No, it still makes you the problem. You're right that biological classifications can be arbitrary - there are many problems with it from life/virus all the way to animal/plant. But you're still conflating the ability to select for recessive genes in a particular gene pool with the appearance of a vast diversity of gene pools that we have seen throughout the millions of years of earth's existence.
Claiming that a repetition of Mendel's pea experiments is "proof" of evolution is just as pop-science incorrect as claiming that curing a couple of flu cases with leeches is "proof" of the theory of humors.
The concept of a species is not entirely distinctive, the line between when one species is classed as another species is fairly arbitrary.
Not really. At some point you produce a plant or animal that cannot reproduce more of its own kind. You can't breed jack asses to get more jack asses, and there's no such thing as a tangelo seed.
See, I happen to think it is the OP that is the real problem, as he is describing evolution in some pop science terms that really does nothing but confuse the process of mutation and natural selection that produces variety after millions of years.
Why is it that people that rail against capitalism are steadfastly resistant to giving up all of their own capital?
Probably because giving up your capital doesn't get you out of capitalism. It only makes your position inside capitalism worse.
Oh, sure, it will get you "out of" capitalism. Just don't confuse capitalism with banking. "Capital" is just having a way to get food for dinner without spending your day gathering food. If you don't like that lifestyle, just give it up and live hand-to-mouth.
All systems in the civilized world use capitalism. The question is should individuals be allowed to control their own capital, or just a few select individuals?
Well, Rockefeller was an individual, and he was the most philanthropic American that ever lived. He spent his fortune on foundations that pioneered medical research, and eradicated hookworm and yellow fever. So most people probably felt that he was doing more good than harm. Standard Oil is a great example of how government tyranny can be cloaked in a mist of "doing good for the people" when its goal (and ultimate outcome) is more power for itself and greater victimization of the people it was purporting to help.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
If you don't like libertarians, try at least using something true about them to complain about. Surely it's not necessary to make up stuff that has no basis in fact.
Why is the Republican party imploding into insanity?
I can not believe you people allow idiots like Beck and Palin even open their mouths. They make all republicans look insane just by association.
Somewhere along the line, the Republican party stopped being the Republican party.
It used to be all about small government and fiscal responsibility.
Now it's all about fundamentalism.
That era is past. The Goldwater / classic liberal types are back and trying to wrest control of the party. Check out the coverage of CPAC this year: They voted for Ron Paul as their favorite candidate, invited GOProud as a sponsor, and most of the social authoritarians stayed away.
So what happens if they shut down Verisign (etc.)...? SSL requires a trusted third party, who you gonna trust?
Well if you're creating a community-based mesh network to get around government censorship, you certainly should not be trusting Verisign. Instead, you need to make real-world connections with trusted people that are willing to act as intermediaries - a few trusted and security-conscious individuals willing to vet others and sign certificates for them through personal contact or by having other trusted individuals vouch for them.
Sure, this is complicated and slow and requires coordination and a higher level of real-world interaction than we are used to on the wider Internet. But that's how "trust" actually works. You may be fine with your on-line banking transactions if Verisign says your bank is trusted. But if you're faced with a tyrannical government that doesn't want you communicating with others that want to replace that tyrannical government, trusting a corporation operating under government regulation is the last thing you should be doing.
Elected officials are that way because people are that way.
I get your point, except that practically everyone I know has a soul, while politicians are almost never equipped with one. The other compelling issue is that when your neighbor tries to kick you off your land, take money out of your bank account, or lock you up in the basement "for your own protection", these things are considered crimes. But when a politician does these things they just call it "taxes", "eminent domain", "social policy", and it's considered perfectly legit.
While I am a staunch supporter of the concept of net neutrality, I'd hope for a better implementation than this.
Detecting a pattern?
While I am a staunch supporter of the concept of universal health care, I'd hope for a better implementation than this.
While I am a staunch supporter of the concept of a strong national defense, I'd hope for a better implementation than this (pre-emptive war, rendition, indefinite detention, patriot act..).
While I am a staunch supporter of the concept of financial regulatory reform, I'd hope for a better implementation than this.
I could go on and on with this. Maybe there's a lesson here somewhere?
but while I'm annoyed that Obama hasn't waved his presidential magic wand and made the patriot act go away etc, he hasn't passed patriot act II
I hate to tell you this, but yea, he pretty much did. He has also come up with a "indefinite detention" policy and has ordered assassinations of US citizens for suspicion of terrorist activity.
How does this benefit the RIAA or recording industry as a whole? When was the government directly implicated in a case involving the recording industry?
When they seized the domain names of OnSmash and RapGodFathers?
Or you could avoid procreation and get credits for helping to not increase the human population. That's what China proposed at the last meeting - they feel they are owed a bunch of extra carbon credits for their one-child-per-couple policy.
What's a "global warming denier"? Is that like holocaust deniers? Is this some group of anti-Semitic racists? Or is denying that genocidal events in history ever happened now no worse than denying a vague prediction of events in some future probability?
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it that staunch defenders of capitalism are so fucking retarded
Oh, wow. Obviously the socialists have the better intellectual argument.
Of course, socialism is a form of capitalism, too. It just shifts the control of capital to the government.
No, it still makes you the problem. You're right that biological classifications can be arbitrary - there are many problems with it from life/virus all the way to animal/plant. But you're still conflating the ability to select for recessive genes in a particular gene pool with the appearance of a vast diversity of gene pools that we have seen throughout the millions of years of earth's existence.
Claiming that a repetition of Mendel's pea experiments is "proof" of evolution is just as pop-science incorrect as claiming that curing a couple of flu cases with leeches is "proof" of the theory of humors.
The concept of a species is not entirely distinctive, the line between when one species is classed as another species is fairly arbitrary.
