Could you please state the scientific Theory of Creationism? I'd love to hear it.
Could you please state the religious Doctrine of Evolutionism? I'd love to hear it.
When you're trying to refute creationism by saying it doesn't work in the bounds of science, you're making as much sense as saying that Microsoft Word is impossible because it doesn't work on a Linux system.
(Please don't mention WINE. I'm trying to make an analogy, not actually install Evolution or anything.)
Windown 98 still works as well as it did in 1998, which is to say, quite well. Put a good hardware firewall behind it and software firewall and virus scanner on it, and you won't have much trouble except with software which requires a recent OS.
And if it requires a recent OS, it'll probably require the hardware that recent Windows needs anyway.
There's no need to teach creationism. As a half-creationist myself, I wouldn't agree with anything like what you said.
Simply state, validly, that evolution seems to fit with the facts as science is best capable of recording it, and that there are some failures which we cannot explain yet but which alternative theories, including creationism might possibly explain. If you start teaching creationism, you're teaching religion, and that should be kept out of public schools.
Anything that, as you say, cannot be explained by science has no place on a science test.
The fundamental problem here is an impression of science as truth. I don't normally like to attack truth, but often what we're using the word for is a scientific construct -- what would have happened assuming that things behaved rationally. Such a belief is a rational belief. Yet if you believe in God, you must believe that He can throw things off. Other arguments (another can of worms which I don't want to get into now, especially not on Slashdot; if you're really interested, get a copy of C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity) argue for believing in the existence of a God. Besides, science admits that spontaneous generation happened in the past -- otherwise, whence did life evolve in the first place? Creationism, in its most fundamental form, is that a Sentience caused that first spontaneous generation.
BTW: people who take Genesis 1 literally should be regarded with about as much truth as you give to Scientologists. Sure, it might be true, but as much evidence as supports the rest of fundamental Christian beliefs supports a non-literal interpretation.
We're pretty much the Iraqi government right now. Unless you propose to give money to Saddam or Al-Zarqawi, I think we'd need to wait until elections - and necessarily, coalition-run elections.
We are leaving Iraq as soon as possible. There's enough public outcry and latent bad sentiment that we won't stay too long after there's a stable government.
Get a sense of humor. He's joking. He doesn't actually have the power of the US Army usable behind him. If you ask him, "You and what army?", he'd most likely laugh. This is the same thing as a "Trespassers will be shot" sign. You sound like you're modding a Funny comment Troll - oh wait, this is the community that invented the Moderator's Lack of a Sense of Humor.
Seriously. You guys sound like you think there are active soldiers who aren't overseas.
On the other hand, he really shouldn't be saying what he did without a big disclaimer. I'm sure that if you look a little bit, he's more guilty than the cheaters are.
The problem was that You Know Which Country couldn't survive attacks. We can, which means that any attacks will last longer.
While You Know Who was in power (geez, I sound like I'm writing a Harry Potter fanfic), You Know Which Country wasn't the one suffering. It was You Know Which Race within that country, and the neighboring countries. You Know Which Citizens remained relatively safe (well, as safe as you could be in a world war).
The US has sufficient more power that we're very unlikely to lose a world war if it comes down to it. We're also sufficiently low in intelligence that we're unlikely to make the other side ever give up.
I only supported Bush insofar as I didn't support anyone else; I didn't see anyone who had a clear and sensible plan for recovery, not even third party candidates.
You want to change our course of action. Let me ask, change it to what? The only way I can see is to put public pressue on Bush. That I fully support.
America cannot continue like this (in both sense of the word "cannot"). But there's nothing like World War II to change it...yet. And for the moment, the war has not come.
4) moving the mouse around in order to locate the cursor itself.
There's nothing wrong with that. I do that when I sit down at an already-running sluggish computer, where I can't see the pointer already or as soon as I try to move it.
Grr. I meant natural and moral right, not whatever pseudoright the law thinks it can give you, or you think you can squeeze from the law.
If you're picking at the word "say", then yes, I meant moral authority.
If there actually exists such a law (which I doubt), then no, the law cannot give you rights that it does not itself have.
If you're talking about Share Alike, then by "work" I really mean "mind." You have the option not to derive Share Alike works, or (in most cases) simply not to Share at all.
