I think it boils down to one deriving their self image from where they believe they came from. If you question the ideologies that make up ones self image, people take it as if you are directly attacking them, even though you are questioning the idea that makes up that self image. So in that regard I would say Evolution == Religion == Politics (sometimes), in that if you attack one or all of those 3 areas, people take it as an attack on themselves. Hope that makes sense...
Evolution is simply a model that best fits the evidence, is it not? Wasn't the model of the earth flat at one time? I mean, it's great there is a model called evolution, but don't fool yourself into thinking it is absolutely true, no matter what additional information comes about.
Good reply, thanks. And no, creationists have no proof other than what's between the gold leafed pages. Wonder why they put that gold leaf on there anyway...
Good reply without ad hominem attacks. Both of those ideas that I presented were given from a pro creationist "preacher" have you. I posted them in part to see if someone could set me straight on those two ideas, and you did so "nicely". Thanks:)
Nothing like questioning evolution to get all these slashdotters rilled up! Never had such a fantastic response to a post in my life! I am neutral on evolution, I like to keep an open mind and be open to new ideas, but it is amazing to see how dogmatic some of you are on the issue! I do believe believing in ANYTHING regarding where life came from amounts to religion, and the people that believe in their "religion" defend it to the end.
If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the existance of an intermediate life form (monkeys) show that "natural" selection lost, as we now have humans (selected appearantly) and monkeys together (the life form that "lost"). Another is "missing" fossil evidence showing these half ape creatures morphing into man, along with all of the other itermediate life forms for every other evolved creature that's out there. So I would go so far as to say real evidence contradicts postulates of evolution, not just some ho hum redneck teacher...
Probably Patented... And if not, does your mentioning it here count as prior art? Really good look at the future of computing, especially if this device works by reading thoughts. Hell, you could morse code characters with your thoughts initially, if need be.
Sure he can "Look", but in most instances anyone in the military would be unable to say, direct macro policy. Money can be used as a weapon, yet he, and everybody else in the military do not have the skill, or desire, to get involved with addressing the threats of monetary warfare... So in that regard, there are times when they don't even have the standing to recognize what is going on, let alone address ways to handle the threats that come in a non-direct way.
It's funny, but in any great society, there is a rise, and a fall, no exceptions. So while the parent does sound crazy, there comes a point, as Einstein would love to tell you if he were still alive, to recognize the whole house of cards is about to collapse and to get the hell out. It WILL happen here (globally as well as we are tightly integrated economically), you just need to look for the writing on the wall (which parent believe was there).
The idea of socio-economic differences leading to property rights issues is not opinion my dear friend. If you did some research in macroeconomic theory you'd see this is the case!
I have this book, by chance, because a professor left it out on a table and wrote, free books. A really good read, shows that to get to the top you need skill, dedication, and some luck. Oh, and in the case of CS, a burning desire to know how the machine operates at all levels...
Basically, it comes down to this. The bad guys with or without guns, would love to rampage and pillage society, with the only thing holding them back being the police and armed citiziens. This is a huge, huge, problem here, people with no moral compass who could care less if you lived or died. The ONLY deterent to them is force, it's all they understand. If there were no threat of force they WOULD DEFINITELY form roving gangs and take all they could.
That is the problem in the states imo, we don't focus on these lower income demographic (typically) people to the degree that we should. If we brought those lower classes closer to middle class, the proerty rights issue would be of far less concern, as most people would see the error in acting like primitve animals, taking what they want as long as they feel they'll get away with it, at the cost of my life and others.
Hmm, about 10 feet from me I have an AR-15 ready to go, not chambered of course. I really don't believe it's an issue of how many guns there are, but the TYPE of people that have access to said number of guns. Also, it's really not as bad as the rest of the world believes, yes our society glorifies the use of guns, but in my entire life (27), I've never seen a gun pulled on someone in anger, nor someone shot for that matter. I believe the priority should be keeping the guns away from people who have a tendency to use them violently, and trying to reduce the numbers is like trying to control the illegal use of drugs, like prohibition, which fails spectacularly.
People will still get guns, but people like me will have no recourse when said people decide to do things that you and I would not. So in order to have an acceptable level of defense, I would be forced to live breaking the law, which I refuse to do, I would rather emmigrate than do such a thing. Of course it would be great in the ideal world for everyone to repect others property rights and lives, but that's simply not the case, especially here in the states. What's the saying... We're 24 days away from total anarchy... If the trucks stop rollin, the gangsta's start trollin', hah I made that up.
"Remember the Wizard's First Rule: "People will believe a lie either because they want to believe it's true or because they are afraid it might be true.""
Never heard that one before, but man is it accurate, esp regarding various cults and religions.
