Well, I will not go toe-to-toe with a history teacher. I do appreciate the reply and clarification. Modern business, economics, etc. is indeed a balance. Too much government stifles/too little creates oligarchy.
am well aware of the rise of the corporation. which by the way, was not capitalism.
I never realized that a total lack of capitalization would make my eyes bleed.
Why criticize a monopoly? Please review the rise of the corporation in the early part of the 20th century and pay close attention to such men as J.D. Rockefella. Surely, you too would have a problem with one guy being worth 1/42 of the Gross National Product of The United States of America. Bill Gates is so poised (note: "poised")....
Innovation? Sure, ok, but for every innovation MS has created they've johnny-come-latedly, assimulated, stolen and bought out another 10 (cough*maps.google.com*cough).
I am increasingly surprised at the slack some/.ers give MS not to mention how there is general doubt to their historical practices, the possible ills of corporatism and doubt in just what the "big guy" is really capable of. It reminds me of the end of The Hobbit where the younger generation in Laketown began to doubt whether there really was a dragon in the Lonely Mt.
I can remember the first time I fired up bitchx as root and it said something like, "running bitchx as root is just stupid." I was like, "wow, cool...."
There are no emotions involved in business -- at least, there shouldn't be. I dont hate Microsoft, but I do think they have cost many businesses, and the economy itself, billions of dollars due to their bad practices.
1. It's like a batch file and therefore doesn't count as a virus. ...but viruses started out as batch files and wiped a lot of harddrives.
2. Microsoft can't be held responsible because shell scripts can be written and ran in *nix/*nux too, so what's the big? ...but Windows has a long history of MSTD (Microsoft Terminal Disease) wherein everything is accessible all the time because they built an OS (nay, an NOS) on the principle of "everything is accessible unless explicitly stated otherwise." No other NOS has done this -- no serious one that's broadly used -- so Windows viruses, no matter what they are, have been very egregious.
The issue, to me, is whether or not Microsoft has finally figured out to really seperate the kernel (if they've ever really developed one) from what the user has access to. The reason viruses, malware, whatever, have never really bothered *nix/*nux/Netware is because of the basic principle of denying everything unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Our old Netware guys here still joke and laugh about the insanity that is Windows and security issues around it that a symbiont industry thrives on. Never did, or have, other NOSes generated such a special security area in the free market....
"F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that 'The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.'
I moved into a new neighborhood where the front part has broadband cable, but the back part does not. The cable company ended their rollout about 200 feet from my house. DSL is also not available. I've had broadband for years, and found myself going nuts that I could not get it. I tried everything including cellular wireless internet access, which was too expensive and sucky. A neighbor told me about several wireless APs in the "good" side of the neighborhood and that he surfs everyday, broadband, by using a cheap, linksys usb wireless adapter. So, I bought my own and did indeed see the two or three APs and was able to use the one that was unsecured.
I began looking into what I was doing was illegal or not as I do not wish to break the law. It seems only lately have things really ramped up with these news cases. Before, I wasn't sure and even felt it was ok so I've kept doing it. I also call the cable company all the time inquiring as to when they will finish their rollout, but they keep saying it's not available and lying about the time when it will be.
According to what I'm reading here, I am indeed breaking the law and should stop immediately. So, I will have no broadband now and no way of getting it even though the signal is coming straight into my house and XP attaches automatically.
I do not find the fact that Microsoft utilizes monopolistic practices surpising. Their blatant stealing and johnny-come-lateliness attitude is likewise not surprise. The fact that people prefer to use Microsoft products when better products are available is also not surprising to me.
What is surprising is the incredible amount of tolerance, defense and promotion that people give Microsoft. From end users to IT managers to everyone in-between -- it has reached a point of fanaticism.
Example 1:
Me: "Firefox is a better browser. If we roll it out on our workstations our overhead in support due to malware will vanish."
Them: "Firefox is vulnerable to malware too (shows article making that claim), besides, Microsoft will fix any problems with IE in version 7...."
The amazing thing about the above example is that this same, IT person knows better than to trust vaporware claims from any other company.
Example 2:
Me: "Our Netware servers are solid. Replication is good and NDS is the best directory service available. You cannot set group policies as granularly in ADS and replication is questionable at best."
Them: "Active Directory will allow our network to grow into new areas such as identity management (which flopped), Exchange integration (an email server's address book interacting with your network user-base ain't all that) and we can write policies telling our users when to change their passwords instead of setting something technical in DS (which, of course, the user will never follow)."
