Sexual abuse of children also exist in every culture around the world. That doesn't make it reasonable or acceptable. It does however mean that they exist in every culture which means you can't (or at least shouldn't) bury your head in the sand and deny that they exist. Since religion exists in every culture, there must be a reason for it, just like there are reasons for abuse. Science is in many ways a religion, it attracts the same type of people who can't or won't think for themselves and want to be told what they should believe.
Even listen to the words we use, believe/belief in evolution and science. Is this really any different than the belief in god? Belief in evolution is based in large part on the belief that we were not created and the need to find an alternative theory. Belief is god is much much older and creation naturally flows from it. If there is a God, then surely he would have had some hand in our creation. If there is no God then how did we get here is an open question which needs solving.
Does it really matter? If we are just a freak of nature then what does it matter how we got here. We are here now and that should be enough.
There are always people trying to figure out why this behavior or that trait exists and how it benefits us and how it benefited us evolutionarily because that's where everyone needs to find the answer. There is no good or evil, nothing greater than ourselves, we evolved to where we are and we are still going on.
So, back to the original comment... what is the evolutionary benefit of sexual abuse and belief in god? Did raping our children help us get here, is it just a left over survival trait? How did belief in god help us get were we are, did we out grow it's purpose? If evolution is the answer then you need to at least address all the questions.
Science doesn't show much, it tries to explain much. Actually, if you define religion as faith without proof then Science is in itself a religion! It's just a matter of where you place your faith and what you accept as proof. Science has it's own set of assumptions which are taken on faith and used as a basis for all it's proofs. What most call religion involve accepting a god on faith. If you assume that the ratio of carbon 14 to the other isotopes has stayed the same then have some of your proof of dates, and there are many many other small assumptions that scientific religion is based upon. The bible doesn't talk about other creatures having a soul or living forever. So no matter how much evidence you have of the existence of pre-humans you can't assume that human death as always existed. If humans lived forever before the first sin, then where would there be any record of their death? So, to assume that the record of the death of humans proves that there was never humans without death is a falicy.
If you are going to try and argue science, at least state your assumptions and your line of reasoning, otherwise you are no better than those that claim the world was created in six 24 hour days when the bible doesn't even divide day and night till something like the 3rd day.
"First, that much of what I am going to tell you contradicts that which is supposedly scientific fact.
"Second, that these contradictions--though they be on a titanic, global scale--were nonetheless designed; that it was intended by certain parties that the information I possess would never again be known to a living soul. My own existence is due as much to blind luck as it is to my own skill and power.
"Third, once you have been told these things, you become a potential target for the forces that would keep these things secret . . . and so will anyone to whom you reveal these things. And the forces behind this are of such magnitude as to give even Virigar pause, so powerful that the mightiest nations of this world are as nothing to them." He gazed solemnly at us. "So think carefully; do you still wish to involve yourselves in these matters? I will think no less of you either way, I assure you. But once I speak, there is no going back. Ever. Even my ability to hide memories will not save you; they will never believe a memory completely gone when they can ensure it by killing the one with the memory."
-x-x- later -x-x-
I shook my head and finally looked up. "Okay, so let me see if I get this story straight. You were the high Priest . . . er, Speaker for Eonae, what we'd call Gaia. The spirit of the Earth itself. And Eonae talked to you, for real. That's where you get your power. And Kafan here was a little boy who trained to become palace guard. How long ago?"
"Approximately five hundred thousand years."
I gagged. "What? Half a million years?! Are you completely out of your mind, Verne? There weren't even people back then, at least not human beings like we know today!"
"I told you," Verne said calmly. "Much of what science knows about that era is wrong. Not because your scientists are stupid or are, as so many foolish cultists would have it, looking in the wrong places or 'covering up' the truth. No, the truth is far, far more frightening, Jason. Your scientists are looking at falsified evidence. The geological record . . . the traces of the greatest civilization ever to exist . . . all of them erased, and rewritten, rewritten so as to make it as though they never existed at all, to expunge from all memory the knowledge of what was."
I tried to imagine a power capable of such a thing; to wipe out every trace of a civilization, to remove fossil traces of one sort, replacing them with another . . . I couldn't do it. "Impossible. Verne, you've flipped your vampiric lid."
