Like most folks these days I have a cell phone and indoor reception problems, especially in my house which is behind a ridge from most of the carriers in my area.
According to the FAQ for the Wi-Ex model you were looking at, "If there is no signal outside, this unit will not give you an improvement in coverage." So if you're behind a ridge, it may not help.
I plan to use rsync with the bandwidth limit set to 20KBps and let it take several months to upload.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but why don't you just copy it locally and *then* take/ship/whatever the machine to your brother's house. That way it won't take months to upload the initial data, and the incremental changes should move much more quickly over the internet.
Incidentially, what you're doing is exactly what I did also. But I got my work place to pay for the hardware because I'm doing a cross-backup; my files to work and work's files to my place.
Alright, did anyone else think that the 200th episode TOTALLY sucked ass?
YES! It was really annoying. It was annoying when they did it the first time, and it was doubly annoying this time. I've seen every single episode of Stargate since it began, but I guess I'm still not enough of a fanboy to give a crap about their inside production jokes and self referential silliness. I mean, come on, you guys really aren't all that... it's just a retarded sci-fi show. Pat yourself on the back off-screen please and just get on with the damn story already.
but now after watching '200' yesterday, and reading the headline this morning, I want nothing more than to have the show go on another ten years...
Am I the only one that found '200' extremely annoying? I know they thought they were being all terribly clever and funny, but I don't give a crap about their in jokes and TV production self-parody. I kept checking my watch and thinking, can we just get back to the story please? I tune in to watch my Sci Fi show, not some smug cast party.
Occam's Razor, unless I'm greatly mistaken, basically states that the simplest answer is probably correct.
Actually, Occam's Razor states that the most parsimonious answer is probably correct, not the simplest. In other words, the answer which introduces the least new ideas and/or causes you to throw out the least old ideas, but which still fits the evidence. A little pedantic to point this out, I know, but it's not exactly the same as simplest.
Yes, after reading your source, it looks like you're right... You can only legally purchase separate OEM licenses through one of Microsoft's authorized OEM distributors, and they're unlikely to sell to end users.
So then why does Windows Genuine Advantage claim that OEM software installed on a non-bundled PC is licensed? Yes, I know it's because the software isn't smart enough to detect that's what happened. But if you got in trouble, couldn't you argue that Microsoft *directly* told you (through their WGA software) that your license was valid? I suppose they're argue that you knew you were deceiving them and so were committing fraud. Though that isn't necessarily the case. I think you could further argue that you bought the license in good faith from a bad vendor (if that is, in fact, what happened), and that because Microsoft then confirmed that your purchase was valid, it's really now between Microsoft and the vendor.
OEM copies can be sold with things like computer mice or ethernet cards
Judging from Microsoft's 'System Builder' documentation, I don't think you even need to bother doing that. Buying and installing an OEM version of Windows onto your PC is perfectly fine and legal. But by doing so, you've now created a 'new PC' in Microsoft's eyes and so you no longer have access to any support from them, as support for OEM software is to be obtained from your system builder (namely, you, in this case). So you're legal but completely on your own. At least this is the way I read it.
Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but that's not at all what a scientific theory is. Really. Honestly. What you've got is a hypothesis, not a theory.
What it sounds like is just dismisal on your part instead of truely trying to "disprove" anything. Like your example above about the 100 participants, that is a great test of statistics, but hardly one that is sound enough to disprove telepathy...
I'm not dismissing anything. I'm just not accepting anything until you give me reason to. You've got the process backwards. It's impossible to "disprove" such things as telepathy. That's not the way it works. If you think telepathy is real, *you* must prove it. All everyone else has to do is show other alternatives which are more parsimonious but still fit all the facts.
Just give all theories equal chance before insisting that the earth is flat...
See, that's not what science is about. Science, properly conducted, treats every new hypothesis very harshly. Your idea has to "run the gauntlet" before it's taken seriously. The further it is from established theory, the more it's going to be attacked. Yes, this sometimes makes it slow to arrive at the truth. But this really is the way it should be. Otherwise it'd be too easy for an incorrect hypothesis to become theory.
