While I will agree that most of the systems I end up having to clean are running symantec products in the first place, I disagree on the need to nuke the install.
It is cheaper in most cases to start over, especially if some sort of sane backup is done before hand. You have to remember to goto a known clean state to update all the antivurus protections before attempting to go into the more recent updates that could be just reinfecting the computer. But I haven't seen an infected windows machine yet that can't be cleaned reasonably enough to back up data and restore it to a new install. For the most part, you can't really trust a compromised PC but with a statefull packet inspecting firewall, a good cleaning and followups over the next couple of weeks, you can reasonable be assured that it doesn't pose a direct problem either.
You know, Symantec markets it's products to be a cure for infested PCs. This leaves the consumer the impression that it will actually remove infections in an existing PC and I would think it not being able to do that would be part of the installation routine and part of Symantec's problem.
In other words, just so we are clear, The way Symatec market's it's product would lead people to believe the removal of infections was part of the support offered by the product.
Absolutely not, it does no such thing. Evolution concerns the development of life after it came to be, and explicitly does not cover the origin of life. Stating anything else only proves your own ignorance.
It relies on life to be present. If that doesn't happen, evolution could never exist. There is a symbiotic relationship whether you want to accept it or not. In the statement I thought the concept was pretty clear that we were going back in time from before evolution to the beginning.
And the funny thing is, you still have to ask where life came from, and before that, where did the elements come from, and before that where did the universe come from, and before that, where did the materials come from that allowed the big bang to happen and before that, where did the energy for those materials come from. Currently, we only ask back to the beginning of the universe and stop there with "it was just there".
I have not seen an explanation that doesn't stop at some point and says something was just there or energy came from nothing and so on. All he is doing is replacing some people's god with his own. And with light not being conceived until the 3rd day, it is in no way in conflict with some other people's gods because a day as we understand it never existed before the light.
As a long-time anti-creationist, this is news to me. The history of the fights about the Channeled Scablands are fascinating, but I don't think that Bretz was a YEC. Like Wegener's continental drift or Joseph Hart's idea's about iron deficiency, it has taken decades and decades to establish accurate scientific understanding. Is that what you are referring to?
I really don't know of any creationist ideas that contributed to the advancement of science.
Yes, that is what I was referring to. It was also A YEC that ended up pointing to the missing piece of the scabland puzzles showing that not only was it possible, but it was likely to have happened. I don't remember his name and the scientific community doesn't prop up that he was a YEC, But it was mentioned in the documentary on it that I watched. It was with the mechanism of the hydraulic differences with supercooled water verses regular water that made it likely.
Don't take it the wrong way here but you are essentially saying that if it exists in your mind, it must be true. That's no different then religion outside of not having a deity (deities) to worship. SO because you think it is true, despite the lack of observed evidence, you can criticize someone for something that never happened only because it makes sense to you. Do I have that right?
What's the difference between you and what you think they are?
One word: bullshit. The theory of evolution gives a scientific model on the observed changes within species, the observed extinction of species and the observed appearance of new species.
In no way is this model 'dependent' on how life started; it just models what happens after that. You are actively misstating the truth, which could easily be seen a mortal sin if you are a christian. (Thou shallt not bear false witness.)
Lol.. Idiot. Where do you think the life came from, without it, there is no evolution at all. Evolution is very dependent on life being present in order to evolve.
Nice one there throwing the bible reference in. While I like to play devils advocate on the subject (only because so many self proclaimed atheist don't have a damn clue to what they are disowning and speaking again) I am not a religious person so waste your bible verses, however incorrectly configured they are, and apply them somewhere where someone already gives a damn.
There is also a complete practical lack of testability whether or not the theory of gravitivity will still be a valid model in exactly 100 years. That does NOT mean anyone expects apples to suddenly fall upward in 100 years.
We are talking about testing in the future now are we? We can't even get speciation to occur without changing the definitions to match observed habits but then the definition of speciation doesn't match species and when applied outside those specifically observed habits, it doesn't make any sense. Apply it to border hound collies (dogs of the same breed) separated by an ocean. Place one in New York City and one in London, oh wait, now their pups are separate species even though they can still all be pure breed border hound collies. That's really something that makes sense right?
I had something of a WTF moment when I read your reply; it took me a moment to realize that you believe there are serious scientific alternatives to evolution.
