A system can only last so long on hype, it's gotta have at least some technical merit as far as performance, style, and software, goes to keep it going. I got a chance to take a look at the psp today and I have to say it's a mighty slick looking machine. It's not perfect but it's got a lot going for it. I really don't see it turning into a neo geo pocket, or even gamegear. It may not take the lead but I think it'll stick around for quiet some time.
Is it not possible for moderators to edit the post? I know slashdoters hate sensoring, but come on people let's show Srinivasa Ramanujan a little respect.
Agreed, but it's the job of Web Devolopers to make joe sixpack care that IE doesn't display they're pages right because it doesn't support standards. If web developers would stop bending over backwards to support microsofts shanagans the world would be a much different place. I know it's not that simple, that there are alot of politics involved, and it's hard to get all developers on the same page when the CEO is wondering why his website doesn't work in IE, but at this point the developers have given WAY to much power to Microsoft. We should be the ones dictating to Microsoft what they need to do to have a successful browser and force Joe Sixpack to use only compliant browsers. In a sense this is how Microsoft got their monopoly; by puting in features that other browsers couldn't include like active x controls. But they didn't do it alone, developers very irresponsibly, blindly used the garbage they were spewing out and this coupled with the integration into the os basicly handed them their browser dominance on a silver platter.
"Marx and Engels accepted evolution almost immediately after darwin published "The Origin of Species". Within a month, Engles wrote to Marx (Dec. 12, 1859): "Darwin, whom I am now reading is splendid" Evolution, of course was just what the founders of communisum needed to explain how man kind could have come into being without the intervention of any super natural force, and consequently it could be used to bolster the foundations of their materialistic philosophy. In addition, Darwin's interpretation of evolution-that evolution had come about through the operation of natural selection-gave them an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing teleological explanation of the observed fact that all forms of life are adapted to their conditions."
Zirkle, Evolution, pp. 85-86.
I did not deal with all your arguments in the last post since I felt Hitler was enough to prove my point. I believe the previous quote shows that communist nations find their justification in evolution, and are very much anti christian. Also I would point out that athiesm and evolution were around well before Darwin published The Origin of Species if not as refined.
You continue to miss my point. I am not blaming the hypothesis for the atrocities, I am blaming humanity. However it can not be denied that the "science" however misguided, provided justification for these people.
"If it is true that there can be no scientific base for racist policies, must it not be true that there can be no scientific base for advocating nuclear disarmament? Or must we not admit that the scientific findings of the natural science of sociobiology or the social science of biopolitics are as likely to be appropriated by interested parties, even scientists, to serve political ends as were the scientific findings of the German social Darwinists, racial anthropologists, and eugenicists? The history of scientific racism, ethnocentrism, and national xenophobia suggests that this is no mere academic question."
Stein, "Biological Sciences" p. 58
I'm certainly not making the argument that evolution is wrong because people have used it to justify horrible things. I think the facts speak for themselves. However, the claim that because people have done bad things in the name of religious causes creation is wrong, is equally as poor an argument, and is one I have seen over and over again on slashdot.
Finally evolution is far more than a theory to many people it is the very basis of their Godless religion. The notion that the general theory of evolution can be disproven is laughable. Evolution is derived from the axiom that all things were created by natural process that are observable now. The very axiom that is the basis of evolutionary theory eliminates the possiblity of supernatural creation a priori. The explenation must be materialistic at all costs, not to mention that the hypothesis is so elastic it can explain anything which results in respectable scientists doing a lot of just so story telling. I don't think we need to get into why origins is not operational science but if you want to know my thoughts on it answers in genesis has a good explenation.
It is true that Hitler may have been associated with Christianity as a child but he completely regected it and embraced evolutionism with open arms.
"To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to the affiars of a great modern nation, we must trun again to Germany 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy. The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution"
Sir Arthur Keith, leading British evolutionary anthropologist of the first half of the twentieth century. Evolution and Ethics p28, 230. Written shortly after world war II.
Perhaps you should read Hitlers own book, Mein Kempf if you are not sufficiently convinced.
Besides you completely missed the point. I was merely showing that men will find justification for doing evil in anything and so it is completely invalid to blame religion for evil in the world. I believe I have sufficiently made that point and resent being called a liar. As for answers in genesis being liars, I hope you take up your complaints with them because they will gladly correct any errors you point out.
Not to mention that the parent was trying to invoke big bad dudes to disprove creation, but you didn't seem to have quiet the same heated objection to it.
