Macintosh's easy to use OS, support for MS Office, and all the games from PS3 (and maybe emulation support for PS2 and 1 games?) plus the minimac of incredible cheapness....
Its a windows killer folks.
Get your apple hating hats out, apple is the new microsoft.
I asked for well regarded biologists. You gave me one and four guys who live on the fringe shilling for the opposition in an attempt to make money while also trying desperately to avoid having to question beliefs they know can't stand up under questions.
Merriam-Webster http://www.m-w.com/defines faith (some definitions left out as irellevant to this discussion) as:
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
So, which definition of faith does belief in Evolution lie under? Obviously not belief in God. Not belief in the traditional doctrines of religion, as it is based in evidence and subject to peer review and ammendment. It is not firm belief in something for which there is no proof, as there is definiter evidence that evolutionary principles are at play in the natural world. Perhaps the final definition comes into play, as I do believe it with strong conviction. I guess the difference between you and I is that I am willing to put my beliefs into the realm of peer review and scientific testing, whereas your beliefs are based on assumptions that can not be tested and, by their very nature, deny science.
Please do not think I am telling you that you shouldn't be able to wallow in your own ignorance. Thats fine. But pelase, if you must do so, don't pull anyone else down into the mud with you, and don't presume that by splashing around in there you can get some of your filth on the rest of us.
Nice try. A cursory investigation of your examples shows that we have:
- Dr Ian Macreadie, who admits in an interview published on a creationist website that he is ridiculed by other scientists for his beliefs in regards to evolution. In addition, he believes that death was impossible before humans were around and thus that the fossil record is some kind of hoax? (I guess, its kind of hard to understand what exactly he is trying to say, other than that he thinks dinosaurs couldn't have died before the apple story in genesis brought death into the world).
- Dr. John R. Meyer, who directly profits from sales of books and materials to people trying to push the creationist agenda, notably CRS Publications, an organization that makes its living from selling this bullshit.
- Dr. Carl B Fliermans, a bioligst who specializes in soil microbiology and works primarily for the government, a job (like many) made more secure by registering as a "creationist," and yet a man who's (large and respected) body of work shows no evidence of a scientific critque of evolution as a whole. An "incedental creationist" if you will.
- Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, who (from the link you posted) has a direct personal financial interest in pushing creationism over evolution. He works for Probe Ministries http://www.probe.org/, a Religious organization that posts on their front page, "Want to know how to have a relationship with God? Donate to Probe."
- Mr. Gary Parker, who has based his professional carreer and personal financial stability largely on writing books and lecturing on creationism to people who already support creationism.
Having someone who got through college then turn around and get paid to repeatedly tell you "you're right, you know, even though all of my colleages who actually know about this stuff disagree with us," is not a valid response.
Honestly, if that is the best you can do (a five second search on google and posting some names you found on a pro-creation website without even looking at the guys beyond what the site told you) all you're doing is showing how weak your faith and your religion is, that the search for truth and understanding is considered a direct threat to its continuence.
Lucky for us, just because you say something doesn't make it so.
Perhaps if you actually studied the topic you might find the answers you seek. Just because you've put a towel over your head doesn't mean the monster can't see you.
How many scientists who do not support evolution are well regarded AND biologists?
I heard this same crap on a religious radio show once, the host read off a long list of PhDs who were creationists. They were all very famous, very well regarded, and not a single one was a biologist.
Go peddle your ignorance somewhere else, no one here is buying.
Wow, we get to vote on science now! No one told me.
I'm going to vote to repeal the speed of light, conservation of energy, and gravity so we can have Star Trek be real!
44% indeed, we almost have a majority!
Like a movie, in cases like this the art is colaborative. Everyone involved, from makeup styleists to directors to set builders have a hand in the final creation. For some reason people feel compelled to always attribute a work to the "true author," but in fact there is no true author. It is a colaborative creative effort and deserves to be recognized as such.
Before we can determine what is and is not art, we have to define art.
I believe the strongest definition of art is "communication intended to provoke thought or feelings in the observer."
The natural inclination of people is to try and judge art subjectively, breaking it into categories such as good and bad, high and low, modern and classical, etc. This is a valid approach but because it is specific to each viewer it does not serve society as well as a more objective standard might.
Instead, perhaps it would be better to judge art based on its effectiveness across a representative sample of whatever society forms the context for the art. Thus we simply survey the strength of people's reaction, both intellectually and emotionally, to the art and assign values across a spectrum, from none to very strong. Using this we can map the strength of the reaction, and thus judge which art is most effective and thus most worthy of our attention.
This kind of system would be helpful in filtering out such things as the above mentioned "unmade bed" or "pile of oranges" and help people use their limited budget of art experience time on things typically considered more effective, such as a Van Gogh painting, a Michelangelo sculpture, or a Broadway play.
Naturally, any such system will inevitably produce false positives, and thus could only ever serve as a general guideline. Any dedicated consumer of art would do well to avoid this "art snob" filter some of the time and experiment with "unmade bed" and others of its ilk, as one never knows until one tries such things whether one will find these alternative art forms provocative.
