I've done my research, and it looks like you have as well.
I know that evolution, to a certain extent, is undeniable. Evolutionary changes can be seen even over then span of a couple generations. One example is the falcon (IIRC, but could be another raptor), which has become considerably smaller over the past x number of years.
However, this is simply a size issue. It's not really a significant matter, because the birds can be large or small and it doesn't really matter (in terms of simple existence). If the smaller ones do better, than the smaller ones reproduce. Rather simple.
How many birds do you see with three eyes? I haven't seen a whole lot. And accidentally growing a third eye would be easier that growing the first (the plans are there already).
Now people will say different things. I've seen numbers as short as 300,000 years development of the eye from a light sensitive spot. However, that's just the eye, and not from scratch either. The thing would need the brain to interpret sensory data from that patch, and make it usable enough for the creature to survive longer/better (have more offspring). And that's just the eye, not all the other systems in the body.
Keep in mind, I didn't say it was _wrong_, I just said it lacks a good enough model to satisfactorily explain everything it needs to. Thus making it a weak theory, or as I, somewhat poorly, called it: "more disproven than proven"
Wrong.
In science books things are either theories or law s (or the occasional corollary, etc.) They need no stickers because they mention, in the text, what everything is. Evolution, however, is often presented as the truth; no theory, no uncertainty.
So if it's "Theory of Relativity" it better be "Theory of Evolution". And if they just called it "Relativity" I would certainly hope that there'd be a sticker noting that it is, in fact, just a theory.
(Note: laws are basically theories, but they describe _what_ happens, not _how_ it happens.)
In the name of plano-terrestrialists everywhere, I demand that all globes, maps and atlases include a disclaimer stating that the idea of a round earth is only one of many possible theories.
Certainly. As soon as you prove the Earth isn't 'round' (read: spherical).
Isn't it amazing how something that doesn't even call evolution wrong could be considered supporting religon? Nevermind the fact that the sticker is completely true, and anyone with half a brain could tell you that. Evolution, as it currently stands is more disproven than proven (as a realistic model has yet to be devised). But I guess the judge is just takeing it on faith.
Yey secular fanatics! May you one day make the state religion atheism!
This is absolutely fantastic. I mean, who in their right mind would think that the whole system couldn't be hacked by an EE? It's probably take me a weekend at most for the first, and then about an hour for every other one.
So criminals would have easy access to unrestricted guns. (And knives would be even more effective offensively.) Great. Oh yes, and when that guy breaks into your house, and X (insert gun owner's name here) is away, you're left absolutely defenceless. And even if X is home, there's a 1/10 chance the thing won't work anyway, all stressful conditions aside.
So what's this mean? Gun control is yet again taking power from the hands of the well meaning person and putting it in the hands of the criminals. (Not that I'm against _all_ of it.)
I'll now be taking bets for how long it'll be before the government invents a way to disable public guns with a push of a button.
But those are cards, not chips. Most flash cards use 256MB chips, with two 512MB, and four for 1GB. The 4GB cards almost certainly use at least 4 chips, so cards with these newer ones could be over 16GB.
Neither Kerry nor Bush supported Kyoto, but even if they had, it wouldn't have solved the problem. A major step in the right direction is nuclear power. And here, Bush wants a new plant by 2010, while Kerry has noting concrete ("nuclear power will continue to be key..."). Nuclear power may not be perfect, but it's the best we've got.
>... all success is predicated on people behaving a
> certain way, a way which 10,000 years of human
> experience shows is antithetical to human nature.
Perhaps, but your doing something people havn't been able to do for those 10,000 years. Post online. You +5 insightful comment has probably been seen by 50,000+ people today. If you actually had an issue to push, you could probably get more (look at some of those online petitions). That's what gives these ideas the ability to work.
> Don't look at it as throwing away your vote, but > rather as placing your vote with the person that > you agree with.
Yes! If you don't live in a battleground state, you should vote for him even if you don't really agree with him. After all, it's in everyone's best intrest to have more options, and if he gets enough votes, the Libertarian party will become viable for the next election.
If you are in a battleground state, vote how you wish. This year, you may still have to go with the lesser of the two evils. It's your vote, make it count!
