If only it were that simple. Unfortunately unless the law is explicit, it becomes unenforcable. You can lawyer/weasel your way around being "distracted."
I think it's _really hard_ to write that stuff. Given you get what you pay for (if you d/l it) it wasn't too bad. An amateurish effort on the way to, hopefully, much better work in the future. Criticizing RvB is kind of like criticizing the "Santa versus Jesus" original SouthPark.
Remember, the value isn't in the art but in the artist and their potential to develop. Sure, RvB is not Williams Street, but do you think given a few years of practice the writers could land something worthy of Adult Swim? I'd say so.
They don't seem to get a lot of press compared to other development houses whom they do just as well as. The Jedi Knight stuff, the Elite Force Game, Soldier of Fortune, and now this. If X-men legends, I think they will earn a spot among many gamers as a must-buy, right along with Id and Blizzard.
Dude. The best part was walking around with that hot vamp redhead and jumping the enemy and just jumping on them and tearing the blood out of them. So.. friggin.. cool.
So a movie is coming out? Kate Beckinsdale has gotta play the vamp chick.
I didn't suggest anything complex happening in one jump. Although that is exactly what the current fad-theory is - punctuated equalibrium.
Mutation combined with natural selection is problematic because of the math. HZT in bacteria isn't the same as mutation and it's a much faster process. Virii have something similar where they also 'evolve' but by using the genetic materials of their host.
However, in both cases, the genetic material is coming from somewhere else. Mutation is the creation of new material and is the real engine in the theory and, after all, something has to be created before it can be transfered.
I'm just looking at gene sequences and how evolutionary theorists propose make it seem pretty near impossible. If anything, the evolutionary theory seems to require a God that coaxes normally random occurances into just the right set of circumstances.
What got me started in questioning the theory was the fraud in the field (Haeckel's drawings were in my AP Bio text). The more I looked at the theory, the weaker it became. I also discerned an institutional and psychological need for the theory to be true. None of this disproves it, but it is why I started to question it and arrived at the opinion I have. For the record my Church fully supports/accepts evolutionary theory and was the probably the first to do so.
Also, look at the responses I keep getting to my original post, including some of yours. And that's what the response usually is when you question evolution. You are marked as a mystic racist hatemonger before you can even explain yourself.
Natural selection is something quiet provable (and common sense) and quiet different from evolutionary theory.
Also, doesn't horizontal gene transfer disprove conventional evolutionary theory? I are you suggesting that when you 'suppose evolutionary theory works' you are using that as evidence of it? Obviously bacteria 'evolve' in that sense, that's how they become resistant to antibiotics.
However, the true theory suggests that the evolution occurs through mutation. It is the sheer mathematical impossibility of this happening that is my principal objection to the theory of evolution. I am not sure of the mathematical probability of evolution if you attribute it entirely to HZT.
I guess you've been waiting a long time to find the chance to post all of that. Did you have it written up on notepad, saved and ready to go?
In your haste to sound smart, you ignored everything I said and, like a typical/.'er ("I can write scripts, ergo I am an expert on everything"), saw someone questioning Darwin's superstition and immediatly turned into a bigot, regardless of the fact that I'm the only one talking science here.
Evolutionary theory - from it's creation by a theologist, not a scientist (Darwin) to it's desperate attempt to stay relevant (punctuated equalibrium), to your knee jerk reaction makes it seem exactly like the 'religion' you ridicule in your own post. *You* are the 'right thinking' person here with the 'sacred texts.'
And you wonder why some folks believe in Creationism (which I do not)? It's because when someone seeks an answer, the Creationists get out their theories and present them, as crazy as they are (young earth, etc.). But when someone seeks an answer from people like you, the answer is 'Creationists are nuts. Only a fool would believe in God/religion. Here, read these quotes that I didn't write and be awed by the degrees on my wall.'
It's a behavior that is universal among Darwin's cultists. They *always* turn almost immediatly to personal attacks along the lines of 'you are stupid.'
If you ever stop projecting your personal insecurities and want to have a conversation about the evidence, say so.