Hmm, lots of things. Various medical technologies, velcro, advanced missile technology, advanced materials science, advanced computer technology. Lots of stuff has serious roots in the space program. Not to mention that other potential future stuff like the survival of the human race in case of widespread nuclear war.
I'd branch out into content creation, and sell my stuff over the web for a dollar an episode or whatever, with an eye towards merging the two branches of the buisness into a next generation version of cable.
I'd work file sharing and bit torrent into my content distribution and allow people to watch anything they bought on my tivo player or on their computers.
Maybe even just release tivo software so people could use their windows box as a tivo machine instead of having to buy the big custom thingy I built.
If I was TiVO....
The next shuttle launch isn't going to have a full crew either.
And you can always throw the Russians into the cargo bay. Just give em five bucks and a bottle of vodka and by the time you land they'll have the place converted into a penthouse apartment with an anti-gravity bed and its own private mini-bar.
Why not launch Dick Cheney into orbit, puncture his giant skull and use his escaping ego as reaction mass to propel it?
Surely someone at NASA has some rope and a rocket to get him up there, right?...right??
Seriously though, I know some ex-X-Prize people who would love something to do now, and how hard can it be to shove a giant telescope around?
Hell, maybe we could use one of Winglee's inventions. http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/propulsion.htm l
Sorry, my fault. I had to ditch my time machine's singularity based power source last time I was in the deep past and it's been rattling around inside the Earth ever since.
My bad!
Why not just send a little space tug up there and tow the damn thing to a Lagrange point and leave it? Then we don't have to worry about it falling out of the sky onto a cute 18 year old blonde with a quirky, deadpan sense of humor and no direction in life.
Want to know how to break quantum encryption? Its easy.
Put a gun to the head of the dude who has the key and say, "Decrypt it or I put a fucking bullet in your skull."
I call it Scorsese algorythm decryption. Its exponentially faster than all that other crap.
Actually, I've noticed a strong trend away from decapitations in Hollywood movies lately. This is a very disturbing sign that in the future, our children might not be able to enjoy the satisfaction of seeing villians and their henchment suffer from the violent removal of body parts. This is an American tradition that has been around almost as long as having "God" in the pledge of alliegence, lets not let a few movie pirates take it away from us!
In conlclusion, God bless the wonderful red, red and red of the United States of Jesusland.
Slashdot Mirror
Its a windows killer folks.
Get your apple hating hats out, apple is the new microsoft.
Sometimes I hate slashdot.
Yeah, tell that to all the people doing hard time for smoking pot.
I asked for well regarded biologists. You gave me one and four guys who live on the fringe shilling for the opposition in an attempt to make money while also trying desperately to avoid having to question beliefs they know can't stand up under questions.
Heh. Just give us a few years and you'll start feeling homesick.
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
So, which definition of faith does belief in Evolution lie under? Obviously not belief in God. Not belief in the traditional doctrines of religion, as it is based in evidence and subject to peer review and ammendment. It is not firm belief in something for which there is no proof, as there is definiter evidence that evolutionary principles are at play in the natural world. Perhaps the final definition comes into play, as I do believe it with strong conviction. I guess the difference between you and I is that I am willing to put my beliefs into the realm of peer review and scientific testing, whereas your beliefs are based on assumptions that can not be tested and, by their very nature, deny science.
Please do not think I am telling you that you shouldn't be able to wallow in your own ignorance. Thats fine. But pelase, if you must do so, don't pull anyone else down into the mud with you, and don't presume that by splashing around in there you can get some of your filth on the rest of us.
- Dr Ian Macreadie, who admits in an interview published on a creationist website that he is ridiculed by other scientists for his beliefs in regards to evolution. In addition, he believes that death was impossible before humans were around and thus that the fossil record is some kind of hoax? (I guess, its kind of hard to understand what exactly he is trying to say, other than that he thinks dinosaurs couldn't have died before the apple story in genesis brought death into the world).
- Dr. John R. Meyer, who directly profits from sales of books and materials to people trying to push the creationist agenda, notably CRS Publications, an organization that makes its living from selling this bullshit.
- Dr. Carl B Fliermans, a bioligst who specializes in soil microbiology and works primarily for the government, a job (like many) made more secure by registering as a "creationist," and yet a man who's (large and respected) body of work shows no evidence of a scientific critque of evolution as a whole. An "incedental creationist" if you will.
- Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, who (from the link you posted) has a direct personal financial interest in pushing creationism over evolution. He works for Probe Ministries http://www.probe.org/, a Religious organization that posts on their front page, "Want to know how to have a relationship with God? Donate to Probe."
- Mr. Gary Parker, who has based his professional carreer and personal financial stability largely on writing books and lecturing on creationism to people who already support creationism.
Having someone who got through college then turn around and get paid to repeatedly tell you "you're right, you know, even though all of my colleages who actually know about this stuff disagree with us," is not a valid response.