I'm not trying to flame you here, sorry if it comes off like that...
No, no, I'm glad to have the discussion and you haven't come off like that at all. So hopefully I won't either when I say you really don't seem to have a foundational knowledge of the philosophy of science and this is causing you a bit of confusion as to what is and isn't scientific and what the real power of science is; to dissern the likely from the unlikely.
I don't think that because 99.9% of the time we are not thinking the same thing, that this "proves" that 0.1% of the time we could be..
I was not intending to prove anything; you're the one making the claim that requires proof. I was illustrating another, simpler, possibility for the situation you described. Let's take this another way- Let's say we ask 100 people to pick a number between 1 and 50. Most likely, two or more people are going to pick the same number. Now, is that because they were telepathic, or because it was statistically probable? Both answers are possible, but (I'm hoping) it's obvious to you that the latter is much more likely to be the correct one.
why is it so unbelievable that the same type of impulses can radiate out of one person's mind and interact or influence anothers?
It's not unbelievable, it's just not very likely because there's no good evidence for it despite many very smart and dedicated people trying to find that evidence.
I've always thought of it as radio stations, we perceive everything as electrical impulses that our brain interprets[...]
Woah, slow down. You've got the cart before the horse there. You're coming up with descriptions of how something works before you've even shown that it exists.
You're obviously a bright guy to be thinking about this stuff in the depth that you are. These are great and fascinating sorts of things to be interested in. In that light, I suggest you teach yourself rationalism, because it's the best tool we've got to explore the unknown. Here's a little thought to get you started: Try as hard as you can to disprove any idea you come up with. You're smart, so you'll be able to disprove most of them and throw them away. Anything left over, ask others to disprove those. Most of these will get disproved at that point. But the final few kernels that make it through might just be interesting.
There are many times where [...] my wife and I thought about something at the same time of day (within minutes of each other) but being miles apart.
That a common phenomenon that happens to all of us. It is what's known as an "Illusory Correlation." How many times have you or your wife thought about different things at the same time of day while being miles apart? Probably more than 99.9% of the time. But those times are not interesting, so you don't note it or remember it. But the other 0.1% of the time when your thoughts are both somewhat similar stands out in your mind as something interesting, when in truth it's just statistical inevitability. In truth, if you not ever once thought the same thing at the same time, then that would be something interesting.
That's not entirely fair. There is another large catagory of people you've not accounted for, the self-deceivers. There are plenty of decent honest folk who believe all kinds of paranormal crap because they just don't have a good education in rationalism.
I'm always been surprised at the kind of reaction anything labeled "paranormal" gets from rational people. Why exactly couldn't telepathy exist? Is there some fundamental law of nature which states that two people cannot communicate over a distance without sound or visual cues? Obviously, you'd have to identify a mechanism for the communications. If telepathy exists, it isn't magic.
You're confusing the question. The question you ask, "Couldn't it exist?" is a pretty boring question with the obvious answer, "Sure." But the question that is more often asked by "paranormal" proponents is, "Does it exist?" although it's more often not a question but rather the statement "it does exist". To that, the answer from people who you call "rational" is "there's no good evidence that it does." Note this is different than saying it couldn't exist or that it doesn't exist. It's only saying there's no real evidence, and so there's no reason to treat it like it exists until some shows up.
you are, two of my co-workers were rather "rudely" treated when they thought they could walk around with just a photocopy and were stoped at a military checkpoint.
Yes, I always do the opposite. I take the passport and leave the photocopy in the hotel.
Also, who boils frogs? that's so extremely common, only the homeless plebs do that. Everybody knows, fried frog legs are the best.
Please... Everybody knows there's only two real types of frog dishes. There's frog a la peche, which is a frog done in Cointreau and with a peach stuffed in its mouth and, ah, then, of course, there's peche a la frog, which is really not much to write home about. A waiter comes to your table with a tray. He's got this huge peach on it, which is covered in boiling liqueur, you see, and he slices it open to reveal about two thousand little black tadpoles squiggling about. It's one of the most disgusting sights I've ever seen. God, it turns me over to think of it.