"If only it were so simple. Do you understand now, Jason? Why even after all this time I must be terribly, terribly careful not to reveal the truth to any save those who absolutely must know it? Power such as that is beyond simple comprehension. Although much of that power would now be useless here, with magic closed off from this world, still there remains the potential for unimaginable destruction."
So, we should call off the search for Exterritorial life? We shouldn't never have bother looking at trying to split the atom because there was no evidence that it could be split, many years ago there was not even any evidence that compounds could be separated. In Math and physics we require a proof to exclude something, and there is certainly no proof there is no Exterritorial life and scary thing is that you probably believe if UFOs and can't see the hypocrisies.
Evolution is a Theory and the forces that want so hard to disbelieve that there could ever possible be a god want it to be the only theory. It's just like western medicine when faced with eastern healing.
There is no proof that, there is no relationship, etc.... and now they are staring to realize that just because they can't see a relationship doesn't mean there isn't one. Modern science still can't explain why things like acupuncture and Reflexology work and many many are so blinded by their own religion/belief that they rule out that anything that they can't see and explain can't possible work. More and more studies have shown that traditional eastern treatments can be as effective in some cases as many accepted western treatments, but many still want to disbelieve anything that goes against their own belief.
There chances of evolution bring single cells to the present day man are much smaller than the chance of trees naturally falling such as to form a cabin, but when faced with a cabin in the middle of the woods without any signs of a human most still would make a theory about how someone created it and then left but they won't even concede that there is a possibility that some other force than chance created us.
Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories
In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct--especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.... ...
Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.... ...
In 1950, taxonomist Willi Hennig proposed a method for determining phylogenetic trees based on morphology by classifying organisms according to their shared derived characters, which are called synapomorphies (Hennig 1966). This method, now called cladistics, does not assume genealogical relatedness a priori, since it can be used to classify anything in principle, even things like books, cars, or chairs that are obviously not genealogically related in a biological sense (Kitching et al. 1998, Ch. 1, p. 26; ). Using firm evolutionary arguments, however, Hennig justified this method as the most appropriate classification technique for estimating evolutionary relationships generated by lineal descent....
So, let's talk about the evolution of buildings. We can even use the same system...
Caveats with Phylogenetic Inference
As with any investigational scientific method, certain conditions must hold in order for the results to be reliable. A common premise of all molecular phylogenetic methods is that genes are transmitted via vertical, lineal inheritance, i.e. from ancestor to descendant. If this premise is violated, gene trees will never recapitulate an organismic phylogeny....
So, things start to break down if a 3rd party got creative. But that would probably be considered untestable, just like many other theories. Maybe it will be testable at some time in the future...
Interesting articles though, at least for the mosquitoes and fruit flies it didn't seem entirely clear if they could no longer mate or had no desire to mate with the original group. The underground mosquitoes article talked about difficulty in mating. I mean, there are a number of groups within humans who have no desire to mate with other groups of humans, but I don't know if I would call them different species.
How about, until you can successfully show successful mating between species we call Macro-Evolution untested.
Micro-Evolution is easy, look at dogs, horses and any number of species of plants and animals which are breed. Take a male and females with the same traits that you want and you have them mate and then take the offspring with the traits you want and you mate them as well.
Macro-Evolution is much, much harder....not only do you need one of the new species but you need two. That's not two mutations that form new species but two mutations that are at least compatible with each other to form the new species, and they probably can't be compatible with the original species or how would you know it's really a new species. One must be male and the other female, and not only do they both have to happen within the same lifetime but they have to happen in the same area. Then, you need the off spring of this new species to be able to mate with their siblings, aren't you glad that animals don't have the same social stigma than humans have?
No, they are different levels. It would be more like saying that X-rays can pass though that 2 inches of solid wood, so visible light should be able to do it too. X-rays and all the different 'solar' radiation all travel via the same process but they have different limits.
my problem with evolution is that it excludes the possibility of an external force guiding changes as well as all the evidence is based on the assumption that between snapshots we have from the past there were multiple small changes that if found would show one species giving birth to something not of it's species, but that's just an assumption. Some superior being would leave just about the same evidence if they took their time and created different species in a series over a similar period of time. If we applied the sames process that are used to support current evolution theory to architecture, we would have mud huts giving birth to our current sky scrapers
Wow, look at all the different styles of buildings, tell me that the building aren't evolving?
and please at least look up the definition of fact, observation, theory and the scientific method/process.
