This is nonsense. Web based applications are certainly only going to become more common... but your implication that soon everything will be over the web is silly. The right tool for the right job my friend.
Because many of the most powerful environmental lobbies are just a bunch of fanatics who throw around the word "science" even though their hatred of nuclear power is more of a religion.
The first step of every modern tyrant is to confiscate firearms. (Note, this is not to say that everyone who wants to confiscate weapons is a tyrant). Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, etc.
The point is not that a guy with a handgun is going to stop a tank. There are 2 points to make:
1) A crowd the size of the protests currently happening in Iran actually is something to be feared if they are armed.
2) A complete reliance on the state for one's protection creates a complacency and an orwellian love for "big brother". This point is more subtle than the first, but the more I study the issue, the more I realize how important it is. If a person is forced to rely entirely on the state (usually a police force) for his/her protection, this is not a good thing. Responsible gun ownership reminds one that even though good police protection is a wonderful thing, if there were no police, one would still be able to get along with one's life. This autonomy from the state is a good thing.
First things first: it is hugely unethical to "expose" a blogger who wishes to remain anonymous. The newspaper should be ashamed of itself, and I recommend unsubscribing if you subscribe to it currently. Also, send them a letter telling them why you are unsubscribing.
That said.... what was the court supposed to do? Penalize the newspaper for doing investigative journalism? Throw the editor in jail for finding out the name of a blogger? "Court Rules Against Blogger Anonymity" is a bit overdone, don't you think?
Yeah, I don't mind the ribbons either. I think they are actually nicer than the menus that became the standard a long time ago.
But you are right, the issue is that you never see that interface except in office.
They include some package in the latest Visual Studio that allowed you to put a ribbon on your application, but it cost extra. A lot extra. Which seems crazy because you would think that they would want people using the stupid format.
* Why do we have vestigial fingers on our feet?
* Why do our nasal passages drain into our lungs?
* Why are our ankles so damn thin and weak compared to our weight and height?
* Why are our ribs "designed" to carry weight horizontally?
* Why are some whales born with legs?
* Why do our eyes have blood vessels directly in front of our field of vision?
The answer to all you questions is: "natural selection and genetic mutations" ie, evolution. As I said before, I do not dispute these scientific phenomena. My dispute is with those who claim that the long term development of life is easier attributed to randomness than it is to an inherit design.
That said, while you accuse others of not understanding what ID actually is, I contend that you do not understand what evolution is.
The reason I divided this discussion into two steps is precisely because I wanted to address what the scientific theory of evolution explains, and what it does not. It DOES explain #1. It does not explain #2. It would seem that you understand this, my previous comment was intended for those that do not.
Precisely. In otherwords there is an inherit intellegence that guides things, not randomeness. I will say it again: inherit intellegence != God. Think of how people somehow say "my software has enough intellegence in it to detect ______ and avoid it." There is an intellegence build into the system that controls how it functions.
Not wanting ID taught in science class isn't the kneejerk belief that God doesn't exist, it's the belief that until ID becomes a valid scientific theory (based on measurable evidence, and able to be proven false), it doesn't belong in science class.
Fair enough. I never said that it should be. I am not even remotely close to talking about politics.
Are you serious? I honestly don't know. Assuming you are, the only thing I can say is that I am not "lying" about anything. Just look at the merits of my argument. I'm not trying to fool anyone.
Different theories are come up with to explain different things. The theory of gravity is not meant to understand or explain why bullfrogs don't sleep, for example. ID is not meant to explain how God exists. ID is not even meant to prove that God exists, contrary to what most people think. ID does not mention God, it simply says that there is intellegence inherit in the mechanic of the universe that guides the development of existence.
Take a heaping handful of marbles and toss them purely randomly into a shoebox. Hey-presto! Order from chaos!
There is nothing chaotic about that drop. The human mind cannot calculate the physics immediately to understand why they fell to the locations that they fell to, but it was not chaos that placed them there. It was physics.
This is a very good point you make. The problem is that you can keep going up the ladder. An organisms development is guided by its ecosystem. What is the ecosystem's development guided by? The planet's perhaps. The planets is guided by the galaxy's system. One can keep looking up for where the guidance came from, that is true. But when you get to the top the conclusion must be drawn that there is one universal design inherit that propogates to all other design. By the way, this does not need to be "God". That is simply the typical way of speaking of this design. Either way, there is some intellegence inherit in the universe that guides everything. I think it is important to emphasize that point. ID does not assert some "being" that created things (although some claim that it does, mostly through misunderstanding I think). It merely says that there is intellegence in the universal design. Sort of like a piece of software can have intellegence built into it to do one task or the other.
No one cares if you believe in ID or not. Creationism and scientific explanations have lived side by side for as long as the two have existed. The point of conflict is when creationism (be it ID or something else) tries to intrude upon science.
