There's a reason I wrapped my kid's mattress in impermeable plastic. You know, the stuff they seal houses with. Figured it was worth $20 and half an hour to have a bit of peace of mind while he was sleeping... they've also found that wrapping those mattresses in New Zealand has drastically cut the incidence of SIDS.
Simply by learning the keywords for programming, you're learning bits of English grammar and concepts. It's not going over and above, it's simply part of what you have to do. There are no common programming languages that are NOT based on English.
If you're a programmer that doesn't speak English, you're severely limiting your potential. And most programmers realize that, and don't want to do that. It's only the "create a critical database in Access" type programmers who will insist on not learning English to program.
English is one of the easiest? Since when? Almost all verbs in English are irregular, and the vagaries of grammar as well as the sheer magnitude of vocabulary required to read anything written by someone with more than an 8th grade education... I'll have to disagree with your disagreement. Finnish is harder to learn than English, but the "easiest" languages to learn are more like French and Spanish, with very regular rules and limited vocabulary.
Same thing is happening with movies. Huge budgets for stars, and the execs take all the good things out of movies out of incompetence. Guillermo del Toro had to shop Hellboy around for years because execs kept wanting him to give him a pet helldog or make him only turn red when he got angry. How crappy would that have turned out? And how big of a budget would it have had? It wouldn't have succeeded if Del Toro hadn't stuck to his guns and had enough clout to do so. Many game developers don't have that kind of influence, so they end up having to do what the MBA, non-game-playing idiots at the helm tell them to do.
It's cheap and easy to stick some motion controls onto that for a Wii port.
And that is exactly why a lot of ports to the Wii flop. Hard. If the controls suck, you won't sell copies of the game. Gamers, your audience, live and die by reviews. It takes a lot of finesse to make a game properly use the motion controls, and if you can't control the game or feel like it doesn't work right, then you won't like it, no matter how pretty it is. Control schemes should NEVER be "tacked on". If they are, you deserve your fate.
Show me how there's more evidence for an iron core earth than there is for evolution. Show me where there's more evidence for plate tectonics and Pangea than there is for evolution
And you are not an expert on evolution, so I'm not going to just trust you that there are holes in the theory. Show me the "holes". How about some research? Experiments? I won't hold my breath, because there is nothing out there. I question everything, including God. And the problem is that of all the things that the evidence points to, ID and God are not in the running.
I'm not reading your posts with a severe prejudice. I'm reading your posts with the background of a lot more information than you're putting forth. The only content you have is to say "give it a chance!". I have hundreds of facts and experiments. Go ahead and lean on your faith, just don't think for a moment that it's scientifically supported.
Repeating someone's name is a well-known psychological manipulation trick, favored by people like Scientologists and Jehovah's Witnesses to try to control and influence people. As are the backhanded complements.
Back on topic, how about plate tectonics then? That has less evidence than evolution. Maybe an iron core in the earth? Absolutely NO hard evidence of it. Take your pick.
Evolution is a theory that is very closely inspected because of idiots like you. As it stands, all the evidence still points to evolution. There is NO verifiable evidence that contravenes any part of the evolutionary theory.
I didn't hold my breath, and I even did some research (did you try that?) There are no differences between macro and micro evolution. Dictionary.com is in no way a reliable source for scientific definitions. But if you look at the wikipedia definition of macroevolution you will find that there is no real distinction, no dividing line where "micro" is real and "macro" is not. A species is not a set thing, there is no good definition of species which has no edge cases. Macro is the synthesis of multiple micro mutations, so they're based on the same process. If you accept evidence for one, then you must accept it for both. Anything else is disingenuous, and ignorant. I've asked the questions. I've done the research. It's blindingly obvious that you have not, or have done it with a severe prejudice and actively ignored parts that you didn't like.
How in the fuck did this get an "insightful"? This is the bullshit type of thinking that passes for "science" in the Creationist camp. As far as theories go, evolution is exceptionally STRONG. There's much more evidence for evolution than for string theory, or even black holes. You have to know the fucking theory before you can "point out holes". Hell, you can't even define the difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution. If you say "species", you're a fucking moron, because species classification REGULARLY change as more genetic information is discovered. Hell, I was just reading in National Geographic that they discovered that parrots and falcons are closer related than falcons are to eagles and hawks.