Science is not based upon facts, it's mostly observations and theories. When facts get mentioned it's usually in the term "accepted as fact" which is to mean it's the current ruling theory, or they might just be referring to observations.
Wow, is the bus better than a motorcycle? How about designing an experiment and using your theory to predict the result? We do it in physics and chemistry and all the real sciences?
I am still amazed that there are a group that is so feveret to remove god or any superiors being from our existence that they would believe that we all got here by mere chance. But these same people refused to believe that the Nazca Plains and pyramids were created by natural weather and erosion. Look at pyramids, they exist in various forms in multiple locations on earth, and we have found them in area without any current civilization around them.
If we are here purely by chance then it's unlikely that we are the only civilization or even the first to have archived our current technology level. We are almost at the point were we could send out huge colony ships to search for other worlds and explore and/or colonize them. Prove to me that we aren't really the result of an alien expedition that brought life to this planet millions of years ago and at some point suffered a calamity which caused them to lose all their technology and revert to the prehistoric cave men status. Why couldn't be even be the result of a penal colony, descendants of men and women who were sent to this world millions of years ago? Can you even convince me that where is no superior beings in the universe that could have manipulated our ancestors?
It is a theory, as is Newton's laws of motion and gravity. Physics is candid about calling their theories so it's about time that Evolution be called out for what it is, a theory. About Newton's laws, we all know they are wrong and incomplete and were replaced by the theory of relativity but they are still taught because they are useful. If you really look closely at what we know about gravity you would realize that it really is barely a theory. We know how gravity acts and it's effects but we don't know how it words. If it's a wave, like light or radiation or magnetism then we should be able block, bend and generate it like we do other waves. If it's a particle then how does it travel. There are so many unanswered questions that physics are willing to admit to but evolution seems to scared to admit that they don't have a complete understanding and that any disbelief or questioning of their theory is heresy.
btw- A THEORY doesn't explain the phenomena for which it is names, they attempt to explain all known observations. A theory of gravity can't contradict known observations of radioactive decay. Well, actually they can, but then there many bad theories which have been taught for many years, so still are.
Are you sure he found the code on the web and didn't actually post the code on the web?
Does the block of code form a complete 'expression'? Or is it only something so small as to demonstrate how to do something?
There are two major ways to break the law, knowingly and unknowingly. Never knowingly break the law unless you are willing to pay the price if you're required. The unknowingly, bit is where things get interesting.
From my reading... as far as the original poster knows there are not enough licenses, so my suggestion would be close to the previous suggestion about asking the boss to buy more licenses but I would phrase it like:
Dear manager,
To the best of my knowledge we do not have sufficient licenses to cover the installations you have requested. Could you please confirm that we do have additional licenses that I am unaware of or that you will acquire the additional licenses. Please verify how you would like me to proceed?
There is a valid alternative which should resolve all the issues without any additional cost, if you have no objections I would like to install open office on a couple of the systems as a test to verify that there is no problem. Please respond if you have concerns, questions, etc...
thanks....
Unless the manager is pure evil he will respond, if not for the first issue then for the second. In any case... if you are directed to move forward with the installation, you have a record that your manager was made aware of the situation and you reasonably expected them to resolve the issue. If they don't respond, then install open office on a system or two and ask users to test it. This will give you additional leverage to push open office if it does work as expected, and you will be able to include the results in your next update.
Yes...a few...
In theory BJs, Cosco, etc... you pay a membership to save money...
there is also REI which is a sporting goods Co-Op...
as well as a few other whole sale clubs.
my favorite is "They were really upset when I insisted on leaving and one week into my last two weeks the V.P. of Sales told me the company was suing me for leaving, and they were also suing my new employer for hiring me. I was shocked, and they then escorted me out of the building." So, he hadn't even left but they were going to sue him for what? Discussing leaving? Planning to leave? And, they escorted him from the building, wouldn't you think that would make it a little difficult for him to continue working?