ID is not a form of creationism. Not even close. Really, it is important to be intellectually honest about these things. Creationism is not a very respected theory, intellectually speaking. Also, I didn't imply that ID is science. It is not. ID deals with the 2nd step that I spoke of in my top level comment, which is a metaphysical question. As far as schools teaching it, that is another question that I did not even come close to addressing.
Exactly. The second step that people often take when it comes to the random evolution school of thought is not science, but metaphysical. Oh, and also I see that you think that I am saying that ID should be considered a science. I'm sorry if I wansn't clear, I don't think that it is a science (its not). It is a metaphysical school of thought, just as the corresponding "step 2" of random evolution theory is.
The thing about Intellegent Design is that it isn't really just finding an unknown and saying "hey, we don't know the answer to this, so the answer must be God!" I would agree with you that this happens often, but not in this case.
Basically what ID says is that the fact existence is possible, that life could flourish, that we aren't gobbled up by the sun or a black hole, etc. is so astronomically unlikely, that the easiest explanation is that there is SOMETHING (it doesn't have to be God, btw) that drives this.
In fact I don't think that we are disagreeing completely. You said:
You know one definition of random could be a set of specific events and facts based on known nature laws, that put together create a result far too complex to analyse. So we just call it random.
This is pretty much what I am trying to argue. That "random" is not what guides evolution of species but rather that there is some inherit design that is too complex for us to figure out as of yet, and that is what is guiding the process. Again, this does not have to be God, like most people think.
We are clear. We already know that it's just creationism in disguise. We also know that it is making a luaghing stock of the whole scientific community. Most of us also know that it is flat out wrong.
Do you know that because you RTFA'ed? The article told you so? Who is "we", the slashdot collective mind? To say that ID is creationism in disguise tells me that you discredited my post from the onset. There is a very clear distinction between creationism and ID. ID is much closer to modern evolution theory than it is to creationism. You are as biggoted as the fanatical Christians who believe only in creationism and don't want to hear anything about other schools of thought.
It is not an ideology, as some would have you believe. It is well founded science.
In my original post (did you actually read it?), I mentioned two aspects of the theory of evolution that you are talking about. The first is the exact method by which it occured. This IS science, you are correct. ID does not disagree with this aspect. The second issue, however, is metaphysical. It is important to not confuse the two seperate aspects of the explanation of the origin of life.
Learn Java. And try to use it in the Linux environment. Basically, what is important here is not the fact that you are going to learn a certain language, but that you will learn how to write object oriented code. Once you learn that, you can pick up c#, c++, etc. The advantage of Java in my mind is that it can be used in a Linux environment where you will be forced to understand the "application creation" process from top to bottom, as opposed to a Window environment where you just write the code and let the OS and the tools provided do all the other work for you. Learning a new language is trivial. Make sure that you understand the CONCEPTS of coding.
Slashdot Mirror
This is nonsense. Web based applications are certainly only going to become more common... but your implication that soon everything will be over the web is silly. The right tool for the right job my friend.
Hey, Hollywood:
I'll sell you the right to PONG for $2.5 million.
That is sure to be a box-office hit too.
Because many of the most powerful environmental lobbies are just a bunch of fanatics who throw around the word "science" even though their hatred of nuclear power is more of a religion.
Specifically, the BRIC block (Brazil, Russia, India, and China).
Not to mention Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, and Oman. The LEGOBRICs will be the building blocks of our destruction.
Pfft. All I have to say to that is:
France. Ukraine. Chile. Kazakhstan.
Yemen. Oman. Uruguay.
Hitler's first move was to confiscate firearms from the Jews. Here is something I just googled up on the subject: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf
The first step of every modern tyrant is to confiscate firearms. (Note, this is not to say that everyone who wants to confiscate weapons is a tyrant). Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, etc.
The point is not that a guy with a handgun is going to stop a tank. There are 2 points to make:
1) A crowd the size of the protests currently happening in Iran actually is something to be feared if they are armed.
2) A complete reliance on the state for one's protection creates a complacency and an orwellian love for "big brother". This point is more subtle than the first, but the more I study the issue, the more I realize how important it is. If a person is forced to rely entirely on the state (usually a police force) for his/her protection, this is not a good thing. Responsible gun ownership reminds one that even though good police protection is a wonderful thing, if there were no police, one would still be able to get along with one's life. This autonomy from the state is a good thing.
First things first: it is hugely unethical to "expose" a blogger who wishes to remain anonymous. The newspaper should be ashamed of itself, and I recommend unsubscribing if you subscribe to it currently. Also, send them a letter telling them why you are unsubscribing.
That said.... what was the court supposed to do? Penalize the newspaper for doing investigative journalism? Throw the editor in jail for finding out the name of a blogger? "Court Rules Against Blogger Anonymity" is a bit overdone, don't you think?
the President himself has stated, '... I want to be clear: there will not be another delay.' So it looks like it is going to happen
Yeah, because the President always does what he says he's going to do
/rollseyes
Yeah, most of the people posting here have no idea what the term "IP" means, or how to use it in a sentence. I think they mean "original ideas".