> You can do more yourself, in a single day, to > positively affect your own life and those around > you than either Bush or Kerry can in 4 (or 8!) > years.
Quite. However, polititions have the ability to negativly affect your future with the wave of a hand in regards to a bad bill (aka DMCA, etc.) That's why these things matter; mitigating the problems the government creates.
You should reconsider your political stance. I am also a libertarian, and I find the beliefs of 'liberals' (democrats) to be farther from libertarian beliefs than those of republicans.
While I do agree that democrats tend better than republicans when it comes to freedoms (neither party is great), that's not always the case. (Libertarians, for example, oppose gun control.)
Also, you neglect the other half of governmental policy: money. Libertarians also want the low taxes and great financial . Republicans are far better than democrats on this issue. Bush gave a tax cut. Kerry plans to instate national health care.
I'm not here to bash, but I, as a libertarian, find republicans closer to my beliefs than democrats. Maybe you ought to try this.
Oh, and BTW, I have had the exact opposite experience with people.
One can only take being burned by C's shortcomings so much before deciding that there has to be a better way.
I suppose this trying to be funny, but the interresting thing about C is that there are no shortcomings. It's very much like assembly: simply tell the processor what to do. It does, however, provide a more convienent and portible interface.
That's the glory of C. It's only shortcomings are those of the computer and programmer.
C forever!
It seems to me that attaching a large rope (for lack of a better word) to the moon and letting it 'hang' to Earth would be worth some thought. Because the moon is tidally locked to Earth, the rope would always be facing down. The distance isn't inconcievible (IIRC, twice the length as the elevator). It would be largely ballenced by the opposing gravities, and the part under most stress would be virtually weightless. The rope could hang a large distance off the ground, and the space bound object could be raised up to the top of an Earth bound tower, hooked onto the rope, and the it could elevate itsself.
I don't know if it's feasible, or even a good idea, but it's food for discussion.
Although I agree that the poor and hungry should be helped, humananity doesn't seem mature enough to help them yet. It's too bad really.
Think of all the fuss made about the outsourcing of jobs. These jobs are a perfect way for Indians to earn money and rise above poverty. That is way people should be helped: give them an oppurtunity. Instead, people (such as prospective presidents) are trying to eliminate this! *sigh*
Then there is this War on Terror business. Although many people will argue that it was(is) a bad thing, there are many (esp. humanitarian) pluses. Rebuilding provides work and money. Better infrastructure means more jobs/oppurtunities. I just saw a (quick) news report on Afganistan. The US is providing villages with tools for digging wells and improving buildings. *sigh* again. People don't think this is right.
Spend more on welfare! Now that's a proven program!
I have to agree. After all, it _is_ important to have proper agreements in case disputes arise. This is what lawyers were made for! (heh) Although they seem to only handle lawsuits anymore, remember that they can still be a good thing (especially when defending against other lawyers).
Eternal is always unpleasant to think about. However, if the universe was eternal, it probably should have somehow stabilized some way or another in the forever before now. An eternal creator, on the other hand, would already be mostly stable. However, what would have prompted the creator to create the universe only 15 billion or so years ago. Again, why not in the forever before that? Well, assuming the creator is intelligent\sentient, the "randomness" of our um... creation would be somewhat explained. Also, the universe could have been created _any time_, and there would have been a forever before. So, without going too far into religion, it seems the creator proves a somewhat more logical possibility than a simple universe. Either way, however, eternity is a damn long time.
Actually, we can 'deal with' it. They're called breeder reactors. They make spent uranium usable, but produce plutonium.
God forbid we'd have a little plutonium hanging around. Therefore people shut down the breeders and just burried the spent uranium. A couple years later people complained about burrying it.
Since it wouldn't be economical to propel it into space, the only solution is to shut down the power plants....and burn stuff... great idea. A couple years later people will be complaining about global warming from the smoke. Er... they seemed to have jumped the gun on that...
You also neglected to mention that, like bacteria or any other multiplying thing, its growth would be limited by avalible resources. The same principal that keept (and keeps) us from drowning in bacteria is the same thing that makes 'gray goo' impossible.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
I personally think that legalizing drugs and dropping all support (besides rehab) for addicts would be the best way to solve the problem. However, you imply that tobacco is worse than marijuana. More addictive? Perhaps, but I would rather drive with a somker than someone who was high.