When it gets to court, what is he going to say "Your honor I realize the errors of my ways, I am ready to return to work and work there the rest of my nature life and how ever much longer is required." And are they going to want him back? They escorted him from the building!
What are they suing him for? If his leaving is damaging to them, then they have a duty to minimize that damage which would be to keep him there. If they can escort him from the building then obviously they are not so damaged him his leaving that they can't cope. So, what are they going to ask the courts for? How do they want the courts to fix the wrong? Do they want the courts to order him to return to work? Did the company invest in him? Are they going to ask for the money spent on classes back? I think the lawyer will probably laugh in the face of the company rep.
Paragraph 5:
You mention information about IP address. What IP address(es) are you referring to and how were they attained? Could you please explain how a wireless router or other NAT ( Network Address Translation ) router work? Could you please explain how they hide the address assigned to an individual system and allow multiple systems to all appear to be using the same external route able IP address. Could you please explain how the NAT device takes IP address and port used by the computer and re-writes the IP address so that it matches the IP addresses assigned by the Internet Server Provider and how it takes data destine for the ISP assigned IP address and after consulting it's internal translation table re-writes the IP address and port and passes the data to the computer using the private IP address? Could you please explain how you made a determination that NAT was or was not being used?
Paragraph 6:
You stated in paragraph 5 that you do not believe a wireless router was used based on IP address and you state in this paragraph that you do not believe that this hard drive was used to share data as accused. You however make no determination or even mention of IP address, is this because there was no evidence of IP address on the harddrive? If there was no information about IP address assigned to the defendant's computer on the hard drive does that mean that all the evidence concerning IP address was based on data external to the defendant's location and if that is the case how would/did you make a determination that there was not a NAT device (as explained above) between the defendant's system and the monitoring. And if you can not rule out the possibility of a NAT device then how can/could you rule out the possibility that the NAT device allowed wireless access and the computer traffic that actually was observed was NATed by a wireless router and hence used the IP address assigned to the defendant by theft of service?
You further speculate that the computer showed little use during the time in question, could this also indicate that it would have been less likely that the defendant would have noticed that their internet connection was being stolen by someone else via a wireless connection?
paragraph 7:
As a computer security professional, do you teach about the importance of maintaining back ups of data? Would you not recommend that something as important as a resume be kept in multiple locations so that it does not get 'lost'? Additionally you indicate that the resume showed activity during the time in question, would that indicate that it was being maintained? And hence that the computer itself was in fact being used during the time in question, just not for the speculated purpose?
General:
You mentioned the data MediaSentry provided including screen shots. Could you tell please explain how your verified how you determined that the screen shots had not been altered? If I were to provide you with 5 copies of the screed shots after altering the copies using a graphics editing program, would you be able to determine which was the original and which were altered? If so, how? If you are relying on the source that provided you the data, could you please provide his or her contact information so that we can question them about the screen shots? (re-peat till you get to the person who actually made the screen shots)
Could you please tell us how MediaSentry works? Since it obviously interacts on the Internet could you please tell us what IP address it used during the time that it gathered this supposed data? Was it a passive observer and if so, how did it observe traffic from the defendant's machine? Could you please explain about network address (IP addresses) and the difference between directly connected hosts, local networks, and routed networks? Are the IP address used by M
When I think of End user I think of the person viewing the page, not someone who is making the page?
Ie.. if the End user doesn't want Java Script or Java Applets or funky back grounds... adjust the settings on their browser!
What do you mean by End User?
Just remember this...
at least some of the terrorist on the 9/11 flights had valid documents and could have had their finger prints on file and could be waiting next to you for those innocents in the 2+ hour security line.
-me
So, you believe that he should have waited till the men swinging shotguns and aiming handguns had him bound and gagged or worse. In some states a person is not required to run and flee this house when in fear of his life. If you go back to biblical times, even the strict biblical laws made allowances for killing someone when entered your house a night which didn't exist during the day.
