pretend to be a history buff) but the reason for leaving Europe was because the governments were doing it; that was a true integration of church and state. Also, not all immigrants that came here did so to set up their own religious persecution (your words remember, not mine) so be careful with blanket statements. Some truly wanted a new life by escaping from what they knew back home.
Jefferson and Franklin aside, the "founding fathers" wanted a land that was safe... for Christianity.
The Founding Fathers had a mixture of beliefs. It was probably more like denominations now since they were basically all Christian (I didn't say they were all Christian though). Even so, there has been no government institutionalized religion (of Christianity or any other religion for that matter) in the United States specifically because they wanted a land where a citizen could belong to any religion he/she wanted. They may have pushed for freedom for Christians however this has obviously been extended to other religions as more and more people filter into this country or simply as people's beliefs change.
The problem arises when those who had been given the right to be a member of whatever religion they wanted (by the first amendment), outside of the probable original target of Christianity, start using the first amendment against others that do not share their minority religious views. It turns into a hijacking of the first amendment under the guise of the first amendment being violated. That, in turn, creates a hypocritical situation because Group A, who is accusing Group B of taking Group A's religious freedom away, actually tries to take religious freedom away from Group B instead. I'll stop there since this is off topic now.
So, out of curiosity, at this point (given the evidence we have in favor of evolution) what would we have to find to disprove it? Since the ability to be proved false stands at the core of the criticism of ID. Wow, you have an open mind, sort of. Anyway, let me propose something to you that puts a nail in the head of evolution. Look up information regarding the logarithmic decay of the speed of light. Photons affect radioactive decay and the changing speed of light affects the rate of radioactive decay. There is clear scientific evidence light is slowing down (less so now because of the logarithmic nature of the decrease). With that said, if carbon dating is based on radioactive decay and decay is based on the speed of light, carbon dating needs fixed. The anwers need modified to show accurate dates. When those dates are modified correctly billions of years turns into thousands which blows evolution out of the water. I'd like your opinion on the matter if you would be so kind. I found this site which discusses the speed of light decay. An interesting timeline is also provided which shows a different view of earth's age.
Basically, outside of the major coastal and midwestern urban areas the whole damn nation is uneducated white trash, eating, drinking, sleeping, and living the Bible, the small print on Wal-Mart labels, and little else. They're about as different from a New Yorker or a San Franciscan as a microscope lens is from the bottom of a beer bottle.
Wow, and you think you do a service to those who don't have religion? I can't believe this post got modded insightful because it is wrong on so many levels. I guess because you denigrated those who have faith and blended in with the rest of the/. crowd you got the mod you got. You denigrate those who oppose your views and yet you think you are the better person somehow. If that isn't hypocritical I don't know what is. It's sad that declaring religious people as uneducated white trash and basically second class citizens makes you insightful. I'd say pitiful is more accurate. You are right that they are as different from New Yorkers and San Franciscans as a microscope is from a beer bottle (good shot at the supposed intelligence disparity too by the way).
It was people like those different from New Yorkers and San Franciscans who wanted to leave the religious persecution in Europe brought on by people like you that made them come here to establish the country we now know as the United States of American and it isn't that much of a stretch to say that if they hadn't done that you and I probably wouldn't be here today. And yet you have the balls to declare them 2nd class citizens because they believe in something different than you. Tell me, by acting/speaking out based on your lack of beliefs do you really think you make yourself rise above those who have different views from you? It's nice to know you still believe we should be living in an era similar to when some people were worth 1/3 of a white man or who weren't allowed to vote because they were female.
I don't believe this professor should have been fired b/c of the bias. I think the proponents of both views should be tolerant of each other (fat chance with people like you though) and the topics should be discussed in an open forum so the lack of evidence for both sides can be examined equally. It would take time but the correct theory would eventually surface.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because "let there be light" is so different than what happened when recombination occurred (and let light flow through the cosmos) or that the Big Bang occurred (proof of a beginning) which is so different from Creation itself. You don't seem to realize that everything physicists have been finding so far is supporting what the Bible says. Just because scientists don't say anything regarding God in how they view the universe started doesn't change the fact that everything they believe to have happened is exactly how Genesis describes the universe. I'm sure some of them hate the fact that their theories are supporting the Bible. In fact, Fred Hoyle didn't like the Big Bang theory because it implied a point of creation. God still exists whether you believe in Him or not; scientific theories about the universe support the Bible whether scientists like it or not. Also, Setterfield used more than just a handful of measurements to create his theory on the slowing down of light. His website shows what he did. Finally, Joao Magueijo wrote a book a few years ago about his theory about the non-constancy of the speed of light.