I don't think 'idiocy' on great scientific matters outweighs idiocy in interpersonal communications. Notice how you turn my post that questions evolution and suggests an alternate theory into your own criticism of a political/religious movement that's a figment of your imagination. See the post a few below where the person discusses the ego of scientists over-riding logic. Just because you ascribe to 'science' makes you no more rational than the most primitive mystic if you treat it with the same blind faith as the mystic does the full moon.
You can find this attitude dominant in many fields of acadamia throughout history that were later proved wrong and those that are still sustained in the midst of evidence to the contrary - like Egyptology.
Yours and other/.'ers intolerance for diversity of opinion is a far greater threat than some 'religious right' boogie man. All my posts here are being turned into -1 trolls (if my posts have no value, then why did 7 of you respond to it rather than ignore it?)
Evidence of an omnipresince responsible for the same? I don't know why it has to be an omnipresence.
Going all the way back to the breeding of livestock, mankind has been one way or another 'designing' living beings. Go to gene splicing. Then go to attempts to create something living entirely from non-living. If you look at the earth, it seems as though it was someone else's experiment - where either they got better as they kept working, or intentionally fertalized the earth before setting man loose on it.
The strongest arguments for evolution are just as strong for ID. Common genetics between, say, man and chimp are as much evidence for a common designer template as they are for a common ancestor. And the statistical improbability of particles to people - if you do the actual math - is incredibly unlikely.
I don't like to speculate about the intentions of those who disagree with me, but since someone already started toward me I'll simply state in return that is almost seems as though many pro-evolutionists need evolution because otherwise they think they would have to believe in a god. Well, this is a bad basis the hold onto a theory and it's also an incorrect line of reasoning. It may also have arisen because they were not yet cognizant of, for lack of a better terms, the possible existence of extra terrestiral life.
Don't be so prejudicial. While it is true that many Fundamentalists disagree with evolution on a religious basis, so can athiests or agnostics on a scientific basis.
And what's this geological evidence you are speaking about?
yes we have a good thoery of evolution and experimantal proof in the feild that it works at least in a small scale
What makes it 'good?' What small scale proof is there? Don't confuse natural selection with evolution, if that is what you are thinking about
Who said anything about God?
Going all the way back to the breeding of livestock, mankind has been one way or another 'designing' living beings. Go to gene splicing. Then go to attempts to create something living entirely from non-living. If you look at the earth, it seems as though it was someone else's experiment - where either they got better as they kept working, or intentionally fertalized the earth before setting man loose on it.
The strongest arguments for evolution are just as strong for ID. Common genetics between, say, man and chimp are as much evidence for a common designer template as they are for a common ancestor. And the statistical improbability of particles to people - if you do the actual math - is incredibly unlikely.
I don't like to speculate about the intentions of those who disagree with me, but since someone already started toward me I'll simply state in return that is almost seems as though many pro-evolutionists need evolution because otherwise they think they would have to believe in a god. Well, this is a bad basis the hold onto a theory and it's also an incorrect line of reasoning. It may also have arisen because they were not yet cognizant of, for lack of a better terms, the possible existence of extra terrestiral life.
Here's a thought though. If it's a new species, then who was the first one going to breed with? Wouldn't this mutation have to simultaneously occured to two of them in proximity so they could mate? Talk about long odds.
Or maybe it was already part of their genetic code and simply rare?
Going all the way back to the breeding of livestock, mankind has been one way or another 'designing' living beings. Go to gene splicing. Then go to attempts to create something living entirely from non-living. If you look at the earth, it seems as though it was someone else's experiment - where either they got better as they kept working, or intentionally fertalized the earth before setting man loose on it.
The strongest arguments for evolution are just as strong for ID. Common genetics between, say, man and chimp are as much evidence for a common designer template as they are for a common ancestor. And the statistical improbability of particles to people - if you do the actual math - is incredibly unlikely.