The war was unjustified. Bush's actions to invade Iraq appeared sound at the time (that's why we went in), but all the premises were flawed -- the reasons given, we realize, are not valid.
While I don't excuse Bush's actions, neither was this his own fault. The entire government system failed us twice: in lacking accurate intelligence to save the WTC, and in lacking accurate intelligence to save Iraq.
Yet I supported Bush's reelection (well, second to Badnarik of course, but he had no chance). Kerry would have either pulled us out of Iraq, which would be the wrong course, or remained in Iraq, which Bush would've done more effectively. (On domestic policy I agree slightly more with Bush, so if the two were equal, I would've sided with Bush.)
You might argue that admitting our mistake and pulling out would've saved the remnants of our reputation and recovered some goodwill. I claim that this would've been at the expense of the current pseudo-stability in Iraq. Once we invaded, unless we have US-run free elections (LOL), some angry terrorist bent on justifiable revenge would've seized power. In the interest of my personal safety, I prefer a US regime in Iraq to a regime angry at the US.
To reiterate: yes, Bush was wrong. Yet his choices remain the least wrong of all the possible ones. America has only wrong moves ahead of it. We have been trying for years to make other countries fear us instead of love us, and if we abandon that policy, they will neither fear us nor like us. It's a wrong policy, but unfortunately, we have no other choice -- we have nobody brave enough to try to change it and risk not managing it.
One of the reasons people didn't like presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan in the early 1900s was that he was calling for freedom for the questionably-seized Philippines. After we had held the land for so many years, we couldn't just let it go -- and we couldn't have a president who practically would encourage the Filipinos to revolt.
Mike Rowe attracted the wrath of Microsoft due to his parents giving him that name...he was simply trying to run a business.
If you rely on a mispronunciation* of your name and create a name that just happens to sound like one of the world's largest companies, then no, it's not his parents' fault. He could've named the company MikeRowe-anything else...MikeRoweComputing, MikeRoweWare, etc.
a Commie license that forces developers to give away the fruits of their labour
Although the rest of your post is genuinely amusing (too funny to be a troll), I've got to partially agree with this one.
No one has the right to say that anyone else has a moral obligation to open-source their work. A while back, there was a poll that asked which company should contribute more to open source. The only correct answer was a post that said "Missing option: YOU." To say that someone else should give their work away for free, for the supposed public good, is extremely conceited.
I would venture to say that very few Slashdotters who support open source are doing it because they would like to improve on others' work and give it to the community. Most just don't want to pay for software, myself included. I'm not accusing open-source developers; those must be so genuinely interested in their work that they don't even want profit from it. I would also guess that many companies who support open-source don't really expect the freedom to be used fully (think of free software + pay support companies) or care more for the public image.
I don't think anybody really wants the public good for its own sake. They happen to be the part of the public that will receive the most good.
(okay, this is way offtopic. I'm going to leave now and finish reading Atlas Shrugged.)
My problem is my half-photographic memory. I remember seeing a vague reference to whatever I'm looking for, but I don't remember where I saw it. Or I remember writing something relating to what I'm thinking about, but I don't remember when or why I did so. Google Desktop will find this for me, quickly.
The other thing I use GDS for is chat logs: if I remember reading someone say something, I can look for it much faster with GDS than with my megabytes of saved conversations. And if AIM crashes for whatever reason. GDS has been silently copying the conversation, so that I can get back to the history quickly.
Grep -r is slow; it's an on-demand search, not an indexing service. It's innovation to do things the right way instead of pulling out 30-year-old tools and asking them to use the same paradigms on today's volumes of data.
The problem here is that we don't know if it'll help people.
Don't ever make the mistake of thinking that government is less corrupt than industry. At least industry is required to turn a profit (somehow) to survive. Government can just raise taxes...and they can use taxes to create the impression that they're charging lower rates.
What I'm worried about is that as a Cox customer, I'll still have to pay taxes to support LUS's fiber service. No doubt that their service is going to pwn, but this takes away from my choice as a consumer, and puts what should be private industry in the hands of the government.
Is this change genetically dominant - that is, will it eventually get to the world through breeding?
If it managed to stay in the monkeys, I doubt it'll be recessive...and if it actually blocks HIV instead of just not being susceptible to it, then codominance is perfectly fine, right?