Music quality is a constant; the good-stuff-to-crap ratio is about the same today as it was ten or twenty or thirty years ago.
I, personally, am in disagreement with you. I hate almost all current music. I buy no CDs, nor download any tracks. My favorite CDs are from the eary 90s and soundtracks (which I buy).
However, in the larger picture it is correct. Most of the people I know love the crap that's around today. They don't like everything, however, and it seems to proove your theory that the good:bad ratio remains constant. One person like one rap group and hate another, but his friend feels the opposite.
Now, coming back to the topic, the important thing to note is that none of thes people ever downloaded any CDs. Rather, one person would buy one, and then burn five or so copies for his friends. This would cut sales, supposing my experiences applied everywhere, by about 2/3. Then factor in people like me who used to buy CDs, and it's difficult to imagine CD sales are only down by about 25%.
Point being, I think most piracy isn't occuring on the internet, but in groups of friends. They can crack down on uploaders if they want, but I, for freedom's sake, hope they are never capable of cracking down on these type of pirates.
True-ish, as that may be (64 disks with a move per second takes 585 billion years), computers can solve the puzzle much faster. A nanosecond per move is not entirely unreasonible, and a computer at that speed would have it solved in 585 years (namely, a billionth of the time;).
I find it truely facinating that people actually feel peer pressure to say the pledge. During 11th and 12th grade (and unrecalled time before) I was the only person actually saying the pledge. This was even before this "under God" crap; people just stood there and didn't even mumble. In grade school kids said it, but they didn't ever really think about it. Heck, they probably don't even know "under God" is in it. The whole thing is just memorized so greatly.
The point? This is just a bunch of adults trying to get their way by dragging kids into it. There isn't even a winning solution. If "under God" is removed, the government is promoting Atheism. If is stays, they're supporting Christianity/... Heck, they could change it to "under Gods and Goddesses" to support Hinduism/... There's no way to win, but that's just life in a free nation I suppose.
Slashdot Mirror
I've done my research, and it looks like you have as well.
I know that evolution, to a certain extent, is undeniable. Evolutionary changes can be seen even over then span of a couple generations. One example is the falcon (IIRC, but could be another raptor), which has become considerably smaller over the past x number of years.
However, this is simply a size issue. It's not really a significant matter, because the birds can be large or small and it doesn't really matter (in terms of simple existence). If the smaller ones do better, than the smaller ones reproduce. Rather simple.
How many birds do you see with three eyes? I haven't seen a whole lot. And accidentally growing a third eye would be easier that growing the first (the plans are there already).
Now people will say different things. I've seen numbers as short as 300,000 years development of the eye from a light sensitive spot. However, that's just the eye, and not from scratch either. The thing would need the brain to interpret sensory data from that patch, and make it usable enough for the creature to survive longer/better (have more offspring).
And that's just the eye, not all the other systems in the body.
Keep in mind, I didn't say it was _wrong_, I just said it lacks a good enough model to satisfactorily explain everything it needs to. Thus making it a weak theory, or as I, somewhat poorly, called it: "more disproven than proven"
Wrong. In science books things are either theories or law s (or the occasional corollary, etc.) They need no stickers because they mention, in the text, what everything is. Evolution, however, is often presented as the truth; no theory, no uncertainty. So if it's "Theory of Relativity" it better be "Theory of Evolution". And if they just called it "Relativity" I would certainly hope that there'd be a sticker noting that it is, in fact, just a theory. (Note: laws are basically theories, but they describe _what_ happens, not _how_ it happens.)
In the name of plano-terrestrialists everywhere, I demand that all globes, maps and atlases include a disclaimer stating that the idea of a round earth is only one of many possible theories.
Certainly. As soon as you prove the Earth isn't 'round' (read: spherical).
Isn't it amazing how something that doesn't even call evolution wrong could be considered supporting religon? Nevermind the fact that the sticker is completely true, and anyone with half a brain could tell you that. Evolution, as it currently stands is more disproven than proven (as a realistic model has yet to be devised). But I guess the judge is just takeing it on faith.