I could go on and on, but to criticize Microsoft is to, for the most part, threaten your standing and maybe even your career in some IT shops. Backing any other product or company, no matter how logical the argument, can bring down wrath at times.
Good rebuttal with the Taliban. If we take into account that all peoples of same cultural origin fight for their longevity and to maintain their unique identity then it could be stated that Israel is simply the epidomy of that. However, I know of no other culture who hold ancient documents compiled by their forefathers that make such exact predictions. Many of these could be waved as too broad to eliminate chance, but such is religion and faith I suppose. Examples would be 'her enemies will not prosper' (germany, egypt, syria and their defeats after engaging Israel), 'she will be scattered across the earth' (post Roman conquering/pre-end-of-ww2), 'she will be called back to the land of Israel' (post ww2, blocked initially by Roosevelt who then died and then Truman gave the ok), 'the land will be barren' (the land of Israel, indeed, lost its trees and greenary before the reoccupation), 'she will be green again' (after the Jews retook it they replanted trees, etc.). There are other scriptures regarding the retaking of the temple mount, the west wall, etc. I'm not Jewish myself, but I find these things uncanny at least. The Qumran scrolls themselves are pretty fantastic story as well. I dunno, one could argue that the Taliban just sucked at it is all -- sorta like the Red Sox as compared to the Yankees. Oh wait, the Sox finally won. Hrm, there was no curse, they just sucked for that long....
As far as the New Testament gospels go: Mark is considered the first, original gospel. Matthew and Luke basically contain all of, the shorter, Mark with some bits of detail added in. John's gospel is a different animal altogether. None conflict in any major way. There are variations which could be attributed to oral tradition and later transcribing, but if anything, arguments suggest just that: eye witnesses passing down orally to make it to paper later, other gospels simply picking up missing details with an "oh yea, and so-in-so said he saw this." I find conflicts in Acts more egregious such as the happenings of Paul's Damascus road experience ('the other guys stayed and watched,' and later 'the other guys ran off). Still, these are ancient and flawed documents. The same arguments leveled against them work against Shakespeare if not more so since there is less written about him, but the fact that at one point his name appears as "Shagspeare" no more means there were two guys writing under that name than it means he lived in a time when spelling wasn't all that -- Occum's razor again).
At the end of the day, historical criticism can very well do away with history books. Grammaticians nicely do away with great English Literature. I will note that there are 12 extant copies of Caesar's "The Gaelic Wars" that are taken as 'gospel' (no pun). There is scholarly work that I know of dismissing it as myth or untruth. By comparison, no other ancient document has the evidentiary support of the New Testament and, thanks to the Qumran scrolls, neither does the Old Testament....
As far as other ancient tales elaborating with non-pertinent details (the whole "en de nux" thing), all I can do is cite Lewis, scholar of world myth, who disagrees. The details in the NT are uncanny and resemble modern fiction. Perhaps it is my mis-statement to say "any detail" whereas Lewis saw the type of detail. I do need to revisit this topic. I, myself, have read the Illiad/Odyssey, Beowulf, etc. and from memory, perhaps, see his point, but being the scholar he was I doubt he would have made the point, against the great German historical theologian, Bultmann, without knowing what he was talking about....
Good point on the question of God being a side effect of intelligence. But, perhaps, that's a natural phenomenon anyhow. I.e., all appetites are side-effects of existence in whatever form. Lose the appetites and lose the life. Death is, after all, that great maker of asceticism wherein all appetites that can possibly lead us into unhappiness stop -- one stops killing, stealing, lusting and breaking all the deadly sins. After all, I'm sure the muslim martyr thinks he will finally serve Allah in full once the bomb is tripped....
