I am with you, I never saw a reason to get rid of SYSV. The reason Linux started pushing is based on the same Logic Sun had to go away from it. A master daemon which monitors all services and their current states, restart when necessary, etc... The Sun implementation took a bit of getting used to, but in reality the daemon used XML files which contained mostly SH scripts. It was still hackable, which is why SYSV stuck around for so long. When something does not work, write a new SH script and stick it in init.
The Linux implementation is not as straight forward as Sun's implementation which to me says a lot. RH6 went to systemd and I hated it. Cryptic, not hackable, and simply a pain in the ass to customize unless you run everything in legacy mode which is still SYSV. The alleged better logging did not exist, and was much harder to access than "set -x" in an init script.
The overlord daemon is an advantage, previously we all used monitoring scripts to do things for us. The system now has it built in. I never saw an issue with writing restart options into BigBrother, Nagios, etc.. so don't save much with this small feature. In the grand scheme of things, I lose a lot of flexibility with this system. So most of my custom tools, code, and scripts will run in legacy mode.
Great example! The problem is really that the few making so much wealth are also spreading this ridiculous propaganda that over population is the root cause of our woes. Surely population can play a role, but it's not the predominant issue we have today.
To further your example a bit, the Artists are not the ones receiving most of the money from the RIAA and MPAA lawsuits and harassment. The industry is well known to shaft artists at every opportunity to make some "exec" millions of dollars. Big name actors won't work for royalties any longer, because books are fudged to make it look like they made no money which screws artists _and_ the rest of us because they pay no taxes on movies.
Over population is the cause of most of our current misery and very few people are even capable of thinking it out.
This belief is overly simplified propaganda and simply wrong. No, the problem is not population. The problem is that we allow money to dictate how we behave, treat the environment, treat each other, and treat animals. Greed is the problem, and in the grand view of the world the percentage of population causing these problems is extremely low.
It is cost effective to dump waste instead of process waste and recycle. There is little enforced regulation, so companies dump. This makes somebody (or a few somebodies) millions of dollars a year, and in the US if he gets caught the Government pays him more money to clean up his mess. If there were enforced regulations, those millions would never be in the hands of the few. That money would have to pay to process and clean up.
It is cost effective to kill certain endangered animals. There are a few wealthy people that pay for the skins, horns, etc... Some use these parts as trophies, others resell smaller chunks to make more profit. The 2 poachers that can eat for a week on what they sell from killing a Rhino don't benefit, they get to eat. Again, this is not population but a few greedy people fucking things up.
We can look at farming, energy production, fishing, manufacturing, health care, etc.. and we get the same result over and over. The problem is not due to the number of people in society, but with a few people gaining more and more wealth by abusing people and resources.
Today this is very questionable, thirty years ago I would have agreed with you. I am not saying that we don't, but rather that the last few tests have failed so I have no confidence. You can investigate Ross Perot and what happened to him just as easy as the next guy. You can also investigate Ron Paul and see what happened to him, including the leader of Iowa's Republican caucus stating on public radio "Ron Paul will not win in Iowa" a week before the primaries followed by numerous problems and suspicious events during Iowa's primary.
The propaganda spread by media of "if you don't vote Republican or Democrat you waste your vote" gets repeated by everyone with an interest in holding power, which is a powerful piece of rhetoric that people fall for. That, and media refusing to cover anyone except for who the establishment want's in office together mean the only way to get entrenched people out of power is by word of mouth balloting and promoting. With Ron Paul this happened, and the media outlets all started repeating the message "Ron Paul is Crazy" without ever providing evidence to this claim which swayed the public. During interviews, the would merely ask Ron Paul "What do you think of being so-and-so's running mate?" and during televised debates he was cut off or not shown for "commercial breaks".
My son had no difficulty catching on to the games being played against Ron Paul, so if you can think critically you should have also.