The same way that physicists say that time slows down when a person moves faster and faster towards the speed of light. That is how time travel can work. A person who is moving ages slower than a person at rest (time moves slower).
But how can you measure the "rate" at which time itself is changing? If "change in time" (dt) is going to go in the numerator, what will go in the denominator? Can't be dt, of course. So how do you define the "rate" at which time changes? I can't think of anything. It's like asking the price of money. "Price" means "how much you get per unit money." You can't ask how much money you get per unit money. (Note to nitpickers: the price of currency, e.g. the price of dollars in drachma, is not a valid counterexample.)Measuring time is a problem when you get down to it empirically. Just like there is a Planck length, there is also Planck time. Planck time (the value is an exercise for the reader, I'm too lazy) is the minimum window of time that can be measured (suffice to say it is very very small). Any timeslice smaller than the Planck time has no meaning just like there can only be so small a distance that can be measured in space before you get down to the constituents of what makes up space and then you can't make any shorter measurements of distance.
Measuring the rate at which time changes isn't the issue here. Besides, we have that capability now: most people work at the level of time changing at the rate we consider to be a second (defined by the # of oscillations made by a cesium atom in a particular amount of time which we define as a second). The issue is how many of those changes from 1 second to another do we have in the universe? This article says we have fewer than we thought. Supposedly time didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. If the universe ceases to exist then we, in theory, have no more time to measure. So if the end of the universe will come sooner than expected (if it comes at all) then we are running out of time.
Humans perceive a particular flow of time (my, how time flies). Scientifically we say that time passes based on information received by our eyes using photons. If the speed of light changes then we perceive time to be moving slower or faster. There is evidence that the speed of light is not constant (slowing down over the last 6000 years). If that is true then time is actually slowing down since we base perception of time (and for that matter, distance) on light.
No that's what your brain turns into when a Sony cell phone battery made with this technology explodes next to your head.
If not the FCC then who? Someone has to, yes, someone. We don't need (and if we get it eventually we'll soon see that we also don't want it) television without bounds. Without bounds there is chaos. The reason for the fines is the context in which content is shown on TV. The US doesn't know how to treat nudity in any way other than for entertainment and profit. That isn't what nudity is meant to be used for. Fix that problem and most people probably wouldn't mind nudity on TV but that would defeat the purpose of why *you* want it though wouldn't it? There is a time and place for yelling "fire!" just as there is a time and place for nudity. Pick the wrong time and place and you break the law. The freedom of speech does not trump everything. Violence on TV is also inappropriate. It's funny, I seem to recall many years ago when movies would be advertised with "inappropriate violence" or "gratuitous sex". Now movies are advertised with sex and violence like it is needed and not extraneous in any way.
I know. It's scary isn't it?
the mandate is weak in its language. It only states the network "core" has to be capable of using IPv6 addresses and routing IPv6 data. "Core" is taken to mean all network devices from the traditional core down to access-level switches and includes routers. Of course, any other devices (firewalls, IDSs, etc.) in those paths would also have to be able to route IPv6 in order to eventually do the end-to-end tests to verify you meet requirements. There are 3 tests: send packets from outside the network to a host on the internal network, vice versa, and from a host on one LAN to a host on another LAN. After you show that works you can turn IPv6 off. I know one agency's division who is planning to do just that. They don't want IPv6 enabled. They are doing the minimum required which is to enable it, test it, disable it but leave it configured. If the government wanted more (such as IPv6 usage in applications or actually to have it in use in the network after 6/30/2008) than that they should have made better requirements. You get what you ask for.
Dictionaries are great too, but they won't do everything for you. If you ever read/watched/listened to anything regarding conflicts of interest (especially with regard to the legal system) you would know that "recuse" is the word that is always used in situations like this.
Probably for those little things called routing protocols. Obviously a Linksys (now owned by Cisco) router is fine for a small business but a large enough business and especially enterprise-level businesses need higher-end devices to do global routing and connect to service providers directly through frame relay or whatever. When is the last time you were able to successfully plug a frame relay circuit into a Linksys WRT54g router? Obviously this is an extreme comparison and your comparison is with a 8xx-model router but it really still comes down to functionality. Yeah, there are some things in the Linksys but it knows diddly about routing protocols and forget about the fact it really is a switch more than anything else (IMO). I hope your "high priced Cisco router" doesn't mean the $500 8xx-model you mention at the beginning of your post.