I don't like to speculate about the intentions of those who disagree with me, but since someone already started toward me I'll simply state in return that is almost seems as though many pro-evolutionists need evolution because otherwise they think they would have to believe in a god. Well, this is a bad basis the hold onto a theory and it's also an incorrect line of reasoning. It may also have arisen because they were not yet cognizant of, for lack of a better terms, the possible existence of extra terrestiral life.
what if an illness was the cause of the shift to bipedal motion by our evolutionary ancestors, and rote imitation by offspring or another set of circumstances locked it in? No matter, this could be a fascinating study of the macaque's altered brain functions.
The amount of speculation in what is so often presented as fact is astounding. It almost sounds like a religious cult the way some 'scientists' discuss it.
Yet they ignore Intelligent Design which seems far more rational than believing in the incredibly slim odds of evolution occuring as fast as (or at all) it is described.
It seems like an institutional problem, just like the embryonic stem cell debate. True - adult stem cells can be used just as effectively in studies, but the institutions who are predicated on needing federal funding for embryonic march on regardless of the facts that stand in their way.
I oppose anti-trust laws because they violate individuals property rights. An ancilliary reason is that they harm the country's economy and make people less well off / inhibit a rising standard of living. And that is what we are talking about, not your lack of friends to discuss political theory.
If you doubt my statements regarding anti-trust, witness the nation's formost trusted economist giving a long and broad explanation of exactly why here.
I too have the 3650. It's simple. First make sure you are on T-Mo. Then put in your settings into the mail pop3/smtp. You can also view websites though the only worthwhile one I found was wap.yahoo.com. You can only see wap pages with the native browser, but there are a couple of full fledged browsers that let you see anything out there - including one by Opera. For more info see howardforums.com.
For those getting a sidekick, they try to push you getting the full-out $30/mo internet connection. For regular phones to get email, etc., they push the stupid T-zones for about $5 a month.
Truth is, you can have virtually full access with neither. The GSPM internet connection on many of the phones is left open and available and is intended for you to be able to buy ring tones and backgrounds for your phone.
Turns out that's just enough opening for you to get to your pop3, smtp, and mostly any webpage.
Furthermore, the time isn't counted against your regular airtime, so while I am only paying $20 a month for the phone service, I am constantly able to check and send email.
1) Other services offer similar services with much better games at somewhat higher prices.
2) Stardock *had* a service like this before - it was called djijon or something funky like this. Except it was all the same games but only cost ~$40.
3) All of those games are old/mediocre. They were mediocre when they came out years ago. I conceed that GalCiv is quality but it's over a year old and can be had for $20 on a real disc in a box.
4) Corporate Machine is fun but Entrepreneur was better.
Slashdot Mirror
Try the network bridge again. On the back of my last PC setup I had 4 NIC - spare computer, friends computer, XBL, and DLS in.
If only it were that simple. Unfortunately unless the law is explicit, it becomes unenforcable. You can lawyer/weasel your way around being "distracted."
Remember, the value isn't in the art but in the artist and their potential to develop. Sure, RvB is not Williams Street, but do you think given a few years of practice the writers could land something worthy of Adult Swim? I'd say so.
They don't seem to get a lot of press compared to other development houses whom they do just as well as. The Jedi Knight stuff, the Elite Force Game, Soldier of Fortune, and now this. If X-men legends, I think they will earn a spot among many gamers as a must-buy, right along with Id and Blizzard.
Dude. The best part was walking around with that hot vamp redhead and jumping the enemy and just jumping on them and tearing the blood out of them. So.. friggin.. cool. So a movie is coming out? Kate Beckinsdale has gotta play the vamp chick.
Mutation combined with natural selection is problematic because of the math. HZT in bacteria isn't the same as mutation and it's a much faster process. Virii have something similar where they also 'evolve' but by using the genetic materials of their host.
However, in both cases, the genetic material is coming from somewhere else. Mutation is the creation of new material and is the real engine in the theory and, after all, something has to be created before it can be transfered.
I'm just looking at gene sequences and how evolutionary theorists propose make it seem pretty near impossible. If anything, the evolutionary theory seems to require a God that coaxes normally random occurances into just the right set of circumstances.