FWIW, I may be wrong about 30 years ago as well. Reagan was a douche that massively deregulated and made sure that rich people kept more of their money. He started the chain of moving manufacturing over seas, bank monopolization, etc... in addition of course to spending our tax dollars on illegal wars and backing illegal acts of the CIA (Iran/Contra). His administration also set the stage for the banana wars in Venezuela, where Dole mercenaries massacred thousands.
When a party has had consentual sex several times prior to intercourse while sleeping, it shoul be apparent that the claim is false. If illegal entry was also a charge perhaps there would be some merit. As it was, they had consentual sex a few hours prior, fell asleep, and he decided to wake her up sexually. This happens normally in relationships.
This is what is called speculation, and would be thrown out in court. Snowden claimed long ago he didn't, these people are claiming he did. I trust Snowden a bit more than I trust most of the shitheads we currently have in Government, and could easily find character witnesses who are unbiased to support Snowden.
Keep being distracted by all the hand waives though.
For what it's worth, IANAL either. I am not fooled by the distractions they keep playing against people.
The Feb. 10 memo was signed by Ethan Bauman, the NSA’s director of legislative affairs. It was sent to the congressional committees after repeated questions from senior members about whether the NSA intended to hold any of its employees accountable for the security lapses that enable Snowden to gain access to massive volumes of classified documents that he later leaked to the news media.
“Has anybody been disciplined at NSA for dropping the ball so badly?” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., demanded of NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander at a Dec. 11 hearing. Alexander at the time replied that the agency had three “cases” that “we’re currently reviewing.” (An NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines declined comment Wednesday night, writing in an email: “I don’t have anything for your story.”)
They don't want to stop spying and shitting on personal liberties, they want people held accountable for giving a whistle blower access to data. TFA is of course a piece of government run propaganda^W^W^Wshit, who never does real journalism. They simply repeat the "kill the messenger" message these hearings bring out from the people holding government offices. A real journalist asks real questions, and points out truth that should make people uncomfortable if they are doing something wrong.
Snowden denied claims of "tricking" people or "stealing" long ago. I think the more likely collaboration was people sympathetic to his cause who gave access and pointed at things. This means they are not jailed as being whistle blowers, because.. well there is a history of (especially this administration) punishing whistle blowers.
What does TFA and the message boil down to? Easy, more "kill the whistle blowers" message and more "fuck the citizens" messages. Not one lick of journalism of course, just more repeated propaganda.
What is televangelism? I'll take swords for 500, Alex.
So having to actually seek out a channel which has a televangelism is having it "crammed down your throat"? Your use does not match the definition or common use of the terminology. I guess having to seek out a Chinese speaking channel on TV is also "having it crammed down our throat" in your distorted view of the world.
First, as I demonstrated above, it is false that Christianity doesn't get talked about or mentioned in comical ways.
See above, same thing applies. Comics surely occasionally make fun of Christians, but this is not cramming it down someone's throat either. John Stewart (and many other comedians) admit to be Jewish on with some regularity, show me a comedian that admits to being Christian that is on National TV and does so on TV.
Second, I think you're confusing "right to free speech" with "right to be listened to" (a right that doesn't exist). You have the right to talk about Christianity, but the rest of society is not obligated to listen. You're being ignored, not censored.
Huh? So "Duck Dynasty" was not censuring? AMC had to reverse their decision to fire the guy because of rare public backlash, but the event is well documented and factual I can't say I envy your level of delusion.
I'm not the GP, so I don't want to talk about Christian indoctrination. I just disagree with your notion that Christianity is somehow a victim of persecution in the US.
It's not about opinion, it's about fact. Observe and measure just like science tells us. I gave an easy factual starting point for your investigation and you chose to simply make up stories. Sounds strikingly familiar to what people claim to have against those Religious people.