The thought of God is not annoying to the/. crowd... it's the tendency that the mentioning of God to turn off thought entirely that causes us consternation. And I use your post as evidence. Idiocy being spouted forth, trying to claim protection under the banner of "tolerance".
You can buy that much if you're willing to provide documentation and so on. It's like buying an assault rifle. Lots of things for the government to double-check and triple-check and dig into your history.
I'm not saying that anything is wrong with evolution. I'm saying that it's just good enough, rather than a process for making a "perfect" being. There are many things on our bodies that could be designed much better, but as they are evolution just makes things good enough.
What? "Smarter" has no connection with evolution. If evolution were perfect, we'd be able to see in the dark as well as cats. Evolution is just "good enough". Why should mammals need that kind of geolocation? We're smart enough to get along without it, so it either never evolved or was never an advantageous trait for mammals. For birds and insects? Finding your way back to your yearly breeding grounds from hundreds or thousands of miles away is quite advantageous. It makes sense that that trait would be selected for.
Go get an education before you start talking about evolution. You only show your ignorance otherwise.
What, because Obama is almost as much of a theocrat as Bush is that makes me wrong? Just because I don't like Bush doesn't mean I like Obama. But that kind of niggling detail is probably lost on you.
I don't mind him having religious beliefs. It's when his religious beliefs lead him to cut funding for and speak out against good science that I have a problem with him.
And homeschooling keeps them away from all those stupid people during their formative years and makes them completely inadequately prepared for having to deal with the rest of the world when they're kicked out of the house. I've known too many homeschooled kids to think that it's socially beneficial for them. They're often taken advantage of, and trodden upon because they don't have the social skills to deal with bullies and assholes.
First off, evolution and abiogenesis (origin of life) are not the same thing. You saying that they are is either ignorance or stupidity. Evolution is very much a fact, though, and has been observed in experiments.
"Evolutionists" are not faithful zealots, at least not most of them. They simply realize that ID is nothing but an attack on science under the guise of "thinking". Evolution is as much a scientific theory supported by evidence as gravity is. Not teaching it is an intellectual disservice.
BTW, water boiling at 100C and freezing at 0C are not scientific facts. I can have distilled water still be liquid at 0C. Pressure is very much a part of that equation.
"If I have seen farther than others, it is only because I stood on the shoulders of giants"
Yes, it's utilitarian. But it's based very strongly on evidence, which is what science is all about. And we're talking about science EDUCATION, not cutting edge theoretical physics. You have to start somewhere.
BTW, Newton's work is very much true in the appropriate domain. Just as with any science. There is no place for including weak nuclear interaction in calculating the motion of planets, just as there is no place for Newton's equations in calculating the probability of an electron's position in the electron cloud.
Understanding domain is a very important science lesson you seem to have missed.
First off, Darwin is only marginally close to what current evolutionary theory holds. Really. Darwin didn't even know about genetics and the work that Mendel was doing while he was busy observing finches. Equating "evolution" with "Darwin" is just plain ignorance.
We don't want this enshrined in sanctioned science curriculum because "the cell is too complex to have evolved!" is not an evidence-based, scientific argument. Using that as curriculum will simply encourage kids to have sloppy thinking patterns and be unable to actually tell good science from bad.
Feel free to re-evaluate all the observations you want. The data and experiments are out there. The problem is that when people HONESTLY look at all the data, evolution is really the only answer. And teaching anything other than that is a disservice to our children.
To a certain extent. But Newton's theory is not wrong, not by a long shot. It's just not right on the atomic scale. Newton built his theory on evidence, just as evolutionary theory is built on evidence. Academia held to Newton's theory because it's STILL RIGHT. They still teach Newtonian Mechanics in colleges for a reason. I suppose that's a great comparison, actually... there's so much evidence that evolution is right that the details are all that's left to sort out.
Slashdot Mirror
Will it close if you fart in it's general direction?
There's a reason I wrapped my kid's mattress in impermeable plastic. You know, the stuff they seal houses with. Figured it was worth $20 and half an hour to have a bit of peace of mind while he was sleeping... they've also found that wrapping those mattresses in New Zealand has drastically cut the incidence of SIDS.