Hehe... 'car geek'... Call the next mechanic you see a car geek... I wonder how that'll go over...
Are you kidding? I call my mechanic a car geek all the time. There are 'muscle guy' mechanics and then there are definitely 'car geek' mechanics.
Re:And this is indeed a serious problem with EBay.
on
How to Win on Ebay: Snipe
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In the second case, the other user is willing to pay $10, and you were willing to pay $20, so by logic you should win the item; you were willing to pay more, so you won. Where's the problem there?
But that's not the situation in the second case. The other user is willing to pay $25, but doesn't bid correctly by bidding $25. Instead they bid $10 and figure they'll just bid higher if somebody outbids them. It's them being stupid. Sniping is taking advantage of other bidder's stupidity in not originally bidding their maximum.
Re:And this is indeed a serious problem with EBay.
on
How to Win on Ebay: Snipe
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Sniping only works if everyone else is sniping.
No, sniping works when somebody else is playing the 'keep bidding more than the current bid to stay the winning bidder' game. If you increase the current bid, they'll just bid a bit higher. But if you don't, they won't. So you don't, until the very end when they can't play their game anymore.
The first time the value of sniping really clicked for me was when I went truck shopping on eBay. I kept bidding a reasonable value for the trucks and kept being outbid by somebody every time. 75% of the time the same truck appeared right back on ebay a few days later because the bozos who kept outbidding me weren't really serious. Well, then I decided to snipe a truck and bam, I got the first one I sniped, no problem, and at a price that was actually lower than I was willing to pay.
So, to sum up, sniping only works if somebody else bidding is retarded. And that's a pretty good bet for eBay.
Sniping works against those who don't understand eBay.
Yes, agreed. And bidding once and early is the way I used to use eBay back in 1997. But these days, unfortunately, there are literally thousands of stupid bidders who don't understand eBay. So they'll just keep bidding and bidding until they're above your bid, no matter what the value of the item is. Stupid, yes, but that's what happens. The only way to beat these "I must win at any cost" bidders without becoming one youself is to snipe.
Re:And this is indeed a serious problem with EBay.
on
How to Win on Ebay: Snipe
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Sure you'll win it. If you decide you want to pay $20 and bid $20 early on, your bid has priority over someone else who bids $20 or less later.
Ok, let's say I feel like paying $20 and bid $20 early. Then some newbie retard (ebay is full of them) comes and says, "Hmm, that guy thinks it's worth $20, so I'll pay $25". Ok, I've now just lost the item. Alternatively, nobody bids on it and newbie retard says, "I dunno, I guess I'll bid $10, since maybe I'll get it real cheap". At the last second I can then come along and snipe my $20, and win the item. Same $20 top bid, but I lose on the first auction and win on the second.
Re:And this is indeed a serious problem with EBay.
on
How to Win on Ebay: Snipe
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The people who come in and snipe at the last minute always end up paying more than I would have for the item because I set my one bid to what I'm willing to pay and then leave the auction alone.
But the problem with this is that you never win the item. If you still just bid the one amount you're willing to pay, but you do it with a snipe, you're much more likely to actually get the auction item. Using a snipe program like jbidwatcher, it's just as easy to snipe as it is not to, so why wouldn't you?
Modern medicine can provide sugar pills and distilled water just as well as any homeopath.
I've got to disagree with you there. Homeopaths do a much more creative and fascinating job of providing sugar pills and distilled water. Homeopathic websites have provided me with hours of entertainment. I guess in truth it should upset me, but I don't really get emotionally envolved until they start applying their nonsense to veterinary medicine. That makes me go ballistic. Poor little guys have no way to say no.
What if there are other undiscovered disease agents? It's immensely hubristic to assume modern medicine has everything figured out yet.
This is the classic 'argument from ignorance'. To a some degree, you are correct- Lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lack. However, this is only an argument of the possibility of something existing, not that something does actually exist. That's a pretty weak argument. It can be equally applied to almost any claim. Heck, it can be applied to Santa Claus existing.
just look at the battles the homeopathic community has to fight; some of them are wackos perhaps, but many of them have treatments superior to those of "modern" medicine.
