I wasn't implying that you're a Creationist. But if you pick up just about any Creationist literature, you'll see some argument to the effect of "Evolution fails at proving how life began, therefore, evolution is false". The sooner we get this fallacy out of our discourse, the better off we'll be when it comes to educating people.
why would it be so wrong to believe that a creator would use the biological laws of the world he'd created to achieve said end?
This is exactly the point I try to make with the more devout+less educated cross section of my friends when this topic comes up. I truly don't understand why they think God would try to play some cosmic joke (burying fake dinosaur skeletons in the earth, etc) on the unbelievers. It makes far more sense that God would simply use the system he created.
It's simple, in its own, twisted way. "The fall of man" in Genesis is the very foundation of fundamentalist Christianity. Humans (Adam and Eve) began in a state of closeness with god. There was no evil in the world. When they disobeyed god and were expelled from paradise, they lost god's grace. Jesus sacrificed himself to "pay off" Adam and Eve's "debt" to god. If we don't have a "literal' Genesis, we don't have a "fall of man", and therefore, no wrong for Jesus to set right.
Yeah I always wondered that. Like what kind of education and careers to these people have?
Kind of hard to be a Geologist if you think the world is 5000 years old. Astrophysics would be right out the door also... etc...
Anyway there will always be idiots, I think the bigger concern should be teaching better teachers, as apparently that is one job that you can do and having wacko ideas like the world being 5000 years old isn't going to be an impediment...
An elementary or high school science teacher generally does not need a science degree. A degree in Education is fine. There are also creationists who have gotten degrees in Geology, Biology, etc. These are the ones cited by groups like Answers in Genesis and The Discovery Institute as "Scientific authorities who refute Evolution". Some of them are even kept on the payroll to deliver lectures and publish (books not scientific papers) "defending" the Creationist views.
Yup. Keep in mind that in 2000, Tennessee voters rejected their "native son" Al Gore. Had Gore taken Tennessee, he would have won the Presidency (277 to 260).
The "hard" heroics are a good thing! In Wrath, you could faceroll through most heroics the day after you hit 80. Cata heroics are actually challenging now! I love the fact that my Warlock actually has to keep an eye on his own health and occasionally Death Coil or Drain Life rather than just waiting for a couple ticks of the Druid's Rejuvenation to top my health off. Of course, these challenges can become damned unbearable when dealing with PUGs. Several times I'd put in 90 minutes on a dungeon only to get vote-kicked right before the last boss pull so three guys in the same guild could bring in a pal who needed the drop. Yes, it sucked - badly. But Blizzard has put some steps in place to mitigate bad behavior like this.
That's actually the biggest problem I have with the latest expansion - it has practically destroyed small guilds. All the active players are consolidating into the big guilds with all the perks. And those that aren't consolidating are finding it hard to get raid places, as you need 75% of the raid to be guild members in order to get guild credit for raid kills.
Oh, bollocks!
My guild is the epitome of a "small, casual" guild. We have a core of less than 20 "dedicated" players. Our Cataclysm raid progression is currently a whopping 1/12. And still our Guild is already level 18, which provides some pretty sweet perks, as it is.
I'm pretty sure that it was a different kind of people who played EverQuest. The appeal of WoW is just so much broader.
Six years ago, WoW started out more like "Casual" EverQuest. Keep in mind that "Casual" here meant you needed to coordinate a group of 40 players who could dedicate a four hour stretch to raiding if you wanted to see 80% of the end-game content. Burning Crusade replaced the 40 man raids with 25 main raiding. Wrath allowed the flexibility of each raid supporting either 25 or 10 man teams. Cataclysm stuck with this model, but instead of 25 man raids dropping better loot than their 10 man counterparts, they simply drop more loot. The increase in appeal to a broad audience and casual players and guilds wasn't designed into classic WoW, but evolved over the past six years.