Channel 14 is at a considerably higher frequency than the pattern would dictate, so that it works like a theoretical channel 16 in terms of band overlapping. 1, 6, 11, and 14 do not overlap.
I was wondering about this until I saw a list of frequencies somewhere; that's how they manage to go only to 14.
Re:The IMDB?
on
Top 50 DVDs
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That's the top 250 movies.
These are the top 50 DVDs.
The difference is important, and the whole point of the review.
Depends on the company. If you have a stupid plan, of course you get charged.
I rarely use my cell phone; I have T-Mobile prepaid ($25 for 100 minutes or so) that costs 15 seconds per outgoing SMS and nothing for incoming. If I got a normal plan, the cheapest that I need would be $30 or $40 per month. I buy a refill card about once every two or three months.
(No, I'm not astroturfing, I'm just a satisfied consumer of T-Mobile and a dissatisfied reader of the complaining on Slashdot.)
good technical reasons for a minute of relatively high-bandwidth voice to cost less than an SMS.
Okay. Seriously. We have Winmodems for quite cheap in this day and age; surely some software processing should be able to enmodemize* the text message and send it over the voice line, right?
(*Yes, I know it should linguistically be "modulate", but "enmodemize" is far less ambiguous.)
Slashdot Mirror
In the current conflict in Iraq, the death rate from battle wounds is only 1.6%
Obviously, God helps soldiers on a holy crusade. Islam must be destroyed.
(I'm kidding, of course.)
Could you please state the scientific Theory of Creationism? I'd love to hear it.
Could you please state the religious Doctrine of Evolutionism? I'd love to hear it.
When you're trying to refute creationism by saying it doesn't work in the bounds of science, you're making as much sense as saying that Microsoft Word is impossible because it doesn't work on a Linux system.
(Please don't mention WINE. I'm trying to make an analogy, not actually install Evolution or anything.)
Anyway, who created God then, smarty?
The same guy that created your godless Big Bang. Smarty.
Oh, and don't try to propose a continuously collapsing/recreating universe, or I'll just propose an eternal God.
Then don't upgrade.
Windown 98 still works as well as it did in 1998, which is to say, quite well. Put a good hardware firewall behind it and software firewall and virus scanner on it, and you won't have much trouble except with software which requires a recent OS.
And if it requires a recent OS, it'll probably require the hardware that recent Windows needs anyway.
There's no need to teach creationism. As a half-creationist myself, I wouldn't agree with anything like what you said.
Simply state, validly, that evolution seems to fit with the facts as science is best capable of recording it, and that there are some failures which we cannot explain yet but which alternative theories, including creationism might possibly explain. If you start teaching creationism, you're teaching religion, and that should be kept out of public schools.
Anything that, as you say, cannot be explained by science has no place on a science test.
The fundamental problem here is an impression of science as truth. I don't normally like to attack truth, but often what we're using the word for is a scientific construct -- what would have happened assuming that things behaved rationally. Such a belief is a rational belief. Yet if you believe in God, you must believe that He can throw things off. Other arguments (another can of worms which I don't want to get into now, especially not on Slashdot; if you're really interested, get a copy of C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity) argue for believing in the existence of a God. Besides, science admits that spontaneous generation happened in the past -- otherwise, whence did life evolve in the first place? Creationism, in its most fundamental form, is that a Sentience caused that first spontaneous generation.
BTW: people who take Genesis 1 literally should be regarded with about as much truth as you give to Scientologists. Sure, it might be true, but as much evidence as supports the rest of fundamental Christian beliefs supports a non-literal interpretation.
You're grouping all lawyers into one group.
<insert rant on white hat and black hat hackers here> s/hacker/lawyer/g
<insert rant on corporate/proprietary vs. free software programmers here> s/programmer/lawyer/g
<insert rant on PearPC/CherryOS, Linux/Lindows, or whatnot here> s/software/lawyers/g
<i>if something is lawful, it must also be ethical</i>
I agree - depending on your definition of "must". No law ought to explicitly permit something unethical. Such a law is a bad law.
Hopefully, I'll be dead of natural causes by then. :-) This was Louis XV's policy: "After me, the deluge."
Yes, I'm completely serious. Yes, I fear that too many high-ranking officials share this view. I'd like it to change, but frankly I don't see it.