Ah, now here you make a definitive argument: Homeopathic medicine is effective. However, you don't back it up with any evidence at all (and you've infected it with the old 'modern' medicine is ridgid strawman).
To anyone who thinks Morgellon's must necessarily be a load of nonsense
You've got it backwards. People aren't saying it "must necessarily" be nonsense. They're saying the evidence is weak, so it's not necessarily what the victims say it is. There are lots of possibilities about what is going on, from it being exactly what the victims claim to it being nothing at all, to a whole rainbow of things in between. So don't just accept it so readily. That's really showing a pretty closed mind. (And this goes for Homeopathy too, btw)
He is simply saying that he is not convinced that humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor makes sense to him. That's called being a skeptic. Convincing him, or helping him to convince himself, is what science is all about. So no, he shouldn't crawl back under a rock.
While I agree that the poster you're replying to was being a bit hard, I have to disagree that the original poster is simply being a skeptic. He made his point, and then after getting dozens of interesting, thoughtful, and varied responses, he continues to say, "Nobody wants to answer my question." He's being dogmatic, not skeptical.
The long and short is this. Evolution occurs through one of two means. It is either a means of survival where the parent species is forced to adapt or die. Or evolution occurs through random mutations being passed on.
I'm a little confused why you think these two things are an either/or situation. It's really a combination of your two statements. Evolution is likely to occur when changing environmental pressures cause shifts in the survivability of genetic variation. This variation is brought about by mutation and sexual reproduction.
Something is very unique about humans and the evolution model does not seem to explain us very well.
You are arguing that you don't know the evolutionary process that brought about art and culture. Agreed. But you're further arguing that since you don't know how it happened, it couldn't have happened. Does that sound like a good argument to you? What you need to argue is how art and culture could never be evolved. Then you'd have something.
despite the fact that there are TONS more ants on the earth than humans, and the number of generations of ants in all of history, they never evolved to have art or culture.
Here I think you're arguing that evolution must always find the "optimal" solution. (We'll ignore that art/culture is far from proven evolutionarily optimal.) So your saying that given the same environmental conditions and enough time, all genes should end up at the same point. That's pretty divergent from most modern evolutionary theory. You're going to have to offer some proof on that point, and you've actually just offered up some pretty good proof against it.
If I've misunderstood what your saying (I can be dense sometimes), please try and rephrase your arguments.
Slashdot Mirror
Like most folks these days I have a cell phone and indoor reception problems, especially in my house which is behind a ridge from most of the carriers in my area.
According to the FAQ for the Wi-Ex model you were looking at, "If there is no signal outside, this unit will not give you an improvement in coverage." So if you're behind a ridge, it may not help.
and nixon also still maintains that he never did anything wrong.
Yeah, I've noticed he's been pretty close-lipped about the whole thing for the past couple of years. The nerve of some people...
I plan to use rsync with the bandwidth limit set to 20KBps and let it take several months to upload.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but why don't you just copy it locally and *then* take/ship/whatever the machine to your brother's house. That way it won't take months to upload the initial data, and the incremental changes should move much more quickly over the internet.
Incidentially, what you're doing is exactly what I did also. But I got my work place to pay for the hardware because I'm doing a cross-backup; my files to work and work's files to my place.
Alright, did anyone else think that the 200th episode TOTALLY sucked ass?
YES! It was really annoying. It was annoying when they did it the first time, and it was doubly annoying this time. I've seen every single episode of Stargate since it began, but I guess I'm still not enough of a fanboy to give a crap about their inside production jokes and self referential silliness. I mean, come on, you guys really aren't all that... it's just a retarded sci-fi show. Pat yourself on the back off-screen please and just get on with the damn story already.
but now after watching '200' yesterday, and reading the headline this morning, I want nothing more than to have the show go on another ten years...
Am I the only one that found '200' extremely annoying? I know they thought they were being all terribly clever and funny, but I don't give a crap about their in jokes and TV production self-parody. I kept checking my watch and thinking, can we just get back to the story please? I tune in to watch my Sci Fi show, not some smug cast party.