Yes, they would put you in jail. If they subpoenaed you because you are a witness to a crime and you do not show up to take the stand or you just don't say anything while on the stand they just put you in jail for obstruction of justice. Maybe this is different because it is your own information they are asking for and not someone else's but I'd guess they would put you in jail.
The problem is the interpretation of "Congress shall make no law..". It is pretty cut and dry to me (make a law; don't make a law). But it seems even when there is no law stating a person must submit to Christianity and instead when there is merely a display of the 10 Commandments (or some similar passive act), some people take it to mean Congress made a law at some point forcing people to become a Christian against their will. That has to be what they are implying given they cry about how their first amendment rights are being violated. And the bad thing is that the courts in some cases actually do uphold that lame complaint despite no bill ever being signed into law. Even taking "Congress shall make no law..." to mean no branch of gov't can interfere with religion does not help those who complain about something like I mentioned above. Displaying religious symbols does not interfere with a person's religion.
Fear. Fear drives the media and government funding.
We know the temperature is going up. We know that carbon in the air is going up. We know that we're tossing an awful lot of carbon into the air We can see a clear correlation between temperature and carbon going back a few thousand years.As many others point out here all the time in response to comments on other submissions, correlation is not equal to causation. See below for more on this.
Don't YOU think that's enough to, I don't know, stop tossing carbon into the air and see what happens? If it turns out to do nothing, we can just let you burn dinosaurs again. I know I'd rather lose my next paycheck than die.Actually, no I don't think that is enough. It is mere correlation and maybe not even that giving consideration to errors in data and any biases involved. I'd prefer to spend money on something we know will make a difference. And before we do that I'd want to make sure there is a problem in the first place, not to mention one that can be fixed by humans. Just as there have been Ice Ages in the past, there have also been temperature increases which were not severe enough to cause life to die out. Why should this situation (if there is one) be any different, just because the population is higher now we think we may have caused the issue to be exacerbated?
Just 20 or 30 years ago we were discussing global cooling and the chances of another Ice Age. Maybe we should wait a few years more before we throw billions into curbing what we think is causing global warming. I'm all for changing what we can do reduce the reliance on oil (because of the cost of it and gasoline) but not for this so called global warming "crisis". There are many climatologists who do not agree with global warming. Why aren't we focusing on that research instead? Remember, these computer models are created by humans who make mistakes and have biases (they want funding) and their models are supposed to show global forceasts 100 years from now when we can't even make accurate 30 day weather (yes, I know that isn't the same as climate) forecasts.
Which means we don't have anything new and we can all move along. I seem to recall at least one Ice Age in the past which means global climate change isn't new. When people say temperature decreases are part of global warming it is a cop out for global warming proponents who really don't know what is going on which makes them right no matter what happens. Convenient isn't it?
it's the gene that makes some people not have any self-control and willpower.
A December 6th article in Nature explores the relationship between a specific gene and those of us prone to repeatedly making the same mistakes. From the article: "Drug addicts, alcoholics and compulsive gamblers are known to be more likely than other people to have this genetic mutationI don't call drug addicts, alcoholics, and gamblers people who make mistakes. I call them people who don't have any willpower to stop doing something that is bad despite what temporary "rewards" those things give people.
I'm not saying violence is okay but you have 2 things going against your argument. 1) Sex and nudity are portrayed uncensored more and more on television for some reason. I guess the media producers have nothing left up their sleeve to make shows entertaining anymore so they turn to imitating Skinemax (Nip/Tuck). 2) Did you ever notice that in the US on prime time tv, everytime they would have a scene related to sex its merely for the sexual gratification and not for actual procreation? In movies when nudity and sex scenes are not censored they are merely there for the sake of having nudity (it doesn't add anything to the movie) so it's being done for all the wrong reasons. Sex and nudity in the US media is used for money and shock value so don't act like the few times when US television doesn't show it is because procreation is taboo. If it was on TV for reasons of procreation you might have an argument. Sex isn't ever depicted as the procreation method and if it is depicted for any other reason (which it is) then it is simply exploited for ratings (i.e. money). Obviously the violence is too but at least sex is sometimes censored but unfortunately as I mentioned above, even that is becoming allowed despite its exploitive nature.
Perhaps it would be useful to define 'torture' before accusing someone of condoning it.
I actually took the GP to mean that we don't have to worry about DRM with MP3, unlike WMA where you may have to acquire a license to listen to a song and may even be limited to how many listenings you have of the song. Do DRM'ed WMA songs work okay in Ubuntu? That may sound stupid but I'm seriously asking since I haven't touched Linux that way (no, not that way) in a while.
