Wal-Mart is the means by which the United States is able to screw over the rest of the world. Despite our relatively high average income, we are still unwilling to pay more than much poorer countries do for the same products. Rather than do our part to give back to those who provide to us, we want to reap all the benefits at little expense. The answer to our woes: Wal-Mart.
It's no surprise that Avril Lavigne would do something like this... given her huge punk heritage and following, her fans would definitely get pissed off and leave her negative® text messages if she didn't rebel.
It's not that leaving early is necessarily worse; it's that leaving at the same time as everyone else is definitely worse. This greatly depends on individual circumstances. When I used to work at Sandia National Labs, for example, some people would come in to work after everyone else had left, since you are usually allowed to work whenever you want. As a result, they avoided absolutely all other traffic, and got to park right up front (which is a big deal when the parking lots are the size of football fields). Not only that, they avoided dealing with random people bugging them about random things throughout the day, saving more time. Of course, something like that is more suitable for the antisocial types, but this is an example that clearly saves more time.
Of course the debate is over in that respect, but it may simply mean that things like the spirit/soul/consciousness will take on new, more well-defined definitions. That is where the debate I was referring to lies.
Unfortunately, we can never measure anything exactly, and chaos makes it impossible to predict a given result further into the future, so within that vague uncertainty, choice would remain.
It's time for the age-old debate about man's free will. Does it exist, or are we just kidding ourselves? Is the consciousness an intact "entity" within the brain, or is it simply the end result of external stimuli influencing choices? One thing is for sure: neuroscience is making it more difficult for a spirit to hide in our mushy insides. Eventually, we'll know for sure how the brain works. For now, we are stuck with debating the definitions of words like soul, freedom, consciousness, etc...
What may be fine in one region may not be in another. Anti-GM for the entire world is ridiculous. The only other option for societies most dependant on GM would have been for them to simply die.
Aren't we fat enough without our cars putting on extra pounds as well?!?! Vegetable oil has like 20 grams of fat per serving.. I wonder how many miles-per-gallon my Hummer will get after its intake is clogged with cholesterol..
"Thus the Black hole will not spin and just suck things straight in."
As my professor back in P1 said, "There are three types of orbits: elliptical, parabolic, and hyperbolic. There is no suck orbit." Thus, no matter how many times you use the word thus, you still have no clue what you're talking about.
"ID is better compared to, say, abiogenesis, or the Big Bang, etc... after that, ID uses the same science everyone else does. Evolution's starting points aren't any more testable than ID's."
This is nonsense. You're essentially saying, "once God figured out how to make everyone turn out the way currently are, he quit getting involved." The problem is getting everyone to turn out the way they are. You're disguising ID as only covering "the creation" when in fact it is essentially covering everything after the creation, since God would have had to determine that ahead of time for it to occur as it did.
As for the untestability of abiogenesis, I'm not sure what gives you that idea. If a decent theory comes along explaining how objects began to self-replicate, and scientists run tests to see if they can get self-replication to occur, then yes, it is testable. The big bang theory is also testable; although we can't physically make a big bang occur, we can compare the predicted results to what actually resulted. If they don't match up, then there is something wrong with the theory. God, on the other hand, we can never test.
Britannica has almost always been limited by the number of books they can publish while still profitting. Now that they have the interwebs, they have expanded a bit, but for them it takes much longer to factcheck an article before publishing it. As for Encarta, well, they probably just grabbed Britannica's entry list and made their own entries. Both companies are limited by workforce, whereas Wikipedia is not; we can write articles faster and factcheck them faster (although the number of people who do the former far outweighs those doing the latter). Wikipedia shouldn't limit itself because other encyclopedias have historically been forced to limit themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Wal-Mart is the means by which the United States is able to screw over the rest of the world. Despite our relatively high average income, we are still unwilling to pay more than much poorer countries do for the same products. Rather than do our part to give back to those who provide to us, we want to reap all the benefits at little expense. The answer to our woes: Wal-Mart.
Kids these days have no attention span whatsoever, so this would be the ultimate computer security for parents...
"The password is a dewy meadow..." *imagines* "...with trees swaying in the wind... and the sun coming up over the hori.. OOOH SHINY BALL!!!"
"Much like when your wife spends $200 on a pocket book that normally cost $250, and then she tells you that she saved $50!."
I guess that's why Microsoft never had an ad campaign telling everyone how they can "save -$300"...
By the way, I've always been a huge Dead Kennedys fan, so I do know true punk heritage :)
"Calling Avril Lavigne punk, or saying she has a "punk heritage and following" is just insane"
Indeed. I was joking. Notice the rest of my post that you failed to read before replying.
"Are you fucking kidding me?"