Phasing was used piecemeal in Wrath of the Lich King. Zones like Icecrown and Storm Peaks used it pretty extensively. With Cataclysm, every new zone makes heavy use of phasing. Their design goal was to make it feel like as you quested, you were actually making a difference in the world around you. However, this came with an unforeseen drawback. I can level numerous characters from 1-80, and have a different experience every time. There are enough disconnected quest hubs in each zone where I can pick and choose which towns I quest through, and which pieces of the story I encounter. With the Cataclysm 80-85 leveling, I will see the same storyline and the same quests for every character I level. The tradeoff with having heavily phased/story driven quests is that questing has become almost unbearably linear.
It's called a "metaphor". C-3PO is fluent in six million forms of communication, However, in the films, this never once helps the heroes get out of a bind. When the Probot is signaling the Imperial fleet about its findings on Hoth, the best 3PO can come up with is "it could be an Imperial code". When on Endor, he couldn't convince the Ewoks to set the Rebels free - and they considered him a god! For his super-human ability for speaking, he's mostly impotent.
R2-D2 is the "savant". He is the only character in the films who knows the whole story. But for all of his knowledge, he's incapable of communicating this to the heroes. Ben Kenobi? He knew him 20 years before he went to find him on Tatooine. He lived with Luke for years, but could never tell him how he not only knew and worked with his father, but how he witnessed, first-hand, his atrocities. Luke's sister? He watched as she was born.
And the very final line in RotS is Bail Organa ordering 3PO's memory erased. Whereas R2 gets to move on to the "original" trilogy with every memory fully in place.
I substitute your "Nope" with an overriding "Nope". "I'd buy that for a dollar" was a catchphrase for RoboCop. The similarities between these two films come from the fact that they were both directed by Paul Verhoeven.
Outside of those really smart people, it is very unlikely that your average inmate will have created some code to use with friends / family / "business" partners.
Wrong. Encoded messages flow through prisons like drugs.
I mean seriously... a multi-billion-dollar supercollider? How on earth does that get funded? Because a bunch of people who can't tell a fermion from a boson imagine that they're part of a grand human experiment. And maybe, in the grand human scheme of things, it is worth the money, though I personally doubt it.
Exactly! Aside from causing the invention of the World Wide Web, what has modern particle physics ever done for us???
There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. - Albert Einstein, 1934
Here's a statistic for you. During the Iraq "surge", the Army would help HS dropouts earn their G.E.D. so that they could enlist. In the three years that followed, they noticed one of these statistics: A recruit with a G.E.D. had a washout rate 35% higher than a recruit with a High School diploma. It's all but impossible to join the Active Duty Army today with a G.E.D. - unless you bring at least 15 college credits with you. Having a degree doesn't make you "smarter" than a dropout. But it does make you less risk to an employer.
That depends on the position. There was a big Telecom call-center in my neighborhood. They had a huge, lit "Now Hiring" sign permanently affixed to their main storefront sign. What does that tell you? Clearly, it means that their turnover rate is insane. Even some of the more menial positions at my company have an expected turnover rate of 12 months. Sometimes, the job you offer is so brutal and thankless that rapid turnover is factored into your expenses. Let's look at it another way. You hire your McGreeter. Do you honestly want them to stay in that position for 2, 5, 10 years? Even starting at minimum wage, a worker will likely expect a raise every 6-12 months. What costs more in the long run? Replacing a college student for minimum wage once a year? Or keeping someone on long term who demands a higher wage?
Most leadership positions I see posted, both government/military and civilian, require a degree. I've never seen one that asks for "highly motivated, creative, high-school dropout". Funny, that.
And another point you clearly missed: If I'm hiring you to be a "leader", you'd damn well better be able to conform when it's required. I'm hiring you to work for me/em.