Huh? Where? There is no pushing of Christianity. If anything, at least today, Christians are being persecuted in the US. A Christian can't pray in schools, but an Islamist can. A Christian can't talk about Religion on TV, but atheism and a belief that nothing is required for the Universe to exist sure gets pushed on people (and that view is _NOT_ scientific without the Philosophy to present the alternative logic). We may hear comical mentions about Jews on some regular TV, or Pagans, or Islam. There is no discussion about Christianity in media because any Christian that tries to talk about their belief is censored and punished. I'm sure you heard about Duck Dynasty, and that is just a very recent highly publicized event. If you look around a bit, you will see this is a theme.
If you want to talk about this proposal as Christian indoctrination I challenge you to show me a single reference to Christianity. It says "teach the controversy" which obviously infers that there should be some education regarding creation. That said, numerous Religions have belief in a creator, and in fact a huge portion of science called Philosophy deal with that same question (does the Universe require a creator?). There is no "pushing Christianity" in the real world, at least not any more than pushing any other Religion and in most cases much less than pushing a satanic/luciferian view of 'do what though wilt'.
If you take what I said to heart bias becomes a non-issue. Bias is taught, where if people are taught to think critically, evaluate data, and dig for answers the bias goes away.
I don't disagree that certain forces want this issue for political means more than learning. Those forces happen to live on both sides of the aisle however. Atheism is being pushed on people just like Religion is pushed on people. If you actually stopped and thought about the question you could come to your own conclusion and be a much better person because of that.
Add this:
-1. Request all demands for "Free Work" in writing. This will make 3 easy if it's needed, and may excuse or exclude 2 (these types of demands). 1 is probably a good idea, rarely does a company change enough where this nonsense will not happen again.
Make sure you keep your head out of your ass when you read this, because I am not pro either side but arguing the middle. DNA did not answer all of the questions. DNA gave us a marvelous way of looking at data and new Science. We have some very good and solid theories with DNA, but not much more "proof" than we had with fossils, especially when it comes to macro vs. micro evolution. Now you can re-read what I wrote above, because it still applies.
Even if there were, filling those gaps with god has proven to be wrong countless times.
Ahh, so much bias and so little time. We can't teach the gaps because it harms your belief. Got it!
Are you so insecure in your own beliefs that you rationalize that it harms people to learn both sides of the debate? The science is pretty good mind you, and anyone that learns to think and study should come to the correct conclusion. Learning the other side of the debate is not a threat to the science. You however are on shaky ground with your own beliefs, so fear somebody thinking about the answer.
That is really what this boils down to, with you and every other lame ass with mod points that downgrades any post that does not attempt to belittle the non-atheists.
I agree that it would be great to teach high school students some theory of science and give them the tools to separate good science from bad science and pseudo science such as astrology, creationism and "young earth theories". I have a hard time believing this is what the senator in SC is proposing though.
Since it's not currently implemented this would be a good time to look at implementation instead of jumping immediately to censorship right? I'm curious to see if will be implemented correctly myself.
That said, Big Bang in all of it's various forms has been taught as factual. Prior to the expanding vacuum theories we were taught that a 270,000 light year diameter ball of mass blew up. Funny how atheists had no problem teaching this as fact, even though it's absolutely wrong. We know it's wrong today because people questioned what they were fed and told was "fact".
Another piece that you don't mention except to call pseudo science is that creation not only attempts to answer the "what" happened, but "why" it happened. Science likes to take this as purely accidental and survival of the fittest, where religion does not. The two things are distinctly different questions with potentially distinctly different answers. We will never have a scientific answer for what caused the Universe to exist.
There are thousands of years of work done on that particular question, and it's an incredibly powerful method of teaching people to think and question. Very few will encourage people to investigate that question, both extremes of atheism and religion feed you their answer and chastise thought.
That I believe is the key point, but overlooked in the haste of bile and bias. Teaching people to question is a good thing. Teaching your bias is not so good, and both sides do it (though both deny it).
I always read this bile from atheists when anyone points out that evolution has some holes in it. Instead of admitting there are holes, they immediately jump to "you must believe in _that_". Turning that around, Religious people do the same thing. We end up with an argument where few will actually sit and think about the issues.