It's not so much that I do believe there are serious alternatives to theories of evolution as it is the possibilities of other theories. Of course there is the Bubble theory that was semi-popular up till the late 70's and a few other theories. The bubble theory for instance doesn't discount evolution completely, just interspecies aspect of evolution and allows completely the development from single cell to modern life within the same species.
Right now, the issues seems to be like the global warming nazis where nothing other then what they say can be true no matter how many times they have had to go back and include the areas in question raised by others.
The school could invite speakers to discuss Lamarckian Evolution, but I don't see the merit of discussing disproven theories from hundreds of years ago for the sake of "diversity".
That's a possibility, they could also only invite people who aren't as decisive.
In this case, the legislators are incorrect in their implication that there are viable scientific alternatives to the theory of evolution. The only one that comes close, in popularity and not merit of course, is ID, which is a religious viewpoint.
Well, not really. There is the bubble theory and while it is weak on support, it still conforms to what we think we know about paleontology and biology today with a few differences. The evidence doesn't exactly disprove it either, it just the interpretation of evidence that has disclaimed it. If we get away from the Dawkins style of evangelist atheism, more of these other theories might be known to you.
Therefore, I don't understand how you can claim religion is not involved here.
Because obviously, there are things to which you don't know about. Wikipedia used to have a link on the article about the Bubble theory of evolution but it seems to be gone now, the only other references I have to it is some 1960's era science book that I picked up at a yard sale. It was instructed to me in high school too so I know it was in the school texts in the 1970's and early 80's.
The polarization of the situation in which the state legislature speaks of is actually the reason why you only know of ID as an alternative to the current Darwinian theory.
As for Dawkins "inflammatory statements torwards anyone with an opposing view": Dawkins attacks meritless propositions, challenging their supporters to reply with a rational counterargument. I don't see why intelligent discourse should be curbed simply to avoid being perceived as inflammatory.
And there in lies his problem. It isn't just merritless proposals, but all proposals that isn't what he believes in. He doesn't give the merits a chance nor does he want to allow the theories to play out in order to establish their own merits. It's sort of like insisting the world is flat because the best scientist known to man say it is and no one can change his mind. There is a possibility that the current understanding is incorrect on a number of scales and he leaves out the room for that possibility to be explored. That's his problem, he now just a preacher telling people what to think.
My "anxiety" by the way is anti-anti-science. I have nothing against religion in the broad sense, when it does not interfere with our efforts to better understand the universe.
I don't see religion in this at all. You already stated that you don't know of any alternatives to evolution inside it or outside of it which is why you jumped to religion. You probably think the current theory is fact or something, I don't know, I was taking a guess. But with religion
There was no punishment, it was just a statement of fact or what he believed to be fact. The bill I linked to (bottom of the page linked) lists the entire bill and process of determining it. It hap no punishment prescribed with it so nothing would happen.
I guess the point was that their claimed representation for society or science as a whole was little more then a claim they made. Can I announce a meeting in a far away place and vote that dogs are now fogs and expect everyone to accept that as the last word on the subject in science or society?
I think you have suffered the results of the Evangelical atheist. You have Abiogenesis and the bubble theories of evolution which are scientific theories. You have scientific works done by Young earth scientists which is now actually the accepted idea for the creation of some canyons and low lands in western the United states that were created in weeks and days instead of millions of years.
The problems isn't really the lack of other theories to compete with Evolutions, it's alternatives within evolution that could lead to a better understanding of the process. The evangelist evolutionist or evangelist atheist seem to want to lock understanding into what we know of today and only refine those processes instead of allowing other theories to play out to their validity if it might upset what he believes. It's like saying Science is the pursuit of the truth because it is always evaluating the weight of the facts and review them across the community, then saying shut up, this is the way things are, the way they always are, and I don't care what you or your evidence says. It sort of makes a religion out of science, especially concerning evolution which is apparent with Dawkins.
What the hell are you talking about? nothing in the bill says anything about religion, Dawkins has made it clear that he believe there is nothing else right on the subject except what he believes (not very scientific) and he has made inflammatory statements towards anyone with an apposing view regardless of if religion is present or not.
In the bill, they talk about other scientific theories not religions or anything. Why do you need to show your anti-religion anxiety over this?
