Yeah. I wonder if they've also got a Frenchman detector. They could train it by asking a few Texan students to speak in a French accent. That would be no less brainless than this nonsense.
Well, you know, without the whole 'kill the Jews' part...
I love how everyone gets on their high horse about Nazi racism then shoots them in the foot by being racist, sexist and various other -ists themselves.
Romanies (aka Gypsies), Poles, political dissidents, homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled and many more were "exterminated" by the regime as well, but somehow the Jews get singled out in the collective consciousness as the victims. I'm not sure whether that's pro-Semitic or anti-Semitic.
The Nazis Killed People. Let's not be racist about it.
If the army has trained tradesmen, how could American companies rake in the pork from "reconstructing" the cities flattened during their various illegal invasions (Iraq, Afghanistan) and low-contact engagements (eg Serbia/Kosovo -- "no need to get shot -- let's stand back and drop bombs on them. Chinese embassy? Oops! Civilian utilities -- water; electricity? Oops!" Heck, they even managed to bomb the Wrong Country (Bulgaria).)
Yes sir. We will be happy to freedom your ass and the goddamn commie hippy fundamentalist terrorist bullshit you keep inside it. Please step this way sir.
Are you still allowed to redistribute Firefox? Are you still allowed to modify it and recompile it? Then the license agreement isn't just for "End users", is it? An end user is a leaf on the distribution tree, but with Firefox, you can be a branching node -- ergo not an end user, yet the license still applies.
I would argue that point. I could understand 100K$ from an author who does nothing but write, however, I know colleagues that write books in their spare time. Other than their time, they spend money approaching 0$ to make that book.
I'm sorry, but this is not "spare time" in the normal time -- it is time spent working on something of value with the intention of earning. A teacher doesn't spend every weekday evening for three years writing his masterwork just for the fun of it -- He Wants Cash.
I wouldn't go there if I were you. According to companies like Monsanto, sharing seed stock (from the apples) breaches the bag agreements and they could come down on you like a ton of bricks.
I hate Monsanto, but this is actually a very good comparison. Monsanto have spent billions developing their seeds -- they need to make billions to break even, and they sure as hell want a profit. Some of their practices are shadier than Mr Shady McShady of Shady Wood, but there is a genuine need to recoup their research money.
I dont pay the farmer "lifetime+50 years" of sustenance for that bag of apples. Why's it different for artsy types?
The difference is that a farmer can produce many thousands of individual apples a year. If we take the price of a paperback and assume that the writer should be paid this once for each unique book he writes, we would find that every author would have to write a novel every hour to make a living, and a band would have to write and record an album in 15 minutes -- a quarter of the running time of the resulting CD.
If you don't want TV, movies, music or books, don't buy them. But don't take some moral high ground, insisting that they should "produce for love of the art" or that "someone else has already paid them". This is patently false.
That's the thing. I dont need to come up with a workable solution.
Yes you do. Your are the one that's pro^H^H^Himposing your own model on the market. You propose this model even though you've left a gaping big hole in it. What I'm saying is that "we should pay authors", which is the status quo. You're proposing that "someone else should pay the authors" and proceeding to work on the assumption that someone else is indeed paying the authors without any evidence to support it!
As of right now, I can download nearly every movie in the theaters. I can also download any amount of music, including complete discographies. I can also download season of shows in one fell swoop. I can collect every OS out there like they're going out of style, proprietary or not. I can get any amount of commercial and industrial apps to run darn near every process.
And as of right now, I can buy a big meat cleaver from the local chinese supermarket, kidnap people and chop their left feet off. I hope you can see that "can" does not equal "should". This is the core principle of something we call "society" -- we agree certain rules between us to ensure everyone gets a fair chance. One of those rules is paying for stuff, physical or not.
Overlong durations and patent abuse are major major major problems for society, I agree, but your attitude doesn't help! You act like a so-called "freetard" and people will belittle you for it. It's easier to ignore someone's views when they paint themselves as unreasonable. But it doesn't just hurt your argument -- all the moderate reformers get tarred with that same brush. If you want IP reform, don't be a freetard, be a reasonable human being.
First of all, I agree with the principle the textbook market in the US is verging on extortion -- regulation should be introduced to ban the "wrecking" practices used to artificially obsolete previous editions. However....
A digital work is the price it costs to duplicate. That's what I pay.