Anyone claiming evolution has holes in it's theory is chastised on this site, and anyone that disagrees with an atheist is chastised and censored. It must be right because somebody said it's right, and if you question you are a Troll or Flamebait and must not be seen.
We don't know the "correct" theory for the cause of the Universe, or creation of the Universe, which is what Religion attempts to answer. It is quite a marvelous question for hundreds of valid reasons (critical thinking, logic, ethics, morality). Funny that most atheists will claim "big bang" answers the question, and when they are shown that is wrong they claim "the question does not matter".
The problem really is that people lump the question of the origin of the Universe into Religion at their first convenience to prevent people from looking at the question in it's raw form.
Taking away TFA's straw man, where does it say that SC is teaching nothing, or teaching that evolution is false? Read it again! There is no such claim, you are inventing the whole "creationism" portion of the argument.
Would you be fine with this same restriction for the big bang? There are hundreds of various theories of Big Bang, with thousands of estimates for the age of the Universe, with thousands more estimates of how the event started and what the landscape looked like.
My guess is that you would have problems with that one, because then your belief becomes challenged.
If I were to claim "My state will teach Newtonian theory of gravity is not fact" would you have issues with it? How about Einstein's theory of gravity? I would be correct in teaching them that those two theories were/are not factual, and showing where the gaps are. This is how we make progress in science and improve theories.
Would teaching where these theories seem to fail mean that "I refuse to teach about gravity" and all of my students are idiots because I taught them to question what someone else want's them taught as "fact" (this matches the straw man TFA erects and you seem to believe)?
I'm not sure what article you are referring to but I don't see anyone claiming "not teach their children what is accepted in the scientific community". I read "argued against teaching natural selection as fact, " and "teach them the controversy".
Evolution and Natural selection surely have some gaps, which is why there is still some controversy. You may not like the other side, so choose to ignore the gaps which makes you biased. Just like the other side is biased, but of course that is difficult to come to grips with our own shortcomings.
A big part of science used to be not accepting what someone gives you and following the scientific methods. Teaching people to question what they are told surely has benefits. Are you so biased that questions are only valid about someone else' belief?
I really can't imagine why you believe this. The fact that vikings reached the East coast of North America is widely known today and no one of substance has any issue with it.
What? I never claimed to have that belief, and if you go back and read again what I wrote you will see why I mentioned it. It's that people are taught something different from what we know to be true, or given a completely different perception based on not teaching specific things we know.
Cite someone that isn't a bonehead blogger or poaster in some forum
Well there spelling champ, go read public school curriculum. My complaint was not just that what people are taught is wrong or right, it's that people are taught bias to further someone's political agenda. Don't insert your own extreme value into that. For example, if you convince people that Columbus was a hero that rescued the indigenous people from a life of drudgery and inevitable death due to ignorance, it makes the slaughtering of millions of native people much easier to swallow and normalize. Teaching that the Pilgrims and Indians got together and had a nice Thanksgiving dinner lessens the reality of events back then.
Sure, in College you can learn a different "science" and a different message. The obvious problem is that one bias seems to often be traded for another bias.
Reading their science gives me no compelling reason to believe that it had to be the ocean that migrated the gourds over someone carrying them. People lived in both locations during the time periods described, so either is valid. They claim "fact" but I fail to see any facts at all. The DNA evidence shows a relationship between the two gourds, but does not show "how" a gourd traveled over the ocean.
Your and their hypothetical "they would not have carried the gourds" would imply that they did not understand very basic agriculture. Plant A = good food and over there it does not exist, so lets move some good food seeds from here to there. Plant B makes a great container, and we don't have these over there either.
That hypothesis works if you assume that there was no possible way people could have been skilled enough to cross a body of water intentinoally. The knowledge of the stars possessed by the Sumerian's actually demonstrates that navigation may have been possible. Boat building is a big question mark for sure, but ancient Egypt was not doing poorly in that area and the knowledge they had for larger ships demonstrates prior knowledge.