Not to mention that a lot of the evolution theory is unprovable itself because of lack of evidence and the constrained testing. Evolution also relies on Abiogenesis and whatever happened before that (big bang) which is in even more limbo and can't really be tested completely or replicated today.
Then when you get into the entire Idea of the different theories of evolution and topics like the Bubble theory and specialization you find that a lot of evolution is glued together with hope that X is the right way because it can lead to Y.
Testable and Falsifiable are the two missing parts I guess.
So what if the state legislation felt the same way regardless of the resolution and the university funding is cut anyways. Surely is would be if they hosted pedophiles who spoke about rapping their first child. Surely the University is away that it's actions will directly influence the willingness of government funding them. If the University is this disconnected from the community and a resolution is needed to remind them, then perhaps they need more then funding cuts.
And yes, the resolution specifically states THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma. I don't see a problem with that. And it appears that the state government only sees a problem with Dawkins and his positions, not Evolution science.
Did you read what the bill says the stand is about? Seems reasonable to me if it's true, I haven't read his books so I don't know how polarizing they are.
I didn't make it about corruption, the LA times did. Did you bother reading the damn article I posted?
As for a flaw in using Google app instead of regular apps, how about the bandwidth requirements, the security requirements, and the fact that we can save more money by not renewing contract to buy new software and just using the old shit that still works if a savings is that important.
In fact, that last part is probably why the corruption fits so well and what scares you of it. If they really were concerned with saving money, they would be either looking at using what they got already, using FOSS applications that cost nothing, or using either of those to negotiate the contract prices down with MS and other providers. None of those options were mentioned, instead, it was a no-discussion on the topic push to reward Google for their support in his election.
Don't blame be because you are too blind or buffaloed to see the connections.
What next? Pi will be called Mey because someone is bored?
I don't know, has Mey been a term for PI over the last 75 plus years or so. Let's keep some context there. This wasn't in any way some arbitrary action.
Will triangle have 4 side because the governor's son doesn't know how to count? Earth will be officially a cube? The Univers will be 6000 years old by law?
Perhaps you should just look at the above post and substitute the appropriate terms if you know how.
You may be too young to remember when Pluto was actually a planet but not too long ago, a bunch of non-elected astronomers. some not even real scientist who claimed to represent everyone but there was no proof outside that claim, set arbitrary definitions and instead of making an exception for common knowledge, thereby declaring what was once a planet not a planet. This isn't about something testable in real life like the number of side to an object, it isn't about the molecular make up of water or anything other then a definition that was changed recently. I mean how dare all those idiots from 5 years ago who accepted that pluto was actually a fucking planet spew their nonsense. We must burn all their books and trash all the knowledge they contributed to science now right?
Get real here. None of the examples you came up with come close to describing what happened here. You failure to see things for what they are is not indicative of someone else doing something bad. The problem is with you, Science is not a religion and it isn't even hurt by this law in any way. Anyone studying Pluto is going to know about the definition and the law. It's no different then knowing that water is called Agua in mexico, people aren't all the sudden confused about water are they? No hell is going to break loose, so seriously think about it, where is the problem?
What make you think the government should be doing anything about the economic crisis in the first place? It's rare that they have any real effect without starting a huge war that wastes vast resources. And it's been noted that the government action as well as inaction is a big reason behind this financial crisis in the first place.
I welcome the governments wasting time on this instead of making inane policy under a false dichotomy designed to benefit their lackeys who helped elect them.
Are you attempting to say that scientist meeting in another country entirely should have more say over the governments of the country and states we live in?
It's not like anyone will ever lose a job because they at one point in time said Pluto was a planet. It isn't like making that claim disqualifies anyone from science or anything. Where is the big deal?
Actually, your wrong slightly. They didn't pass the law, someone tried to pass a law saying PI was 3.2 but it failed to become a law.
And interestingly, the bill didn't actually say PI was 3.2 in those bold of terms. It attempted to compare the differences between a square and a circle and explain the differences in a way that you could determine the area and value of pi which when you worked the math out, came to 3.2.
It's just payback for support during the election. It's how it is done in Chicago.
And before someone marks this as a troll, look at the date and the newspaper. It's a liberal rag that wrote this story long before this was known. In fact, some have speculated that the reason the government backed off the Youtube Video hosting was because of this connection and how some people pointed it out. I guess it turns out that they just want to pick their battles.