Can someone describe the game? I looked on the website, and it looks like it is like Eve for the more casual player.
Yeah, I don't mind the ribbons either. I think they are actually nicer than the menus that became the standard a long time ago.
But you are right, the issue is that you never see that interface except in office.
They include some package in the latest Visual Studio that allowed you to put a ribbon on your application, but it cost extra. A lot extra. Which seems crazy because you would think that they would want people using the stupid format.
I might be remembering this wrong, but I thought that the man pages used to crash when you tried to get the entry for woman
~ man woman
segmentation fault (core dumped)
But I just tried it and it's not like that on my system. It used to do this, right?
Lets remember our government class, and recall that it needs to pass in congress first. Here is how it did that:4 02:@@@R
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR03
yes, 415-4 in the house, unanimous in the senate judiciary, and then unanimous in the senate. Jeez, Maxine Waters cosponsored the bill.
The reason I divided this discussion into two steps is precisely because I wanted to address what the scientific theory of evolution explains, and what it does not. It DOES explain #1. It does not explain #2.
It would seem that you understand this, my previous comment was intended for those that do not.
Precisely. In otherwords there is an inherit intellegence that guides things, not randomeness. I will say it again: inherit intellegence != God. Think of how people somehow say "my software has enough intellegence in it to detect ______ and avoid it." There is an intellegence build into the system that controls how it functions.
Are you serious? I honestly don't know.
Assuming you are, the only thing I can say is that I am not "lying" about anything. Just look at the merits of my argument. I'm not trying to fool anyone.
Different theories are come up with to explain different things. The theory of gravity is not meant to understand or explain why bullfrogs don't sleep, for example. ID is not meant to explain how God exists. ID is not even meant to prove that God exists, contrary to what most people think. ID does not mention God, it simply says that there is intellegence inherit in the mechanic of the universe that guides the development of existence.
This is a very good point you make. The problem is that you can keep going up the ladder. An organisms development is guided by its ecosystem. What is the ecosystem's development guided by? The planet's perhaps. The planets is guided by the galaxy's system. One can keep looking up for where the guidance came from, that is true. But when you get to the top the conclusion must be drawn that there is one universal design inherit that propogates to all other design.
By the way, this does not need to be "God". That is simply the typical way of speaking of this design. Either way, there is some intellegence inherit in the universe that guides everything.
I think it is important to emphasize that point. ID does not assert some "being" that created things (although some claim that it does, mostly through misunderstanding I think). It merely says that there is intellegence in the universal design. Sort of like a piece of software can have intellegence built into it to do one task or the other.
ID is not a form of creationism. Not even close. Really, it is important to be intellectually honest about these things. Creationism is not a very respected theory, intellectually speaking.
Also, I didn't imply that ID is science. It is not. ID deals with the 2nd step that I spoke of in my top level comment, which is a metaphysical question.
As far as schools teaching it, that is another question that I did not even come close to addressing.
Exactly. The second step that people often take when it comes to the random evolution school of thought is not science, but metaphysical.
Oh, and also I see that you think that I am saying that ID should be considered a science. I'm sorry if I wansn't clear, I don't think that it is a science (its not). It is a metaphysical school of thought, just as the corresponding "step 2" of random evolution theory is.
Basically what ID says is that the fact existence is possible, that life could flourish, that we aren't gobbled up by the sun or a black hole, etc. is so astronomically unlikely, that the easiest explanation is that there is SOMETHING (it doesn't have to be God, btw) that drives this.
In fact I don't think that we are disagreeing completely. You said:
This is pretty much what I am trying to argue. That "random" is not what guides evolution of species but rather that there is some inherit design that is too complex for us to figure out as of yet, and that is what is guiding the process. Again, this does not have to be God, like most people think.
To say that ID is creationism in disguise tells me that you discredited my post from the onset. There is a very clear distinction between creationism and ID. ID is much closer to modern evolution theory than it is to creationism. You are as biggoted as the fanatical Christians who believe only in creationism and don't want to hear anything about other schools of thought.
In my original post (did you actually read it?), I mentioned two aspects of the theory of evolution that you are talking about. The first is the exact method by which it occured. This IS science, you are correct. ID does not disagree with this aspect. The second issue, however, is metaphysical. It is important to not confuse the two seperate aspects of the explanation of the origin of life.
Learn Java. And try to use it in the Linux environment. Basically, what is important here is not the fact that you are going to learn a certain language, but that you will learn how to write object oriented code. Once you learn that, you can pick up c#, c++, etc.
The advantage of Java in my mind is that it can be used in a Linux environment where you will be forced to understand the "application creation" process from top to bottom, as opposed to a Window environment where you just write the code and let the OS and the tools provided do all the other work for you.
Learning a new language is trivial. Make sure that you understand the CONCEPTS of coding.