What got me started in questioning the theory was the fraud in the field (Haeckel's drawings were in my AP Bio text). The more I looked at the theory, the weaker it became. I also discerned an institutional and psychological need for the theory to be true. None of this disproves it, but it is why I started to question it and arrived at the opinion I have. For the record my Church fully supports/accepts evolutionary theory and was the probably the first to do so.
Also, look at the responses I keep getting to my original post, including some of yours. And that's what the response usually is when you question evolution. You are marked as a mystic racist hatemonger before you can even explain yourself.
If you want a good book on ID so that you can refute it (I normally refrain from putting 'read x book' into my arguments, but I will answer your recommendation of one with my own, I suggest No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence.
1. Putting a label on the front of the CD with they key number.
2. Adding the key to a word document I use to store all important numbers.
Also, doesn't horizontal gene transfer disprove conventional evolutionary theory? I are you suggesting that when you 'suppose evolutionary theory works' you are using that as evidence of it? Obviously bacteria 'evolve' in that sense, that's how they become resistant to antibiotics.
However, the true theory suggests that the evolution occurs through mutation. It is the sheer mathematical impossibility of this happening that is my principal objection to the theory of evolution. I am not sure of the mathematical probability of evolution if you attribute it entirely to HZT.
In your haste to sound smart, you ignored everything I said and, like a typical /.'er ("I can write scripts, ergo I am an expert on everything"), saw someone questioning Darwin's superstition and immediatly turned into a bigot, regardless of the fact that I'm the only one talking science here.
Evolutionary theory - from it's creation by a theologist, not a scientist (Darwin) to it's desperate attempt to stay relevant (punctuated equalibrium), to your knee jerk reaction makes it seem exactly like the 'religion' you ridicule in your own post. *You* are the 'right thinking' person here with the 'sacred texts.'
And you wonder why some folks believe in Creationism (which I do not)? It's because when someone seeks an answer, the Creationists get out their theories and present them, as crazy as they are (young earth, etc.). But when someone seeks an answer from people like you, the answer is 'Creationists are nuts. Only a fool would believe in God/religion. Here, read these quotes that I didn't write and be awed by the degrees on my wall.'
It's a behavior that is universal among Darwin's cultists. They *always* turn almost immediatly to personal attacks along the lines of 'you are stupid.'
If you ever stop projecting your personal insecurities and want to have a conversation about the evidence, say so.
For those interested, I put up a blog talking about going from zero experience to getting better, getting my homesetup, etc.
You can find this attitude dominant in many fields of acadamia throughout history that were later proved wrong and those that are still sustained in the midst of evidence to the contrary - like Egyptology.
Yours and other /.'ers intolerance for diversity of opinion is a far greater threat than some 'religious right' boogie man. All my posts here are being turned into -1 trolls (if my posts have no value, then why did 7 of you respond to it rather than ignore it?)
Think the same thing can go on in other scientific fields? Like evolutionary studies or Egyptology?
Evidence of an omnipresince responsible for the same? I don't know why it has to be an omnipresence.
Going all the way back to the breeding of livestock, mankind has been one way or another 'designing' living beings. Go to gene splicing. Then go to attempts to create something living entirely from non-living. If you look at the earth, it seems as though it was someone else's experiment - where either they got better as they kept working, or intentionally fertalized the earth before setting man loose on it.
The strongest arguments for evolution are just as strong for ID. Common genetics between, say, man and chimp are as much evidence for a common designer template as they are for a common ancestor. And the statistical improbability of particles to people - if you do the actual math - is incredibly unlikely.
I don't like to speculate about the intentions of those who disagree with me, but since someone already started toward me I'll simply state in return that is almost seems as though many pro-evolutionists need evolution because otherwise they think they would have to believe in a god. Well, this is a bad basis the hold onto a theory and it's also an incorrect line of reasoning. It may also have arisen because they were not yet cognizant of, for lack of a better terms, the possible existence of extra terrestiral life.
And what's this geological evidence you are speaking about?
What makes it 'good?' What small scale proof is there? Don't confuse natural selection with evolution, if that is what you are thinking about
Who said anything about God?