I don't really care what people think about Google's services. They could be the best in the world. What is at stake here is the obvious money for political advantage and the rewarding of a corporation for their support in getting someone elected. Is this really the change we can believe in when one of the biggest problems with government that seems to be proclaimed by the democrats is all the corporate influence in the political system. I guess this is what "Transparency in government" means, out in the open, this is what they purchased.
I never said vote for Bob Bar or run to the light. I said look around and see for yourself. The point wasn't for me to open your eyes, it was to get you to open your own eyes. The shit that was being spewed could not have came from independent thought unless that thought was intended to manipulate other people's thought.
That is somewhat disturbing, you for some reason think that if someone doesn't agree with you, they are pushing some agenda like Bob Bar or something. Fuck dude, quite smoking the glass dick. Not agreeing with someone could just be because the facts don't back up what they said. If that is somehow threatening to your worldview or existence, then you need to step away from the cult as soon as possible. All I'm doing is pointing out where the facts don't support the perceived reality, if you open your eyes, it doesn't matter what you believe or who you believe in even if it is nobody at all. What matters is that you or the OP, when you create the little world, don't base it on fallacies designed to manipulate you into their advantage. This isn't a left- right- or party issue, it's a cognitive reasoning one.
nd that, my friend, is exactly what is wrong with the way politicians think.
Yep, I would agree.
1) Change the age of consent to 14 or 15 for anyone under the age of 18. I mean, come on - I can't speak for most/.er's, but I had already lost count of the number of chicks I'd been with by the time I was 18 (I can still count "significant relationships" on my fingers, but I have no clue how many women I've slept with in my life). And, yes, some of them we took pictures (hey, my crowd was a pack of kinky little bastards...pictures, whips, handcuffs, threesomes, razors, etc.). So I guess that would technically make me a "sex offender", even though I have an incredible amount of respect for women and children, and hate real sex offenders. It used to be (at least in Texas) that as long as there wasn't more than 2 years age difference, it was legal under 18. If one party is over 18, then parental consent is required (two friends of mine, one 19 and the other 17, required a legal consent document so I know the old laws well).
I believe almost every state has a 4 year allowance if under 18 and over 13 or 14. If you were within 4 years of age, you wouldn't have been hit with anything. Taking pictures can be a federal offense though, I don't know if you would have to register or not if convicted.
Most registered sex offenders are either rapist, actual molesters, or whatever else caused them to be registered. Even if they didn't do what they were convicted for, they were charged with more then screwing someone in the same class that turned out to be more then 2 years apart in age.
For your second point, That happens and sometimes that's the excuse someone who didn't know when to stop makes. It's unfortunate when someone is wrongly convicted. I'm not agreeing with it or against it other then acknowledging it's presence and I wouldn't make it any harder for someone who was date raped to accuse the person of it.
3) For actual, verifiable rapes (forced or "date"), public hanging. Plain and simple. No tolerance for that shit. And by verification, I mean witnesses, evidence (like if a woman has a gun held to her head is raped in a private place by some fucking sicko who's smart enough to use lubrication, then finding the gun might be the only proof available besides DNA), DNA, medical examination, etc. Place a certain weight to each variable (for example - it's possible to have DNA evidence and rough sex without rape, just ask anyone who has spent 2 days high on meth and fucking non-stop), and if the evidence weight sum passes a certain watermark, it's verifiable.
So instead of making the move to supervised communities, you would just kill them. What would you do with the other sexual offenders who didn't rape anyone?
4) For anyone who abuses a child (I don't care if you're 14 or 40, if you fuck a 10 year-old, you're a sick fuck), public execution by torture. I'd be happy to volunteer a couple of days a month to the cause. Oh, and that includes anyone who possesses child pornography as well (of course, have it verified by independent, non-biased computer forensics experts so it's proven that the user wasn't just p0wned).
Most people have the same sentiment for children under 14 and 16. Why is your Ideal of 10 any better then their. One of the reasons for this is that the anterior frontal lobe which is responsible for cognitive reasoning isn't fully developed unti around age 21. In some people, it may be sooner or later but that is an average they have concluded a long time ago.
What that means is that someone over 21 has a clear mental advantage over someone under 21 with that advantage shrinking the closer to the same age they become. This is also why most states have consent laws that make under 13 rape, and between 13 and 16 statutory rape if one party is more then 3 or 4 y
It's not loosing it's cred, your just not able to understand what is being said. And to prove it, I will sumerize the points made that you so clearly missed then cryed about it.
