What do you think the cop meant when he said, "You weren't going to drive off while I'm running your plates, were you?"
He MEANT "I'm running your plates." If he meant "you are not free to leave", he would have said so. Driving off while a cop is running your plates is not a crime. They run plates on vehicles that are "driving off" all the time.
What he also meant was "IF something comes back on the plate check, I'm going to need to talk to you, you might as well stick around so I don't have to chase you down and add a few felonies to your record." Since the guy knew his plate was clear, and he wasn't going to have to be chased down, there is no way he should have interpreted the statement as "do not leave". In fact, he didn't interpret it that way. You made it up.
Well, if you don't actually want to use the service at all, you probably want a different printer.
Show me where I said I don't want the service at all. I responded to someone who thought that it would take "deep packet inspection" to prevent the printer from calling home to HP, and I pointed out the fallacy of that statement.
By the way, doesn't everyone have an email alias for printing already in their/etc/aliases?
So let me see if I got this straight. You buy a device that HAS a Linux version, but you don't buy THAT version,
Bzzzt. There was no linux version available when I bought mine. Windows only.
You can have the "fun" of an alternate OS install?
I didn't really intend on installing another OS, I just ran a knoppix disk from CD to see if it would run.
You DO know it is guys like you that have the OEMs saying "There isn't a call for a Linux version" right?
Ummm, no. But so what?
Why not simply support the OS you like by buying one with it already installed?
Because 1) it wasn't offered to me and 2) I bought the OS I needed.
Sheesh, talk about doing things the long way around!
You mean like buying a linux system, installing wine, installing the DLLs, configuring all of that, so I can install the windows software I need to run and hope that it works? Why not just buy a windows system to start with?
I mean did you ever think they didn't bother testing for Linux on the Windows one because they already had a Linux one and didn't see a point?
I have no idea what you mean by that, so I guess the answer is "no, I never thought" of that.
He lied about the law about parking on along the road.
That's already been demonstrated.
I've seen no such demonstration. I've seen someone post a link to some random county information, but nothing that said that that was the county, or that the county really did not prohibit parking. I've seen different places that have laws about parking on the side of the street, so yes, it is possible that it is illegal. Even without it being posted.
But the comment you made regarded being ordered to stay while the plates were being run, and the person telling the story did not say he was ordered to stay. You made that part up yourself.
It'll phone home to HP's mail server, out of your control. Although I suppose you could use deep packet inspection to choke off any transfer you don't like,
It doesn't take deep packet inspection to stomp on every outgoing connection attempt from my printer. I can think of NO reason for a printer to make outgoing connections to anywhere, much less accept them from any site outside my own network.
How would you like to accidentally staple a printout of this to the last page of your report to the boss?
Oh, dude, how 1980's. As soon as this printer shows up in the office, you're going to be emailing your report to his printer, and HE'LL be accidentally stapling that last page to the report for you.
then I can self-regulate, by not using power hogs like air conditioners. Or I can split my load to partial electricity and partial propane (which is ALWAYS prepaid in these parts). That's very hard to do with data consumption. I mean, say you visit a specific news site every day. Not unreasonable.
It's just as easy to self-regulate bandwidth. Just turn your phone off, like you do the AC.
But how do you know what's going to be on the page from one day to the next?
How do you know how hot it's going to be tomorrow?
I think the GP means that developers who already have to struggle to keep flash *off* the.mobi site are now going to have to struggle to minimize the bandwidth consumption of their main site.
This is a bad thing exactly how?
I think if you WANT lots of stuff to download, go for it. I also think that a website that requires 1Mbyte of stuff downloaded just to view it is a waste of bandwidth. Web developers that do things like force you through a huge flash animation just to visit the rest of their site are an abomination. I've lost count of the number of commercial vendors I DO NOT deal with because I couldn't get to their damn text web page. (I have flash deliberately disabled on my browser because it screws the CPU and wastes my time.)
If you can say it in ten words and choose to use a 300k animated GIF instead, you should be shot. If AT&T's actions help eliminate web-bloat, I'm all for it.
But nearly all of them come with an SD card slot, so I don't see why you could just leave the WinCE on and boot from the SD if you want to run Linux.
