This talk is foolishness. There's plenty of difference between them and me. Can you cite any data that creationists give that does not come from a book that they wrote? I have not ignored millions of years of geological record and, well, proper research to come to my conclusions as they've done.
The thing is, and in saying this I'm not saying its right or wrong, the point of dispute is whether the geological record does indeed represent millions of years. So asking them to not ignore 'so-called' millions of years of geological record is not going to get you anywhere at all.
Personally, I don't like things like red shift nor carbon 14 dating as giving scientific evidence by themselves unless they can be corroborated by other evidence. For example, there are formations of galaxies and other objects where it is clear that the red shift data in these cases is, somehow, giving a false reading. If we can't identify exactly why red shift data in these examples is giving a false reading, how do we know that it is giving a correct reading in other cases?
Mythbusters is to science as pro wrestling is to sport.
But it also encourages scientific thinking in children who are watching it. For that alone, I applaud them even if their methodologies are flawed.
I don't think it even displays scientific thinking so I don't see how it encourages this in children watching it. The reasoning in their 'myth busted' lines is usually flawed and entirely script driven.
Chee thanks for stereotyping. I'm from India where calling a handicap just that doesn't bother him. Or calling a black person just that is no offense to anyone. So excuse me if I take your post with a pinch of salt. In the west we keep coming with terms just so someone is not offended, handicap becomes physically challenged and you can't even call your Christmas holidays "Christmas holidays".
No, I think I can handle basic arithmetic. What you want me to think, of course, is "Holy Shit! Millons of very scary Muslims! In INDIA!!!"
Let's not play pretend that the purpose of that first paragraph was something other than pure rhetoric. You can keep your klansman-style propaganda, we don't need it here.
As for the supposed threat of Islamic terrorism, I'm not even a little bit concerned. See, here in the US the big threat isn't Muslims -- it's hateful bigots. You'll find that here, virtually every act of terrorism in the last decade was committed by a Christian. Typically white and, more often than not, by someone who shares your hateful beliefs about Muslims.
Enjoy living in fear in your imaginary hate-filled world. I recommend that you avoid reality -- you'll find that the monsters there look a bit too much like you for comfort...
FUCK!!
Its not about Hindus or Muslims or Christians!
Its about people who just can't contain their rage when they get insulted!
The Arabic word for "peace" is "salam". And yes, it's the same root as "islam".
Roots can have a lot of different meanings, I've yet to meet a Muslim who would translate "Islam" as "peace", though, same root or not. The conventional translation is "submission" (to God). I've met one quite devout Muslim who made a point of always translating it when he talked about it (which was, ahem, a lot), and that was the translation he used as well.
Thats what I got as well; 'peace' meaning 'not struggling against the will of God', which is a bit different from the English meaning of the word.
Sadly we do the same freeken thing over other stuff in the US/Europe. Stuff I can't mention hear because I'd be drummed out of existence and might even have someone call the cops on my ass. And the cops likely WOULD go after it. Just speech. But none the less. Dangerous speech!
But most of the time when people get riotous in the US/Europe its for things like... cops beating the shit out of someone or shooting someone out of hand. In certain other parts of the world they'd get riotous if the cops insulted someone.
A sensible approach to this would be to keep drawing Muhammad and whatever else until these mud people completely exterminate themselves.
Unfortunately, our culture has its own major flaw: "tolerance."
Of course Islam describes itself as 'a religion of peace and tolerance' but I'm not sure exactly what Arabic words get translated as 'peace' and as 'tolerance', there seems to be some... misunderstanding involved.
What do we expect from their control freak government?
Well people from SOME cultures are VERY easily offended and take this perceived offence VERY seriously.
So its not just that this government is a 'control freak' its that the government is well aware at how hair-triggered large portions of their population can be at what to us in the West might seem incredibly minor things. Very simple words and phrases can cause widespread rioting with commensurate property damage, loss of life and livelihood. So in this sense the Indian government HAVE to be 'control freakish'.
IMO its just dumb of these cultures to be so fucking incredibly oversensitive and it really does them no good at all it just makes them look like complete dumbasses to the rest of the world. "What, so you killed someone because he called you a son of a bitch? Riiight thats just totally justified." while within that persons social context it WOULD be 'totally justified'. Doesn't make it right, it makes that persons social context FUCKED RIGHT UP.