All of our weapons, bombs in particular, are guided primarily by inertial guidance systems. They rely on GPS simply to increase accuracy, though the GPS updates take a significant amount of time relative to the distance the bomb has dropped. The weapon relies on the inertial guidance for most of it's trip, using the GPS to correct for errors that occure over time because of physical constraints inherent in the inertial guidance systems. With or without GPS they will still be deadly accurate.
All of the police officer shootings where the victim had a remote or other non-nefarious object in their hands. It is quite possible that the officer had a mindset to the effect that, hey this guy probably has a gun, and his or her mind see's what they wanted to see.
Hah, not too very far from the truth, unfortunately. Still, we're far better off than the Nixon era, he would have had a stroke if the Internet were around then;-)
Heh, very close to done, on a previous article here on slashdot, a discovery come through that would do such a thing. In fact, IIRC, lithium ion batteries are already packing more power than high explosives, and close to as much energy as gasoline per unit of mass.
Hell, these people are going to die anyway, I'm sure it couldn't be THAT hard to find someone to plant some C4 in your body. No x-rays, VERY little metal, and it takes very, very, little c4 to blow a hole in the side of a highly compressed fuselage... We're talking ounces. Takes the shoe bomb to the next level.
Don't forget, if you see someone suspicious that the dog doesn't alert to, you can always pull their tail like they do when the police are looking for a "legal" way to look in your trunk!
Just watching the history channel here and they allude to a possible motive for Castro to kill Kennedy, because Kennedy was out to kill Castro. It showed an expert from a letter saying, if we're not going to be safe here in Cuba (leaders that is), neither will your leaders be safe. And pres Johnson believed that it was retalliation because of the earlier assasination attempts by Kennedy.
FTA "This study considered two aspects of each attack: the target of the attack, and the time of the attack. Using careful statistical techniques, the team identified correlations between attacks on various target types as a function of time. For instance, if there were an attack on a government target, that somewhat increased the chance of an attack on a police target over the next several days."
Sounds pretty strait forward. If you have a brazen attack against, say, a base, you can expect a higher risk of attacks on other assets. Isn't that why after the 911 attacks there were Combat Air Patrol flights over every major city for days. This is just common sense...
P.S., These laws are made by lawyers! So you have to know when they say "reason to know", they are alluding to the "reasonable person" which is the average person, and the average person knows that if enough people views their content, at least one of them will be viewing for unlawful purposes. This lead to the USDOJ comment on how said law may be in violation of the 1st, because the DOJ is seperate from congress, and knows the law as opposed to congress.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it boils down to one deriving their self image from where they believe they came from. If you question the ideologies that make up ones self image, people take it as if you are directly attacking them, even though you are questioning the idea that makes up that self image. So in that regard I would say Evolution == Religion == Politics (sometimes), in that if you attack one or all of those 3 areas, people take it as an attack on themselves. Hope that makes sense...
Evolution is simply a model that best fits the evidence, is it not? Wasn't the model of the earth flat at one time? I mean, it's great there is a model called evolution, but don't fool yourself into thinking it is absolutely true, no matter what additional information comes about.
Good reply, thanks. And no, creationists have no proof other than what's between the gold leafed pages. Wonder why they put that gold leaf on there anyway...
Good reply without ad hominem attacks. Both of those ideas that I presented were given from a pro creationist "preacher" have you. I posted them in part to see if someone could set me straight on those two ideas, and you did so "nicely". Thanks :)
Nothing like questioning evolution to get all these slashdotters rilled up! Never had such a fantastic response to a post in my life! I am neutral on evolution, I like to keep an open mind and be open to new ideas, but it is amazing to see how dogmatic some of you are on the issue! I do believe believing in ANYTHING regarding where life came from amounts to religion, and the people that believe in their "religion" defend it to the end.
If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the existance of an intermediate life form (monkeys) show that "natural" selection lost, as we now have humans (selected appearantly) and monkeys together (the life form that "lost"). Another is "missing" fossil evidence showing these half ape creatures morphing into man, along with all of the other itermediate life forms for every other evolved creature that's out there. So I would go so far as to say real evidence contradicts postulates of evolution, not just some ho hum redneck teacher...
Probably Patented... And if not, does your mentioning it here count as prior art? Really good look at the future of computing, especially if this device works by reading thoughts. Hell, you could morse code characters with your thoughts initially, if need be.
Sure he can "Look", but in most instances anyone in the military would be unable to say, direct macro policy. Money can be used as a weapon, yet he, and everybody else in the military do not have the skill, or desire, to get involved with addressing the threats of monetary warfare... So in that regard, there are times when they don't even have the standing to recognize what is going on, let alone address ways to handle the threats that come in a non-direct way.
It's funny, but in any great society, there is a rise, and a fall, no exceptions. So while the parent does sound crazy, there comes a point, as Einstein would love to tell you if he were still alive, to recognize the whole house of cards is about to collapse and to get the hell out. It WILL happen here (globally as well as we are tightly integrated economically), you just need to look for the writing on the wall (which parent believe was there).