Honestly, if that is the best you can do (a five second search on google and posting some names you found on a pro-creation website without even looking at the guys beyond what the site told you) all you're doing is showing how weak your faith and your religion is, that the search for truth and understanding is considered a direct threat to its continuence.
Lucky for us, just because you say something doesn't make it so.
Perhaps if you actually studied the topic you might find the answers you seek. Just because you've put a towel over your head doesn't mean the monster can't see you.
How many scientists who do not support evolution are well regarded AND biologists? I heard this same crap on a religious radio show once, the host read off a long list of PhDs who were creationists. They were all very famous, very well regarded, and not a single one was a biologist. Go peddle your ignorance somewhere else, no one here is buying.
Wow, we get to vote on science now! No one told me. I'm going to vote to repeal the speed of light, conservation of energy, and gravity so we can have Star Trek be real! 44% indeed, we almost have a majority!
Speak for yourself huuu-man, my people have long understood the basic principles of the Universe.
Like a movie, in cases like this the art is colaborative. Everyone involved, from makeup styleists to directors to set builders have a hand in the final creation. For some reason people feel compelled to always attribute a work to the "true author," but in fact there is no true author. It is a colaborative creative effort and deserves to be recognized as such.
I believe the strongest definition of art is "communication intended to provoke thought or feelings in the observer."
The natural inclination of people is to try and judge art subjectively, breaking it into categories such as good and bad, high and low, modern and classical, etc. This is a valid approach but because it is specific to each viewer it does not serve society as well as a more objective standard might.
Instead, perhaps it would be better to judge art based on its effectiveness across a representative sample of whatever society forms the context for the art. Thus we simply survey the strength of people's reaction, both intellectually and emotionally, to the art and assign values across a spectrum, from none to very strong. Using this we can map the strength of the reaction, and thus judge which art is most effective and thus most worthy of our attention.
This kind of system would be helpful in filtering out such things as the above mentioned "unmade bed" or "pile of oranges" and help people use their limited budget of art experience time on things typically considered more effective, such as a Van Gogh painting, a Michelangelo sculpture, or a Broadway play.
Naturally, any such system will inevitably produce false positives, and thus could only ever serve as a general guideline. Any dedicated consumer of art would do well to avoid this "art snob" filter some of the time and experiment with "unmade bed" and others of its ilk, as one never knows until one tries such things whether one will find these alternative art forms provocative.
I'd like to strap your capslock key to a highly explosive capsule and shoot it into space... :)
Hmm, lots of things. Various medical technologies, velcro, advanced missile technology, advanced materials science, advanced computer technology. Lots of stuff has serious roots in the space program. Not to mention that other potential future stuff like the survival of the human race in case of widespread nuclear war.
What makes anyone think they'll be able to get a new rocket into orbit?
I'd branch out into content creation, and sell my stuff over the web for a dollar an episode or whatever, with an eye towards merging the two branches of the buisness into a next generation version of cable. I'd work file sharing and bit torrent into my content distribution and allow people to watch anything they bought on my tivo player or on their computers. Maybe even just release tivo software so people could use their windows box as a tivo machine instead of having to buy the big custom thingy I built. If I was TiVO....
Maybe because one is well executed satire and the other is tired sterotyping masquerading as satire?
The next shuttle launch isn't going to have a full crew either. And you can always throw the Russians into the cargo bay. Just give em five bucks and a bottle of vodka and by the time you land they'll have the place converted into a penthouse apartment with an anti-gravity bed and its own private mini-bar.
Why not launch Dick Cheney into orbit, puncture his giant skull and use his escaping ego as reaction mass to propel it? Surely someone at NASA has some rope and a rocket to get him up there, right? ...right??
Seriously though, I know some ex-X-Prize people who would love something to do now, and how hard can it be to shove a giant telescope around?
Hell, maybe we could use one of Winglee's inventions. http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/propulsion.htm l
Punch out the assholes while they still can't prosecute you as an adult.
Sorry, my fault. I had to ditch my time machine's singularity based power source last time I was in the deep past and it's been rattling around inside the Earth ever since. My bad!
Why not just send a little space tug up there and tow the damn thing to a Lagrange point and leave it? Then we don't have to worry about it falling out of the sky onto a cute 18 year old blonde with a quirky, deadpan sense of humor and no direction in life.
Want to know how to break quantum encryption? Its easy. Put a gun to the head of the dude who has the key and say, "Decrypt it or I put a fucking bullet in your skull." I call it Scorsese algorythm decryption. Its exponentially faster than all that other crap.
Actually, I've noticed a strong trend away from decapitations in Hollywood movies lately. This is a very disturbing sign that in the future, our children might not be able to enjoy the satisfaction of seeing villians and their henchment suffer from the violent removal of body parts. This is an American tradition that has been around almost as long as having "God" in the pledge of alliegence, lets not let a few movie pirates take it away from us!
In conlclusion, God bless the wonderful red, red and red of the United States of Jesusland.