This is a good day for piracy and IP rights in general.
This is a bad day for BitTorrent in general.
I don't think anyone can validly claim that BitTorrent needs to be banned, or that Miss Congeniality needs to go to the public domain.
Iraqi government
We're pretty much the Iraqi government right now. Unless you propose to give money to Saddam or Al-Zarqawi, I think we'd need to wait until elections - and necessarily, coalition-run elections.
We are leaving Iraq as soon as possible. There's enough public outcry and latent bad sentiment that we won't stay too long after there's a stable government.
How about hot grits?
That's in the sequel, H for Hot Grits.
Get a sense of humor. He's joking. He doesn't actually have the power of the US Army usable behind him. If you ask him, "You and what army?", he'd most likely laugh. This is the same thing as a "Trespassers will be shot" sign. You sound like you're modding a Funny comment Troll - oh wait, this is the community that invented the Moderator's Lack of a Sense of Humor.
Seriously. You guys sound like you think there are active soldiers who aren't overseas.
On the other hand, he really shouldn't be saying what he did without a big disclaimer. I'm sure that if you look a little bit, he's more guilty than the cheaters are.
The problem was that You Know Which Country couldn't survive attacks. We can, which means that any attacks will last longer.
While You Know Who was in power (geez, I sound like I'm writing a Harry Potter fanfic), You Know Which Country wasn't the one suffering. It was You Know Which Race within that country, and the neighboring countries. You Know Which Citizens remained relatively safe (well, as safe as you could be in a world war).
The US has sufficient more power that we're very unlikely to lose a world war if it comes down to it. We're also sufficiently low in intelligence that we're unlikely to make the other side ever give up.
I only supported Bush insofar as I didn't support anyone else; I didn't see anyone who had a clear and sensible plan for recovery, not even third party candidates.
You want to change our course of action. Let me ask, change it to what? The only way I can see is to put public pressue on Bush. That I fully support.
America cannot continue like this (in both sense of the word "cannot"). But there's nothing like World War II to change it...yet. And for the moment, the war has not come.
4) moving the mouse around in order to locate the cursor itself.
There's nothing wrong with that. I do that when I sit down at an already-running sluggish computer, where I can't see the pointer already or as soon as I try to move it.
Grr. I meant natural and moral right, not whatever pseudoright the law thinks it can give you, or you think you can squeeze from the law.
If you're picking at the word "say", then yes, I meant moral authority.
If there actually exists such a law (which I doubt), then no, the law cannot give you rights that it does not itself have.
If you're talking about Share Alike, then by "work" I really mean "mind." You have the option not to derive Share Alike works, or (in most cases) simply not to Share at all.
As a Bush supporter, I feel I should respond:
The war was unjustified. Bush's actions to invade Iraq appeared sound at the time (that's why we went in), but all the premises were flawed -- the reasons given, we realize, are not valid.
While I don't excuse Bush's actions, neither was this his own fault. The entire government system failed us twice: in lacking accurate intelligence to save the WTC, and in lacking accurate intelligence to save Iraq.
Yet I supported Bush's reelection (well, second to Badnarik of course, but he had no chance). Kerry would have either pulled us out of Iraq, which would be the wrong course, or remained in Iraq, which Bush would've done more effectively. (On domestic policy I agree slightly more with Bush, so if the two were equal, I would've sided with Bush.)
You might argue that admitting our mistake and pulling out would've saved the remnants of our reputation and recovered some goodwill. I claim that this would've been at the expense of the current pseudo-stability in Iraq. Once we invaded, unless we have US-run free elections (LOL), some angry terrorist bent on justifiable revenge would've seized power. In the interest of my personal safety, I prefer a US regime in Iraq to a regime angry at the US.
To reiterate: yes, Bush was wrong. Yet his choices remain the least wrong of all the possible ones. America has only wrong moves ahead of it. We have been trying for years to make other countries fear us instead of love us, and if we abandon that policy, they will neither fear us nor like us. It's a wrong policy, but unfortunately, we have no other choice -- we have nobody brave enough to try to change it and risk not managing it.
One of the reasons people didn't like presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan in the early 1900s was that he was calling for freedom for the questionably-seized Philippines. After we had held the land for so many years, we couldn't just let it go -- and we couldn't have a president who practically would encourage the Filipinos to revolt.