A digital work is the content, not the medium. Consider your computer. Each of the components in your computer costs comparitively little to build, but the fabrication plants have astronomical set-up costs. They have to make incredibly complicated machinery and then house them in careful controlled environments, evacuating half the atmosphere in order to remove any dust that may have accumulated in the building or machinery during assembly.
The actual unit costs are nothing compared to this, but you were obviously willing to pay a couple of hundred dollars towards these set-up fees in order to enjoy the privileges of computer ownership.
The setup costs of a book is mainly the time of the authors and editors, probably in the region of $100,000 (conservatively). Those setup costs are shared between units sold. The unit production cost is not the final arbiter of either cost or value, so should not be the final arbiter of price.
I'm sure SOMEBODY paid the original creator for the time to create.
Have you heard of royalties? The author is paid by number of units sold.
This isn't all that different to physical goods. A farmer may grow a crop of excellent apples, but he isn't paid simply for growing them -- he needs to sell them.
If the creator of a digital good wasnt compensated during the time of creation, he was doing something wrong.
Let's look at this logically. You don't believe in royalties. Fine. What's the alternative? That someone pays upfront. Why would someone pay $100,000 up front? Because they expect to get that money back. Where from? Sales. But you're claiming those sales are valueless, because the author has already been paid.
Now I must be thick, because I missing the point in your model which explains why someone's going to stump up $100,000 dollars for something of zero value.
That's a bit short-sighted because Amiga & PC 3.5" disks were functionally identical, as were early CD-ROMs. How was piracy less likely on a PC than an Amiga? I can only think of one reason: smaller market to start off with.
but investments distinguish themselves, even though they also involve risk of loss, due to the possibility that they can create new wealth which indirectly improves the lives of everyone living in that economy (quality of life at least in a material sense is roughly proportional to the amount of goods and services produced per person in an economy). Those facts are really not disputable, almost every economist that you could find anywhere would be substantially in agreement with those statements.
Shenanigans!
"Stocks" is not a synonym for investment.
If I buy shares at an initial offering, I am "investing" in the company. This has the opportunity of creating new wealth (if such a thing is truly possible).
If I buy shares on the stock market, this money does not go into the company. It does not alter the material state of the company or its bank balance.
If I do not alter the material state of the company, I cannot be creating anything.
What's your gamble of choice? In my family it was always horses.
Suppose that I make you a loan so that you can start a basket weaving business and the business profits and you pay back the loan with interest. Is that gambling? Certainly not.
In this case, you are the stable owner, not the punter, so of course it's not gambling.
When my grandpa wanted to put a bet on, he would study the form, check the weather reports and add in a pinch of "hunch". That was gambling.
When you trade in stocks (assuming you're a small investor and that you don't buy in at IPO) you are not making any material change to the business -- you are not in control. You're gambling, but working from a form book like my grandpa did.
I work for a multinational, and when any one of us from outside the US is seconded to our Texas offices, the guys are amazed at the amount of time we're out of the office. "Another vacation?!?"
Now, if your uneducated father had lost his job just before your brother was diagnosed... well, it doesn't bear thinking about, does it?
Your system isn't completely broken by any means, but I certainly wouldn't want to live under it.
There's still a big difference between one guy who thinks he might have met the FSM while drunk and a dozen or so Abrahamic prophets who say that they weren't drunk and definitely spoke to god face-to-face.
If we rely solely on self-reference and disallow other methods, then your argument about us knowing for a fact that the FSM is made up is irrelevant because we can only use the self-reference as evidence...
That's a big "if", matey bubbles.
A religious person doesn't have to disregard external evidence to believe his particular deity exists, because there is no external evidence against the existence of such a deity. There is external evidence against the literal interpretation of scriptures (eg at the time the Canaanites escaped slavery in Egypt, archeology tells us that the city of Jericho was made of tents, so had no walls to come tumblin' down. But this does not in-and-of-itself disprove the existence of the Abrahamic god.
Your suggestion of the Henderson mindwipe is interesting, but it has the same flaw as Russell's teapot: you are attesting to the existence of something that no-one has ever conciously observed -- organised religion holds up what they claim to be witness testimony.
This witness testimony is evidence, although we must consider whether it qualifies as hearsay and whether it resembles a known psychological disorder or the effects of a particular narcotic substance when evaluating its usefulness.
