Which is exactly why I mentioned combinations. In many, many cases, there are interdependent features of an organism, which would both have to have come into being by random chance at the same time.
I figured that was your angle (a standard creationist argument). It's quite wrong, of course. Show me an "irreducibly complex" feature, and I'll reduce it for you.
Now, even well known evolutionist writers (e.g. Richard Dawkins) tell us the probability of successful combinations of mutations is very, very low.
I think you're a bit confused on this point -- in particular, why do you refer to "combinations"? -- but for the sake of argument, let's say that it's right.
If so, the probability of having anything for natural selection to operate on is very, very low.
Wrong. First of all, even improbable events become almost certain, given enough iterations. Take a one-in-a-million event, and give it two million chances... odds are, it will happen twice. It's highly improbable for anyone to win the lottery, yet someone always does. Mutations occur in every living creature, which is a lot of chances.
Secondly, you're ignoring the fact that what determines a "successful" mutation is natural selection, and nothing else. You're saying, in effect, "after deleterious mutations are weeded out by natural selection, there's nothing left for natrual selection to work with." Silly.
I'd hoped that the non-collapse of society in 2000, and again in 2001 (for those who can actually count), would've kicked this movement in the teeth; but it doesn't seem to have happened yet. Perhaps we'll have to wait until 2034 (i.e., 2000 years after the end of Jesus' "first coming").
(interestingly though we still call individual lifeforms 'creatures' even when we claim that they don't have been created by a creator;) )
Ah, cool! I never thought about the etymology of that word. CREATE-URES. I see it now. Thanks for that.
I suppose you think you let yourself off the hook with "not just a misinformed comment". It's hard to prove, in most cases, whether he really did know better and was deliberately lying, or didn't know better and said what he mistakenly believed. But ultimately, what does that matter? Is an ignorant president any better than a deceptive one? If anything, I think it's worse.
The list of false statements by this president, intentional or otherwise, is practically endless. Here are a few to get you started. (But I'm not vouching for that site; it's just an example, via Google.)
Of course his most notorious lie is the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But I think his worst lie was when he swore to protect and defend the Constitution.
Why would they do it? Well, perhaps because they already give it away, as well as publish the specifications? It doesn't seem like they have any concerns about trade secrets or competition, as far as the Reader goes. So, why not open source it?
But it is a silly thing to say. It's clearly not a start towards open source, any more than any other closed-source gratis software is. Reader has always (as long as I can remember) been given away, and has always been closed source. And it's long been available for Linux, even though they skipped version 6.
AFAICT, it supports all the same features as the Windows version. And certainly there's some stuff in there that appears to be DRM-related. But I haven't anything to test that with.
Someone else did pay attention to it. Last I heard, xpdf honors those flags. As I recall, there was some controversy a while back when the Debian maintainer for xpdf included a patch to disable the evil bit. (Not whether the patch should be published, but whether it should be the default.)
Yep. You can get rid of the warning by removing the JavaScript plugin, but then you have to get rid of all the plugins that depend on it, which is most of them, or they pop up their own errors.
I only just installed Reader 7 a couple days ago, because I heard it was faster. Had I known how obnoxious it was about the JavaScript, I would not have done so.
I used Adobe Reader Speedup to simplify the decrufting process. (Windows only.) It's easy enough to do it manually, but I figured this way, I could toggle the plugins on and off painlessly.
EasyRebates are an improvement, but they're not even close to being an elimination of rebates. Customers still have to pay more up front, and wait weeks to get their money back. All the Staples system does is make it easier to apply. So, no, Staples hasn't "already done this".
No morals required. Though they mouth platitudes about serving the customer, if you read further in the article, the FTC announced that they're going to hold retailers responsible when manufacturers don't pay their rebates. That is why Best Buy is making this move now.
Slashdot Mirror
Secondly, you're ignoring the fact that what determines a "successful" mutation is natural selection, and nothing else. You're saying, in effect, "after deleterious mutations are weeded out by natural selection, there's nothing left for natrual selection to work with." Silly.
Who designed the designer?
I wish they would publish "Serious Doubts About Pyramid Schemes" (see my sig). I'm astonished at the level of credulity here.
I'd hoped that the non-collapse of society in 2000, and again in 2001 (for those who can actually count), would've kicked this movement in the teeth; but it doesn't seem to have happened yet. Perhaps we'll have to wait until 2034 (i.e., 2000 years after the end of Jesus' "first coming").
My favorite is when He told Abraham to sacrifice his son, and Abraham was gonna do it. And we're supposed to praise Abraham for this.
And then of course, there's the book of Job.
I suppose you think you let yourself off the hook with "not just a misinformed comment". It's hard to prove, in most cases, whether he really did know better and was deliberately lying, or didn't know better and said what he mistakenly believed. But ultimately, what does that matter? Is an ignorant president any better than a deceptive one? If anything, I think it's worse.
The list of false statements by this president, intentional or otherwise, is practically endless. Here are a few to get you started. (But I'm not vouching for that site; it's just an example, via Google.)
Of course his most notorious lie is the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But I think his worst lie was when he swore to protect and defend the Constitution.
How about "Macrobe"?
Larry McVoy is evil. Linus is just off his rocker.
Not to flame either, but I take the Bill Hicks view of advertisers.
Ah, but will they sell me HBO without a standard (ad-laden) tier? No. (Which I guess makes HBO about $50 a month, if you want to look at it that way.)
Sure, it's done exactly the same way in Linux.
Speaking of dupes... Are you ripping off the Anonymous Coward who posted this three minutes before you, or did you just forget to log in then?
Why would they do it? Well, perhaps because they already give it away, as well as publish the specifications? It doesn't seem like they have any concerns about trade secrets or competition, as far as the Reader goes. So, why not open source it?
But it is a silly thing to say. It's clearly not a start towards open source, any more than any other closed-source gratis software is. Reader has always (as long as I can remember) been given away, and has always been closed source. And it's long been available for Linux, even though they skipped version 6.
They didn't open source it.
AFAICT, it supports all the same features as the Windows version. And certainly there's some stuff in there that appears to be DRM-related. But I haven't anything to test that with.
I agree. Although xpdf is fast, acroread 7 is faster. I was quite surprised to see this -- it used to be the other way around.
This does not say "replace Aqua with X". This says "replace the Aqua X window manager (used for X clients) with another X window manager".
Someone else did pay attention to it. Last I heard, xpdf honors those flags. As I recall, there was some controversy a while back when the Debian maintainer for xpdf included a patch to disable the evil bit. (Not whether the patch should be published, but whether it should be the default.)
Otherwise, yeah.
Yep. You can get rid of the warning by removing the JavaScript plugin, but then you have to get rid of all the plugins that depend on it, which is most of them, or they pop up their own errors.
I only just installed Reader 7 a couple days ago, because I heard it was faster. Had I known how obnoxious it was about the JavaScript, I would not have done so.
I used Adobe Reader Speedup to simplify the decrufting process. (Windows only.) It's easy enough to do it manually, but I figured this way, I could toggle the plugins on and off painlessly.
EasyRebates are an improvement, but they're not even close to being an elimination of rebates. Customers still have to pay more up front, and wait weeks to get their money back. All the Staples system does is make it easier to apply. So, no, Staples hasn't "already done this".
No morals required. Though they mouth platitudes about serving the customer, if you read further in the article, the FTC announced that they're going to hold retailers responsible when manufacturers don't pay their rebates. That is why Best Buy is making this move now.