I don't know about that. As much as I like (and use) Linux, it may be that the outcome of this SCO/Linux business well permenantly damage the drive for open source. Read this article:
Why Open Source May Be Doomed
http://www.defensecentralstation.com/100603C.html
You said I think you've just explained exactly why creationism is not a scientifically accepted explanation. We need to teach creationism because it is such a great fictional story that can be interpreted any which way to explain how the world began. Thanks for clearing that one up for me. I can just see the tests: (using just one evolution controversy)
Q. 1.) "How long did it take God to create the universe?"
A. 6 days
B. 7 days
C. 6 eons
D. However long you want to believe.
Well that is a red herring. We are not talking about time periods but as to whether creation took place at all. Ummm, I could likely say the same thing about the evolutionists. Like creationism, evolutionism is not a monolithic idea and has a great many and often contradictory variants. Evolution is not something solid like saying a triangle has 3 sides, it is not observable in this fashion (like creation).
I can just see the tests:
Q. 1.) "What process drove evolution?"
A. Survival of the fittest and it was a slow gradual process.
B. Survival of the Idlest and it was a slow gradual process
C. Survival of the fittest and it occurred in fits and starts.
D. Survival of the idlest and it occurred in fits and starts.
E. However you want to believe the process took place as long as you believe in evolution.
You also said: Who needs facts anyway? What do you mean a triangle doesn't have 5 sides? What i meant by five was actually what you call 3. Anything I tell you i read in my magic book should be interpreted to mean whatever the right answer actually is.
That sounds a lot like the evolutionsts *reinterpreting* contradictory evidence when it comes to light so as not to *break* their theory. It also sounds a lot like *finding* new evidence that was not there (Piltdown man and many others)to support and butress their quasi-religious belief in the unproven theory of evolution.
From what you say, it seems that it is more logical to think that the complex natural world with humans(arguably) at it pinnacle took place by chance occurrance. I suppose you have often seen complex systems arise out of mere randomness but I never have. I suppose that this website, a relatively complex pattern of organization, arose randomly and did not require an outside intelligence to act upon it in an orderly fashion. I suppose to theorize that we were created by an outside intelligence is less sound and more superstitious than to say that random occurences made us gradually(or not so gradually) evolve from a rock!
Who needs facts anyway?
I am not saying evolution should not be taught in schools, it is a viable if unproven idea, but that creationism should also recieve mention, as it is also a viable idea.
aye, and if the whole world had been using whatever happened to be the most common form of *nix instead of windows, there wouldn't be a single soul tempted to write a worm targetting whatever exploits that OS may have, right?
Sure there would. But the fact of the matter is that *nix is more secure than Windows. There is also the issue the M$ware that you don't really know how the thing works-you don't have the code. SO how can you really be sure you are secure?
Aye, the code's the thing, wherein we'll catch the concience of the king(Gates)
The evolutionist scientific establishment has a long history of fabricating (Piltdown Man anyone?) that favors and obfuscating or outright ignoring evidence (that is considerable) that their cherised theory might be false. In the end and under the circumstances, their faith in evoulution becomes a quasi-religious belief.
You quote: Well there is a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that the universe was created in 7 days.
Not all creationists believe the universe was formed in 6 days. And by saying so you imply that creationism is totally inclusive of this concept. Not all creationists believe in the six day period. Not even all of the biblical creationists believe the 6 day idea. Some interpret the word "day" in the bible to mean a creative "period" that could span millions or even billions of years. And some creationists don't even believe in the Bible. Your comment is disengenious.
Thats not quite right. Although the vast majority of matter is conserved in a chemical reaction, the energy released is attributable to converted matter.
Remember: E=(m)(c)(c)
This does not amount to much matter converted, however. I once read that all of the gasoline burned globally in one year releases an amount of energy equivalent to what is locked into a single gram of matter.
How horribly novel. As if a quick post on/. has to be carefully spell checked to make a valid point. All this from a moron who posts under "h4x0r-3l337". GET A LIFE ASSHOLE.