And so it was that Rome gave Hal, he who was low of stature, an American Express Platinum Card in exchange for handing over Tortellinus, he who is called Son of FSM. [jbezorg 12:5]
After the boiling, Pontius Kenwood, head chef of Deli Roma, led Tortelinus to the plate where he was scourged with pesto and crowned with shavings of parmesan. [jberzorg 12:14]
And on the third day, he rose again, in accordance with the Health Inspectorate report decrying the unsanitory conditions in Deli Roma [jbezorg 12:20]
Oh really? So if I say the world is in fact a cube orbiting around a great spaghetti monster and write it down... that piece of paper is evidence to my or someone else's claims this is the truth?
If you wrote it down and published it, you never know, someone might cite you in an academic paper on the subject -- using your theory as evidence.
In academic terms, the Bible is not a prime source -- it is a series of citations of other papers. This indeed makes it very flimsy, but as we do not have the direct testimony of Noah, Moses or anyone else mentioned therein as a prime source, academics would resort to the Bible as a secondary or tertiary source.
When evidence is this thin, scientists don't call it evidence.
Yes they do. You're getting confused because we talk commonly talk about "evidence" in a collective sense. "The evidence suggests" really means "there is more evidence to suggest this than there is to suggest otherwise" -- it's just quicker to tally all the evidence into a single bundle.
Just because no-one can REALLY (in the philosophical sense) prove gravity ("What if the 1 million to the power of a millionth time you drop something it doesn't fall?") doesn't mean we can't call it fact. Same goes with something so unlikely as what is described in the bible...
Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. We have positive evidence of the existence of gravity. We have no substantial evidence of the existence of a supreme being -- this does not mean that we have evidence of the non-existence of such a being.
which in facts contradicts itself on numerous occasions.
This is evidence of the fallibility of the Bible, which reduces its credibility as evidence. But it doesn't prove that the Christian God doesn't exist.
[*] Creationism is a great topic for a practical philosophy class.
No it isn't, and I'm tired of people making this semi-intellectual argument.
See, if you'd been taught philosophy you wouldn't say that.
There's nothing untestable about God... if He exists and exerts influence over this world, it can be proven or disproven
"Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test".
If a supreme being is all-powerful and can manipulate all reality then it makes sense that he can chose whether to be observed or not. If he has explicitly said "you're not testing me", then there is no point trying to test him.
So if God exists as the omnipotent entity described in the Bible, and has rejected calls for evidence as claimed in the Bible, then failing to find any evidence does not disprove the theory, because the theory already predicts that you will fail to find evidence.
This is what we call intractable.
You cannot scientifically say that God doesn't exist. You cannot say that there is no reason to believe in God. What you can say is that there is no good reason to believe in God.
quote>
If He exists and exerts NO influence over the world, he might as well not exist and His existence is just as likely to be true as the Spaghetti monster, etc.
Strawman! We know for a fact that the FSM is made up, so it would be inconceivable to believe He and His Noodly Appendage exist. We do not know for a fact that the Bible was fabricated. The two situations are incomparable. If you say otherwise... well, you may as well be saying that the fact that Coma Patient X must have taken a coma-inducing drug because Coma Patient Y is in a coma because of a coma-inducing drug and their current symptoms are the same. (Coma Patient X may have taken the drug -- I don't know. Maybe he had a stroke or something -- I don't know. I only have the evidence for patient Y. This doesn't allow me to make any firm conclusions on X.)
Now I'm sure you're feeling really angry. Why? Because y
I do not know, and would not be able to do so without either a detailed family history or a DNA sample. You effectively said "look at her -- Asian genes".
Your mind is narrower than her eyes -- it is scientifically naive to assume that superficial similarities in phenotype reflect similarities in genotype. Eels, snakes and worms look similar from the outside; bees, birds and bats all have wings; and sharks and cetaceans look extremely similar looking into the water. Yet these groups are genetically very diverse.
You've made an assertion with no substantial evidence. I do not need to make any counter assertions. All I have to do is point out the lack of evidence in your assertion.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. I wonder if they've also got a Frenchman detector. They could train it by asking a few Texan students to speak in a French accent. That would be no less brainless than this nonsense.
HAL.
Yeah, but aren't the people who ran the markets last month NINJAs this month...?
Well, you know, without the whole 'kill the Jews' part...
I love how everyone gets on their high horse about Nazi racism then shoots them in the foot by being racist, sexist and various other -ists themselves.
Romanies (aka Gypsies), Poles, political dissidents, homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled and many more were "exterminated" by the regime as well, but somehow the Jews get singled out in the collective consciousness as the victims. I'm not sure whether that's pro-Semitic or anti-Semitic.