Not true at all. Even if you don't get a job in the field you studied for, many employers will still prefer a candidate with a degree as opposed to one without. A degree in Psychology got my mom a good position with the Social Security Administration. She was making more than my father did when he started working the line at GM. It was his degree in Mathematics that helped him get promoted to a white collar position.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't implying that you're a Creationist. But if you pick up just about any Creationist literature, you'll see some argument to the effect of "Evolution fails at proving how life began, therefore, evolution is false". The sooner we get this fallacy out of our discourse, the better off we'll be when it comes to educating people.
why would it be so wrong to believe that a creator would use the biological laws of the world he'd created to achieve said end?
This is exactly the point I try to make with the more devout+less educated cross section of my friends when this topic comes up. I truly don't understand why they think God would try to play some cosmic joke (burying fake dinosaur skeletons in the earth, etc) on the unbelievers. It makes far more sense that God would simply use the system he created.
It's simple, in its own, twisted way. "The fall of man" in Genesis is the very foundation of fundamentalist Christianity. Humans (Adam and Eve) began in a state of closeness with god. There was no evil in the world. When they disobeyed god and were expelled from paradise, they lost god's grace. Jesus sacrificed himself to "pay off" Adam and Eve's "debt" to god. If we don't have a "literal' Genesis, we don't have a "fall of man", and therefore, no wrong for Jesus to set right.
Yeah I always wondered that. Like what kind of education and careers to these people have?
Kind of hard to be a Geologist if you think the world is 5000 years old. Astrophysics would be right out the door also... etc...
Anyway there will always be idiots, I think the bigger concern should be teaching better teachers, as apparently that is one job that you can do and having wacko ideas like the world being 5000 years old isn't going to be an impediment...
An elementary or high school science teacher generally does not need a science degree. A degree in Education is fine. There are also creationists who have gotten degrees in Geology, Biology, etc. These are the ones cited by groups like Answers in Genesis and The Discovery Institute as "Scientific authorities who refute Evolution". Some of them are even kept on the payroll to deliver lectures and publish (books not scientific papers) "defending" the Creationist views.
Evolution says nothing, I repeat nothing about the origins of life. First, life somehow started, then evolution kicked in.
Please, PLEASE stop repeating false Creationist Talking Points.
Yup. Keep in mind that in 2000, Tennessee voters rejected their "native son" Al Gore. Had Gore taken Tennessee, he would have won the Presidency (277 to 260).
Hmm. Last time I checked, the official marketing slogan (both online and on TV) for Rift's release was "You're not on Azeroth anymore!"
Oh, quit whining and learn-to-play.
Only Blizzard will kill World of Warcraft; some will say the latest expansion was a major attempt at doing that;
To be fair, some said the same thing after Wrath came out... and after Burning Crusade was released...
The "hard" heroics are a good thing! In Wrath, you could faceroll through most heroics the day after you hit 80. Cata heroics are actually challenging now! I love the fact that my Warlock actually has to keep an eye on his own health and occasionally Death Coil or Drain Life rather than just waiting for a couple ticks of the Druid's Rejuvenation to top my health off. Of course, these challenges can become damned unbearable when dealing with PUGs. Several times I'd put in 90 minutes on a dungeon only to get vote-kicked right before the last boss pull so three guys in the same guild could bring in a pal who needed the drop. Yes, it sucked - badly. But Blizzard has put some steps in place to mitigate bad behavior like this.
That's actually the biggest problem I have with the latest expansion - it has practically destroyed small guilds. All the active players are consolidating into the big guilds with all the perks. And those that aren't consolidating are finding it hard to get raid places, as you need 75% of the raid to be guild members in order to get guild credit for raid kills.
Oh, bollocks! My guild is the epitome of a "small, casual" guild. We have a core of less than 20 "dedicated" players. Our Cataclysm raid progression is currently a whopping 1/12. And still our Guild is already level 18, which provides some pretty sweet perks, as it is.