Mike Rowe attracted the wrath of Microsoft due to his parents giving him that name...he was simply trying to run a business.
If you rely on a mispronunciation* of your name and create a name that just happens to sound like one of the world's largest companies, then no, it's not his parents' fault. He could've named the company MikeRowe-anything else...MikeRoweComputing, MikeRoweWare, etc.
*He pronounces his name to rhyme with "cow".
a Commie license that forces developers to give away the fruits of their labour
Although the rest of your post is genuinely amusing (too funny to be a troll), I've got to partially agree with this one.
No one has the right to say that anyone else has a moral obligation to open-source their work. A while back, there was a poll that asked which company should contribute more to open source. The only correct answer was a post that said "Missing option: YOU." To say that someone else should give their work away for free, for the supposed public good, is extremely conceited.
I would venture to say that very few Slashdotters who support open source are doing it because they would like to improve on others' work and give it to the community. Most just don't want to pay for software, myself included. I'm not accusing open-source developers; those must be so genuinely interested in their work that they don't even want profit from it. I would also guess that many companies who support open-source don't really expect the freedom to be used fully (think of free software + pay support companies) or care more for the public image.
I don't think anybody really wants the public good for its own sake. They happen to be the part of the public that will receive the most good.
(okay, this is way offtopic. I'm going to leave now and finish reading Atlas Shrugged.)
My problem is my half-photographic memory. I remember seeing a vague reference to whatever I'm looking for, but I don't remember where I saw it. Or I remember writing something relating to what I'm thinking about, but I don't remember when or why I did so. Google Desktop will find this for me, quickly.
The other thing I use GDS for is chat logs: if I remember reading someone say something, I can look for it much faster with GDS than with my megabytes of saved conversations. And if AIM crashes for whatever reason. GDS has been silently copying the conversation, so that I can get back to the history quickly.
Grep -r is slow; it's an on-demand search, not an indexing service. It's innovation to do things the right way instead of pulling out 30-year-old tools and asking them to use the same paradigms on today's volumes of data.
The problem here is that we don't know if it'll help people.
Don't ever make the mistake of thinking that government is less corrupt than industry. At least industry is required to turn a profit (somehow) to survive. Government can just raise taxes...and they can use taxes to create the impression that they're charging lower rates.
What I'm worried about is that as a Cox customer, I'll still have to pay taxes to support LUS's fiber service. No doubt that their service is going to pwn, but this takes away from my choice as a consumer, and puts what should be private industry in the hands of the government.
Is this change genetically dominant - that is, will it eventually get to the world through breeding?
If it managed to stay in the monkeys, I doubt it'll be recessive...and if it actually blocks HIV instead of just not being susceptible to it, then codominance is perfectly fine, right?
Channel 14 is at a considerably higher frequency than the pattern would dictate, so that it works like a theoretical channel 16 in terms of band overlapping. 1, 6, 11, and 14 do not overlap.
I was wondering about this until I saw a list of frequencies somewhere; that's how they manage to go only to 14.
That's the top 250 movies.
These are the top 50 DVDs.
The difference is important, and the whole point of the review.
Depends on the company. If you have a stupid plan, of course you get charged.
I rarely use my cell phone; I have T-Mobile prepaid ($25 for 100 minutes or so) that costs 15 seconds per outgoing SMS and nothing for incoming. If I got a normal plan, the cheapest that I need would be $30 or $40 per month. I buy a refill card about once every two or three months.
(No, I'm not astroturfing, I'm just a satisfied consumer of T-Mobile and a dissatisfied reader of the complaining on Slashdot.)
I've got a prepaid plan from T-Mobile. Calls cost .40 credits/minute rounded to higher minute; an outgoing SMS costs .10 credits. Incoming SMS is free.
In this case, both would cost the same. My decision to call or IM is based on mentally computing call length vs. 15 seconds * number of IMs.
good technical reasons for a minute of relatively high-bandwidth voice to cost less than an SMS.
Okay. Seriously. We have Winmodems for quite cheap in this day and age; surely some software processing should be able to enmodemize* the text message and send it over the voice line, right?
(*Yes, I know it should linguistically be "modulate", but "enmodemize" is far less ambiguous.)