The Nazis Killed People. Let's not be racist about it.
The Philippines? Costa Rica? Cuba. Not to mention Hawai'i. I'm sure there were others in the Far East, but my American history ain't great.
If the army has trained tradesmen, how could American companies rake in the pork from "reconstructing" the cities flattened during their various illegal invasions (Iraq, Afghanistan) and low-contact engagements (eg Serbia/Kosovo -- "no need to get shot -- let's stand back and drop bombs on them. Chinese embassy? Oops! Civilian utilities -- water; electricity? Oops!" Heck, they even managed to bomb the Wrong Country (Bulgaria).)
HAL.
Ah, the old "you have no right to protest because we fought for your right to protest".
Gotta love the childlike logic.
HAL.
Ah, the old "at least our inhuman b@st@rds are less inhuman than their inhuman b@st@ards" argument.
Inhuman b@st@rd.
HAL.
Yes sir. We will be happy to freedom your ass and the goddamn commie hippy fundamentalist terrorist bullshit you keep inside it. Please step this way sir.
Are you still allowed to redistribute Firefox? Are you still allowed to modify it and recompile it? Then the license agreement isn't just for "End users", is it? An end user is a leaf on the distribution tree, but with Firefox, you can be a branching node -- ergo not an end user, yet the license still applies.
HAL.
I would argue that point. I could understand 100K$ from an author who does nothing but write, however, I know colleagues that write books in their spare time. Other than their time, they spend money approaching 0$ to make that book.
I'm sorry, but this is not "spare time" in the normal time -- it is time spent working on something of value with the intention of earning. A teacher doesn't spend every weekday evening for three years writing his masterwork just for the fun of it -- He Wants Cash.
I wouldn't go there if I were you. According to companies like Monsanto, sharing seed stock (from the apples) breaches the bag agreements and they could come down on you like a ton of bricks.
I hate Monsanto, but this is actually a very good comparison. Monsanto have spent billions developing their seeds -- they need to make billions to break even, and they sure as hell want a profit. Some of their practices are shadier than Mr Shady McShady of Shady Wood, but there is a genuine need to recoup their research money.
I dont pay the farmer "lifetime+50 years" of sustenance for that bag of apples. Why's it different for artsy types?
The difference is that a farmer can produce many thousands of individual apples a year. If we take the price of a paperback and assume that the writer should be paid this once for each unique book he writes, we would find that every author would have to write a novel every hour to make a living, and a band would have to write and record an album in 15 minutes -- a quarter of the running time of the resulting CD.
If you don't want TV, movies, music or books, don't buy them. But don't take some moral high ground, insisting that they should "produce for love of the art" or that "someone else has already paid them". This is patently false.
That's the thing. I dont need to come up with a workable solution.
Yes you do. Your are the one that's pro^H^H^Himposing your own model on the market. You propose this model even though you've left a gaping big hole in it. What I'm saying is that "we should pay authors", which is the status quo. You're proposing that "someone else should pay the authors" and proceeding to work on the assumption that someone else is indeed paying the authors without any evidence to support it!
As of right now, I can download nearly every movie in the theaters. I can also download any amount of music, including complete discographies. I can also download season of shows in one fell swoop. I can collect every OS out there like they're going out of style, proprietary or not. I can get any amount of commercial and industrial apps to run darn near every process.
And as of right now, I can buy a big meat cleaver from the local chinese supermarket, kidnap people and chop their left feet off. I hope you can see that "can" does not equal "should". This is the core principle of something we call "society" -- we agree certain rules between us to ensure everyone gets a fair chance. One of those rules is paying for stuff, physical or not.
Overlong durations and patent abuse are major major major problems for society, I agree, but your attitude doesn't help! You act like a so-called "freetard" and people will belittle you for it. It's easier to ignore someone's views when they paint themselves as unreasonable. But it doesn't just hurt your argument -- all the moderate reformers get tarred with that same brush. If you want IP reform, don't be a freetard, be a reasonable human being.
First of all, I agree with the principle the textbook market in the US is verging on extortion -- regulation should be introduced to ban the "wrecking" practices used to artificially obsolete previous editions. However....
A digital work is the price it costs to duplicate. That's what I pay.
A digital work is the content, not the medium. Consider your computer. Each of the components in your computer costs comparitively little to build, but the fabrication plants have astronomical set-up costs. They have to make incredibly complicated machinery and then house them in careful controlled environments, evacuating half the atmosphere in order to remove any dust that may have accumulated in the building or machinery during assembly.