The idea of socio-economic differences leading to property rights issues is not opinion my dear friend. If you did some research in macroeconomic theory you'd see this is the case!
I have this book, by chance, because a professor left it out on a table and wrote, free books. A really good read, shows that to get to the top you need skill, dedication, and some luck. Oh, and in the case of CS, a burning desire to know how the machine operates at all levels...
Basically, it comes down to this. The bad guys with or without guns, would love to rampage and pillage society, with the only thing holding them back being the police and armed citiziens. This is a huge, huge, problem here, people with no moral compass who could care less if you lived or died. The ONLY deterent to them is force, it's all they understand. If there were no threat of force they WOULD DEFINITELY form roving gangs and take all they could.
That is the problem in the states imo, we don't focus on these lower income demographic (typically) people to the degree that we should. If we brought those lower classes closer to middle class, the proerty rights issue would be of far less concern, as most people would see the error in acting like primitve animals, taking what they want as long as they feel they'll get away with it, at the cost of my life and others.
Hmm, about 10 feet from me I have an AR-15 ready to go, not chambered of course. I really don't believe it's an issue of how many guns there are, but the TYPE of people that have access to said number of guns. Also, it's really not as bad as the rest of the world believes, yes our society glorifies the use of guns, but in my entire life (27), I've never seen a gun pulled on someone in anger, nor someone shot for that matter. I believe the priority should be keeping the guns away from people who have a tendency to use them violently, and trying to reduce the numbers is like trying to control the illegal use of drugs, like prohibition, which fails spectacularly.
People will still get guns, but people like me will have no recourse when said people decide to do things that you and I would not. So in order to have an acceptable level of defense, I would be forced to live breaking the law, which I refuse to do, I would rather emmigrate than do such a thing. Of course it would be great in the ideal world for everyone to repect others property rights and lives, but that's simply not the case, especially here in the states. What's the saying... We're 24 days away from total anarchy... If the trucks stop rollin, the gangsta's start trollin', hah I made that up.
"Remember the Wizard's First Rule: "People will believe a lie either because they want to believe it's true or because they are afraid it might be true.""
Never heard that one before, but man is it accurate, esp regarding various cults and religions.
All of our weapons, bombs in particular, are guided primarily by inertial guidance systems. They rely on GPS simply to increase accuracy, though the GPS updates take a significant amount of time relative to the distance the bomb has dropped. The weapon relies on the inertial guidance for most of it's trip, using the GPS to correct for errors that occure over time because of physical constraints inherent in the inertial guidance systems. With or without GPS they will still be deadly accurate.
All of the police officer shootings where the victim had a remote or other non-nefarious object in their hands. It is quite possible that the officer had a mindset to the effect that, hey this guy probably has a gun, and his or her mind see's what they wanted to see.
Hah, not too very far from the truth, unfortunately. Still, we're far better off than the Nixon era, he would have had a stroke if the Internet were around then ;-)
At that point the entire article lost me due to the ineptness of the author...
Heh, very close to done, on a previous article here on slashdot, a discovery come through that would do such a thing. In fact, IIRC, lithium ion batteries are already packing more power than high explosives, and close to as much energy as gasoline per unit of mass.
Is it just me? Didn't the original terrorists that crashed the planes into the twin towers meet TSA "standards"?
Hell, these people are going to die anyway, I'm sure it couldn't be THAT hard to find someone to plant some C4 in your body. No x-rays, VERY little metal, and it takes very, very, little c4 to blow a hole in the side of a highly compressed fuselage... We're talking ounces. Takes the shoe bomb to the next level.
Don't forget, if you see someone suspicious that the dog doesn't alert to, you can always pull their tail like they do when the police are looking for a "legal" way to look in your trunk!
Just watching the history channel here and they allude to a possible motive for Castro to kill Kennedy, because Kennedy was out to kill Castro. It showed an expert from a letter saying, if we're not going to be safe here in Cuba (leaders that is), neither will your leaders be safe. And pres Johnson believed that it was retalliation because of the earlier assasination attempts by Kennedy.
FTA
"This study considered two aspects of each attack: the target of the attack, and the time of the attack. Using careful statistical techniques, the team identified correlations between attacks on various target types as a function of time. For instance, if there were an attack on a government target, that somewhat increased the chance of an attack on a police target over the next several days."
Sounds pretty strait forward. If you have a brazen attack against, say, a base, you can expect a higher risk of attacks on other assets. Isn't that why after the 911 attacks there were Combat Air Patrol flights over every major city for days. This is just common sense...
P.S., These laws are made by lawyers! So you have to know when they say "reason to know", they are alluding to the "reasonable person" which is the average person, and the average person knows that if enough people views their content, at least one of them will be viewing for unlawful purposes. This lead to the USDOJ comment on how said law may be in violation of the 1st, because the DOJ is seperate from congress, and knows the law as opposed to congress.