Let's also not forget that evolutionism has brought us such choice individiuals as Hitler and Stalin. While I am not saying that all who believe in evolution are mass murders or as evil as Hitler. The point is that evolution has been the justification for it's fair share of atrocities. Which brings us to the problem we have had since the dawn of time. It is neither religion or evolution, it is our sinful nature and rebellion against God.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Psalm 14:1
I think the point is that ipod or no ipod the digital music buisness was going to take off. Apple just happened to be the company that had a decent product with brilliant marketing. And let's be honest there are some other very good high quality mp3 players out there minus the marketing:). I don't think I'd go as far as saying that Apple is responsible for quadrupling the market.
Creationists are looking at the same evidence as everyone else, and it is my opinion and that of many other's that the evidence fits with a creation model much better. This includes very prominent and educated scientists that are experts in the fields of biology, genetics, and geology.
Yup we have some politicians who feel that Canada needs to be more like the United States in every area including public education. Namely the Harris Government (Conservative) in Ontario that was in power before the current Liberal Government. They definitely made the schools more american, they sux0rzs a lot more now. Good ol mike the knife:)
:) To think that God put dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith is foolish. Most biblical creationists do not believe this. If you wish to have a more informed view on what Creationists believe for future reference and posts I recommend reading the following:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dino saurs.asp
I read the article it doesn't give any detail on dating methods.:) So reading the article won't help much. They might have links to more detailed reports though, I didn't bother to check.
How come TiVo doesn't have a patent on this technology. It seems to me that if TiVo was the original inovator in this field that they should have exclusive rights to sell this type of technology for a while? Is this another example of patent systems failing?
Nature has examples of many kinds of animals, and each type of animal has many variations within their kind as is evident by looking at humans who are all very different in many ways. I don't see how you can claim that evolution doesn't require increases in the genetic information content that didn't exist before. Just because some genes might be common amoung different kinds does not mean that one kind changed into other. This is what you would expect from a common creator.
I think you better define evolution more carefully. If you mean to say that "evolution" = "Change Occurs Over Time" then yes things changing over time is a fact, no one would be silly enough to dispute that and as far as that goes change and natural selection is part of the biblical creation model. However if you mean by evolution that new information arises from nothing which is what is required in the "theory of evolution" then it is simply wrong to claim that this is fact. There is not one single example in nature of new information arising from nothing.
Actually my intent wasn't to discuss theism or push creationism, however someone made the claim.
You mean like the fossil records going back billions of years?
And I simply made the point that this is not exactly a fact and there is still much discussion to be had about how old the earth is and then the discussion went off on a tangent. So in a very indirect way it is a related topic. Sorry it offends you:)
It really is a shame to see slashdot so infested by religious loons like ATN...
First of all this isn't on topic either.
Secondly I don't know what you define name calling to be but I think calling me a religious loon constitutes " a crude substitute for argument", www.dictionary.com.:)
That's exactly the point. Evolution is accepted as "FACT" a priori and all evidence is interpreted within the "FACT" of evolution. Nobody is aloud to refute it because if it is refuted the only logical conclusion is God, and what a horrible thing that is for people to accept. Materialisim and a materialistic explanation must be the only explenation because they have willfully excluded God from the equation. Screaming that something is FACT without providing any evidence doesn't make it so. Your quote only supports what I said in the previous post and so I must strongly object to your accusations of being. "deceitfull and ignorant", and request that you stop resorting to name calling and accusations of wrong doing.
That's exactly the point reinterpreting scripture to fit what fallible humans believe to be true is asking for trouble. As far as the fossil records go they are most definitely up for interpretation. The first chapters of Genesis are not. Here's why scientists are untrustworthy when it comes to origins:
'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist
And let me be clear, there is a very big distinction between origins and operational science. Ones beliefs about origins have little effect on their ability to perform operational science.
I will addmit that I trust the bible first and foremost as the historical account of history and the infallible inspired word of God. However I believe that science backs it up in everyway and before you through insults my way remember that many famous scientist also believed and still do as did many of the founders of the USA.
I love the assumption that because I believe creation over evolution, I also believe we can destroy the environment, when infact I believe we are causing global warming and we should be doing everything in our power to curb the effects of it, but of course none of these clearly flaimbait comments are going to get modded as flaimbait because it's okay to troll it up if it's against a christian points of view.
Slashdot Mirror
A system can only last so long on hype, it's gotta have at least some technical merit as far as performance, style, and software, goes to keep it going. I got a chance to take a look at the psp today and I have to say it's a mighty slick looking machine. It's not perfect but it's got a lot going for it. I really don't see it turning into a neo geo pocket, or even gamegear. It may not take the lead but I think it'll stick around for quiet some time.