Occam's Razor, unless I'm greatly mistaken, basically states that the simplest answer is probably correct.
Actually, Occam's Razor states that the most parsimonious answer is probably correct, not the simplest. In other words, the answer which introduces the least new ideas and/or causes you to throw out the least old ideas, but which still fits the evidence. A little pedantic to point this out, I know, but it's not exactly the same as simplest.
Microsoft seems to disagree with you there
Yes, after reading your source, it looks like you're right... You can only legally purchase separate OEM licenses through one of Microsoft's authorized OEM distributors, and they're unlikely to sell to end users.
So then why does Windows Genuine Advantage claim that OEM software installed on a non-bundled PC is licensed? Yes, I know it's because the software isn't smart enough to detect that's what happened. But if you got in trouble, couldn't you argue that Microsoft *directly* told you (through their WGA software) that your license was valid? I suppose they're argue that you knew you were deceiving them and so were committing fraud. Though that isn't necessarily the case. I think you could further argue that you bought the license in good faith from a bad vendor (if that is, in fact, what happened), and that because Microsoft then confirmed that your purchase was valid, it's really now between Microsoft and the vendor.
OEM copies can be sold with things like computer mice or ethernet cards
Judging from Microsoft's 'System Builder' documentation, I don't think you even need to bother doing that. Buying and installing an OEM version of Windows onto your PC is perfectly fine and legal. But by doing so, you've now created a 'new PC' in Microsoft's eyes and so you no longer have access to any support from them, as support for OEM software is to be obtained from your system builder (namely, you, in this case). So you're legal but completely on your own. At least this is the way I read it.
I thought in science that was called a "theory"
Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but that's not at all what a scientific theory is. Really. Honestly. What you've got is a hypothesis, not a theory.
What it sounds like is just dismisal on your part instead of truely trying to "disprove" anything. Like your example above about the 100 participants, that is a great test of statistics, but hardly one that is sound enough to disprove telepathy...
I'm not dismissing anything. I'm just not accepting anything until you give me reason to. You've got the process backwards. It's impossible to "disprove" such things as telepathy. That's not the way it works. If you think telepathy is real, *you* must prove it. All everyone else has to do is show other alternatives which are more parsimonious but still fit all the facts.
Just give all theories equal chance before insisting that the earth is flat...
See, that's not what science is about. Science, properly conducted, treats every new hypothesis very harshly. Your idea has to "run the gauntlet" before it's taken seriously. The further it is from established theory, the more it's going to be attacked. Yes, this sometimes makes it slow to arrive at the truth. But this really is the way it should be. Otherwise it'd be too easy for an incorrect hypothesis to become theory.
I'm not trying to flame you here, sorry if it comes off like that...
No, no, I'm glad to have the discussion and you haven't come off like that at all. So hopefully I won't either when I say you really don't seem to have a foundational knowledge of the philosophy of science and this is causing you a bit of confusion as to what is and isn't scientific and what the real power of science is; to dissern the likely from the unlikely.
I don't think that because 99.9% of the time we are not thinking the same thing, that this "proves" that 0.1% of the time we could be..
I was not intending to prove anything; you're the one making the claim that requires proof. I was illustrating another, simpler, possibility for the situation you described. Let's take this another way- Let's say we ask 100 people to pick a number between 1 and 50. Most likely, two or more people are going to pick the same number. Now, is that because they were telepathic, or because it was statistically probable? Both answers are possible, but (I'm hoping) it's obvious to you that the latter is much more likely to be the correct one.
why is it so unbelievable that the same type of impulses can radiate out of one person's mind and interact or influence anothers?
It's not unbelievable, it's just not very likely because there's no good evidence for it despite many very smart and dedicated people trying to find that evidence.
I've always thought of it as radio stations, we perceive everything as electrical impulses that our brain interprets[...]
Woah, slow down. You've got the cart before the horse there. You're coming up with descriptions of how something works before you've even shown that it exists.