This is not always as easy as it sounds. I tried this with my Aspire One. Something hung in the linux and I had to hard-power (several second press of power button) it off. It turns out that there is some bug in the BIOS (or somewhere) that closing the system improperly results in an unbootable system. Something in the flash bios gets hosed. This was the evening before I was leaving on a trip where I really needed my computer, and I was pissed...
Turns out that this is a KNOWN problem, and that there is a KNOWN workaround using a USB stick and a specific file with a specific name... the BIOS looks for updates on the USB and loads them if they have the right name. Good idea.
How do you build rapport with some random cop you've never met before writing you a speeding ticket? That doesn't make sense.
Because the first time he approaches you to ask for your license, he may not have made up his mind whether he's citing you or not. It may very well depend on whether you act like an asshole who deserves whatever happens to him, or if you act like someone who might be a nextdoor neighbor and worth cutting some slack.
Yeah, sometimes they will have decided that you're getting a ticket before they even speak to you, but even then, being pleasant and reasonable can get you 65 in a 55 instead of the 80 you were actually doing.
The last time I got stopped for speeding, I didn't rant and fume about damn pigs and speed traps. I explained that it wasn't likely that I was the target they measured because I was behind a pickup truck for the last three miles stuck at the speed limit and there was a dufus who had passed both of us about a minute ago. They looked down the road, saw the taillights of a pickup in the distance, and said "have a nice day."
When a cop's decision to not abuse his authority is considered a favor then the the system is already broken.
If you think running someone's license plate is abusing authority, there is no reason to continue this discussion. If you think that a cop enforcing a law about parking is abuse of his authority, well, I'm just glad I don't live near you.
That cop was well within his authority to run those plates, AND to write a ticket for illegal parking. He was doing his job, and doing it right. Yes, not writing a ticket WAS a favor. The moral of the story is, if you act like an asshole to someone, they may very well use their authority. If you act like a decent human being, quite often you'll be treated like a decent human being. Cops have a lot of leeway in what they write tickets for, and allowing them to educate instead of punish is a win/win for everyone involved. Unless they've got a supervisor on their ass pushing for more tickets, every ticket a cop doesn't write is one less potential court appearance (on a day off, probably) and less paperwork he has to deal with at the end of shift.
Right now there are publications that have the journalistic rigor of a neighborhood gossip and they are sold at the check stands of every supermarket in christendom.
I thought we were discussing newspapers and real journalistic operations? Yes, tabloids are sold in checkout lines. So are puzzle books and candy bars.
Conversely there are blogs out there with more depth and research than the New York Times.
I suspect there are. And I suspect that their operations are not cost-free. I suspect that those blogs don't report on Iranian politics by asking random Iranian residents to comment. I suspect that they don't report on economic affairs by asking all the "Joe the plumbers" to comment.
Occasionally I tune across the local PBS station running something called "World Have Your Say". Phhht. A bunch of "men on the street" calling to spout off about things they have no clue on. That's your "free" newsgathering. Monty Python nailed it decades ago with their "man on the street" segments, like the one where the guy says "I'm a chartered public accountant and therefore my opinion is too boring to be worth anything."
If newspapers disappeared tomorrow they would be replaced by online media outlets both large and small.
Sigh. That may be true. It has nothing to do with the comment I replied to, which was that news gathering could be free, based on a link to something you wrote about using "man on the street" information. Yes, there are tabloids, yes there are blogs, yes there are checkout lines. Not a bit of that changes the fact that "man on the street" news sources are unreliable, uninformed for the most part, and illiterate for the rest.
People still buy the Weekly World News for chrissake,
I haven't seen a WWN at a checkout line for years, and it appears that they have gone online only. As in "free". (Thanks for prompting me to google them, I've missed them.) And so what? What does the Weekly World News have to do with the cost of true news gathering?
What is next useing the EZ-pass times for Tickets?
IIRC, the timestamps on New York Throughway tickets have been used to give people tickets before. I.e., you entered here, you left there, it took you so much time, bingo, average
speed. Probably the same in other states. That's why I always planned my trips to include lunch or dinner stops on the throughway. I could do 80 and still average out to 55.
There really is nothing new in this story. Police are trained to estimate speeds. If they write a ticket based on that, you are likely to get the benefit of the doubt as to just how fast you were going, but not a cancellation of the ticket.