Is it not possible for moderators to edit the post? I know slashdoters hate sensoring, but come on people let's show Srinivasa Ramanujan a little respect.
Agreed, but it's the job of Web Devolopers to make joe sixpack care that IE doesn't display they're pages right because it doesn't support standards. If web developers would stop bending over backwards to support microsofts shanagans the world would be a much different place. I know it's not that simple, that there are alot of politics involved, and it's hard to get all developers on the same page when the CEO is wondering why his website doesn't work in IE, but at this point the developers have given WAY to much power to Microsoft. We should be the ones dictating to Microsoft what they need to do to have a successful browser and force Joe Sixpack to use only compliant browsers. In a sense this is how Microsoft got their monopoly; by puting in features that other browsers couldn't include like active x controls. But they didn't do it alone, developers very irresponsibly, blindly used the garbage they were spewing out and this coupled with the integration into the os basicly handed them their browser dominance on a silver platter.
"Marx and Engels accepted evolution almost immediately after darwin published "The Origin of Species". Within a month, Engles wrote to Marx (Dec. 12, 1859): "Darwin, whom I am now reading is splendid" Evolution, of course was just what the founders of communisum needed to explain how man kind could have come into being without the intervention of any super natural force, and consequently it could be used to bolster the foundations of their materialistic philosophy. In addition, Darwin's interpretation of evolution-that evolution had come about through the operation of natural selection-gave them an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing teleological explanation of the observed fact that all forms of life are adapted to their conditions."
Zirkle, Evolution, pp. 85-86.
I did not deal with all your arguments in the last post since I felt Hitler was enough to prove my point. I believe the previous quote shows that communist nations find their justification in evolution, and are very much anti christian. Also I would point out that athiesm and evolution were around well before Darwin published The Origin of Species if not as refined.
You continue to miss my point. I am not blaming the hypothesis for the atrocities, I am blaming humanity. However it can not be denied that the "science" however misguided, provided justification for these people.
"If it is true that there can be no scientific base for racist policies, must it not be true that there can be no scientific base for advocating nuclear disarmament? Or must we not admit that the scientific findings of the natural science of sociobiology or the social science of biopolitics are as likely to be appropriated by interested parties, even scientists, to serve political ends as were the scientific findings of the German social Darwinists, racial anthropologists, and eugenicists? The history of scientific racism, ethnocentrism, and national xenophobia suggests that this is no mere academic question."
Stein, "Biological Sciences" p. 58
I'm certainly not making the argument that evolution is wrong because people have used it to justify horrible things. I think the facts speak for themselves. However, the claim that because people have done bad things in the name of religious causes creation is wrong, is equally as poor an argument, and is one I have seen over and over again on slashdot. Finally evolution is far more than a theory to many people it is the very basis of their Godless religion. The notion that the general theory of evolution can be disproven is laughable. Evolution is derived from the axiom that all things were created by natural process that are observable now. The very axiom that is the basis of evolutionary theory eliminates the possiblity of supernatural creation a priori. The explenation must be materialistic at all costs, not to mention that the hypothesis is so elastic it can explain anything which results in respectable scientists doing a lot of just so story telling. I don't think we need to get into why origins is not operational science but if you want to know my thoughts on it answers in genesis has a good explenation.
It is true that Hitler may have been associated with Christianity as a child but he completely regected it and embraced evolutionism with open arms.
"To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to the affiars of a great modern nation, we must trun again to Germany 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy. The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution"
Sir Arthur Keith, leading British evolutionary anthropologist of the first half of the twentieth century. Evolution and Ethics p28, 230. Written shortly after world war II.
Perhaps you should read Hitlers own book, Mein Kempf if you are not sufficiently convinced.
Besides you completely missed the point. I was merely showing that men will find justification for doing evil in anything and so it is completely invalid to blame religion for evil in the world. I believe I have sufficiently made that point and resent being called a liar. As for answers in genesis being liars, I hope you take up your complaints with them because they will gladly correct any errors you point out.
Not to mention that the parent was trying to invoke big bad dudes to disprove creation, but you didn't seem to have quiet the same heated objection to it.