Ok I posted this on another discussion but got no satisfactory answer:
Why doesen't someone copywrite/patent/whatever a method of encryption that can be used to mask IP's and users over the p2P network, license it to kazaa/morpheus/limewire/etc for free and then DARE the RIAA to crack it and bust users? Doesen't the DMCA prohibit this kind of activity?That way we can play one monster against the other! Either the DMCA will break the RIAA or vice versa. Either way its one less to deal with!
Seriously why wouldn't this work?
Why doesen't someone copywrite/patent/whatever a method of encryption that can be used to mask IP's and users over the p2P network, license it to kazaa/morpheus/limewire/etc for free and then DARE the RIAA to crack it and bust users? Doesen't the DMCA prohibit this kind of activity?That way we can play one monster against the other! Either the DMCA will break the RIAA or vice versa. Either way its one less to deal with! Seriously why wouldn't this work?
Why doesen't someone copywrite/patent/whatever a method of encryption that can be used to mask IP's and users over the p2P network, license it to kazaa/morpheus/limewire/etc for free and then DARE the RIAA to crack it and bust users? Doesen't the DMCA prohibit this kind of activity?That way we can play one monster against the other! Either the DMCA will break the RIAA or vice versa. Either way its one less to deal with!
Umm, the microwave does not use ultraviolet wavelengths, it use microwave wavelengths, which are thos between infrared and shortwave radio.It has a longer wavelength (between 1 mm and 30 cm) than visible light.
RTFA! M$ *is* an innovator by the author's standards.
What he is arguing is that innovation is not the same as inventioned. That it is a hackneyed term used by orgs that no longer invent and must make it up by anticompetitive business practices and the stifling of true invention by others.
I beg to differ. I was a Heinlein reader in my youth, but Asimov's Galactic Empire and Foundation series of novels are pure gold. And the way he tied together these unverses with his "Robot Detective" novels (Elijah and Olivaw) late in his career was pure genius. I love Heinlein, but Asimov was in a league of his own. And, oh didn't you know that many of those 500 books he wrote were either short story compilations (nightfall is a classic) or non-fiction (on subjections ranging from math to Bible)??
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm....power turbines don't generate electricty either. Doh!
I don't know about that. As much as I like (and use) Linux, it may be that the outcome of this SCO/Linux business well permenantly damage the drive for open source. Read this article:
Why Open Source May Be Doomed
http://www.defensecentralstation.com/100603C.html
You said I think you've just explained exactly why creationism is not a scientifically accepted explanation. We need to teach creationism because it is such a great fictional story that can be interpreted any which way to explain how the world began. Thanks for clearing that one up for me. I can just see the tests: (using just one evolution controversy)
Q. 1.) "How long did it take God to create the universe?"
A. 6 days
B. 7 days
C. 6 eons
D. However long you want to believe.
Well that is a red herring. We are not talking about time periods but as to whether creation took place at all.
Ummm, I could likely say the same thing about the evolutionists. Like creationism, evolutionism is not a monolithic idea and has a great many and often contradictory variants. Evolution is not something solid like saying a triangle has 3 sides, it is not observable in this fashion (like creation).
I can just see the tests:
Q. 1.) "What process drove evolution?"
A. Survival of the fittest and it was a slow gradual process.
B. Survival of the Idlest and it was a slow gradual process
C. Survival of the fittest and it occurred in fits and starts.
D. Survival of the idlest and it occurred in fits and starts.
E. However you want to believe the process took place as long as you believe in evolution.
You also said: Who needs facts anyway? What do you mean a triangle doesn't have 5 sides? What i meant by five was actually what you call 3. Anything I tell you i read in my magic book should be interpreted to mean whatever the right answer actually is.
That sounds a lot like the evolutionsts *reinterpreting* contradictory evidence when it comes to light so as not to *break* their theory. It also sounds a lot like *finding* new evidence that was not there (Piltdown man and many others)to support and butress their quasi-religious belief in the unproven theory of evolution.
From what you say, it seems that it is more logical to think that the complex natural world with humans(arguably) at it pinnacle took place by chance occurrance. I suppose you have often seen complex systems arise out of mere randomness but I never have. I suppose that this website, a relatively complex pattern of organization, arose randomly and did not require an outside intelligence to act upon it in an orderly fashion. I suppose to theorize that we were created by an outside intelligence is less sound and more superstitious than to say that random occurences made us gradually(or not so gradually) evolve from a rock!