Point 1: The freedoms the constitution protect are freedoms that it stops the government from taking away from it's citizens. Treating foreign terrorist like prisoners of war or detainies has nothing to do with the constitution and shouldn't have been in the same sentence the op made.
Point 2: It was the conservatives who made the position about preserving the constitution. Conservatives can be republicans but republicans don't have to be conservative. Again the op is completely wrong because he can't even grasp the argument (like you it seems) or tell the difference between the players on the field.
point 3: The op was again completely wrong on the Tazing of citizens when blaming it on republicans, the areas they are happening are local towns and cities controlled largely by democrats and acted on by local cops under their supervision. In fact, probably the most remembered tazing incident was the student in Florida that was zapped for asking John Kerry (a democrat) a question during his own question/answer portion of Kerry's speaking engagement. It's pointless for the op to blame a particular party for them because it's clearly happening beyond party lines.
Point 4: Bringing up Clinton's budgets is pointless because specific circumstances that were around at the time were not under the Bush administration. In fact, the first budget Bush submitted was balanced on paper and after 9/11, his subsequent budgets were scheduled to be balanced again in 4 years.
Point 5: The was not 8 years of republican rule. The republican's didn't have a majority in the senate for 5 of those years and the other 2-3, it was one vote. Nothing was getting done that democrats didn't support. Repeating the mindless bullshit that the democrats spewed out on the campaign trail without ever verifying it is risky because it is often not true.
Point 6: There is little difference between Bush and Obama on the issue of taking power. The only differences is where from, how it's used, and who gets screwed in the process. Obama seems focused on the American people, Bush seemed focused on terrorist. This was made ever so clear on the John Stewart show where he did a side by side contrast of Obama's Iraq policy verses Bushes. It's not different except they are changing the terms slightly so he can take credit for it.
There are 6 main points I made. There are some sub points but I don't particularly want to go into drawing pictures and diagrams so you can see those points. I hate to say it, but those points were pretty obvious to anyone who isn't brainwashed or completely stupid and you arguing that you couldn't see them indicates that process was somewhat effective. I would wager to think it is a little of both or one because of the other. I will allow that a couple could have been missed because of wording or grammatical errors, but you didn't get one by your own admission. And yes, that is an insult because stating the obvious often is.
Slashdot Mirror
While I will agree that most of the systems I end up having to clean are running symantec products in the first place, I disagree on the need to nuke the install.
It is cheaper in most cases to start over, especially if some sort of sane backup is done before hand. You have to remember to goto a known clean state to update all the antivurus protections before attempting to go into the more recent updates that could be just reinfecting the computer. But I haven't seen an infected windows machine yet that can't be cleaned reasonably enough to back up data and restore it to a new install. For the most part, you can't really trust a compromised PC but with a statefull packet inspecting firewall, a good cleaning and followups over the next couple of weeks, you can reasonable be assured that it doesn't pose a direct problem either.
You know, Symantec markets it's products to be a cure for infested PCs. This leaves the consumer the impression that it will actually remove infections in an existing PC and I would think it not being able to do that would be part of the installation routine and part of Symantec's problem.
In other words, just so we are clear, The way Symatec market's it's product would lead people to believe the removal of infections was part of the support offered by the product.
It relies on life to be present. If that doesn't happen, evolution could never exist. There is a symbiotic relationship whether you want to accept it or not. In the statement I thought the concept was pretty clear that we were going back in time from before evolution to the beginning.
And the funny thing is, you still have to ask where life came from, and before that, where did the elements come from, and before that where did the universe come from, and before that, where did the materials come from that allowed the big bang to happen and before that, where did the energy for those materials come from. Currently, we only ask back to the beginning of the universe and stop there with "it was just there".
I have not seen an explanation that doesn't stop at some point and says something was just there or energy came from nothing and so on. All he is doing is replacing some people's god with his own. And with light not being conceived until the 3rd day, it is in no way in conflict with some other people's gods because a day as we understand it never existed before the light.
Yes, that is what I was referring to. It was also A YEC that ended up pointing to the missing piece of the scabland puzzles showing that not only was it possible, but it was likely to have happened. I don't remember his name and the scientific community doesn't prop up that he was a YEC, But it was mentioned in the documentary on it that I watched. It was with the mechanism of the hydraulic differences with supercooled water verses regular water that made it likely.