While the "man on the street" often has information that the regular reporters seek, the "man on the street" is often illiterate or mainly interested in getting his face on the telly, and often doesn't know the difference between guesses and corroborated information.
Just imagine a newspaper written by "Bubba, the neighbor of the alleged kidnapper." Or "Sally, an employee of the bullet factory." "Damn, it just blew up. There was some smoke somewhere, then the fire alarms went off, and them BOOM. I don't know how many people work here, but jeeze I can't imagine that we didn't lose ten or fifteen of them in the explosion. It was a big'un." (10% of the building was destroyed, all employees got out unharmed, the only casualty was one guy's car that was buried in rubble.)
The cost of corroboration and cultivating knowledgeable sources is what makes news expensive. "Cheap, fast, correct: choose two."
Anyone that claims that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life doesn't know what they're talking about. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or any other theory on the origin of life.
Well, you know that, and I know that, but just today, in the "5.5 million species" thread, people are posting about evolution being the way life began. They call it "evolution", just like the "change" kind. THAT'S why I said I wished that people used a different word for it.
Having an advantage over others doesn't make something subject to natural selection. Everything is subject to it, advantages or not. That which survives to reproduce gets to live on, those that don't, don't. Chance is only a component, but the process is deterministic.
There has to be an advantage for natural selection to have something to select. Otherwise everyone is a winner, everyone moves on in the evolutionary process -- which means there IS no evolutionary process. And that advantage arises through pure chance. Chance is not just "a component", it is a necessary and required precursor.
No reason, except that ID is not a scientific theory, is not falsifiable, is not predictive, and is not supported by any evidence. Other than that, no reason at all.
There are two cases. 1) evolutionist believing that evolution covers "how life began". This person is using a theory that is JUST AS NON-SCIENTIFIC, just as unfalsifiable, just as non-predictive as ID, and yet he uses those criteria to deny ID. 2) Evolutionist who knows that ID covers a completely different concept and topic, yet he uses evolution as a bully pulpit to denounce something that he has no evidence against and cannot have evidence against. Both groups must be doing this for a reason. There is no reason other than to try to disprove God. Group 1 is painting themselves with the same paint, and group 2 is stepping outside science to try to apply science to something they want badly to not exist.
Then why the belief in ID if the origin of life is something that can never be known?
Why not? Man has a burning desire to explain things. The "big bang" is another example. Why belief in the big bang if we can never know how the universe started?
They come up with theories, of which there are several, but they acknowledge that we really don't know if any of them are correct.
Oh, please. Most people who believe a theory believe that it is correct, and pull no punches saying so. "Evolution is a fact." "AGW is a fact, there is no room for discussion." Do not flame the ID'rs for doing the same things many scientists do.
...and they have even less evidence to back up their claims.
They have exactly as much evidence for ID as the evolutionists have for their theory of how life began. Yes, I know, you said those evolutionists are wrong. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
The theories that do cover it will never be proven in the absolute sense, as no scientific theory is ever proven in the absolute sense.
You missed the point completely. You keep calling the "theories" of how life began scientific when they are not. No theory of "how life began" is testable or disprovable, and that is an absolute requirement for the scientific method. If you say "my theory is X", for it to be scientific there must be an experiment I can perform to test your theory. That experiment might be technically impossible with current technology, but there has to be one.
There is NO possible experiment that can test the hypothesis that life began through evolution. The only possible experiments that could be performed are ones similar to the Miller (IIRC) style "pump a bottle full of primordial gases and electricity and see what heppens". Those don't prove "how life began", only "life MIGHT have begun...". Very different.
Whatever the scientific outcome, ID is still a load of garbage,
If you cannot refute through logic, refute through insult and invective. That is also not the scientific method.
Just another sign that the universe is just a huge numerical model running on a huge computer somewhere. As the universe gets bigger, the resolution of the model has to be reduced to continue processing it. 300 Million species drops to 5 million. Etc...
Just yesterday I was calculating some stuff and noticed that when I pressed the 'pi' button on my calculator I got 3.14159 instead of the never-ending irrational number. Same for 'e'. (Well, different numbers, but "not the never-ending irrational" part.)