You mean CODIS? I would guess that they can only have it turned over with a warrant and only under the assumption they believe the suspect is a customer of 23andme. Just like any other database that *already* exists which contains information on a suspect (credit cards, telephone, etc.). Do you think your paranoia will carry over into the next Administration?
And yet some people still think that DNA (and RNA, can't forget that) was somehow able to be created so it survive the period of time (at least decades and more like hundreds of millennia if evolution is to be believed) prior to being encased in the first cellular structure so it could begin replicating. hmmmm.
I just know that around 9-10PM at night my parents basically have no DSL connectivity because the Verizon network in their area is now saturated despite it being fine over a year ago when they first signed up. It isn't that it is just slow (slowness is a first sign which probably lasts about 5 minutes). It just doesn't work; the modem/router loses its DHCP lease and *if* it regains the lease it loses it shortly afterwards. I was surfing fine from 7 to shortly before 10PM on Thanksgiving day but at 10PM (almost on the hour) I could no longer connect to any websites. The router had lost its lease and I never got it to work again during the time I was there for the next hour. My parents said that behavior was typical but they don't use it late at night so they don't mind it much. If it were me I'd be raising hell.
It's hard to trust any debunking source that is okay with personal bashing while they are countering a scientific argument.
If you are referring to the -1, that was due to other posts, regarding the same topic (and others) but just not with any scientific evidence to back up the claims. The truth hurts I guess. I don't see any mods yet on this post you responded to.
Hmmm, another /. member assumption gone afoul in an attempt to make an insult true. I'm actually from the North. Are you now going to call the northern public school system sub-standard too? Anyway, the important difference with the Puritans (not to say persecution is sometimes good; it's always bad) is that in Europe it was the government doing the persecution hence the reason for the first amendment. People don't realize what a separation between church and state really means because they forget. The Puritans may have done some persecution of their own (I don't pretend to be a history buff) but the reason for leaving Europe was because the governments were doing it; that was a true integration of church and state. Also, not all immigrants that came here did so to set up their own religious persecution (your words remember, not mine) so be careful with blanket statements. Some truly wanted a new life by escaping from what they knew back home.
Jefferson and Franklin aside, the "founding fathers" wanted a land that was safe... for Christianity.The Founding Fathers had a mixture of beliefs. It was probably more like denominations now since they were basically all Christian (I didn't say they were all Christian though). Even so, there has been no government institutionalized religion (of Christianity or any other religion for that matter) in the United States specifically because they wanted a land where a citizen could belong to any religion he/she wanted. They may have pushed for freedom for Christians however this has obviously been extended to other religions as more and more people filter into this country or simply as people's beliefs change.
The problem arises when those who had been given the right to be a member of whatever religion they wanted (by the first amendment), outside of the probable original target of Christianity, start using the first amendment against others that do not share their minority religious views. It turns into a hijacking of the first amendment under the guise of the first amendment being violated. That, in turn, creates a hypocritical situation because Group A, who is accusing Group B of taking Group A's religious freedom away, actually tries to take religious freedom away from Group B instead. I'll stop there since this is off topic now.
Wow, and you think you do a service to those who don't have religion? I can't believe this post got modded insightful because it is wrong on so many levels. I guess because you denigrated those who have faith and blended in with the rest of the /. crowd you got the mod you got. You denigrate those who oppose your views and yet you think you are the better person somehow. If that isn't hypocritical I don't know what is. It's sad that declaring religious people as uneducated white trash and basically second class citizens makes you insightful. I'd say pitiful is more accurate. You are right that they are as different from New Yorkers and San Franciscans as a microscope is from a beer bottle (good shot at the supposed intelligence disparity too by the way).
It was people like those different from New Yorkers and San Franciscans who wanted to leave the religious persecution in Europe brought on by people like you that made them come here to establish the country we now know as the United States of American and it isn't that much of a stretch to say that if they hadn't done that you and I probably wouldn't be here today. And yet you have the balls to declare them 2nd class citizens because they believe in something different than you. Tell me, by acting/speaking out based on your lack of beliefs do you really think you make yourself rise above those who have different views from you? It's nice to know you still believe we should be living in an era similar to when some people were worth 1/3 of a white man or who weren't allowed to vote because they were female.
I don't believe this professor should have been fired b/c of the bias. I think the proponents of both views should be tolerant of each other (fat chance with people like you though) and the topics should be discussed in an open forum so the lack of evidence for both sides can be examined equally. It would take time but the correct theory would eventually surface.