-Robert
Slashdot Mirror
Sexual abuse of children also exist in every culture around the world. That doesn't make it reasonable or acceptable. It does however mean that they exist in every culture which means you can't (or at least shouldn't) bury your head in the sand and deny that they exist. Since religion exists in every culture, there must be a reason for it, just like there are reasons for abuse. Science is in many ways a religion, it attracts the same type of people who can't or won't think for themselves and want to be told what they should believe.
Even listen to the words we use, believe/belief in evolution and science. Is this really any different than the belief in god? Belief in evolution is based in large part on the belief that we were not created and the need to find an alternative theory. Belief is god is much much older and creation naturally flows from it. If there is a God, then surely he would have had some hand in our creation. If there is no God then how did we get here is an open question which needs solving.
Does it really matter? If we are just a freak of nature then what does it matter how we got here. We are here now and that should be enough.
There are always people trying to figure out why this behavior or that trait exists and how it benefits us and how it benefited us evolutionarily because that's where everyone needs to find the answer. There is no good or evil, nothing greater than ourselves, we evolved to where we are and we are still going on.
So, back to the original comment... what is the evolutionary benefit of sexual abuse and belief in god? Did raping our children help us get here, is it just a left over survival trait? How did belief in god help us get were we are, did we out grow it's purpose? If evolution is the answer then you need to at least address all the questions.
Define 'Git-Go'?
Science doesn't show much, it tries to explain much. Actually, if you define religion as faith without proof then Science is in itself a religion! It's just a matter of where you place your faith and what you accept as proof. Science has it's own set of assumptions which are taken on faith and used as a basis for all it's proofs. What most call religion involve accepting a god on faith. If you assume that the ratio of carbon 14 to the other isotopes has stayed the same then have some of your proof of dates, and there are many many other small assumptions that scientific religion is based upon. The bible doesn't talk about other creatures having a soul or living forever. So no matter how much evidence you have of the existence of pre-humans you can't assume that human death as always existed. If humans lived forever before the first sin, then where would there be any record of their death? So, to assume that the record of the death of humans proves that there was never humans without death is a falicy.
If you are going to try and argue science, at least state your assumptions and your line of reasoning, otherwise you are no better than those that claim the world was created in six 24 hour days when the bible doesn't even divide day and night till something like the 3rd day.
I prefer this story line better:
http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/074347161X/074347161X.htm Digital Knight by Ryk Spoor
In Chapter 4:
"First, that much of what I am going to tell you contradicts that which is supposedly scientific fact.
"Second, that these contradictions--though they be on a titanic, global scale--were nonetheless designed; that it was intended by certain parties that the information I possess would never again be known to a living soul. My own existence is due as much to blind luck as it is to my own skill and power.
"Third, once you have been told these things, you become a potential target for the forces that would keep these things secret . . . and so will anyone to whom you reveal these things. And the forces behind this are of such magnitude as to give even Virigar pause, so powerful that the mightiest nations of this world are as nothing to them." He gazed solemnly at us. "So think carefully; do you still wish to involve yourselves in these matters? I will think no less of you either way, I assure you. But once I speak, there is no going back. Ever. Even my ability to hide memories will not save you; they will never believe a memory completely gone when they can ensure it by killing the one with the memory."
-x-x- later -x-x-
I shook my head and finally looked up. "Okay, so let me see if I get this story straight. You were the high Priest . . . er, Speaker for Eonae, what we'd call Gaia. The spirit of the Earth itself. And Eonae talked to you, for real. That's where you get your power. And Kafan here was a little boy who trained to become palace guard. How long ago?"
"Approximately five hundred thousand years."
I gagged. "What? Half a million years?! Are you completely out of your mind, Verne? There weren't even people back then, at least not human beings like we know today!"
"I told you," Verne said calmly. "Much of what science knows about that era is wrong. Not because your scientists are stupid or are, as so many foolish cultists would have it, looking in the wrong places or 'covering up' the truth. No, the truth is far, far more frightening, Jason. Your scientists are looking at falsified evidence. The geological record . . . the traces of the greatest civilization ever to exist . . . all of them erased, and rewritten, rewritten so as to make it as though they never existed at all, to expunge from all memory the knowledge of what was."