And even concerns about God is secondary... I remember hearing a story told by a Jewish guy, went something like this:
A man goes to his Rabbi and says 'Rabbi, I know I'm not supposed to hate people but theres this group of people I really hate.' The Rabbi says to him 'What kind of people bring out such feelings in you??' The man says 'Atheists. They are just evil and wrong and I hate them.' The Rabbi says 'You know, there is a time when its very important to be an atheist...' The man is thinking 'How is this possible? My Rabbi tells me there is a time when its right to be an atheist??' The Rabbi continues; 'If you are walking down the street and you see some unfortunate person who needs your help, then it is right time to be an atheist. Because you should help that person; not because God is standing over you telling you that you should BUT BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO'.
Ethics and morality are beyond good and evil, beyond law and government, beyond god or gods. It is about being a better human being and helping others to be better human beings. To move the human race further from the bestial and closer to the superhuman.
You should fix your electoral system so that more than two parties have a chance. A non-interventionist party (which neither the GOP or the DEMs are) would get at lot of votes.
The ultimate effect of a rigidly fixed two party system is that it is actually a one party system that pretends to give voters a choice.
Many of the so-called communist states did something similar; people were allowed to 'vote' for 'candidates' from different factions of the communist party. Thats much the same thing that happens in the USA; people are allowed to 'vote' for candidates from two factions (Dem and Rep), selected by the 'one party' (the corporations).
Uh? Why? cp -a is all you need once you put the HDD inside the target machine. And if you put it into another machine on the same network, then rsync is the answer. Forget about the buggy and slow SAMBA.
cp copies file by file.
A more efficient way is something like
tar -cf -.|(cd/somewhere/ ; tar xf -)
tar treats the directory contents as a data stream. Its much faster for large amounts of files and data.
That worked pretty well for Mao, who had a second- (or third-)rate opponent.
In Vietnam, it should be remembered, the war wasn't won by the Vietcong using Mao's strategy, but by the North Vietnamese Army (using Germany's strategy).
Which was rather larger and much better equipped than the Wehrmacht was in 1940....
And they had to wait till the USA got disgusted with the whole thing and left.
The strategy is FAR older than Mao. Its from Sun Tzu, 'The Art of War'
Somehow there's a great incentive to solve things diplomatically when the alternative is Mutual Assured Destruction.
Bertrand Russel, best known for his anti-nuclear stance (see CND), at first advocated a massive pre-emptive nuclear strike against the USSR; to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.
AFTER the USSR developed nuclear capability Russel completely changed his tune and went all anti-nuclear. This was purely based on game theory and logic, nothing to do with morality or anything cute like that, just cold reasoning. Before they have the nuke, BOMB the shit out of them. After they have the nuke, abolish nukes.
Does it seem to you that a jacka** such as Assad is going to pay any attention to "Stop, or we'll say stop again!"? Show me one instance where it's made ANY difference.
The thing that happened in Northern Ireland is a total different scenario than, let's say, between USA and China
You folks in Northern Ireland basically eat the same food, listen to the same song, curse in the same language - the only difference between the pro-IRA and the anti-IRA folks is the religion
Basically it's a Catholic vs Protestant conflict
I remember reading about how the IRA went to Libya to get some support from Ghadaffi. At first he gave them help. Then someone from Protestant paramilitaries went to Libya, met Ghadaffi and explained how it wasn't a freedom struggle, it was sectarian and Ghadaffi withdrew his aide from the IRA.
Not really. Look at Northern Ireland. The relative size of our military compared to the IRA was irrelevant, and ultimately it was negotiation that resolved the situation.
Having a big and powerful military is not only ineffective against many smaller forces, it also increases the level of tension and drives other countries to arming themselves with WMDs. North Korea wouldn't need nukes if it wasn't at war with the US. Iran wouldn't want them if they were not in a cold war with the US and Israel, with the threat of massive invasion.
Enemy attacks; I retreat. Enemy retreats; I follow. Enemy stops; I watch. Enemy tired; I attack.
Slashdot Mirror
News just in: The bible wasn't written in English.
This talk is foolishness. There's plenty of difference between them and me. Can you cite any data that creationists give that does not come from a book that they wrote? I have not ignored millions of years of geological record and, well, proper research to come to my conclusions as they've done.
The thing is, and in saying this I'm not saying its right or wrong, the point of dispute is whether the geological record does indeed represent millions of years. So asking them to not ignore 'so-called' millions of years of geological record is not going to get you anywhere at all.
Personally, I don't like things like red shift nor carbon 14 dating as giving scientific evidence by themselves unless they can be corroborated by other evidence. For example, there are formations of galaxies and other objects where it is clear that the red shift data in these cases is, somehow, giving a false reading. If we can't identify exactly why red shift data in these examples is giving a false reading, how do we know that it is giving a correct reading in other cases?