Yey secular fanatics! May you one day make the state religion atheism!
This is absolutely fantastic. I mean, who in their right mind would think that the whole system couldn't be hacked by an EE? It's probably take me a weekend at most for the first, and then about an hour for every other one.
So criminals would have easy access to unrestricted guns. (And knives would be even more effective offensively.) Great. Oh yes, and when that guy breaks into your house, and X (insert gun owner's name here) is away, you're left absolutely defenceless. And even if X is home, there's a 1/10 chance the thing won't work anyway, all stressful conditions aside.
So what's this mean? Gun control is yet again taking power from the hands of the well meaning person and putting it in the hands of the criminals. (Not that I'm against _all_ of it.)
I'll now be taking bets for how long it'll be before the government invents a way to disable public guns with a push of a button.
But those are cards, not chips. Most flash cards use 256MB chips, with two 512MB, and four for 1GB. The 4GB cards almost certainly use at least 4 chips, so cards with these newer ones could be over 16GB.
Neither Kerry nor Bush supported Kyoto, but even if they had, it wouldn't have solved the problem. A major step in the right direction is nuclear power. And here, Bush wants a new plant by 2010, while Kerry has noting concrete ("nuclear power will continue to be key...").
Nuclear power may not be perfect, but it's the best we've got.
> ... all success is predicated on people behaving a
> certain way, a way which 10,000 years of human
> experience shows is antithetical to human nature.
Perhaps, but your doing something people havn't been able to do for those 10,000 years. Post online. You +5 insightful comment has probably been seen by 50,000+ people today. If you actually had an issue to push, you could probably get more (look at some of those online petitions). That's what gives these ideas the ability to work.
> Don't look at it as throwing away your vote, but
> rather as placing your vote with the person that
> you agree with.
Yes! If you don't live in a battleground state, you should vote for him even if you don't really agree with him. After all, it's in everyone's best intrest to have more options, and if he gets enough votes, the Libertarian party will become viable for the next election.
If you are in a battleground state, vote how you wish. This year, you may still have to go with the lesser of the two evils. It's your vote, make it count!
> You can do more yourself, in a single day, to
> positively affect your own life and those around
> you than either Bush or Kerry can in 4 (or 8!)
> years.
Quite. However, polititions have the ability to negativly affect your future with the wave of a hand in regards to a bad bill (aka DMCA, etc.) That's why these things matter; mitigating the problems the government creates.
Photons do have energy, and energy acts like mass in these sort of cases.
You should reconsider your political stance. I am also a libertarian, and I find the beliefs of 'liberals' (democrats) to be farther from libertarian beliefs than those of republicans.
While I do agree that democrats tend better than republicans when it comes to freedoms (neither party is great), that's not always the case. (Libertarians, for example, oppose gun control.)
Also, you neglect the other half of governmental policy: money. Libertarians also want the low taxes and great financial . Republicans are far better than democrats on this issue. Bush gave a tax cut. Kerry plans to instate national health care.
I'm not here to bash, but I, as a libertarian, find republicans closer to my beliefs than democrats. Maybe you ought to try this.
Oh, and BTW, I have had the exact opposite experience with people.
One can only take being burned by C's shortcomings so much before deciding that there has to be a better way.
I suppose this trying to be funny, but the interresting thing about C is that there are no shortcomings. It's very much like assembly: simply tell the processor what to do. It does, however, provide a more convienent and portible interface.
That's the glory of C. It's only shortcomings are those of the computer and programmer.
C forever!
The headline wasn't clear on what position I am supposed to be taking on this. Will somebody please let me know so I can rant about it. Thank you.
Really? Some of my best rants had absolutly no position. Or was that informaiton...
It seems to me that attaching a large rope (for lack of a better word) to the moon and letting it 'hang' to Earth would be worth some thought. Because the moon is tidally locked to Earth, the rope would always be facing down. The distance isn't inconcievible (IIRC, twice the length as the elevator). It would be largely ballenced by the opposing gravities, and the part under most stress would be virtually weightless.
The rope could hang a large distance off the ground, and the space bound object could be raised up to the top of an Earth bound tower, hooked onto the rope, and the it could elevate itsself.