The theory of evolution does not, and I repeat this for enough emphasis cannot be added: it does not state that current life forms came about by chance. The best analogy I can come up with is the following: imagine that you'd create a sequence of "heads" and "tails" by repeatedly throwing a fair coin, but then manually removed all the tails. The resulting sequence is not random, it's deterministic, for christ's sake: it consists of only heads. Even though the underlying generating process was random.
Without that random chance, the heads you've manually selected would not exist. Your analogy is poor, because the chance of random molecules forming something that natural selection would select are much much much less than 1 in 2. Try 1 in millions. Further, the reason there are so many heads in your result is not due to a high probability of the random event, but that one random event created a result that was more probable. It's as if the first heads that appeared would result in a two-headed coin. The fact that the random event is maintained through natural selection does not remove the random part of the process. It still took that first random event of heads appearing for the head-colony to form.
As long as you don't understand that natural selection counteracts the randomness of mutation,
Natural selection counteracts nothing. Without that random event, natural selection has nothing to work with. That random event is a necessary step in the natural selection process; without it, evolution is impossible. To discount the random nature of the mutations is to discount evolution itself.
In fact, I'd say that claiming there is no random process in evolution is equivalent to saying there is an intelligent design -- a well-determined formal process that results in evolution.
Who is advocating teaching them that all life arose through random chance?
Exactly this statement is why I wish evolutionists would find a different word to refer to the origin of life.
To answer your question: every evolutionist, when he switches from speaking about the records that support the theory of natural selection and starts using those records to support Evolution as the way life began.
In fact, since ID deals with how life began, every person here who is claiming that evolution disproves ID is making the claim that life arose out of random chance. The random combination of just the right molecules that gave that collection of molecules an advantage over others, and thus subject to natural selection. Then the random connection of those into something with a bigger advantage. Just like the random mutations that gave preference to one offspring over another...
Evolution -- change in existing systems. ID -- creation of new systems. Two different concepts, routinely conflated. There is no reason evolution cannot coexist with ID, other than a common goal of evolutionists is to prove there is no God. Otherwise, there is no reason evolutionists would be so rabidly anti-ID.
If you have a another scientific theory to present, then please present it.
Evolution as the "origin of life" is not a scientific theory, since it is patently untestable and completely undisprovable. So no, not "another" scientific theory. "The origin of life" is a question we will NEVER be able to prove (or disprove) the answer to. It's outside the scope of our knowledge, and will remain so forever. To pretend that one has a "scientific theory" that disproves everything else regarding the origin of life is completely absurd and shows a lack of understanding of what the scientific method is.
Of the people I've discussed this topic with (at least the non-theology and non-literature majors), none -- ZERO -- were even aware that there were multiple, significantly different versions of the Bible.
Yes, there have been literally hundreds of translations. Some have been translations of translations, some have been translations of the original Hebrew and Greek. Some groups produced their own "books", either getting carried away in the excitement or to change something they didn't like. What the Pope does is not particularly interesting to me in a discussion of Christianity.
Or that King James personally authorized many changes to the wording of HIS Bible, nearly 1,200 years after the original version was thought to be written, to suit his own political tastes and purposes.
Yes, James was a driver behind distribution of the Bible to the people so they could read it themselves and not have to rely upon a latin version read to them by professional religious people. Whether his changes were for political purposes or based on bringing the same concepts to people who had a different background is an argument for another place.
A hint: Find the word "witch" in the King James Bible, and then go and find it in an older version.
I find the difference between "sorcerers", "wizards" and "those who practice witchcraft" (Exodus 22:17) or "sorcery", "use of strange powers" and "witchcraft" (Galations 5:19) unimpressive in an argument about how much the Bible has been changed based on political standards. Both come from the same greek word (pharmakei), which appears to be the root for our modern "pharmacy". Oh, those rascally wizards at Rite Aid! But then, that points out the the word "witch" does not appear in the original greek, either. (Or the word "Jesus", for that matter.)
The theory comes when you try to explain the observations.
The statement "more cows died from heart disease when eating a fatty diet than those that did not" is not explaining the observations, it IS the observation. It is a fact that in that study, more cows that ate a fatty diet died from heart disease than those that did not eat a fatty diet died from heart disease. It a simple matter of counting. Five is greater than three, or whatever the numbers were. There is no interpretation or determination of causation.