Concur on Pascal's premise. As far as which god to believe in -- again, a subnote. If we've not established that there is a God then a discussion of which is skipping a step. Having said that, I find evidence of judeo-christianity to be rather compelling. The existence of Israel today as a nation is unique in the history of the world and that culture is seeking hard to fulfill its own history as laid out in their Tonak. The series of events that brought both the state of Israel and the dead language of Hebrew is, to say the least, fantastic. As far as Christianity, let's simply discuss that ancient document, the New Testament. It, too, is oddly unique. Forget the religion it applies to. There is no other document like it. Lewis takes on Bultmann, that great existentialist, who attempted to save the poor embattled New Testament via existenitalist arguments. Alas, it is all a myth, a love poen at parts, but entirely unbelievable. Let us gather the kernels of truth from it only, Bultmann argued. Lewis, a scholar of world myth, brought his scholarship to the New Testament and in rebuttal pointed out the three Greek words, "en de nux" or "it was night." Here, an author nearly 2000 years ago, goes to the trouble of mentioning a detail not pertinent to the telling of the story. This is done by writers when: A. They are writing modern fiction to make the story seem real or B. when the truth is being told. Modern fiction didn't exist 2000 years ago, and ancient writers only wrote this way when telling the truth -- not when writing myth. I have yet to see an argument rebutting this (not that there isn't one and I do not read journals as I once did).
All psychology aside, your description of seeking the perfect father figure is good, but only seems to be another definition of the existing appetite. Whether we like it or not, we hunger for knowledge which ultimately gets back to the "who am I?" and the question of the existence of God....
I have not done sufficient reading or research into "belief." Off the cuff, I would say that we move from theory to belief in some fashion. The first time I tried snorkling (sic?) I was told how it all worked. I had the theory in my head, but did not fully believe until after I had sucked down some water and then successfully used the thing. That being said, perhaps my belief began when it was only theory and before I had failed at using it -- my practice only exemplifying the already-established belief gestating within.
As to the "case closed" statement: I respect that. Although, I have the growing itch to respond, "made ya look!":P
Nietzsche -- one of the best guys to read who's been dead over a 100 years -- said that the issue isn't whether God created man, but if man created God. Intelligent design is, to me, a subpoint, footnote as I indicated -- a theist being able to side-step. I really have no clue if criticisms of existing or formerly existing species and their poor -- how shall we put it -- 'design' proves or disproves anything.
The bigger issues -- the biggest -- is whether God exists. Pascal's premise was the famous: since we can't be sure, let's go ahead and believe just in case he does. Makes perfect sense. If you're going into the wilderness you might want to take a gun in case you run into a grizzly bear. Nonsense, a friend might say, there will be no grizzly bears. Still, I'd feel better taking one. Now, it's a weak and shallow argument at best and still proves nothing -- does make ya think a little.
Occam's razor (hey, I saw that in the movie "Contact"!) might well be answered with the fact that there is God. I watched Carl Sagan and he, an agnostic, stated it is the best explanation for existence -- imagine these astro-physicists, they needed something at the end of the report, "oh yea, and it all started with this God-guy...."
I do know that huge volumes have been written on the subject by men far greater and studied than I, but I will say that C.S. Lewis' argument that appetite is evidence is quite compelling. He argued that we hunger -- therefore there must be food. We thirst, therefore there must be liquid. We get horny, therefore there must be women (or men if you prefer). The appetite exists before any knowledge or evidence of the object for which that appetite will be fulfilled.
In the same way, there is something in each of us grappling with our existence, the great question: "who am I?" which can be broken down into three parts: "where did I come from, where am I going and what am I supposed to do while here." Regardless of anything, we are on a journey. Our feet don't move as the path is time, destination unknown. Matthew Arnold stated that this thing grappling with God (or not God) is genetic, internal, inside. Regardless of anything else, the question of God bugs us, drills us and compells us. We have a belief regarding him even if it is to say, "I don't believe" or "I have no evidence." I do believe it is an appetite. Strange if the meal is a void, but who knows, maybe it is....
Good points, but I argue that whether God or evolution was behind it, it is the best design. To quote Kalishnikov (sic?), "not everything complex is useful," and having two tubes -- one for air and one for digestion -- would surely mean more complexity, more systems, more mass, etc. One tube insures less resources and secure airflow. Primarily, the nose provides airflow, but during illness (a stuffy nose) or heavy physical activity the mouth -- the digestive part -- suffices to keep us alive. The mouth serves as a redundant air-intake. Consequently, allowing the mouth availability to the airflow enables speech, communication. All things equal, two tubes would make more sense, but it seems God/evolution thought otherwise. Anything said afterwards is arm-chair quarterbacking.
Arguments to disprove God by means of proving imperfect evolution is new to me and quaint. It is entropic, chicken-n-egg, but I can dance to it. In any event, a theist can easily side-step the entire thing by stating that God used evolution anyhow in all its imperfection, but, then again, we're debating those bothersome intelligent designers now aren't we?