I tried to imagine a power capable of such a thing; to wipe out every trace of a civilization, to remove fossil traces of one sort, replacing them with another . . . I couldn't do it. "Impossible. Verne, you've flipped your vampiric lid."
"If only it were so simple. Do you understand now, Jason? Why even after all this time I must be terribly, terribly careful not to reveal the truth to any save those who absolutely must know it? Power such as that is beyond simple comprehension. Although much of that power would now be useless here, with magic closed off from this world, still there remains the potential for unimaginable destruction."
So, we should call off the search for Exterritorial life? We shouldn't never have bother looking at trying to split the atom because there was no evidence that it could be split, many years ago there was not even any evidence that compounds could be separated. In Math and physics we require a proof to exclude something, and there is certainly no proof there is no Exterritorial life and scary thing is that you probably believe if UFOs and can't see the hypocrisies.
Evolution is a Theory and the forces that want so hard to disbelieve that there could ever possible be a god want it to be the only theory.
It's just like western medicine when faced with eastern healing.
There is no proof that, there is no relationship, etc.... and now they are staring to realize that just because they can't see a relationship doesn't mean there isn't one. Modern science still can't explain why things like acupuncture and Reflexology work and many many are so blinded by their own religion/belief that they rule out that anything that they can't see and explain can't possible work. More and more studies have shown that traditional eastern treatments can be as effective in some cases as many accepted western treatments, but many still want to disbelieve anything that goes against their own belief.
There chances of evolution bring single cells to the present day man are much smaller than the chance of trees naturally falling such as to form a cabin, but when faced with a cabin in the middle of the woods without any signs of a human most still would make a theory about how someone created it and then left but they won't even concede that there is a possibility that some other force than chance created us.
Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories
In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct--especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.
Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.
-x-x-
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html ...
...
...
...
...
...
In 1950, taxonomist Willi Hennig proposed a method for determining phylogenetic trees based on morphology by classifying organisms according to their shared derived characters, which are called synapomorphies (Hennig 1966). This method, now called cladistics, does not assume genealogical relatedness a priori, since it can be used to classify anything in principle, even things like books, cars, or chairs that are obviously not genealogically related in a biological sense (Kitching et al. 1998, Ch. 1, p. 26; ). Using firm evolutionary arguments, however, Hennig justified this method as the most appropriate classification technique for estimating evolutionary relationships generated by lineal descent.
So, let's talk about the evolution of buildings. We can even use the same system
Caveats with Phylogenetic Inference
As with any investigational scientific method, certain conditions must hold in order for the results to be reliable. A common premise of all molecular phylogenetic methods is that genes are transmitted via vertical, lineal inheritance, i.e. from ancestor to descendant. If this premise is violated, gene trees will never recapitulate an organismic phylogeny.
So, things start to break down if a 3rd party got creative. But that would probably be considered untestable, just like many other theories. Maybe it will be testable at some time in the future
-x-x-
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
Only
Interesting articles though, at least for the mosquitoes and fruit flies it didn't seem entirely clear if they could no longer mate or had no desire to mate with the original group. The underground mosquitoes article talked about difficulty in mating. I mean, there are a number of groups within humans who have no desire to mate with other groups of humans, but I don't know if I would call them different species.
Micro-Evolution is easy, look at dogs, horses and any number of species of plants and animals which are breed. Take a male and females with the same traits that you want and you have them mate and then take the offspring with the traits you want and you mate them as well.
Macro-Evolution is much, much harder....not only do you need one of the new species but you need two. That's not two mutations that form new species but two mutations that are at least compatible with each other to form the new species, and they probably can't be compatible with the original species or how would you know it's really a new species. One must be male and the other female, and not only do they both have to happen within the same lifetime but they have to happen in the same area. Then, you need the off spring of this new species to be able to mate with their siblings, aren't you glad that animals don't have the same social stigma than humans have?