The THEORY is 1) the fatty diet is the cause, and 2) all fat is bad.
It's the same as flipping a coin 1000 times and reporting "half the time the result was heads." That's a fact. The THEORY is that the next 1000 times will have the same result.
My religion says that the universe was created when a giant cow licked a huge block of salt... while that may be what my religion says, I have zero doubt in my mind that it did not happen that way.
If you do not believe what that religion says, then how can you call it "my religion" in any meaningful sense?
Those who can look at their religion for what it is, can rectify it with modern knowledge, and can take into account the effects of history (revisions, political influences, lost texts etc) are able to differentiate religion and faith and have no trouble at all accepting scientific knowledge.
Those who modify "their religion" based on political influences truly have no religion, or at best, have a cult. They are chaff being blown about in the wind.
Yep. One of them has a Constitutional guarantee against the right to bear being infringed, and the other doesn't. Not just "congress shall make no law", a blanket "the right... shall not be infringed." Can you guess which is which?
Slashdot Mirror
He MEANT "I'm running your plates." If he meant "you are not free to leave", he would have said so. Driving off while a cop is running your plates is not a crime. They run plates on vehicles that are "driving off" all the time.
What he also meant was "IF something comes back on the plate check, I'm going to need to talk to you, you might as well stick around so I don't have to chase you down and add a few felonies to your record." Since the guy knew his plate was clear, and he wasn't going to have to be chased down, there is no way he should have interpreted the statement as "do not leave". In fact, he didn't interpret it that way. You made it up.
Show me where I said I don't want the service at all. I responded to someone who thought that it would take "deep packet inspection" to prevent the printer from calling home to HP, and I pointed out the fallacy of that statement.
By the way, doesn't everyone have an email alias for printing already in their /etc/aliases?
Bzzzt. There was no linux version available when I bought mine. Windows only.
You can have the "fun" of an alternate OS install?
I didn't really intend on installing another OS, I just ran a knoppix disk from CD to see if it would run.
You DO know it is guys like you that have the OEMs saying "There isn't a call for a Linux version" right?
Ummm, no. But so what?
Why not simply support the OS you like by buying one with it already installed?
Because 1) it wasn't offered to me and 2) I bought the OS I needed.
Sheesh, talk about doing things the long way around!
You mean like buying a linux system, installing wine, installing the DLLs, configuring all of that, so I can install the windows software I need to run and hope that it works? Why not just buy a windows system to start with?
I mean did you ever think they didn't bother testing for Linux on the Windows one because they already had a Linux one and didn't see a point?
I have no idea what you mean by that, so I guess the answer is "no, I never thought" of that.
Yes really.
He lied about the law about parking on along the road. That's already been demonstrated.
I've seen no such demonstration. I've seen someone post a link to some random county information, but nothing that said that that was the county, or that the county really did not prohibit parking. I've seen different places that have laws about parking on the side of the street, so yes, it is possible that it is illegal. Even without it being posted.
But the comment you made regarded being ordered to stay while the plates were being run, and the person telling the story did not say he was ordered to stay. You made that part up yourself.
It doesn't take deep packet inspection to stomp on every outgoing connection attempt from my printer. I can think of NO reason for a printer to make outgoing connections to anywhere, much less accept them from any site outside my own network.
Oh, dude, how 1980's. As soon as this printer shows up in the office, you're going to be emailing your report to his printer, and HE'LL be accidentally stapling that last page to the report for you.
It's just as easy to self-regulate bandwidth. Just turn your phone off, like you do the AC.
But how do you know what's going to be on the page from one day to the next?
How do you know how hot it's going to be tomorrow?
This is a bad thing exactly how?
I think if you WANT lots of stuff to download, go for it. I also think that a website that requires 1Mbyte of stuff downloaded just to view it is a waste of bandwidth. Web developers that do things like force you through a huge flash animation just to visit the rest of their site are an abomination. I've lost count of the number of commercial vendors I DO NOT deal with because I couldn't get to their damn text web page. (I have flash deliberately disabled on my browser because it screws the CPU and wastes my time.)
If you can say it in ten words and choose to use a 300k animated GIF instead, you should be shot. If AT&T's actions help eliminate web-bloat, I'm all for it.