Mythbusters is to science as pro wrestling is to sport.
But it also encourages scientific thinking in children who are watching it. For that alone, I applaud them even if their methodologies are flawed.
I don't think it even displays scientific thinking so I don't see how it encourages this in children watching it. The reasoning in their 'myth busted' lines is usually flawed and entirely script driven.
Because Mythbusters is a shining example for accurate and effective testing through the use of the scientific process.
Mythbusters is to science as pro wrestling is to sport.
Correct. But he did a lot of good work in the field, making it practicable.
Whereas Edison tried to get AC power banned.
If the inventors of yesteryears were as greedy as Apple...
Please pick up the white courtesy phone. Thomas Edison and some guy named... Westinghouse? and a couple of folks from RCA and GE would like a word.
I said, pick up the white phone...
We got someone called Tesla on the other line...
yes
Chee thanks for stereotyping. I'm from India where calling a handicap just that doesn't bother him. Or calling a black person just that is no offense to anyone. So excuse me if I take your post with a pinch of salt. In the west we keep coming with terms just so someone is not offended, handicap becomes physically challenged and you can't even call your Christmas holidays "Christmas holidays".
Yeah but people don't riot over these things.
And you can't do the math.
No, I think I can handle basic arithmetic. What you want me to think, of course, is "Holy Shit! Millons of very scary Muslims! In INDIA!!!"
Let's not play pretend that the purpose of that first paragraph was something other than pure rhetoric. You can keep your klansman-style propaganda, we don't need it here.
As for the supposed threat of Islamic terrorism, I'm not even a little bit concerned. See, here in the US the big threat isn't Muslims -- it's hateful bigots. You'll find that here, virtually every act of terrorism in the last decade was committed by a Christian. Typically white and, more often than not, by someone who shares your hateful beliefs about Muslims.
Enjoy living in fear in your imaginary hate-filled world. I recommend that you avoid reality -- you'll find that the monsters there look a bit too much like you for comfort...
FUCK!!
Its not about Hindus or Muslims or Christians!
Its about people who just can't contain their rage when they get insulted!
THATS what is DUMB!
THAT is what is FUCKED UP!
In your haste to submit your bigoted and hateful post, you forgot to check the demographics. India is overwhelmingly Hindu.
I know Hinduism well and I think that Advaita vedanta is the most accurate philosophy that exists.
However, many Hindus are as rabid when it comes to perceived 'offence' as many Muslims.
The Arabic word for "peace" is "salam". And yes, it's the same root as "islam".
Roots can have a lot of different meanings, I've yet to meet a Muslim who would translate "Islam" as "peace", though, same root or not. The conventional translation is "submission" (to God). I've met one quite devout Muslim who made a point of always translating it when he talked about it (which was, ahem, a lot), and that was the translation he used as well.
Thats what I got as well; 'peace' meaning 'not struggling against the will of God', which is a bit different from the English meaning of the word.
Sadly we do the same freeken thing over other stuff in the US/Europe. Stuff I can't mention hear because I'd be drummed out of existence and might even have someone call the cops on my ass. And the cops likely WOULD go after it. Just speech. But none the less. Dangerous speech!
But most of the time when people get riotous in the US/Europe its for things like... cops beating the shit out of someone or shooting someone out of hand. In certain other parts of the world they'd get riotous if the cops insulted someone.
A sensible approach to this would be to keep drawing Muhammad and whatever else until these mud people completely exterminate themselves.
Unfortunately, our culture has its own major flaw: "tolerance."
Of course Islam describes itself as 'a religion of peace and tolerance' but I'm not sure exactly what Arabic words get translated as 'peace' and as 'tolerance', there seems to be some... misunderstanding involved.
What do we expect from their control freak government?
Well people from SOME cultures are VERY easily offended and take this perceived offence VERY seriously.
So its not just that this government is a 'control freak' its that the government is well aware at how hair-triggered large portions of their population can be at what to us in the West might seem incredibly minor things. Very simple words and phrases can cause widespread rioting with commensurate property damage, loss of life and livelihood. So in this sense the Indian government HAVE to be 'control freakish'.
IMO its just dumb of these cultures to be so fucking incredibly oversensitive and it really does them no good at all it just makes them look like complete dumbasses to the rest of the world. "What, so you killed someone because he called you a son of a bitch? Riiight thats just totally justified." while within that persons social context it WOULD be 'totally justified'. Doesn't make it right, it makes that persons social context FUCKED RIGHT UP.