The actual unit costs are nothing compared to this, but you were obviously willing to pay a couple of hundred dollars towards these set-up fees in order to enjoy the privileges of computer ownership.
The setup costs of a book is mainly the time of the authors and editors, probably in the region of $100,000 (conservatively). Those setup costs are shared between units sold. The unit production cost is not the final arbiter of either cost or value, so should not be the final arbiter of price.
I'm sure SOMEBODY paid the original creator for the time to create.
Have you heard of royalties? The author is paid by number of units sold.
This isn't all that different to physical goods. A farmer may grow a crop of excellent apples, but he isn't paid simply for growing them -- he needs to sell them.
If the creator of a digital good wasnt compensated during the time of creation, he was doing something wrong.
Let's look at this logically. You don't believe in royalties. Fine. What's the alternative? That someone pays upfront. Why would someone pay $100,000 up front? Because they expect to get that money back. Where from? Sales. But you're claiming those sales are valueless, because the author has already been paid.
Now I must be thick, because I missing the point in your model which explains why someone's going to stump up $100,000 dollars for something of zero value.
And now I've lost all my mods. >fume<
HAL.
How about Live CD game distros for the ultimate optimised console-like gaming experience?
Insert and boot
Quick loading (X/graphical libraries trimmed to requirements
No conflicts with installed software.
Linux live gaming CDs FTW!
That's a bit short-sighted because Amiga & PC 3.5" disks were functionally identical, as were early CD-ROMs. How was piracy less likely on a PC than an Amiga? I can only think of one reason: smaller market to start off with.
Madness.
HAL.
Yes -- that's exactly it.
That's the one.
Why oh why can't we mod "+1 Troll"...?
but investments distinguish themselves, even though they also involve risk of loss, due to the possibility that they can create new wealth which indirectly improves the lives of everyone living in that economy (quality of life at least in a material sense is roughly proportional to the amount of goods and services produced per person in an economy). Those facts are really not disputable, almost every economist that you could find anywhere would be substantially in agreement with those statements.
Shenanigans!
"Stocks" is not a synonym for investment.
If I buy shares at an initial offering, I am "investing" in the company. This has the opportunity of creating new wealth (if such a thing is truly possible).
If I buy shares on the stock market, this money does not go into the company. It does not alter the material state of the company or its bank balance.
If I do not alter the material state of the company, I cannot be creating anything .
HAL.
I shouldn't bite either, but here goes.
What's your gamble of choice? In my family it was always horses.
Suppose that I make you a loan so that you can start a basket weaving business and the business profits and you pay back the loan with interest. Is that gambling? Certainly not.
In this case, you are the stable owner, not the punter, so of course it's not gambling.
When my grandpa wanted to put a bet on, he would study the form, check the weather reports and add in a pinch of "hunch". That was gambling.
When you trade in stocks (assuming you're a small investor and that you don't buy in at IPO) you are not making any material change to the business -- you are not in control. You're gambling, but working from a form book like my grandpa did.
HAL.
His post isn't a flat out troll.
I work for a multinational, and when any one of us from outside the US is seconded to our Texas offices, the guys are amazed at the amount of time we're out of the office. "Another vacation?!?"
Now, if your uneducated father had lost his job just before your brother was diagnosed... well, it doesn't bear thinking about, does it?
Your system isn't completely broken by any means, but I certainly wouldn't want to live under it.
HAL.
Fun? Fun?!?!?
If you want fun, get an Atari. Otherwise join us in the great game of navel gazing[*].
HAL.
[*] Well, if you have to look inside your jacket, what else will you see?
There's still a big difference between one guy who thinks he might have met the FSM while drunk and a dozen or so Abrahamic prophets who say that they weren't drunk and definitely spoke to god face-to-face.
HAL.
If we rely solely on self-reference and disallow other methods, then your argument about us knowing for a fact that the FSM is made up is irrelevant because we can only use the self-reference as evidence...
That's a big "if", matey bubbles.
A religious person doesn't have to disregard external evidence to believe his particular deity exists, because there is no external evidence against the existence of such a deity. There is external evidence against the literal interpretation of scriptures (eg at the time the Canaanites escaped slavery in Egypt, archeology tells us that the city of Jericho was made of tents, so had no walls to come tumblin' down. But this does not in-and-of-itself disprove the existence of the Abrahamic god.