I didn't think Mexico had any moose... especially not any who wrote better English than most Americans ;)
Simply by learning the keywords for programming, you're learning bits of English grammar and concepts. It's not going over and above, it's simply part of what you have to do. There are no common programming languages that are NOT based on English.
If you're a programmer that doesn't speak English, you're severely limiting your potential. And most programmers realize that, and don't want to do that. It's only the "create a critical database in Access" type programmers who will insist on not learning English to program.
English is one of the easiest? Since when? Almost all verbs in English are irregular, and the vagaries of grammar as well as the sheer magnitude of vocabulary required to read anything written by someone with more than an 8th grade education... I'll have to disagree with your disagreement. Finnish is harder to learn than English, but the "easiest" languages to learn are more like French and Spanish, with very regular rules and limited vocabulary.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Loose
Lose
Same thing is happening with movies. Huge budgets for stars, and the execs take all the good things out of movies out of incompetence. Guillermo del Toro had to shop Hellboy around for years because execs kept wanting him to give him a pet helldog or make him only turn red when he got angry. How crappy would that have turned out? And how big of a budget would it have had? It wouldn't have succeeded if Del Toro hadn't stuck to his guns and had enough clout to do so. Many game developers don't have that kind of influence, so they end up having to do what the MBA, non-game-playing idiots at the helm tell them to do.
And that is exactly why a lot of ports to the Wii flop. Hard. If the controls suck, you won't sell copies of the game. Gamers, your audience, live and die by reviews. It takes a lot of finesse to make a game properly use the motion controls, and if you can't control the game or feel like it doesn't work right, then you won't like it, no matter how pretty it is. Control schemes should NEVER be "tacked on". If they are, you deserve your fate.
I've got only a few things to say to this:
Show me how there's more evidence for an iron core earth than there is for evolution.
Show me where there's more evidence for plate tectonics and Pangea than there is for evolution
And you are not an expert on evolution, so I'm not going to just trust you that there are holes in the theory. Show me the "holes". How about some research? Experiments? I won't hold my breath, because there is nothing out there. I question everything, including God. And the problem is that of all the things that the evidence points to, ID and God are not in the running.
I'm not reading your posts with a severe prejudice. I'm reading your posts with the background of a lot more information than you're putting forth. The only content you have is to say "give it a chance!". I have hundreds of facts and experiments. Go ahead and lean on your faith, just don't think for a moment that it's scientifically supported.
Repeating someone's name is a well-known psychological manipulation trick, favored by people like Scientologists and Jehovah's Witnesses to try to control and influence people. As are the backhanded complements.
Back on topic, how about plate tectonics then? That has less evidence than evolution. Maybe an iron core in the earth? Absolutely NO hard evidence of it. Take your pick.
Evolution is a theory that is very closely inspected because of idiots like you. As it stands, all the evidence still points to evolution. There is NO verifiable evidence that contravenes any part of the evolutionary theory.
I didn't hold my breath, and I even did some research (did you try that?) There are no differences between macro and micro evolution. Dictionary.com is in no way a reliable source for scientific definitions. But if you look at the wikipedia definition of macroevolution you will find that there is no real distinction, no dividing line where "micro" is real and "macro" is not. A species is not a set thing, there is no good definition of species which has no edge cases. Macro is the synthesis of multiple micro mutations, so they're based on the same process. If you accept evidence for one, then you must accept it for both. Anything else is disingenuous, and ignorant. I've asked the questions. I've done the research. It's blindingly obvious that you have not, or have done it with a severe prejudice and actively ignored parts that you didn't like.
How in the fuck did this get an "insightful"? This is the bullshit type of thinking that passes for "science" in the Creationist camp. As far as theories go, evolution is exceptionally STRONG. There's much more evidence for evolution than for string theory, or even black holes. You have to know the fucking theory before you can "point out holes". Hell, you can't even define the difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution. If you say "species", you're a fucking moron, because species classification REGULARLY change as more genetic information is discovered. Hell, I was just reading in National Geographic that they discovered that parrots and falcons are closer related than falcons are to eagles and hawks.