Yes, I was. You didn't get the joke. Next time, read the rest of the post, and check for sarcasm.
"Anyone care to spell this (quite obscure) joke out and satisfy my curiosity?"
Obscure? The summary lists the Barenaked Ladies. The post's subject is the name of a famous song of theirs. It doesn't get more obvious than that...
Whoosh (the sound of a joke going over your head)
It's no surprise that Avril Lavigne would do something like this... given her huge punk heritage and following, her fans would definitely get pissed off and leave her negative® text messages if she didn't rebel.
E-mail spambots have been making typos for years.
"Our (human) pyramids are only 6000 years old, and their outer surface is gone"
Their outer surfaces are gone... because they were made of a more valuable mineral, and were quarried for other purposes.
It's not that leaving early is necessarily worse; it's that leaving at the same time as everyone else is definitely worse. This greatly depends on individual circumstances. When I used to work at Sandia National Labs, for example, some people would come in to work after everyone else had left, since you are usually allowed to work whenever you want. As a result, they avoided absolutely all other traffic, and got to park right up front (which is a big deal when the parking lots are the size of football fields). Not only that, they avoided dealing with random people bugging them about random things throughout the day, saving more time. Of course, something like that is more suitable for the antisocial types, but this is an example that clearly saves more time.
Of course the debate is over in that respect, but it may simply mean that things like the spirit/soul/consciousness will take on new, more well-defined definitions. That is where the debate I was referring to lies.
Unfortunately, we can never measure anything exactly, and chaos makes it impossible to predict a given result further into the future, so within that vague uncertainty, choice would remain.
It's time for the age-old debate about man's free will. Does it exist, or are we just kidding ourselves? Is the consciousness an intact "entity" within the brain, or is it simply the end result of external stimuli influencing choices? One thing is for sure: neuroscience is making it more difficult for a spirit to hide in our mushy insides. Eventually, we'll know for sure how the brain works. For now, we are stuck with debating the definitions of words like soul, freedom, consciousness, etc...
"I find the wind turbines to be a rather beautiful sight. Large white silent energy makers that rotate slowly along a hillside, what's not to like?"
Clearly, people would rather see a deer taking a dump next to a tree, or a fluffy bunny being torn to shreds by a wily coyote.
"Faith for quite a few people is much stronger than logical reason."
If they had faith, why would they need "proof that God does exist"?
What may be fine in one region may not be in another. Anti-GM for the entire world is ridiculous. The only other option for societies most dependant on GM would have been for them to simply die.
"So now you're arguing for less-than-intelligent design?"
:D
All creatures were created intelligently, but some were created more intelligently than others... where have I heard that before?
"It's as if the positive changes are being selected in favor of the negative changes."
It's simple really... the creatures that survived were more intelligently designed than those that died.
"snakes evolved on land rather than in the water"
I thought it was already well-known that snakes originated on land. Their gait leaves little to the imagination...
Aren't we fat enough without our cars putting on extra pounds as well?!?! Vegetable oil has like 20 grams of fat per serving.. I wonder how many miles-per-gallon my Hummer will get after its intake is clogged with cholesterol..
"Thus the Black hole will not spin and just suck things straight in."
As my professor back in P1 said, "There are three types of orbits: elliptical, parabolic, and hyperbolic. There is no suck orbit." Thus, no matter how many times you use the word thus, you still have no clue what you're talking about.
"ID is better compared to, say, abiogenesis, or the Big Bang, etc... after that, ID uses the same science everyone else does. Evolution's starting points aren't any more testable than ID's."
This is nonsense. You're essentially saying, "once God figured out how to make everyone turn out the way currently are, he quit getting involved." The problem is getting everyone to turn out the way they are. You're disguising ID as only covering "the creation" when in fact it is essentially covering everything after the creation, since God would have had to determine that ahead of time for it to occur as it did.
As for the untestability of abiogenesis, I'm not sure what gives you that idea. If a decent theory comes along explaining how objects began to self-replicate, and scientists run tests to see if they can get self-replication to occur, then yes, it is testable. The big bang theory is also testable; although we can't physically make a big bang occur, we can compare the predicted results to what actually resulted. If they don't match up, then there is something wrong with the theory. God, on the other hand, we can never test.
Britannica has almost always been limited by the number of books they can publish while still profitting. Now that they have the interwebs, they have expanded a bit, but for them it takes much longer to factcheck an article before publishing it. As for Encarta, well, they probably just grabbed Britannica's entry list and made their own entries. Both companies are limited by workforce, whereas Wikipedia is not; we can write articles faster and factcheck them faster (although the number of people who do the former far outweighs those doing the latter). Wikipedia shouldn't limit itself because other encyclopedias have historically been forced to limit themselves.