Your suggestion of the Henderson mindwipe is interesting, but it has the same flaw as Russell's teapot: you are attesting to the existence of something that no-one has ever conciously observed -- organised religion holds up what they claim to be witness testimony.
This witness testimony is evidence, although we must consider whether it qualifies as hearsay and whether it resembles a known psychological disorder or the effects of a particular narcotic substance when evaluating its usefulness.
HAL.
I bagsy[*] Judas.
And so it was that Rome gave Hal, he who was low of stature, an American Express Platinum Card in exchange for handing over Tortellinus, he who is called Son of FSM. [jbezorg 12:5]
After the boiling, Pontius Kenwood, head chef of Deli Roma, led Tortelinus to the plate where he was scourged with pesto and crowned with shavings of parmesan. [jberzorg 12:14]
And on the third day, he rose again, in accordance with the Health Inspectorate report decrying the unsanitory conditions in Deli Roma [jbezorg 12:20]
HAL.
Oh really? So if I say the world is in fact a cube orbiting around a great spaghetti monster and write it down... that piece of paper is evidence to my or someone else's claims this is the truth?
If you wrote it down and published it, you never know, someone might cite you in an academic paper on the subject -- using your theory as evidence.
In academic terms, the Bible is not a prime source -- it is a series of citations of other papers. This indeed makes it very flimsy, but as we do not have the direct testimony of Noah, Moses or anyone else mentioned therein as a prime source, academics would resort to the Bible as a secondary or tertiary source.
When evidence is this thin, scientists don't call it evidence.
Yes they do. You're getting confused because we talk commonly talk about "evidence" in a collective sense. "The evidence suggests" really means "there is more evidence to suggest this than there is to suggest otherwise" -- it's just quicker to tally all the evidence into a single bundle.
Just because no-one can REALLY (in the philosophical sense) prove gravity ("What if the 1 million to the power of a millionth time you drop something it doesn't fall?") doesn't mean we can't call it fact. Same goes with something so unlikely as what is described in the bible...
Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. We have positive evidence of the existence of gravity. We have no substantial evidence of the existence of a supreme being -- this does not mean that we have evidence of the non-existence of such a being.
which in facts contradicts itself on numerous occasions.
This is evidence of the fallibility of the Bible, which reduces its credibility as evidence. But it doesn't prove that the Christian God doesn't exist.
[*] Creationism is a great topic for a practical philosophy class.
No it isn't, and I'm tired of people making this semi-intellectual argument.
See, if you'd been taught philosophy you wouldn't say that.
There's nothing untestable about God... if He exists and exerts influence over this world, it can be proven or disproven
"Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test".
If a supreme being is all-powerful and can manipulate all reality then it makes sense that he can chose whether to be observed or not. If he has explicitly said "you're not testing me", then there is no point trying to test him.
So if God exists as the omnipotent entity described in the Bible, and has rejected calls for evidence as claimed in the Bible, then failing to find any evidence does not disprove the theory, because the theory already predicts that you will fail to find evidence.
This is what we call intractable.
You cannot scientifically say that God doesn't exist. You cannot say that there is no reason to believe in God. What you can say is that there is no good reason to believe in God.
quote>
If He exists and exerts NO influence over the world, he might as well not exist and His existence is just as likely to be true as the Spaghetti monster, etc.
Strawman! We know for a fact that the FSM is made up, so it would be inconceivable to believe He and His Noodly Appendage exist. We do not know for a fact that the Bible was fabricated. The two situations are incomparable. If you say otherwise... well, you may as well be saying that the fact that Coma Patient X must have taken a coma-inducing drug because Coma Patient Y is in a coma because of a coma-inducing drug and their current symptoms are the same. (Coma Patient X may have taken the drug -- I don't know. Maybe he had a stroke or something -- I don't know. I only have the evidence for patient Y. This doesn't allow me to make any firm conclusions on X.)
Now I'm sure you're feeling really angry. Why? Because y
I do not know, and would not be able to do so without either a detailed family history or a DNA sample. You effectively said "look at her -- Asian genes".
Your mind is narrower than her eyes -- it is scientifically naive to assume that superficial similarities in phenotype reflect similarities in genotype. Eels, snakes and worms look similar from the outside; bees, birds and bats all have wings; and sharks and cetaceans look extremely similar looking into the water. Yet these groups are genetically very diverse.
You've made an assertion with no substantial evidence. I do not need to make any counter assertions. All I have to do is point out the lack of evidence in your assertion.
HAL.