Now get off my lawn.
You can. I've done it for years. At least, while analog cell was still running. Never been sued. Even after ECPA.
Of course, I also never divulged the content of what I heard, so nobody knew I was doing it. I heard some good stuff, too.
Good thing you made it up, then.
This is not always as easy as it sounds. I tried this with my Aspire One. Something hung in the linux and I had to hard-power (several second press of power button) it off. It turns out that there is some bug in the BIOS (or somewhere) that closing the system improperly results in an unbootable system. Something in the flash bios gets hosed. This was the evening before I was leaving on a trip where I really needed my computer, and I was pissed...
Turns out that this is a KNOWN problem, and that there is a KNOWN workaround using a USB stick and a specific file with a specific name ... the BIOS looks for updates on the USB and loads them if they have the right name. Good idea.
Because the first time he approaches you to ask for your license, he may not have made up his mind whether he's citing you or not. It may very well depend on whether you act like an asshole who deserves whatever happens to him, or if you act like someone who might be a nextdoor neighbor and worth cutting some slack.
Yeah, sometimes they will have decided that you're getting a ticket before they even speak to you, but even then, being pleasant and reasonable can get you 65 in a 55 instead of the 80 you were actually doing.
The last time I got stopped for speeding, I didn't rant and fume about damn pigs and speed traps. I explained that it wasn't likely that I was the target they measured because I was behind a pickup truck for the last three miles stuck at the speed limit and there was a dufus who had passed both of us about a minute ago. They looked down the road, saw the taillights of a pickup in the distance, and said "have a nice day."
If you think running someone's license plate is abusing authority, there is no reason to continue this discussion. If you think that a cop enforcing a law about parking is abuse of his authority, well, I'm just glad I don't live near you.
That cop was well within his authority to run those plates, AND to write a ticket for illegal parking. He was doing his job, and doing it right. Yes, not writing a ticket WAS a favor. The moral of the story is, if you act like an asshole to someone, they may very well use their authority. If you act like a decent human being, quite often you'll be treated like a decent human being. Cops have a lot of leeway in what they write tickets for, and allowing them to educate instead of punish is a win/win for everyone involved. Unless they've got a supervisor on their ass pushing for more tickets, every ticket a cop doesn't write is one less potential court appearance (on a day off, probably) and less paperwork he has to deal with at the end of shift.
I thought we were discussing newspapers and real journalistic operations? Yes, tabloids are sold in checkout lines. So are puzzle books and candy bars.
Conversely there are blogs out there with more depth and research than the New York Times.
I suspect there are. And I suspect that their operations are not cost-free. I suspect that those blogs don't report on Iranian politics by asking random Iranian residents to comment. I suspect that they don't report on economic affairs by asking all the "Joe the plumbers" to comment.
Occasionally I tune across the local PBS station running something called "World Have Your Say". Phhht. A bunch of "men on the street" calling to spout off about things they have no clue on. That's your "free" newsgathering. Monty Python nailed it decades ago with their "man on the street" segments, like the one where the guy says "I'm a chartered public accountant and therefore my opinion is too boring to be worth anything."
If newspapers disappeared tomorrow they would be replaced by online media outlets both large and small.
Sigh. That may be true. It has nothing to do with the comment I replied to, which was that news gathering could be free, based on a link to something you wrote about using "man on the street" information. Yes, there are tabloids, yes there are blogs, yes there are checkout lines. Not a bit of that changes the fact that "man on the street" news sources are unreliable, uninformed for the most part, and illiterate for the rest.
People still buy the Weekly World News for chrissake,
I haven't seen a WWN at a checkout line for years, and it appears that they have gone online only. As in "free". (Thanks for prompting me to google them, I've missed them.) And so what? What does the Weekly World News have to do with the cost of true news gathering?
Training, practice, and practical experience.
As some have pointed out, some jurisdictions require the cop to judge your speed visually before firing the radar, just to keep practicing.
IIRC, the timestamps on New York Throughway tickets have been used to give people tickets before. I.e., you entered here, you left there, it took you so much time, bingo, average speed. Probably the same in other states. That's why I always planned my trips to include lunch or dinner stops on the throughway. I could do 80 and still average out to 55.