Do be careful not to let your god-hating confuse your science....
The crossover between the windpipe and the oesophagus
Actually, W.F. Bolton, Professor of linguistics and author of "A Living Language: The History and Structure of English" discusses this fact and explains that there is no sound explanation for it other than the fact that humans seem geared to primarily communicate over the function of digestion. We are first and foremost, the professor explains, creatures of communication. In light of the need to communicate coupled with the necessity of consumption, it does make sense. Paradoxical, but still understandable.
Gollum's Rap rather: [Sung to the music of Coolio's "Gangsta Paradise"]
As we walk through the Misty mountains we realize there's not much left, coz we've been keelin' orcses and squishing fishes so long, that even my precious thinks my mind is gone (gollum).
But we ain't never crossed a hobbitses who didn't wants it, my precious, we be treated so bad by fat hobbit you know that's unheard of.
You better watch (gollum) how you're talkin' and where us is walkin' or hobbitses fall down and make candles in the swamp too! (gollum)
We really hates it, to trip, but we gotta you know. We sees ourselves in the precious, fool! (gollum)
We're the kinda G [Gollum] the little hobbitses wanna be cuz they wants our precious, PRECIOUSSS!!!
Been spending most our lives, living in the ring wielder's paradise.
Keep spending most our lives, living in the precious's paradise
I must deeply apologize for this post and deserve all bad mods. I apologize as well to the great professor and his family....
Slashdot Mirror
I know it wasn't a fine. Call that an ... um, inverse analogy.
Look, I'm having a bad day. This damn thing stole my cursor....
the outer boondocks in Texas
Not just the boondocks but the outer boondocks....
East of bumblef*ck and north of "the sticks" right?
$5 million to Microsoft is like a $5 tip to the rest of us. This is almost as humorous as NBA players getting fines of $1000s....
Troll? Actually, I rolled a human warrior....
Nothing is permanent....
-Cavaties
-Lightning strikes
-Divorce
-Iraq invasions
Just a few....
Well, I will not go toe-to-toe with a history teacher. I do appreciate the reply and clarification. Modern business, economics, etc. is indeed a balance. Too much government stifles/too little creates oligarchy.
am well aware of the rise of the corporation. which by the way, was not capitalism.
Yes, but was it capitalization?
I never realized that a total lack of capitalization would make my eyes bleed.
/.ers give MS not to mention how there is general doubt to their historical practices, the possible ills of corporatism and doubt in just what the "big guy" is really capable of. It reminds me of the end of The Hobbit where the younger generation in Laketown began to doubt whether there really was a dragon in the Lonely Mt.
Why criticize a monopoly? Please review the rise of the corporation in the early part of the 20th century and pay close attention to such men as J.D. Rockefella. Surely, you too would have a problem with one guy being worth 1/42 of the Gross National Product of The United States of America. Bill Gates is so poised (note: "poised")....
Innovation? Sure, ok, but for every innovation MS has created they've johnny-come-latedly, assimulated, stolen and bought out another 10 (cough*maps.google.com*cough).
I am increasingly surprised at the slack some
I can remember the first time I fired up bitchx as root and it said something like, "running bitchx as root is just stupid." I was like, "wow, cool...."
There are no emotions involved in business -- at least, there shouldn't be. I dont hate Microsoft, but I do think they have cost many businesses, and the economy itself, billions of dollars due to their bad practices.
1. It's like a batch file and therefore doesn't count as a virus.
...but viruses started out as batch files and wiped a lot of harddrives.
...but Windows has a long history of MSTD (Microsoft Terminal Disease) wherein everything is accessible all the time because they built an OS (nay, an NOS) on the principle of "everything is accessible unless explicitly stated otherwise." No other NOS has done this -- no serious one that's broadly used -- so Windows viruses, no matter what they are, have been very egregious.
2. Microsoft can't be held responsible because shell scripts can be written and ran in *nix/*nux too, so what's the big?
The issue, to me, is whether or not Microsoft has finally figured out to really seperate the kernel (if they've ever really developed one) from what the user has access to. The reason viruses, malware, whatever, have never really bothered *nix/*nux/Netware is because of the basic principle of denying everything unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Our old Netware guys here still joke and laugh about the insanity that is Windows and security issues around it that a symbiont industry thrives on. Never did, or have, other NOSes generated such a special security area in the free market....