Going all the way back to the breeding of livestock, mankind has been one way or another 'designing' living beings. Go to gene splicing. Then go to attempts to create something living entirely from non-living. If you look at the earth, it seems as though it was someone else's experiment - where either they got better as they kept working, or intentionally fertalized the earth before setting man loose on it.
The strongest arguments for evolution are just as strong for ID. Common genetics between, say, man and chimp are as much evidence for a common designer template as they are for a common ancestor. And the statistical improbability of particles to people - if you do the actual math - is incredibly unlikely.
I don't like to speculate about the intentions of those who disagree with me, but since someone already started toward me I'll simply state in return that is almost seems as though many pro-evolutionists need evolution because otherwise they think they would have to believe in a god. Well, this is a bad basis the hold onto a theory and it's also an incorrect line of reasoning. It may also have arisen because they were not yet cognizant of, for lack of a better terms, the possible existence of extra terrestiral life.
Here's a thought though. If it's a new species, then who was the first one going to breed with? Wouldn't this mutation have to simultaneously occured to two of them in proximity so they could mate? Talk about long odds.
Or maybe it was already part of their genetic code and simply rare?
Going all the way back to the breeding of livestock, mankind has been one way or another 'designing' living beings. Go to gene splicing. Then go to attempts to create something living entirely from non-living. If you look at the earth, it seems as though it was someone else's experiment - where either they got better as they kept working, or intentionally fertalized the earth before setting man loose on it.
The strongest arguments for evolution are just as strong for ID. Common genetics between, say, man and chimp are as much evidence for a common designer template as they are for a common ancestor. And the statistical improbability of particles to people - if you do the actual math - is incredibly unlikely.
I don't like to speculate about the intentions of those who disagree with me, but since someone already started toward me I'll simply state in return that is almost seems as though many pro-evolutionists need evolution because otherwise they think they would have to believe in a god. Well, this is a bad basis the hold onto a theory and it's also an incorrect line of reasoning. It may also have arisen because they were not yet cognizant of, for lack of a better terms, the possible existence of extra terrestiral life.
eheheh - good point. I also didn't calculate the positive cashflow from selling your character on ebay when you are done with the game.
The amount of speculation in what is so often presented as fact is astounding. It almost sounds like a religious cult the way some 'scientists' discuss it.
Yet they ignore Intelligent Design which seems far more rational than believing in the incredibly slim odds of evolution occuring as fast as (or at all) it is described.
It seems like an institutional problem, just like the embryonic stem cell debate. True - adult stem cells can be used just as effectively in studies, but the institutions who are predicated on needing federal funding for embryonic march on regardless of the facts that stand in their way.
The number you have dialed, 2154682929, has been disconnected. No further information is available.
I oppose anti-trust laws because they violate individuals property rights. An ancilliary reason is that they harm the country's economy and make people less well off / inhibit a rising standard of living. And that is what we are talking about, not your lack of friends to discuss political theory.
If you doubt my statements regarding anti-trust, witness the nation's formost trusted economist giving a long and broad explanation of exactly why here.
I too have the 3650. It's simple. First make sure you are on T-Mo. Then put in your settings into the mail pop3/smtp. You can also view websites though the only worthwhile one I found was wap.yahoo.com. You can only see wap pages with the native browser, but there are a couple of full fledged browsers that let you see anything out there - including one by Opera. For more info see howardforums.com.
Thanks for the correction.
Truth is, you can have virtually full access with neither. The GSPM internet connection on many of the phones is left open and available and is intended for you to be able to buy ring tones and backgrounds for your phone.
Turns out that's just enough opening for you to get to your pop3, smtp, and mostly any webpage.
Furthermore, the time isn't counted against your regular airtime, so while I am only paying $20 a month for the phone service, I am constantly able to check and send email.
2) Stardock *had* a service like this before - it was called djijon or something funky like this. Except it was all the same games but only cost ~$40.
3) All of those games are old/mediocre. They were mediocre when they came out years ago. I conceed that GalCiv is quality but it's over a year old and can be had for $20 on a real disc in a box.
4) Corporate Machine is fun but Entrepreneur was better.