Who needs facts anyway?
I am not saying evolution should not be taught in schools, it is a viable if unproven idea, but that creationism should also recieve mention, as it is also a viable idea.
aye, and if the whole world had been using whatever happened to be the most common form of *nix instead of windows, there wouldn't be a single soul tempted to write a worm targetting whatever exploits that OS may have, right?
Sure there would. But the fact of the matter is that *nix is more secure than Windows. There is also the issue the M$ware that you don't really know how the thing works-you don't have the code. SO how can you really be sure you are secure?
Aye, the code's the thing, wherein we'll catch the concience of the king(Gates)
The evolutionist scientific establishment has a long history of fabricating (Piltdown Man anyone?) that favors and obfuscating or outright ignoring evidence (that is considerable) that their cherised theory might be false. In the end and under the circumstances, their faith in evoulution becomes a quasi-religious belief.
You quote: Well there is a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that the universe was created in 7 days. Not all creationists believe the universe was formed in 6 days. And by saying so you imply that creationism is totally inclusive of this concept. Not all creationists believe in the six day period. Not even all of the biblical creationists believe the 6 day idea. Some interpret the word "day" in the bible to mean a creative "period" that could span millions or even billions of years. And some creationists don't even believe in the Bible. Your comment is disengenious.
Thats not quite right. Although the vast majority of matter is conserved in a chemical reaction, the energy released is attributable to converted matter.
Remember: E=(m)(c)(c)
This does not amount to much matter converted, however. I once read that all of the gasoline burned globally in one year releases an amount of energy equivalent to what is locked into a single gram of matter.
Thanks for the article link, That technology is absolutely amazing!
How horribly novel. As if a quick post on /. has to be carefully spell checked to make a valid point. All this from a moron who posts under "h4x0r-3l337". GET A LIFE ASSHOLE.
He blew his cover and then surrendered?!
Boy what a Lamo
Ok I posted this on another discussion but got no satisfactory answer: Why doesen't someone copywrite/patent/whatever a method of encryption that can be used to mask IP's and users over the p2P network, license it to kazaa/morpheus/limewire/etc for free and then DARE the RIAA to crack it and bust users? Doesen't the DMCA prohibit this kind of activity?That way we can play one monster against the other! Either the DMCA will break the RIAA or vice versa. Either way its one less to deal with! Seriously why wouldn't this work?
Why doesen't someone copywrite/patent/whatever a method of encryption that can be used to mask IP's and users over the p2P network, license it to kazaa/morpheus/limewire/etc for free and then DARE the RIAA to crack it and bust users? Doesen't the DMCA prohibit this kind of activity?That way we can play one monster against the other! Either the DMCA will break the RIAA or vice versa. Either way its one less to deal with!
Seriously why wouldn't this work?
Why doesen't someone copywrite/patent/whatever a method of encryption that can be used to mask IP's and users over the p2P network, license it to kazaa/morpheus/limewire/etc for free and then DARE the RIAA to crack it and bust users? Doesen't the DMCA prohibit this kind of activity?That way we can play one monster against the other! Either the DMCA will break the RIAA or vice versa. Either way its one less to deal with!
Umm, the microwave does not use ultraviolet wavelengths, it use microwave wavelengths, which are thos between infrared and shortwave radio.It has a longer wavelength (between 1 mm and 30 cm) than visible light.
RTFA! M$ *is* an innovator by the author's standards.
What he is arguing is that innovation is not the same as inventioned. That it is a hackneyed term used by orgs that no longer invent and must make it up by anticompetitive business practices and the stifling of true invention by others.
I beg to differ. I was a Heinlein reader in my youth, but Asimov's Galactic Empire and Foundation series of novels are pure gold. And the way he tied together these unverses with his "Robot Detective" novels (Elijah and Olivaw) late in his career was pure genius. I love Heinlein, but Asimov was in a league of his own. And, oh didn't you know that many of those 500 books he wrote were either short story compilations (nightfall is a classic) or non-fiction (on subjections ranging from math to Bible)??