At least make sure you get the story right.
l atearth.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/f
Let's also not forget that evolutionism has brought us such choice individiuals as Hitler and Stalin. While I am not saying that all who believe in evolution are mass murders or as evil as Hitler. The point is that evolution has been the justification for it's fair share of atrocities. Which brings us to the problem we have had since the dawn of time. It is neither religion or evolution, it is our sinful nature and rebellion against God.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Psalm 14:1
Atheism is not new
I think the point is that ipod or no ipod the digital music buisness was going to take off. Apple just happened to be the company that had a decent product with brilliant marketing. And let's be honest there are some other very good high quality mp3 players out there minus the marketing :). I don't think I'd go as far as saying that Apple is responsible for quadrupling the market.
Please see the following information on why origins has very little do with the scientific process in the operational sense.
t ics.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/cri
Creationists are looking at the same evidence as everyone else, and it is my opinion and that of many other's that the evidence fits with a creation model much better. This includes very prominent and educated scientists that are experts in the fields of biology, genetics, and geology.
Yup we have some politicians who feel that Canada needs to be more like the United States in every area including public education. Namely the Harris Government (Conservative) in Ontario that was in power before the current Liberal Government. They definitely made the schools more american, they sux0rzs a lot more now. Good ol mike the knife :)
:) To think that God put dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith is foolish. Most biblical creationists do not believe this. If you wish to have a more informed view on what Creationists believe for future reference and posts I recommend reading the following: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dino saurs.asp
I read the article it doesn't give any detail on dating methods. :) So reading the article won't help much. They might have links to more detailed reports though, I didn't bother to check.
How come TiVo doesn't have a patent on this technology. It seems to me that if TiVo was the original inovator in this field that they should have exclusive rights to sell this type of technology for a while? Is this another example of patent systems failing?
Perhaps the US should take a look at the Australian system. Voting is mandatory, and they work on a representative system.
Nature has examples of many kinds of animals, and each type of animal has many variations within their kind as is evident by looking at humans who are all very different in many ways. I don't see how you can claim that evolution doesn't require increases in the genetic information content that didn't exist before. Just because some genes might be common amoung different kinds does not mean that one kind changed into other. This is what you would expect from a common creator.
I think you better define evolution more carefully. If you mean to say that "evolution" = "Change Occurs Over Time" then yes things changing over time is a fact, no one would be silly enough to dispute that and as far as that goes change and natural selection is part of the biblical creation model. However if you mean by evolution that new information arises from nothing which is what is required in the "theory of evolution" then it is simply wrong to claim that this is fact. There is not one single example in nature of new information arising from nothing.
Actually my intent wasn't to discuss theism or push creationism, however someone made the claim. You mean like the fossil records going back billions of years? And I simply made the point that this is not exactly a fact and there is still much discussion to be had about how old the earth is and then the discussion went off on a tangent. So in a very indirect way it is a related topic. Sorry it offends you :)
It really is a shame to see slashdot so infested by religious loons like ATN...
:)
First of all this isn't on topic either.
Secondly I don't know what you define name calling to be but I think calling me a religious loon constitutes " a crude substitute for argument", www.dictionary.com.
That's exactly the point. Evolution is accepted as "FACT" a priori and all evidence is interpreted within the "FACT" of evolution. Nobody is aloud to refute it because if it is refuted the only logical conclusion is God, and what a horrible thing that is for people to accept. Materialisim and a materialistic explanation must be the only explenation because they have willfully excluded God from the equation. Screaming that something is FACT without providing any evidence doesn't make it so. Your quote only supports what I said in the previous post and so I must strongly object to your accusations of being. "deceitfull and ignorant", and request that you stop resorting to name calling and accusations of wrong doing.
That's exactly the point reinterpreting scripture to fit what fallible humans believe to be true is asking for trouble. As far as the fossil records go they are most definitely up for interpretation. The first chapters of Genesis are not. Here's why scientists are untrustworthy when it comes to origins:
'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist
And let me be clear, there is a very big distinction between origins and operational science. Ones beliefs about origins have little effect on their ability to perform operational science.
I will addmit that I trust the bible first and foremost as the historical account of history and the infallible inspired word of God. However I believe that science backs it up in everyway and before you through insults my way remember that many famous scientist also believed and still do as did many of the founders of the USA.
I love the assumption that because I believe creation over evolution, I also believe we can destroy the environment, when infact I believe we are causing global warming and we should be doing everything in our power to curb the effects of it, but of course none of these clearly flaimbait comments are going to get modded as flaimbait because it's okay to troll it up if it's against a christian points of view.
I like how your best argument is name calling.
You mean the fossil record interpreted as going back billions of years?
Are you certain of that :p
Interesting indeed :) thanks for the links.