Not everything ending in "-nad" refers to genitalia.
Yes, but it is extremely difficult not to snicker when one reads "mo'nad"....
"F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that 'The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.'
That's also a perfect description of women....
Slashdot slow? Come on. Yahoo is just fast. Yahoo told /. modding was broke....
I moved into a new neighborhood where the front part has broadband cable, but the back part does not. The cable company ended their rollout about 200 feet from my house. DSL is also not available. I've had broadband for years, and found myself going nuts that I could not get it. I tried everything including cellular wireless internet access, which was too expensive and sucky. A neighbor told me about several wireless APs in the "good" side of the neighborhood and that he surfs everyday, broadband, by using a cheap, linksys usb wireless adapter. So, I bought my own and did indeed see the two or three APs and was able to use the one that was unsecured.
I began looking into what I was doing was illegal or not as I do not wish to break the law. It seems only lately have things really ramped up with these news cases. Before, I wasn't sure and even felt it was ok so I've kept doing it. I also call the cable company all the time inquiring as to when they will finish their rollout, but they keep saying it's not available and lying about the time when it will be.
According to what I'm reading here, I am indeed breaking the law and should stop immediately. So, I will have no broadband now and no way of getting it even though the signal is coming straight into my house and XP attaches automatically.
(Sigh) My kingdom for broadband....
I do not find the fact that Microsoft utilizes monopolistic practices surpising. Their blatant stealing and johnny-come-lateliness attitude is likewise not surprise. The fact that people prefer to use Microsoft products when better products are available is also not surprising to me.
What is surprising is the incredible amount of tolerance, defense and promotion that people give Microsoft. From end users to IT managers to everyone in-between -- it has reached a point of fanaticism.
Example 1:
Me: "Firefox is a better browser. If we roll it out on our workstations our overhead in support due to malware will vanish."
Them: "Firefox is vulnerable to malware too (shows article making that claim), besides, Microsoft will fix any problems with IE in version 7...."
The amazing thing about the above example is that this same, IT person knows better than to trust vaporware claims from any other company.
Example 2:
Me: "Our Netware servers are solid. Replication is good and NDS is the best directory service available. You cannot set group policies as granularly in ADS and replication is questionable at best."
Them: "Active Directory will allow our network to grow into new areas such as identity management (which flopped), Exchange integration (an email server's address book interacting with your network user-base ain't all that) and we can write policies telling our users when to change their passwords instead of setting something technical in DS (which, of course, the user will never follow)."
I could go on and on, but to criticize Microsoft is to, for the most part, threaten your standing and maybe even your career in some IT shops. Backing any other product or company, no matter how logical the argument, can bring down wrath at times.
Why do people so doggedly support Microsoft?
Yep, life, indeed, in one big hurdle....
Good rebuttal with the Taliban. If we take into account that all peoples of same cultural origin fight for their longevity and to maintain their unique identity then it could be stated that Israel is simply the epidomy of that. However, I know of no other culture who hold ancient documents compiled by their forefathers that make such exact predictions. Many of these could be waved as too broad to eliminate chance, but such is religion and faith I suppose. Examples would be 'her enemies will not prosper' (germany, egypt, syria and their defeats after engaging Israel), 'she will be scattered across the earth' (post Roman conquering/pre-end-of-ww2), 'she will be called back to the land of Israel' (post ww2, blocked initially by Roosevelt who then died and then Truman gave the ok), 'the land will be barren' (the land of Israel, indeed, lost its trees and greenary before the reoccupation), 'she will be green again' (after the Jews retook it they replanted trees, etc.). There are other scriptures regarding the retaking of the temple mount, the west wall, etc. I'm not Jewish myself, but I find these things uncanny at least. The Qumran scrolls themselves are pretty fantastic story as well. I dunno, one could argue that the Taliban just sucked at it is all -- sorta like the Red Sox as compared to the Yankees. Oh wait, the Sox finally won. Hrm, there was no curse, they just sucked for that long....
As far as the New Testament gospels go: Mark is considered the first, original gospel. Matthew and Luke basically contain all of, the shorter, Mark with some bits of detail added in. John's gospel is a different animal altogether. None conflict in any major way. There are variations which could be attributed to oral tradition and later transcribing, but if anything, arguments suggest just that: eye witnesses passing down orally to make it to paper later, other gospels simply picking up missing details with an "oh yea, and so-in-so said he saw this." I find conflicts in Acts more egregious such as the happenings of Paul's Damascus road experience ('the other guys stayed and watched,' and later 'the other guys ran off). Still, these are ancient and flawed documents. The same arguments leveled against them work against Shakespeare if not more so since there is less written about him, but the fact that at one point his name appears as "Shagspeare" no more means there were two guys writing under that name than it means he lived in a time when spelling wasn't all that -- Occum's razor again).