Don't take it the wrong way here but you are essentially saying that if it exists in your mind, it must be true. That's no different then religion outside of not having a deity (deities) to worship. SO because you think it is true, despite the lack of observed evidence, you can criticize someone for something that never happened only because it makes sense to you. Do I have that right?
What's the difference between you and what you think they are?
Lol.. Idiot. Where do you think the life came from, without it, there is no evolution at all. Evolution is very dependent on life being present in order to evolve.
Nice one there throwing the bible reference in. While I like to play devils advocate on the subject (only because so many self proclaimed atheist don't have a damn clue to what they are disowning and speaking again) I am not a religious person so waste your bible verses, however incorrectly configured they are, and apply them somewhere where someone already gives a damn.
We are talking about testing in the future now are we? We can't even get speciation to occur without changing the definitions to match observed habits but then the definition of speciation doesn't match species and when applied outside those specifically observed habits, it doesn't make any sense. Apply it to border hound collies (dogs of the same breed) separated by an ocean. Place one in New York City and one in London, oh wait, now their pups are separate species even though they can still all be pure breed border hound collies. That's really something that makes sense right?
It's not so much that I do believe there are serious alternatives to theories of evolution as it is the possibilities of other theories. Of course there is the Bubble theory that was semi-popular up till the late 70's and a few other theories. The bubble theory for instance doesn't discount evolution completely, just interspecies aspect of evolution and allows completely the development from single cell to modern life within the same species.
Right now, the issues seems to be like the global warming nazis where nothing other then what they say can be true no matter how many times they have had to go back and include the areas in question raised by others.
That's a possibility, they could also only invite people who aren't as decisive.
Well, not really. There is the bubble theory and while it is weak on support, it still conforms to what we think we know about paleontology and biology today with a few differences. The evidence doesn't exactly disprove it either, it just the interpretation of evidence that has disclaimed it. If we get away from the Dawkins style of evangelist atheism, more of these other theories might be known to you.
Because obviously, there are things to which you don't know about. Wikipedia used to have a link on the article about the Bubble theory of evolution but it seems to be gone now, the only other references I have to it is some 1960's era science book that I picked up at a yard sale. It was instructed to me in high school too so I know it was in the school texts in the 1970's and early 80's.
The polarization of the situation in which the state legislature speaks of is actually the reason why you only know of ID as an alternative to the current Darwinian theory.
And there in lies his problem. It isn't just merritless proposals, but all proposals that isn't what he believes in. He doesn't give the merits a chance nor does he want to allow the theories to play out in order to establish their own merits. It's sort of like insisting the world is flat because the best scientist known to man say it is and no one can change his mind. There is a possibility that the current understanding is incorrect on a number of scales and he leaves out the room for that possibility to be explored. That's his problem, he now just a preacher telling people what to think.
I don't see religion in this at all. You already stated that you don't know of any alternatives to evolution inside it or outside of it which is why you jumped to religion. You probably think the current theory is fact or something, I don't know, I was taking a guess. But with religion
There was no punishment, it was just a statement of fact or what he believed to be fact. The bill I linked to (bottom of the page linked) lists the entire bill and process of determining it. It hap no punishment prescribed with it so nothing would happen.
I guess the point was that their claimed representation for society or science as a whole was little more then a claim they made. Can I announce a meeting in a far away place and vote that dogs are now fogs and expect everyone to accept that as the last word on the subject in science or society?
I think you have suffered the results of the Evangelical atheist. You have Abiogenesis and the bubble theories of evolution which are scientific theories. You have scientific works done by Young earth scientists which is now actually the accepted idea for the creation of some canyons and low lands in western the United states that were created in weeks and days instead of millions of years.
The problems isn't really the lack of other theories to compete with Evolutions, it's alternatives within evolution that could lead to a better understanding of the process. The evangelist evolutionist or evangelist atheist seem to want to lock understanding into what we know of today and only refine those processes instead of allowing other theories to play out to their validity if it might upset what he believes. It's like saying Science is the pursuit of the truth because it is always evaluating the weight of the facts and review them across the community, then saying shut up, this is the way things are, the way they always are, and I don't care what you or your evidence says. It sort of makes a religion out of science, especially concerning evolution which is apparent with Dawkins.