You're obviously a bright guy to be thinking about this stuff in the depth that you are. These are great and fascinating sorts of things to be interested in. In that light, I suggest you teach yourself rationalism, because it's the best tool we've got to explore the unknown. Here's a little thought to get you started: Try as hard as you can to disprove any idea you come up with. You're smart, so you'll be able to disprove most of them and throw them away. Anything left over, ask others to disprove those. Most of these will get disproved at that point. But the final few kernels that make it through might just be interesting.
There are many times where [...] my wife and I thought about something at the same time of day (within minutes of each other) but being miles apart.
That a common phenomenon that happens to all of us. It is what's known as an "Illusory Correlation." How many times have you or your wife thought about different things at the same time of day while being miles apart? Probably more than 99.9% of the time. But those times are not interesting, so you don't note it or remember it. But the other 0.1% of the time when your thoughts are both somewhat similar stands out in your mind as something interesting, when in truth it's just statistical inevitability. In truth, if you not ever once thought the same thing at the same time, then that would be something interesting.
That just about sums up the paranormal.
That's not entirely fair. There is another large catagory of people you've not accounted for, the self-deceivers. There are plenty of decent honest folk who believe all kinds of paranormal crap because they just don't have a good education in rationalism.
I'm always been surprised at the kind of reaction anything labeled "paranormal" gets from rational people. Why exactly couldn't telepathy exist? Is there some fundamental law of nature which states that two people cannot communicate over a distance without sound or visual cues? Obviously, you'd have to identify a mechanism for the communications. If telepathy exists, it isn't magic.
You're confusing the question. The question you ask, "Couldn't it exist?" is a pretty boring question with the obvious answer, "Sure." But the question that is more often asked by "paranormal" proponents is, "Does it exist?" although it's more often not a question but rather the statement "it does exist". To that, the answer from people who you call "rational" is "there's no good evidence that it does." Note this is different than saying it couldn't exist or that it doesn't exist. It's only saying there's no real evidence, and so there's no reason to treat it like it exists until some shows up.
you are, two of my co-workers were rather "rudely" treated when they thought they could walk around with just a photocopy and were stoped at a military checkpoint.
Yes, I always do the opposite. I take the passport and leave the photocopy in the hotel.
Also, who boils frogs? that's so extremely common, only the homeless plebs do that. Everybody knows, fried frog legs are the best.
Please... Everybody knows there's only two real types of frog dishes. There's frog a la peche, which is a frog done in Cointreau and with a peach stuffed in its mouth and, ah, then, of course, there's peche a la frog, which is really not much to write home about. A waiter comes to your table with a tray. He's got this huge peach on it, which is covered in boiling liqueur, you see, and he slices it open to reveal about two thousand little black tadpoles squiggling about. It's one of the most disgusting sights I've ever seen. God, it turns me over to think of it.
Hehe... 'car geek'... Call the next mechanic you see a car geek... I wonder how that'll go over...
Are you kidding? I call my mechanic a car geek all the time. There are 'muscle guy' mechanics and then there are definitely 'car geek' mechanics.
In the second case, the other user is willing to pay $10, and you were willing to pay $20, so by logic you should win the item; you were willing to pay more, so you won. Where's the problem there?
But that's not the situation in the second case. The other user is willing to pay $25, but doesn't bid correctly by bidding $25. Instead they bid $10 and figure they'll just bid higher if somebody outbids them. It's them being stupid. Sniping is taking advantage of other bidder's stupidity in not originally bidding their maximum.
Sniping only works if everyone else is sniping.
No, sniping works when somebody else is playing the 'keep bidding more than the current bid to stay the winning bidder' game. If you increase the current bid, they'll just bid a bit higher. But if you don't, they won't. So you don't, until the very end when they can't play their game anymore.
The first time the value of sniping really clicked for me was when I went truck shopping on eBay. I kept bidding a reasonable value for the trucks and kept being outbid by somebody every time. 75% of the time the same truck appeared right back on ebay a few days later because the bozos who kept outbidding me weren't really serious. Well, then I decided to snipe a truck and bam, I got the first one I sniped, no problem, and at a price that was actually lower than I was willing to pay.