/. crowd... it's the tendency that the mentioning of God to turn off thought entirely that causes us consternation. And I use your post as evidence. Idiocy being spouted forth, trying to claim protection under the banner of "tolerance".
The thought of God is not annoying to the
Because it looks good to have on the bookshelf next to other classics that no one actually reads?
;)
I have The Art of War on my bookshelf... I'll get to it one of these days. Gotta get through a few others that are higher priority first
You can buy that much if you're willing to provide documentation and so on. It's like buying an assault rifle. Lots of things for the government to double-check and triple-check and dig into your history.
The police actively don't hire people that are too smart. Which scares the shit out of me.
I'm not saying that anything is wrong with evolution. I'm saying that it's just good enough, rather than a process for making a "perfect" being. There are many things on our bodies that could be designed much better, but as they are evolution just makes things good enough.
What? "Smarter" has no connection with evolution. If evolution were perfect, we'd be able to see in the dark as well as cats. Evolution is just "good enough". Why should mammals need that kind of geolocation? We're smart enough to get along without it, so it either never evolved or was never an advantageous trait for mammals. For birds and insects? Finding your way back to your yearly breeding grounds from hundreds or thousands of miles away is quite advantageous. It makes sense that that trait would be selected for.
Go get an education before you start talking about evolution. You only show your ignorance otherwise.
Texas has a lot of good things, but if this kind of shit is even on the board for discussion, the idiots far outweigh the smart people there.
What, because Obama is almost as much of a theocrat as Bush is that makes me wrong? Just because I don't like Bush doesn't mean I like Obama. But that kind of niggling detail is probably lost on you.
I don't mind him having religious beliefs. It's when his religious beliefs lead him to cut funding for and speak out against good science that I have a problem with him.
Just because Obama is as much of an idiot doesn't make Bush any less of one.
And homeschooling keeps them away from all those stupid people during their formative years and makes them completely inadequately prepared for having to deal with the rest of the world when they're kicked out of the house. I've known too many homeschooled kids to think that it's socially beneficial for them. They're often taken advantage of, and trodden upon because they don't have the social skills to deal with bullies and assholes.
First off, evolution and abiogenesis (origin of life) are not the same thing. You saying that they are is either ignorance or stupidity. Evolution is very much a fact, though, and has been observed in experiments.
"Evolutionists" are not faithful zealots, at least not most of them. They simply realize that ID is nothing but an attack on science under the guise of "thinking". Evolution is as much a scientific theory supported by evidence as gravity is. Not teaching it is an intellectual disservice.
BTW, water boiling at 100C and freezing at 0C are not scientific facts. I can have distilled water still be liquid at 0C. Pressure is very much a part of that equation.
"If I have seen farther than others, it is only because I stood on the shoulders of giants"
Yes, it's utilitarian. But it's based very strongly on evidence, which is what science is all about. And we're talking about science EDUCATION, not cutting edge theoretical physics. You have to start somewhere.
BTW, Newton's work is very much true in the appropriate domain. Just as with any science. There is no place for including weak nuclear interaction in calculating the motion of planets, just as there is no place for Newton's equations in calculating the probability of an electron's position in the electron cloud.
Understanding domain is a very important science lesson you seem to have missed.
First off, Darwin is only marginally close to what current evolutionary theory holds. Really. Darwin didn't even know about genetics and the work that Mendel was doing while he was busy observing finches. Equating "evolution" with "Darwin" is just plain ignorance.
We don't want this enshrined in sanctioned science curriculum because "the cell is too complex to have evolved!" is not an evidence-based, scientific argument. Using that as curriculum will simply encourage kids to have sloppy thinking patterns and be unable to actually tell good science from bad.
Feel free to re-evaluate all the observations you want. The data and experiments are out there. The problem is that when people HONESTLY look at all the data, evolution is really the only answer. And teaching anything other than that is a disservice to our children.
To a certain extent. But Newton's theory is not wrong, not by a long shot. It's just not right on the atomic scale. Newton built his theory on evidence, just as evolutionary theory is built on evidence. Academia held to Newton's theory because it's STILL RIGHT. They still teach Newtonian Mechanics in colleges for a reason. I suppose that's a great comparison, actually... there's so much evidence that evolution is right that the details are all that's left to sort out.