At the end of the day, historical criticism can very well do away with history books. Grammaticians nicely do away with great English Literature. I will note that there are 12 extant copies of Caesar's "The Gaelic Wars" that are taken as 'gospel' (no pun). There is scholarly work that I know of dismissing it as myth or untruth. By comparison, no other ancient document has the evidentiary support of the New Testament and, thanks to the Qumran scrolls, neither does the Old Testament....
As far as other ancient tales elaborating with non-pertinent details (the whole "en de nux" thing), all I can do is cite Lewis, scholar of world myth, who disagrees. The details in the NT are uncanny and resemble modern fiction. Perhaps it is my mis-statement to say "any detail" whereas Lewis saw the type of detail. I do need to revisit this topic. I, myself, have read the Illiad/Odyssey, Beowulf, etc. and from memory, perhaps, see his point, but being the scholar he was I doubt he would have made the point, against the great German historical theologian, Bultmann, without knowing what he was talking about....
Good point on the question of God being a side effect of intelligence. But, perhaps, that's a natural phenomenon anyhow. I.e., all appetites are side-effects of existence in whatever form. Lose the appetites and lose the life. Death is, after all, that great maker of asceticism wherein all appetites that can possibly lead us into unhappiness stop -- one stops killing, stealing, lusting and breaking all the deadly sins. After all, I'm sure the muslim martyr thinks he will finally serve Allah in full once the bomb is tripped....
Belief is relative....
There is only one server
...only one who can bend it to his will, and Bill Gates does not share power.
Concur on Pascal's premise. As far as which god to believe in -- again, a subnote. If we've not established that there is a God then a discussion of which is skipping a step. Having said that, I find evidence of judeo-christianity to be rather compelling. The existence of Israel today as a nation is unique in the history of the world and that culture is seeking hard to fulfill its own history as laid out in their Tonak. The series of events that brought both the state of Israel and the dead language of Hebrew is, to say the least, fantastic. As far as Christianity, let's simply discuss that ancient document, the New Testament. It, too, is oddly unique. Forget the religion it applies to. There is no other document like it. Lewis takes on Bultmann, that great existentialist, who attempted to save the poor embattled New Testament via existenitalist arguments. Alas, it is all a myth, a love poen at parts, but entirely unbelievable. Let us gather the kernels of truth from it only, Bultmann argued. Lewis, a scholar of world myth, brought his scholarship to the New Testament and in rebuttal pointed out the three Greek words, "en de nux" or "it was night." Here, an author nearly 2000 years ago, goes to the trouble of mentioning a detail not pertinent to the telling of the story. This is done by writers when: A. They are writing modern fiction to make the story seem real or B. when the truth is being told. Modern fiction didn't exist 2000 years ago, and ancient writers only wrote this way when telling the truth -- not when writing myth. I have yet to see an argument rebutting this (not that there isn't one and I do not read journals as I once did).
:P
All psychology aside, your description of seeking the perfect father figure is good, but only seems to be another definition of the existing appetite. Whether we like it or not, we hunger for knowledge which ultimately gets back to the "who am I?" and the question of the existence of God....
I have not done sufficient reading or research into "belief." Off the cuff, I would say that we move from theory to belief in some fashion. The first time I tried snorkling (sic?) I was told how it all worked. I had the theory in my head, but did not fully believe until after I had sucked down some water and then successfully used the thing. That being said, perhaps my belief began when it was only theory and before I had failed at using it -- my practice only exemplifying the already-established belief gestating within.
As to the "case closed" statement: I respect that. Although, I have the growing itch to respond, "made ya look!"
Nietzsche -- one of the best guys to read who's been dead over a 100 years -- said that the issue isn't whether God created man, but if man created God. Intelligent design is, to me, a subpoint, footnote as I indicated -- a theist being able to side-step. I really have no clue if criticisms of existing or formerly existing species and their poor -- how shall we put it -- 'design' proves or disproves anything.
