Writen from a device filled to its eye-teeth with rare-earth minerals and toxic materials.
Which is the entire point. AC is a hypocrite, like all the followers. All it takes to make them feel satisfied with themselves is to *act* as if others are doing vile things they *pretend* they aren't.
That was incoherent. Luck is a factor, but the plain fact is that more biota are consumed by and forced out of niches by other biota than are destroyed by luck. Plus, your last statement shows you really aren't all that up on the science (there are other mechanisms).
"We have some 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals where we are actually sure that they are fake, and there are more to come," says Pim Levelt, chair of the committee that investigated Stapel's work at the university.
"Critical review by mass media is not done by specialists who have several months to write their comments."
It wasn't done by those specialists reviewing his papers either. They simply accepted his data sight unseen.
Seriously? My small home/office burns, destroying my data there (along with every friggin' thing I use to work). My offsite storage (which is presumed to be in the same locale) is destroyed because the instigating incident to my data loss is a fucking earthquake....
And you think somehow, that I will give a shit about my data.
Pal, I'm going to be worrying about sleeping, eating and whether everyone I know is dead.
Your scenario merely indicates the reach you have to use to "justify" the cloud.
I really wish all of IT would drop the paternalism. Most people I know have very advanced phones.
They also don't have any damned trouble turning off or changing things on their computers. No, most people who are leaving Google are doing it because Google results are unsatisfactory, not because they're "locked in" or too stoopid to change things.
"And so I think in this case of Haught v Coyne, I will withhold judgment. The summary and attached articles only present one side of this case. It may well be the right side, but before I trouble myself to get angry I want to hear both sides."
Kinda the point of the article. One side (the religious) doesn't want you to see it. I tend to align myself with the side that wants me to see the whole thing. Maybe it's just me, but I see the suppressive side as suppressing for a reason. In this case, they got their ass handed to them. Not much else makes sense.
Your argument is only worthwhile if those societies developed with religion actually practiced that life has intrinsic value. They do not. This is self-evident if you watch the news.
Please. Any of the hierarchical churches of the three OT based religions. Being in conflict with science doesn't mean total rejection, just refusal to ditch disproven concepts (like say, the creation story).
"the simple proof that an eternal universe has a prime cause"
And here we have a good example of the type of logic applied to "proving" god. An eternal univers,e by its very definition, cannot have a prime cause or any other - it's *eternal*, without beginning or end. Your sentence therefore is nonsense.
hypothesis, n.
1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.
Please tell us which of these meanings you are using for "hypothesis". If 2-4, no science involved, not interested.
If #1, please provide either the guidelines for the investigation or the observations that make a creator "highly probable in the light of established facts".
The easiest method of dealing with that is to know your topic well, listen for a root argument and then destroying that, stating "since the rest of your arguments depend from that, they can be ignored".
Simply do this over and over keeping your focus like a laser and shifting the bulk of the "proving" onto them. If you want to be mean, pick a tier of root arguments and work your way down them the moment any traction is made by the other on the current level being targeted.
Another method is to come prepared for this and then blast out a seemingly unending stream of proofs which you say refute their points and that they then need to refute. If they refuse, so can you and it's just a can of worms against a can of worms.
Graciousness has no place in a debate unless both parties exercise it (ie: If they practice emotional display, it's perfectly acceptable to display some back and if they interrupt, so may you).
Nope. Science, wherein your facts assume a different level of importance with the discover of additional facts.
The facts are the fossils. The facts are a change in life's organization through time. The facts are we have some 3B yr of fossils and they indicate a change from one-celled organisms into what you see today.
Facts change the meaning of other facts. Superstition clings to archaic meanings, concepts and attitudes.
Slashdot Mirror
"I understand why Microsoft is having to play catch up, ..."
Please. That's so '00's.
Writen from a device filled to its eye-teeth with rare-earth minerals and toxic materials.
Which is the entire point. AC is a hypocrite, like all the followers. All it takes to make them feel satisfied with themselves is to *act* as if others are doing vile things they *pretend* they aren't.
That was incoherent. Luck is a factor, but the plain fact is that more biota are consumed by and forced out of niches by other biota than are destroyed by luck. Plus, your last statement shows you really aren't all that up on the science (there are other mechanisms).
Perhaps you should google Stapel.
"We have some 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals where we are actually sure that they are fake, and there are more to come," says Pim Levelt, chair of the committee that investigated Stapel's work at the university.
"Critical review by mass media is not done by specialists who have several months to write their comments."
It wasn't done by those specialists reviewing his papers either. They simply accepted his data sight unseen.
Actually, no...