What the hell are you talking about? nothing in the bill says anything about religion, Dawkins has made it clear that he believe there is nothing else right on the subject except what he believes (not very scientific) and he has made inflammatory statements towards anyone with an apposing view regardless of if religion is present or not.
In the bill, they talk about other scientific theories not religions or anything. Why do you need to show your anti-religion anxiety over this?
Not to mention that a lot of the evolution theory is unprovable itself because of lack of evidence and the constrained testing. Evolution also relies on Abiogenesis and whatever happened before that (big bang) which is in even more limbo and can't really be tested completely or replicated today.
Then when you get into the entire Idea of the different theories of evolution and topics like the Bubble theory and specialization you find that a lot of evolution is glued together with hope that X is the right way because it can lead to Y.
Testable and Falsifiable are the two missing parts I guess.
So what if the state legislation felt the same way regardless of the resolution and the university funding is cut anyways. Surely is would be if they hosted pedophiles who spoke about rapping their first child. Surely the University is away that it's actions will directly influence the willingness of government funding them. If the University is this disconnected from the community and a resolution is needed to remind them, then perhaps they need more then funding cuts.
And yes, the resolution specifically states THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma. I don't see a problem with that. And it appears that the state government only sees a problem with Dawkins and his positions, not Evolution science.
Did you read what the bill says the stand is about? Seems reasonable to me if it's true, I haven't read his books so I don't know how polarizing they are.
I didn't make it about corruption, the LA times did. Did you bother reading the damn article I posted?
As for a flaw in using Google app instead of regular apps, how about the bandwidth requirements, the security requirements, and the fact that we can save more money by not renewing contract to buy new software and just using the old shit that still works if a savings is that important.
In fact, that last part is probably why the corruption fits so well and what scares you of it. If they really were concerned with saving money, they would be either looking at using what they got already, using FOSS applications that cost nothing, or using either of those to negotiate the contract prices down with MS and other providers. None of those options were mentioned, instead, it was a no-discussion on the topic push to reward Google for their support in his election.
Don't blame be because you are too blind or buffaloed to see the connections.
I don't know, has Mey been a term for PI over the last 75 plus years or so. Let's keep some context there. This wasn't in any way some arbitrary action.
What make you think the government should be doing anything about the economic crisis in the first place? It's rare that they have any real effect without starting a huge war that wastes vast resources. And it's been noted that the government action as well as inaction is a big reason behind this financial crisis in the first place.
I welcome the governments wasting time on this instead of making inane policy under a false dichotomy designed to benefit their lackeys who helped elect them.
Actually, that isn't as scary as you think. The biblical reference your making can logically be concluded to 3.14 and not 3 exactly.
Are you attempting to say that scientist meeting in another country entirely should have more say over the governments of the country and states we live in?
It's not like anyone will ever lose a job because they at one point in time said Pluto was a planet. It isn't like making that claim disqualifies anyone from science or anything. Where is the big deal?
Actually, your wrong slightly. They didn't pass the law, someone tried to pass a law saying PI was 3.2 but it failed to become a law.
And interestingly, the bill didn't actually say PI was 3.2 in those bold of terms. It attempted to compare the differences between a square and a circle and explain the differences in a way that you could determine the area and value of pi which when you worked the math out, came to 3.2.
Who didn't see this coming?
It's just payback for support during the election. It's how it is done in Chicago.
And before someone marks this as a troll, look at the date and the newspaper. It's a liberal rag that wrote this story long before this was known. In fact, some have speculated that the reason the government backed off the Youtube Video hosting was because of this connection and how some people pointed it out. I guess it turns out that they just want to pick their battles.
I don't really care what people think about Google's services. They could be the best in the world. What is at stake here is the obvious money for political advantage and the rewarding of a corporation for their support in getting someone elected. Is this really the change we can believe in when one of the biggest problems with government that seems to be proclaimed by the democrats is all the corporate influence in the political system. I guess this is what "Transparency in government" means, out in the open, this is what they purchased.
I never said vote for Bob Bar or run to the light. I said look around and see for yourself. The point wasn't for me to open your eyes, it was to get you to open your own eyes. The shit that was being spewed could not have came from independent thought unless that thought was intended to manipulate other people's thought.