So, to sum up, sniping only works if somebody else bidding is retarded. And that's a pretty good bet for eBay.
Sniping works against those who don't understand eBay.
Yes, agreed. And bidding once and early is the way I used to use eBay back in 1997. But these days, unfortunately, there are literally thousands of stupid bidders who don't understand eBay. So they'll just keep bidding and bidding until they're above your bid, no matter what the value of the item is. Stupid, yes, but that's what happens. The only way to beat these "I must win at any cost" bidders without becoming one youself is to snipe.
Ok, let's say I feel like paying $20 and bid $20 early. Then some newbie retard (ebay is full of them) comes and says, "Hmm, that guy thinks it's worth $20, so I'll pay $25". Ok, I've now just lost the item. Alternatively, nobody bids on it and newbie retard says, "I dunno, I guess I'll bid $10, since maybe I'll get it real cheap". At the last second I can then come along and snipe my $20, and win the item. Same $20 top bid, but I lose on the first auction and win on the second.
But the problem with this is that you never win the item. If you still just bid the one amount you're willing to pay, but you do it with a snipe, you're much more likely to actually get the auction item. Using a snipe program like jbidwatcher, it's just as easy to snipe as it is not to, so why wouldn't you?
I've got to disagree with you there. Homeopaths do a much more creative and fascinating job of providing sugar pills and distilled water. Homeopathic websites have provided me with hours of entertainment. I guess in truth it should upset me, but I don't really get emotionally envolved until they start applying their nonsense to veterinary medicine. That makes me go ballistic. Poor little guys have no way to say no.
This is the classic 'argument from ignorance'. To a some degree, you are correct- Lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lack. However, this is only an argument of the possibility of something existing, not that something does actually exist. That's a pretty weak argument. It can be equally applied to almost any claim. Heck, it can be applied to Santa Claus existing.
just look at the battles the homeopathic community has to fight; some of them are wackos perhaps, but many of them have treatments superior to those of "modern" medicine.
Ah, now here you make a definitive argument: Homeopathic medicine is effective. However, you don't back it up with any evidence at all (and you've infected it with the old 'modern' medicine is ridgid strawman).
To anyone who thinks Morgellon's must necessarily be a load of nonsense
You've got it backwards. People aren't saying it "must necessarily" be nonsense. They're saying the evidence is weak, so it's not necessarily what the victims say it is. There are lots of possibilities about what is going on, from it being exactly what the victims claim to it being nothing at all, to a whole rainbow of things in between. So don't just accept it so readily. That's really showing a pretty closed mind. (And this goes for Homeopathy too, btw)
While I agree that the poster you're replying to was being a bit hard, I have to disagree that the original poster is simply being a skeptic. He made his point, and then after getting dozens of interesting, thoughtful, and varied responses, he continues to say, "Nobody wants to answer my question." He's being dogmatic, not skeptical.
I'm a little confused why you think these two things are an either/or situation. It's really a combination of your two statements. Evolution is likely to occur when changing environmental pressures cause shifts in the survivability of genetic variation. This variation is brought about by mutation and sexual reproduction.
Something is very unique about humans and the evolution model does not seem to explain us very well.
You are arguing that you don't know the evolutionary process that brought about art and culture. Agreed. But you're further arguing that since you don't know how it happened, it couldn't have happened. Does that sound like a good argument to you? What you need to argue is how art and culture could never be evolved. Then you'd have something.
despite the fact that there are TONS more ants on the earth than humans, and the number of generations of ants in all of history, they never evolved to have art or culture.
Here I think you're arguing that evolution must always find the "optimal" solution. (We'll ignore that art/culture is far from proven evolutionarily optimal.) So your saying that given the same environmental conditions and enough time, all genes should end up at the same point. That's pretty divergent from most modern evolutionary theory. You're going to have to offer some proof on that point, and you've actually just offered up some pretty good proof against it.
If I've misunderstood what your saying (I can be dense sometimes), please try and rephrase your arguments.