No, they are different levels. It would be more like saying that X-rays can pass though that 2 inches of solid wood, so visible light should be able to do it too. X-rays and all the different 'solar' radiation all travel via the same process but they have different limits.
my problem with evolution is that it excludes the possibility of an external force guiding changes as well as all the evidence is based on the assumption that between snapshots we have from the past there were multiple small changes that if found would show one species giving birth to something not of it's species, but that's just an assumption. Some superior being would leave just about the same evidence if they took their time and created different species in a series over a similar period of time. If we applied the sames process that are used to support current evolution theory to architecture, we would have mud huts giving birth to our current sky scrapers
Wow, look at all the different styles of buildings, tell me that the building aren't evolving? and please at least look up the definition of fact, observation, theory and the scientific method/process. Science is not based upon facts, it's mostly observations and theories. When facts get mentioned it's usually in the term "accepted as fact" which is to mean it's the current ruling theory, or they might just be referring to observations.
Wow, is the bus better than a motorcycle? How about designing an experiment and using your theory to predict the result? We do it in physics and chemistry and all the real sciences?
I am still amazed that there are a group that is so feveret to remove god or any superiors being from our existence that they would believe that we all got here by mere chance. But these same people refused to believe that the Nazca Plains and pyramids were created by natural weather and erosion. Look at pyramids, they exist in various forms in multiple locations on earth, and we have found them in area without any current civilization around them.
If we are here purely by chance then it's unlikely that we are the only civilization or even the first to have archived our current technology level. We are almost at the point were we could send out huge colony ships to search for other worlds and explore and/or colonize them. Prove to me that we aren't really the result of an alien expedition that brought life to this planet millions of years ago and at some point suffered a calamity which caused them to lose all their technology and revert to the prehistoric cave men status. Why couldn't be even be the result of a penal colony, descendants of men and women who were sent to this world millions of years ago? Can you even convince me that where is no superior beings in the universe that could have manipulated our ancestors?
It is a theory, as is Newton's laws of motion and gravity. Physics is candid about calling their theories so it's about time that Evolution be called out for what it is, a theory. About Newton's laws, we all know they are wrong and incomplete and were replaced by the theory of relativity but they are still taught because they are useful. If you really look closely at what we know about gravity you would realize that it really is barely a theory. We know how gravity acts and it's effects but we don't know how it words. If it's a wave, like light or radiation or magnetism then we should be able block, bend and generate it like we do other waves. If it's a particle then how does it travel. There are so many unanswered questions that physics are willing to admit to but evolution seems to scared to admit that they don't have a complete understanding and that any disbelief or questioning of their theory is heresy.
btw- A THEORY doesn't explain the phenomena for which it is names, they attempt to explain all known observations. A theory of gravity can't contradict known observations of radioactive decay. Well, actually they can, but then there many bad theories which have been taught for many years, so still are.
Are you sure he found the code on the web and didn't actually post the code on the web? Does the block of code form a complete 'expression'? Or is it only something so small as to demonstrate how to do something?
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~sean/book.html http://www.trillia.com/zakon1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVay Born in Lockport, New York which would make him a citizen.
What about audio CDs of previously performed concerts?
Really...All the states need to do is... Require people to get a US passport. Pass the burden over to the Federal Government.
There are two major ways to break the law, knowingly and unknowingly. Never knowingly break the law unless you are willing to pay the price if you're required. The unknowingly, bit is where things get interesting.
From my reading... as far as the original poster knows there are not enough licenses, so my suggestion would be close to the previous suggestion about asking the boss to buy more licenses but I would phrase it like:
Dear manager,
To the best of my knowledge we do not have sufficient licenses to cover the installations you have requested. Could you please confirm that we do have additional licenses that I am unaware of or that you will acquire the additional licenses. Please verify how you would like me to proceed?
There is a valid alternative which should resolve all the issues without any additional cost, if you have no objections I would like to install open office on a couple of the systems as a test to verify that there is no problem. Please respond if you have concerns, questions, etc...
thanks....
Unless the manager is pure evil he will respond, if not for the first issue then for the second. In any case... if you are directed to move forward with the installation, you have a record that your manager was made aware of the situation and you reasonably expected them to resolve the issue. If they don't respond, then install open office on a system or two and ask users to test it. This will give you additional leverage to push open office if it does work as expected, and you will be able to include the results in your next update.
Yes...a few... In theory BJs, Cosco, etc... you pay a membership to save money... there is also REI which is a sporting goods Co-Op... as well as a few other whole sale clubs.