The "peer review" process is *supposed* to mean other scientists have read the article.
It does not, therefore his point remains valid.
"News flash : The employment process and skills required..."
Bullshit. That's just something you want to believe.
Interview the client.
Does granny want it? If you don't ask her what she wants, you really aren't address *her* needs, are you?
It's common for younger people to project what is "good" and "healthy" onto older persons. Don't. It's demeaning and unrealistic.
Interview your actual client.
Seriously? My small home/office burns, destroying my data there (along with every friggin' thing I use to work). My offsite storage (which is presumed to be in the same locale) is destroyed because the instigating incident to my data loss is a fucking earthquake....
And you think somehow, that I will give a shit about my data.
Pal, I'm going to be worrying about sleeping, eating and whether everyone I know is dead. Your scenario merely indicates the reach you have to use to "justify" the cloud.
You grossly over-exaggerate what the rest of the world is doing.
That's what the article said -most choose Google.
"especially the less tech savvy."
I really wish all of IT would drop the paternalism. Most people I know have very advanced phones.
They also don't have any damned trouble turning off or changing things on their computers. No, most people who are leaving Google are doing it because Google results are unsatisfactory, not because they're "locked in" or too stoopid to change things.
Sounds good, but holy crap! -- At $16 a pound, I'll pass. I'd have to find it waaay lower to try.
"So far, I haven't found a better theory than the "Long Day Theory" which lets evolution fit perfect with a literal interpretation of Genesis."
Extend or shrink the "days" as much as you want. Explain the incorrect sequence of star and planetary formation if you believe in the literal interp.
"And so I think in this case of Haught v Coyne, I will withhold judgment. The summary and attached articles only present one side of this case. It may well be the right side, but before I trouble myself to get angry I want to hear both sides."
Kinda the point of the article. One side (the religious) doesn't want you to see it. I tend to align myself with the side that wants me to see the whole thing. Maybe it's just me, but I see the suppressive side as suppressing for a reason. In this case, they got their ass handed to them. Not much else makes sense.
"Atheistic teachings on all these things..."
I'm utterly unaware of an atheist doctrine covering those topics. Please cite your reference material as I would very much like to read it.
Your argument is only worthwhile if those societies developed with religion actually practiced that life has intrinsic value. They do not. This is self-evident if you watch the news.
"If there is no way to check if the substance changed, it could have changed or it didn't change. There is no way to check this claim." Emph mine.
Making it absolutely incompatible with science.
"You could please give an example for the later?"
Please. Any of the hierarchical churches of the three OT based religions. Being in conflict with science doesn't mean total rejection, just refusal to ditch disproven concepts (like say, the creation story).
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
"... and yet I shall give none and require much" -- God
"the simple proof that an eternal universe has a prime cause"
And here we have a good example of the type of logic applied to "proving" god. An eternal univers,e by its very definition, cannot have a prime cause or any other - it's *eternal*, without beginning or end. Your sentence therefore is nonsense.
"Does it prevent a hypothetical creator..."
Webster's Unabridged:
hypothesis, n.
1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.
Please tell us which of these meanings you are using for "hypothesis". If 2-4, no science involved, not interested.
If #1, please provide either the guidelines for the investigation or the observations that make a creator "highly probable in the light of established facts".
Also known as "death by a thousand cuts".
The easiest method of dealing with that is to know your topic well, listen for a root argument and then destroying that, stating "since the rest of your arguments depend from that, they can be ignored".
Simply do this over and over keeping your focus like a laser and shifting the bulk of the "proving" onto them. If you want to be mean, pick a tier of root arguments and work your way down them the moment any traction is made by the other on the current level being targeted.
Another method is to come prepared for this and then blast out a seemingly unending stream of proofs which you say refute their points and that they then need to refute. If they refuse, so can you and it's just a can of worms against a can of worms.
Graciousness has no place in a debate unless both parties exercise it (ie: If they practice emotional display, it's perfectly acceptable to display some back and if they interrupt, so may you).
Nope. Science, wherein your facts assume a different level of importance with the discover of additional facts.
The facts are the fossils. The facts are a change in life's organization through time. The facts are we have some 3B yr of fossils and they indicate a change from one-celled organisms into what you see today.
Facts change the meaning of other facts. Superstition clings to archaic meanings, concepts and attitudes.
"Almost too convenient."
Meaning what exactly?
Actually, the space industry is beginning to burgeon. It's just move into private industry, which is a good thing.
"The U.S. surely has some areas that are free from natural disasters like tornadoes, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc."
No, it does not. As the rest of your post depends from this, it can be ignored.