I don't know if it's feasible, or even a good idea, but it's food for discussion.
Although I agree that the poor and hungry should be helped, humananity doesn't seem mature enough to help them yet. It's too bad really.
Think of all the fuss made about the outsourcing of jobs. These jobs are a perfect way for Indians to earn money and rise above poverty. That is way people should be helped: give them an oppurtunity. Instead, people (such as prospective presidents) are trying to eliminate this! *sigh*
Then there is this War on Terror business. Although many people will argue that it was(is) a bad thing, there are many (esp. humanitarian) pluses. Rebuilding provides work and money. Better infrastructure means more jobs/oppurtunities. I just saw a (quick) news report on Afganistan. The US is providing villages with tools for digging wells and improving buildings. *sigh* again. People don't think this is right.
Spend more on welfare! Now that's a proven program!
I have to agree. After all, it _is_ important to have proper agreements in case disputes arise. This is what lawyers were made for! (heh) Although they seem to only handle lawsuits anymore, remember that they can still be a good thing (especially when defending against other lawyers).
Eternal is always unpleasant to think about. However, if the universe was eternal, it probably should have somehow stabilized some way or another in the forever before now.
An eternal creator, on the other hand, would already be mostly stable. However, what would have prompted the creator to create the universe only 15 billion or so years ago. Again, why not in the forever before that? Well, assuming the creator is intelligent\sentient, the "randomness" of our um... creation would be somewhat explained. Also, the universe could have been created _any time_, and there would have been a forever before.
So, without going too far into religion, it seems the creator proves a somewhat more logical possibility than a simple universe. Either way, however, eternity is a damn long time.
Sorry, my bad.
Actually, we can 'deal with' it. They're called breeder reactors. They make spent uranium usable, but produce plutonium.
...and burn stuff... great idea. A couple years later people will be complaining about global warming from the smoke. Er ... they seemed to have jumped the gun on that...
God forbid we'd have a little plutonium hanging around. Therefore people shut down the breeders and just burried the spent uranium. A couple years later people complained about burrying it.
Since it wouldn't be economical to propel it into space, the only solution is to shut down the power plants.
You also neglected to mention that, like bacteria or any other multiplying thing, its growth would be limited by avalible resources. The same principal that keept (and keeps) us from drowning in bacteria is the same thing that makes 'gray goo' impossible.
I personally think that legalizing drugs and dropping all support (besides rehab) for addicts would be the best way to solve the problem. However, you imply that tobacco is worse than marijuana. More addictive? Perhaps, but I would rather drive with a somker than someone who was high.
However, in the larger picture it is correct. Most of the people I know love the crap that's around today. They don't like everything, however, and it seems to proove your theory that the good:bad ratio remains constant. One person like one rap group and hate another, but his friend feels the opposite.
Now, coming back to the topic, the important thing to note is that none of thes people ever downloaded any CDs. Rather, one person would buy one, and then burn five or so copies for his friends. This would cut sales, supposing my experiences applied everywhere, by about 2/3. Then factor in people like me who used to buy CDs, and it's difficult to imagine CD sales are only down by about 25%.
Point being, I think most piracy isn't occuring on the internet, but in groups of friends. They can crack down on uploaders if they want, but I, for freedom's sake, hope they are never capable of cracking down on these type of pirates.
True-ish, as that may be (64 disks with a move per second takes 585 billion years), computers can solve the puzzle much faster. A nanosecond per move is not entirely unreasonible, and a computer at that speed would have it solved in 585 years (namely, a billionth of the time ;).
I find it truely facinating that people actually feel peer pressure to say the pledge. During 11th and 12th grade (and unrecalled time before) I was the only person actually saying the pledge. This was even before this "under God" crap; people just stood there and didn't even mumble. In grade school kids said it, but they didn't ever really think about it. Heck, they probably don't even know "under God" is in it. The whole thing is just memorized so greatly.
The point? This is just a bunch of adults trying to get their way by dragging kids into it. There isn't even a winning solution. If "under God" is removed, the government is promoting Atheism. If is stays, they're supporting Christianity/... Heck, they could change it to "under Gods and Goddesses" to support Hinduism/...
There's no way to win, but that's just life in a free nation I suppose.