When it gets to court, what is he going to say "Your honor I realize the errors of my ways, I am ready to return to work and work there the rest of my nature life and how ever much longer is required." And are they going to want him back? They escorted him from the building!
What are they suing him for? If his leaving is damaging to them, then they have a duty to minimize that damage which would be to keep him there. If they can escort him from the building then obviously they are not so damaged him his leaving that they can't cope. So, what are they going to ask the courts for? How do they want the courts to fix the wrong? Do they want the courts to order him to return to work? Did the company invest in him? Are they going to ask for the money spent on classes back? I think the lawyer will probably laugh in the face of the company rep.
Page 4.
Paragraph 5:
You mention information about IP address. What IP address(es) are you referring to and how were they attained? Could you please explain how a wireless router or other NAT ( Network Address Translation ) router work? Could you please explain how they hide the address assigned to an individual system and allow multiple systems to all appear to be using the same external route able IP address. Could you please explain how the NAT device takes IP address and port used by the computer and re-writes the IP address so that it matches the IP addresses assigned by the Internet Server Provider and how it takes data destine for the ISP assigned IP address and after consulting it's internal translation table re-writes the IP address and port and passes the data to the computer using the private IP address? Could you please explain how you made a determination that NAT was or was not being used?
Paragraph 6:
You stated in paragraph 5 that you do not believe a wireless router was used based on IP address and you state in this paragraph that you do not believe that this hard drive was used to share data as accused. You however make no determination or even mention of IP address, is this because there was no evidence of IP address on the harddrive? If there was no information about IP address assigned to the defendant's computer on the hard drive does that mean that all the evidence concerning IP address was based on data external to the defendant's location and if that is the case how would/did you make a determination that there was not a NAT device (as explained above) between the defendant's system and the monitoring. And if you can not rule out the possibility of a NAT device then how can/could you rule out the possibility that the NAT device allowed wireless access and the computer traffic that actually was observed was NATed by a wireless router and hence used the IP address assigned to the defendant by theft of service?
You further speculate that the computer showed little use during the time in question, could this also indicate that it would have been less likely that the defendant would have noticed that their internet connection was being stolen by someone else via a wireless connection?
paragraph 7:
As a computer security professional, do you teach about the importance of maintaining back ups of data? Would you not recommend that something as important as a resume be kept in multiple locations so that it does not get 'lost'? Additionally you indicate that the resume showed activity during the time in question, would that indicate that it was being maintained? And hence that the computer itself was in fact being used during the time in question, just not for the speculated purpose?
General:
You mentioned the data MediaSentry provided including screen shots. Could you tell please explain how your verified how you determined that the screen shots had not been altered? If I were to provide you with 5 copies of the screed shots after altering the copies using a graphics editing program, would you be able to determine which was the original and which were altered? If so, how? If you are relying on the source that provided you the data, could you please provide his or her contact information so that we can question them about the screen shots? (re-peat till you get to the person who actually made the screen shots)
Could you please tell us how MediaSentry works? Since it obviously interacts on the Internet could you please tell us what IP address it used during the time that it gathered this supposed data? Was it a passive observer and if so, how did it observe traffic from the defendant's machine? Could you please explain about network address (IP addresses) and the difference between directly connected hosts, local networks, and routed networks? Are the IP address used by M
When I think of End user I think of the person viewing the page, not someone who is making the page? Ie.. if the End user doesn't want Java Script or Java Applets or funky back grounds... adjust the settings on their browser! What do you mean by End User?
Just remember this... at least some of the terrorist on the 9/11 flights had valid documents and could have had their finger prints on file and could be waiting next to you for those innocents in the 2+ hour security line. -me
So, you believe that he should have waited till the men swinging shotguns and aiming handguns had him bound and gagged or worse. In some states a person is not required to run and flee this house when in fear of his life. If you go back to biblical times, even the strict biblical laws made allowances for killing someone when entered your house a night which didn't exist during the day. -Robert
Won't work.... just unplug the ethernet cable... only option.
exactly.... The point is that Java gives you just as much as a loaded gun as C++... It might just have a stiffer trigger.