That is somewhat disturbing, you for some reason think that if someone doesn't agree with you, they are pushing some agenda like Bob Bar or something. Fuck dude, quite smoking the glass dick. Not agreeing with someone could just be because the facts don't back up what they said. If that is somehow threatening to your worldview or existence, then you need to step away from the cult as soon as possible. All I'm doing is pointing out where the facts don't support the perceived reality, if you open your eyes, it doesn't matter what you believe or who you believe in even if it is nobody at all. What matters is that you or the OP, when you create the little world, don't base it on fallacies designed to manipulate you into their advantage. This isn't a left- right- or party issue, it's a cognitive reasoning one.
Yep, I would agree.
I believe almost every state has a 4 year allowance if under 18 and over 13 or 14. If you were within 4 years of age, you wouldn't have been hit with anything. Taking pictures can be a federal offense though, I don't know if you would have to register or not if convicted.
Most registered sex offenders are either rapist, actual molesters, or whatever else caused them to be registered. Even if they didn't do what they were convicted for, they were charged with more then screwing someone in the same class that turned out to be more then 2 years apart in age.
For your second point, That happens and sometimes that's the excuse someone who didn't know when to stop makes. It's unfortunate when someone is wrongly convicted. I'm not agreeing with it or against it other then acknowledging it's presence and I wouldn't make it any harder for someone who was date raped to accuse the person of it.
So instead of making the move to supervised communities, you would just kill them. What would you do with the other sexual offenders who didn't rape anyone?
Most people have the same sentiment for children under 14 and 16. Why is your Ideal of 10 any better then their. One of the reasons for this is that the anterior frontal lobe which is responsible for cognitive reasoning isn't fully developed unti around age 21. In some people, it may be sooner or later but that is an average they have concluded a long time ago.
What that means is that someone over 21 has a clear mental advantage over someone under 21 with that advantage shrinking the closer to the same age they become. This is also why most states have consent laws that make under 13 rape, and between 13 and 16 statutory rape if one party is more then 3 or 4 y
It's not loosing it's cred, your just not able to understand what is being said. And to prove it, I will sumerize the points made that you so clearly missed then cryed about it.
Point 1: The freedoms the constitution protect are freedoms that it stops the government from taking away from it's citizens. Treating foreign terrorist like prisoners of war or detainies has nothing to do with the constitution and shouldn't have been in the same sentence the op made.
Point 2: It was the conservatives who made the position about preserving the constitution. Conservatives can be republicans but republicans don't have to be conservative. Again the op is completely wrong because he can't even grasp the argument (like you it seems) or tell the difference between the players on the field.
point 3: The op was again completely wrong on the Tazing of citizens when blaming it on republicans, the areas they are happening are local towns and cities controlled largely by democrats and acted on by local cops under their supervision. In fact, probably the most remembered tazing incident was the student in Florida that was zapped for asking John Kerry (a democrat) a question during his own question/answer portion of Kerry's speaking engagement. It's pointless for the op to blame a particular party for them because it's clearly happening beyond party lines.
Point 4: Bringing up Clinton's budgets is pointless because specific circumstances that were around at the time were not under the Bush administration. In fact, the first budget Bush submitted was balanced on paper and after 9/11, his subsequent budgets were scheduled to be balanced again in 4 years.
Point 5: The was not 8 years of republican rule. The republican's didn't have a majority in the senate for 5 of those years and the other 2-3, it was one vote. Nothing was getting done that democrats didn't support. Repeating the mindless bullshit that the democrats spewed out on the campaign trail without ever verifying it is risky because it is often not true.
Point 6: There is little difference between Bush and Obama on the issue of taking power. The only differences is where from, how it's used, and who gets screwed in the process. Obama seems focused on the American people, Bush seemed focused on terrorist. This was made ever so clear on the John Stewart show where he did a side by side contrast of Obama's Iraq policy verses Bushes. It's not different except they are changing the terms slightly so he can take credit for it.
There are 6 main points I made. There are some sub points but I don't particularly want to go into drawing pictures and diagrams so you can see those points. I hate to say it, but those points were pretty obvious to anyone who isn't brainwashed or completely stupid and you arguing that you couldn't see them indicates that process was somewhat effective. I would wager to think it is a little of both or one because of the other. I will allow that a couple could have been missed because of wording or grammatical errors, but you didn't get one by your own admission. And yes, that is an insult because stating the obvious often is.