The bigger issues -- the biggest -- is whether God exists. Pascal's premise was the famous: since we can't be sure, let's go ahead and believe just in case he does. Makes perfect sense. If you're going into the wilderness you might want to take a gun in case you run into a grizzly bear. Nonsense, a friend might say, there will be no grizzly bears. Still, I'd feel better taking one. Now, it's a weak and shallow argument at best and still proves nothing -- does make ya think a little.
Occam's razor (hey, I saw that in the movie "Contact"!) might well be answered with the fact that there is God. I watched Carl Sagan and he, an agnostic, stated it is the best explanation for existence -- imagine these astro-physicists, they needed something at the end of the report, "oh yea, and it all started with this God-guy...."
I do know that huge volumes have been written on the subject by men far greater and studied than I, but I will say that C.S. Lewis' argument that appetite is evidence is quite compelling. He argued that we hunger -- therefore there must be food. We thirst, therefore there must be liquid. We get horny, therefore there must be women (or men if you prefer). The appetite exists before any knowledge or evidence of the object for which that appetite will be fulfilled.
In the same way, there is something in each of us grappling with our existence, the great question: "who am I?" which can be broken down into three parts: "where did I come from, where am I going and what am I supposed to do while here." Regardless of anything, we are on a journey. Our feet don't move as the path is time, destination unknown. Matthew Arnold stated that this thing grappling with God (or not God) is genetic, internal, inside. Regardless of anything else, the question of God bugs us, drills us and compells us. We have a belief regarding him even if it is to say, "I don't believe" or "I have no evidence." I do believe it is an appetite. Strange if the meal is a void, but who knows, maybe it is....
Good points, but I argue that whether God or evolution was behind it, it is the best design. To quote Kalishnikov (sic?), "not everything complex is useful," and having two tubes -- one for air and one for digestion -- would surely mean more complexity, more systems, more mass, etc. One tube insures less resources and secure airflow. Primarily, the nose provides airflow, but during illness (a stuffy nose) or heavy physical activity the mouth -- the digestive part -- suffices to keep us alive. The mouth serves as a redundant air-intake. Consequently, allowing the mouth availability to the airflow enables speech, communication. All things equal, two tubes would make more sense, but it seems God/evolution thought otherwise. Anything said afterwards is arm-chair quarterbacking.
Arguments to disprove God by means of proving imperfect evolution is new to me and quaint. It is entropic, chicken-n-egg, but I can dance to it. In any event, a theist can easily side-step the entire thing by stating that God used evolution anyhow in all its imperfection, but, then again, we're debating those bothersome intelligent designers now aren't we?
Do be careful not to let your god-hating confuse your science....
a supposedly intelligent Creator (who somehow sprung fully-formed and with high IQ from nowhere, that's another discussion)
That would actually be gnosticism....
The crossover between the windpipe and the oesophagus
Actually, W.F. Bolton, Professor of linguistics and author of "A Living Language: The History and Structure of English" discusses this fact and explains that there is no sound explanation for it other than the fact that humans seem geared to primarily communicate over the function of digestion. We are first and foremost, the professor explains, creatures of communication. In light of the need to communicate coupled with the necessity of consumption, it does make sense. Paradoxical, but still understandable.
cow-orker
Is that some veiled Tolkien thing?...
Gollum's Rap rather: [Sung to the music of Coolio's "Gangsta Paradise"]
As we walk through the Misty mountains we realize there's not much left, coz we've been keelin' orcses and squishing fishes so long, that even my precious thinks my mind is gone (gollum).
But we ain't never crossed a hobbitses who didn't wants it, my precious, we be treated so bad by fat hobbit you know that's unheard of.
You better watch (gollum) how you're talkin' and where us is walkin' or hobbitses fall down and make candles in the swamp too! (gollum)
We really hates it, to trip, but we gotta you know. We sees ourselves in the precious, fool! (gollum)
We're the kinda G [Gollum] the little hobbitses wanna be cuz they wants our precious, PRECIOUSSS!!!
Been spending most our lives, living in the ring wielder's paradise.
Keep spending most our lives, living in the precious's paradise
I must deeply apologize for this post and deserve all bad mods. I apologize as well to the great professor and his family....
I'll refer to the post I just made a few minutes ago in the Windows security patches and piracy thread:
1 67011
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=157042&cid=13
Funny how discussing Windows, security and the Microsoft monopoly goes hand-in-hand....