There really is nothing new in this story. Police are trained to estimate speeds. If they write a ticket based on that, you are likely to get the benefit of the doubt as to just how fast you were going, but not a cancellation of the ticket.
While the "man on the street" often has information that the regular reporters seek, the "man on the street" is often illiterate or mainly interested in getting his face on the telly, and often doesn't know the difference between guesses and corroborated information.
Just imagine a newspaper written by "Bubba, the neighbor of the alleged kidnapper." Or "Sally, an employee of the bullet factory." "Damn, it just blew up. There was some smoke somewhere, then the fire alarms went off, and them BOOM. I don't know how many people work here, but jeeze I can't imagine that we didn't lose ten or fifteen of them in the explosion. It was a big'un." (10% of the building was destroyed, all employees got out unharmed, the only casualty was one guy's car that was buried in rubble.)
The cost of corroboration and cultivating knowledgeable sources is what makes news expensive. "Cheap, fast, correct: choose two."
Well, you know that, and I know that, but just today, in the "5.5 million species" thread, people are posting about evolution being the way life began. They call it "evolution", just like the "change" kind. THAT'S why I said I wished that people used a different word for it.
Having an advantage over others doesn't make something subject to natural selection. Everything is subject to it, advantages or not. That which survives to reproduce gets to live on, those that don't, don't. Chance is only a component, but the process is deterministic.
There has to be an advantage for natural selection to have something to select. Otherwise everyone is a winner, everyone moves on in the evolutionary process -- which means there IS no evolutionary process. And that advantage arises through pure chance. Chance is not just "a component", it is a necessary and required precursor.
No reason, except that ID is not a scientific theory, is not falsifiable, is not predictive, and is not supported by any evidence. Other than that, no reason at all.
There are two cases. 1) evolutionist believing that evolution covers "how life began". This person is using a theory that is JUST AS NON-SCIENTIFIC, just as unfalsifiable, just as non-predictive as ID, and yet he uses those criteria to deny ID. 2) Evolutionist who knows that ID covers a completely different concept and topic, yet he uses evolution as a bully pulpit to denounce something that he has no evidence against and cannot have evidence against. Both groups must be doing this for a reason. There is no reason other than to try to disprove God. Group 1 is painting themselves with the same paint, and group 2 is stepping outside science to try to apply science to something they want badly to not exist.
Then why the belief in ID if the origin of life is something that can never be known?
Why not? Man has a burning desire to explain things. The "big bang" is another example. Why belief in the big bang if we can never know how the universe started?
They come up with theories, of which there are several, but they acknowledge that we really don't know if any of them are correct.
Oh, please. Most people who believe a theory believe that it is correct, and pull no punches saying so. "Evolution is a fact." "AGW is a fact, there is no room for discussion." Do not flame the ID'rs for doing the same things many scientists do.
They have exactly as much evidence for ID as the evolutionists have for their theory of how life began. Yes, I know, you said those evolutionists are wrong. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
The theories that do cover it will never be proven in the absolute sense, as no scientific theory is ever proven in the absolute sense.
You missed the point completely. You keep calling the "theories" of how life began scientific when they are not. No theory of "how life began" is testable or disprovable, and that is an absolute requirement for the scientific method. If you say "my theory is X", for it to be scientific there must be an experiment I can perform to test your theory. That experiment might be technically impossible with current technology, but there has to be one.
There is NO possible experiment that can test the hypothesis that life began through evolution. The only possible experiments that could be performed are ones similar to the Miller (IIRC) style "pump a bottle full of primordial gases and electricity and see what heppens". Those don't prove "how life began", only "life MIGHT have begun...". Very different.
Whatever the scientific outcome, ID is still a load of garbage,
If you cannot refute through logic, refute through insult and invective. That is also not the scientific method.
Just yesterday I was calculating some stuff and noticed that when I pressed the 'pi' button on my calculator I got 3.14159 instead of the never-ending irrational number. Same for 'e'. (Well, different numbers, but "not the never-ending irrational" part.)
Without that random chance, the heads you've manually selected would not exist. Your analogy is poor, because the chance of random molecules forming something that natural selection would select are much much much less than 1 in 2. Try 1 in millions. Further, the reason there are so many heads in your result is not due to a high probability of the random event, but that one random event created a result that was more probable. It's as if the first heads that appeared would result in a two-headed coin. The fact that the random event is maintained through natural selection does not remove the random part of the process. It still took that first random event of heads appearing for the head-colony to form.