Six years ago, WoW started out more like "Casual" EverQuest. Keep in mind that "Casual" here meant you needed to coordinate a group of 40 players who could dedicate a four hour stretch to raiding if you wanted to see 80% of the end-game content. Burning Crusade replaced the 40 man raids with 25 main raiding. Wrath allowed the flexibility of each raid supporting either 25 or 10 man teams. Cataclysm stuck with this model, but instead of 25 man raids dropping better loot than their 10 man counterparts, they simply drop more loot. The increase in appeal to a broad audience and casual players and guilds wasn't designed into classic WoW, but evolved over the past six years.
Phasing was used piecemeal in Wrath of the Lich King. Zones like Icecrown and Storm Peaks used it pretty extensively. With Cataclysm, every new zone makes heavy use of phasing. Their design goal was to make it feel like as you quested, you were actually making a difference in the world around you. However, this came with an unforeseen drawback. I can level numerous characters from 1-80, and have a different experience every time. There are enough disconnected quest hubs in each zone where I can pick and choose which towns I quest through, and which pieces of the story I encounter. With the Cataclysm 80-85 leveling, I will see the same storyline and the same quests for every character I level. The tradeoff with having heavily phased/story driven quests is that questing has become almost unbearably linear.
R2-D2 is the "savant". He is the only character in the films who knows the whole story. But for all of his knowledge, he's incapable of communicating this to the heroes. Ben Kenobi? He knew him 20 years before he went to find him on Tatooine. He lived with Luke for years, but could never tell him how he not only knew and worked with his father, but how he witnessed, first-hand, his atrocities. Luke's sister? He watched as she was born.
And the very final line in RotS is Bail Organa ordering 3PO's memory erased. Whereas R2 gets to move on to the "original" trilogy with every memory fully in place.
I substitute your "Nope" with an overriding "Nope". "I'd buy that for a dollar" was a catchphrase for RoboCop. The similarities between these two films come from the fact that they were both directed by Paul Verhoeven.
THINK, McFly! A phone can be used to communicate with a lookout who's keeping an eye out for guards.
Wrong. Encoded messages flow through prisons like drugs.
No it wouldn't Just install a relay between "inside" and "outside". Only prison-issued devices can communicate through the relay.
Exactly! Aside from causing the invention of the World Wide Web, what has modern particle physics ever done for us???
There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. - Albert Einstein, 1934
Too late! You've already been claimed as a Portable Hole!
Here's a statistic for you. During the Iraq "surge", the Army would help HS dropouts earn their G.E.D. so that they could enlist. In the three years that followed, they noticed one of these statistics: A recruit with a G.E.D. had a washout rate 35% higher than a recruit with a High School diploma. It's all but impossible to join the Active Duty Army today with a G.E.D. - unless you bring at least 15 college credits with you. Having a degree doesn't make you "smarter" than a dropout. But it does make you less risk to an employer.
The original "class warfare" usually ended with the Nobles dangling from a tree.
That depends on the position. There was a big Telecom call-center in my neighborhood. They had a huge, lit "Now Hiring" sign permanently affixed to their main storefront sign. What does that tell you? Clearly, it means that their turnover rate is insane. Even some of the more menial positions at my company have an expected turnover rate of 12 months. Sometimes, the job you offer is so brutal and thankless that rapid turnover is factored into your expenses. Let's look at it another way. You hire your McGreeter. Do you honestly want them to stay in that position for 2, 5, 10 years? Even starting at minimum wage, a worker will likely expect a raise every 6-12 months. What costs more in the long run? Replacing a college student for minimum wage once a year? Or keeping someone on long term who demands a higher wage?
And another point you clearly missed: If I'm hiring you to be a "leader", you'd damn well better be able to conform when it's required. I'm hiring you to work for me/em.
Not true at all. Even if you don't get a job in the field you studied for, many employers will still prefer a candidate with a degree as opposed to one without. A degree in Psychology got my mom a good position with the Social Security Administration. She was making more than my father did when he started working the line at GM. It was his degree in Mathematics that helped him get promoted to a white collar position.