And even concerns about God is secondary... I remember hearing a story told by a Jewish guy, went something like this:
A man goes to his Rabbi and says 'Rabbi, I know I'm not supposed to hate people but theres this group of people I really hate.'
The Rabbi says to him 'What kind of people bring out such feelings in you??'
The man says 'Atheists. They are just evil and wrong and I hate them.'
The Rabbi says 'You know, there is a time when its very important to be an atheist...'
The man is thinking 'How is this possible? My Rabbi tells me there is a time when its right to be an atheist??'
The Rabbi continues; 'If you are walking down the street and you see some unfortunate person who needs your help, then it is right time to be an atheist. Because you should help that person; not because God is standing over you telling you that you should BUT BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO'.
Ethics and morality are beyond good and evil, beyond law and government, beyond god or gods. It is about being a better human being and helping others to be better human beings. To move the human race further from the bestial and closer to the superhuman.
A people who interpret their religion to prescribe the death penalty for people converting away from it must be very insecure in their faith.
You should fix your electoral system so that more than two parties have a chance. A non-interventionist party (which neither the GOP or the DEMs are) would get at lot of votes.
The ultimate effect of a rigidly fixed two party system is that it is actually a one party system that pretends to give voters a choice.
Many of the so-called communist states did something similar; people were allowed to 'vote' for 'candidates' from different factions of the communist party. Thats much the same thing that happens in the USA; people are allowed to 'vote' for candidates from two factions (Dem and Rep), selected by the 'one party' (the corporations).
3.samba
Uh? Why?
cp -a is all you need once you put the HDD inside the target machine.
And if you put it into another machine on the same network, then rsync is the answer.
Forget about the buggy and slow SAMBA.
cp copies file by file.
A more efficient way is something like
tar -cf - .|(cd /somewhere/ ; tar xf -)
tar treats the directory contents as a data stream. Its much faster for large amounts of files and data.
That worked pretty well for Mao, who had a second- (or third-)rate opponent.
In Vietnam, it should be remembered, the war wasn't won by the Vietcong using Mao's strategy, but by the North Vietnamese Army (using Germany's strategy).
Which was rather larger and much better equipped than the Wehrmacht was in 1940....
And they had to wait till the USA got disgusted with the whole thing and left.
The strategy is FAR older than Mao. Its from Sun Tzu, 'The Art of War'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu
476–221 BC
I, for one, welcome the future when the Chinese will save the world with their generosity and diplomacy
Well they are propping up the US government. How do you think election campaigns are paid for?
We need software, not bombs.
FTFY
make install, not war
make install || exec war
Somehow there's a great incentive to solve things diplomatically when the alternative is Mutual Assured Destruction.
Bertrand Russel, best known for his anti-nuclear stance (see CND), at first advocated a massive pre-emptive nuclear strike against the USSR; to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.
AFTER the USSR developed nuclear capability Russel completely changed his tune and went all anti-nuclear. This was purely based on game theory and logic, nothing to do with morality or anything cute like that, just cold reasoning. Before they have the nuke, BOMB the shit out of them. After they have the nuke, abolish nukes.
Really? What has diplomacy EVER solved?
Does it seem to you that a jacka** such as Assad is going to pay any attention to "Stop, or we'll say stop again!"? Show me one instance where it's made ANY difference.
pfft. You write them a very stern letter.
The thing that happened in Northern Ireland is a total different scenario than, let's say, between USA and China
You folks in Northern Ireland basically eat the same food, listen to the same song, curse in the same language - the only difference between the pro-IRA and the anti-IRA folks is the religion
Basically it's a Catholic vs Protestant conflict
I remember reading about how the IRA went to Libya to get some support from Ghadaffi. At first he gave them help. Then someone from Protestant paramilitaries went to Libya, met Ghadaffi and explained how it wasn't a freedom struggle, it was sectarian and Ghadaffi withdrew his aide from the IRA.
Not really. Look at Northern Ireland. The relative size of our military compared to the IRA was irrelevant, and ultimately it was negotiation that resolved the situation.
Having a big and powerful military is not only ineffective against many smaller forces, it also increases the level of tension and drives other countries to arming themselves with WMDs. North Korea wouldn't need nukes if it wasn't at war with the US. Iran wouldn't want them if they were not in a cold war with the US and Israel, with the threat of massive invasion.
Enemy attacks; I retreat.
Enemy retreats; I follow.
Enemy stops; I watch.
Enemy tired; I attack.
Wash, rinse, repeat.