As long as you don't understand that natural selection counteracts the randomness of mutation,
Natural selection counteracts nothing. Without that random event, natural selection has nothing to work with. That random event is a necessary step in the natural selection process; without it, evolution is impossible. To discount the random nature of the mutations is to discount evolution itself.
In fact, I'd say that claiming there is no random process in evolution is equivalent to saying there is an intelligent design -- a well-determined formal process that results in evolution.
Exactly this statement is why I wish evolutionists would find a different word to refer to the origin of life.
To answer your question: every evolutionist, when he switches from speaking about the records that support the theory of natural selection and starts using those records to support Evolution as the way life began.
In fact, since ID deals with how life began, every person here who is claiming that evolution disproves ID is making the claim that life arose out of random chance. The random combination of just the right molecules that gave that collection of molecules an advantage over others, and thus subject to natural selection. Then the random connection of those into something with a bigger advantage. Just like the random mutations that gave preference to one offspring over another...
Evolution -- change in existing systems. ID -- creation of new systems. Two different concepts, routinely conflated. There is no reason evolution cannot coexist with ID, other than a common goal of evolutionists is to prove there is no God. Otherwise, there is no reason evolutionists would be so rabidly anti-ID.
If you have a another scientific theory to present, then please present it.
Evolution as the "origin of life" is not a scientific theory, since it is patently untestable and completely undisprovable. So no, not "another" scientific theory. "The origin of life" is a question we will NEVER be able to prove (or disprove) the answer to. It's outside the scope of our knowledge, and will remain so forever. To pretend that one has a "scientific theory" that disproves everything else regarding the origin of life is completely absurd and shows a lack of understanding of what the scientific method is.
Yes, there have been literally hundreds of translations. Some have been translations of translations, some have been translations of the original Hebrew and Greek. Some groups produced their own "books", either getting carried away in the excitement or to change something they didn't like. What the Pope does is not particularly interesting to me in a discussion of Christianity.
Or that King James personally authorized many changes to the wording of HIS Bible, nearly 1,200 years after the original version was thought to be written, to suit his own political tastes and purposes.
Yes, James was a driver behind distribution of the Bible to the people so they could read it themselves and not have to rely upon a latin version read to them by professional religious people. Whether his changes were for political purposes or based on bringing the same concepts to people who had a different background is an argument for another place.
A hint: Find the word "witch" in the King James Bible, and then go and find it in an older version.
I find the difference between "sorcerers", "wizards" and "those who practice witchcraft" (Exodus 22:17) or "sorcery", "use of strange powers" and "witchcraft" (Galations 5:19) unimpressive in an argument about how much the Bible has been changed based on political standards. Both come from the same greek word (pharmakei), which appears to be the root for our modern "pharmacy". Oh, those rascally wizards at Rite Aid! But then, that points out the the word "witch" does not appear in the original greek, either. (Or the word "Jesus", for that matter.)
The statement "more cows died from heart disease when eating a fatty diet than those that did not" is not explaining the observations, it IS the observation. It is a fact that in that study, more cows that ate a fatty diet died from heart disease than those that did not eat a fatty diet died from heart disease. It a simple matter of counting. Five is greater than three, or whatever the numbers were. There is no interpretation or determination of causation.
The THEORY is 1) the fatty diet is the cause, and 2) all fat is bad.
It's the same as flipping a coin 1000 times and reporting "half the time the result was heads." That's a fact. The THEORY is that the next 1000 times will have the same result.
If you do not believe what that religion says, then how can you call it "my religion" in any meaningful sense?
Those who can look at their religion for what it is, can rectify it with modern knowledge, and can take into account the effects of history (revisions, political influences, lost texts etc) are able to differentiate religion and faith and have no trouble at all accepting scientific knowledge.
Those who modify "their religion" based on political influences truly have no religion, or at best, have a cult. They are chaff being blown about in the wind.
Yep. One of them has a Constitutional guarantee against the right to bear being infringed, and the other doesn't. Not just "congress shall make no law", a blanket "the right ... shall not be infringed." Can you guess which is which?