Not really. At some point you produce a plant or animal that cannot reproduce more of its own kind. You can't breed jack asses to get more jack asses, and there's no such thing as a tangelo seed.
See, I happen to think it is the OP that is the real problem, as he is describing evolution in some pop science terms that really does nothing but confuse the process of mutation and natural selection that produces variety after millions of years.
One of capitalism's many problems...
Why is it that people that rail against capitalism are steadfastly resistant to giving up all of their own capital?
Probably because giving up your capital doesn't get you out of capitalism. It only makes your position inside capitalism worse.
Oh, sure, it will get you "out of" capitalism. Just don't confuse capitalism with banking. "Capital" is just having a way to get food for dinner without spending your day gathering food. If you don't like that lifestyle, just give it up and live hand-to-mouth.
All systems in the civilized world use capitalism. The question is should individuals be allowed to control their own capital, or just a few select individuals?
One of capitalism's many problems...
Why is it that people that rail against capitalism are steadfastly resistant to giving up all of their own capital?
Well here's a shock for you, I have seen evidence for it, I can even replicate it in my greenhouse.
This. Tell us, oh wise scientist, how long did it take you to create a new species?
Breeding != evolution
Meh. It was supposed to be funny. Looks like I failed miserably.
I told you Google was working with the government! This just proves it.
--- Glenn Beck
regarding point #2: the scientists that generate the data (ie: PhD and MSc students) are typically flat broke.
I guess you missed the news.
Well, Rockefeller was an individual, and he was the most philanthropic American that ever lived. He spent his fortune on foundations that pioneered medical research, and eradicated hookworm and yellow fever. So most people probably felt that he was doing more good than harm. Standard Oil is a great example of how government tyranny can be cloaked in a mist of "doing good for the people" when its goal (and ultimate outcome) is more power for itself and greater victimization of the people it was purporting to help.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
If you don't like libertarians, try at least using something true about them to complain about. Surely it's not necessary to make up stuff that has no basis in fact.
I wonder how this relates to George Soros...
How about Soros is part of a secret cabal that funds the government's black projects (of which Google is just one of)????
And MediaMatters is another.
Why is the Republican party imploding into insanity?
I can not believe you people allow idiots like Beck and Palin even open their mouths. They make all republicans look insane just by association.
Somewhere along the line, the Republican party stopped being the Republican party.
It used to be all about small government and fiscal responsibility.
Now it's all about fundamentalism.
That era is past. The Goldwater / classic liberal types are back and trying to wrest control of the party. Check out the coverage of CPAC this year: They voted for Ron Paul as their favorite candidate, invited GOProud as a sponsor, and most of the social authoritarians stayed away.
Conservatives hate the Internet, because it is liberal at its core.
Funny, then, how conservatives prefer its current incarnation, but liberals want the government to regulate it.
Glenn Beck is now a Senator with a chairmanship of a powerful investigative committee!?!? Crap, we're doomed!
Agreed, and this article has created quite the left-wing echo chamber. Is Slashdot now MediaMatter's bitch?
So what happens if they shut down Verisign (etc.)...? SSL requires a trusted third party, who you gonna trust?
Well if you're creating a community-based mesh network to get around government censorship, you certainly should not be trusting Verisign. Instead, you need to make real-world connections with trusted people that are willing to act as intermediaries - a few trusted and security-conscious individuals willing to vet others and sign certificates for them through personal contact or by having other trusted individuals vouch for them.
Sure, this is complicated and slow and requires coordination and a higher level of real-world interaction than we are used to on the wider Internet. But that's how "trust" actually works. You may be fine with your on-line banking transactions if Verisign says your bank is trusted. But if you're faced with a tyrannical government that doesn't want you communicating with others that want to replace that tyrannical government, trusting a corporation operating under government regulation is the last thing you should be doing.
Elected officials are that way because people are that way.
I get your point, except that practically everyone I know has a soul, while politicians are almost never equipped with one. The other compelling issue is that when your neighbor tries to kick you off your land, take money out of your bank account, or lock you up in the basement "for your own protection", these things are considered crimes. But when a politician does these things they just call it "taxes", "eminent domain", "social policy", and it's considered perfectly legit.
While I am a staunch supporter of the concept of net neutrality, I'd hope for a better implementation than this.
Detecting a pattern?
While I am a staunch supporter of the concept of universal health care, I'd hope for a better implementation than this.
While I am a staunch supporter of the concept of a strong national defense, I'd hope for a better implementation than this (pre-emptive war, rendition, indefinite detention, patriot act..).
While I am a staunch supporter of the concept of financial regulatory reform, I'd hope for a better implementation than this.
I could go on and on with this. Maybe there's a lesson here somewhere?
but while I'm annoyed that Obama hasn't waved his presidential magic wand and made the patriot act go away etc, he hasn't passed patriot act II
I hate to tell you this, but yea, he pretty much did. He has also come up with a "indefinite detention" policy and has ordered assassinations of US citizens for suspicion of terrorist activity.
Good on you for making sure there is plenty of lesser evil going on. After all, we don't want the wrong lizard in power, do we?
How does this benefit the RIAA or recording industry as a whole? When was the government directly implicated in a case involving the recording industry?
When they seized the domain names of OnSmash and RapGodFathers?
Except for one major difference. Carbon credits are for something that we can actually measure.
I beg to differ.
Or you could avoid procreation and get credits for helping to not increase the human population. That's what China proposed at the last meeting - they feel they are owed a bunch of extra carbon credits for their one-child-per-couple policy.
What is it with all the global warming deniers?
What's a "global warming denier"? Is that like holocaust deniers? Is this some group of anti-Semitic racists? Or is denying that genocidal events in history ever happened now no worse than denying a vague prediction of events in some future probability?