Last I checked, "Science" required indisputable proof in order to claim something as fact. In this case, there is no such proof. This is not any great revelation, because lots of science lately has been anything but science.
They gave a bunch of crap and claimed to know the answer. Typical "science" lately, I guess.
They believe based on DNA that the gourds in the Americas are more similar to African gourds than Asian. That's something, but they can't explain the Asian gourds or origin. So I'm not sure how they can claim to know that the gourds traveled by Ocean, when we have humans that traveled further back than 10,000 years.
I guess if you assume that nobody could boat back then, they would be on to something. Vessels made specifically for sea fairing fit within that 10,000 year time frame, but we have no idea when the first small boats were used.
I see this as more bias in Science. Many people swear that Columbus was the first person in America still today, ignoring the population that was already living and thriving here for thousands of years before that. People still doubt that Vikings made it to the US even though materials have been found that sure look and date Viking. And of course you can't mention the Neanderthal remains that have been found mixed in with other "native" people's dating back much further than 10,000 years in Canada and the US.
It seems like "science" want's you to believe that up until the white European everyone was sub-human and had trouble simply banging sticks together. Ten minutes of study on Sumeria should get you questioning this teaching.
In summary, they speculate that the only way for a gourd to get to the US was by drifting on the ocean. People were too stupid to even accidentally travel across the ocean. The lack of fingerprints on fossilized gourds is proof positive that they are right. (hopefully you can detect sarcasm)
Slightly more powerful than wget to me is a wrapper around wget. Perl and Bash scripts are way beyond the average users. To politicians scripts can be used to claim "voodoo" or "saintly" depending on who writes the scripts. The NSAs scripts are obviously saintly, while anybody else is probably voodoo.
It was your mention I think the day may come, but only after graphical editing becomes more ubiquitous. which was not very clear. The additional context here adds the required distinction, thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
I am with you, I never saw a reason to get rid of SYSV. The reason Linux started pushing is based on the same Logic Sun had to go away from it. A master daemon which monitors all services and their current states, restart when necessary, etc... The Sun implementation took a bit of getting used to, but in reality the daemon used XML files which contained mostly SH scripts. It was still hackable, which is why SYSV stuck around for so long. When something does not work, write a new SH script and stick it in init.
The Linux implementation is not as straight forward as Sun's implementation which to me says a lot. RH6 went to systemd and I hated it. Cryptic, not hackable, and simply a pain in the ass to customize unless you run everything in legacy mode which is still SYSV. The alleged better logging did not exist, and was much harder to access than "set -x" in an init script.
The overlord daemon is an advantage, previously we all used monitoring scripts to do things for us. The system now has it built in. I never saw an issue with writing restart options into BigBrother, Nagios, etc.. so don't save much with this small feature. In the grand scheme of things, I lose a lot of flexibility with this system. So most of my custom tools, code, and scripts will run in legacy mode.
Great example! The problem is really that the few making so much wealth are also spreading this ridiculous propaganda that over population is the root cause of our woes. Surely population can play a role, but it's not the predominant issue we have today.
To further your example a bit, the Artists are not the ones receiving most of the money from the RIAA and MPAA lawsuits and harassment. The industry is well known to shaft artists at every opportunity to make some "exec" millions of dollars. Big name actors won't work for royalties any longer, because books are fudged to make it look like they made no money which screws artists _and_ the rest of us because they pay no taxes on movies.
Over population is the cause of most of our current misery and very few people are even capable of thinking it out.
This belief is overly simplified propaganda and simply wrong. No, the problem is not population. The problem is that we allow money to dictate how we behave, treat the environment, treat each other, and treat animals. Greed is the problem, and in the grand view of the world the percentage of population causing these problems is extremely low.
It is cost effective to dump waste instead of process waste and recycle. There is little enforced regulation, so companies dump. This makes somebody (or a few somebodies) millions of dollars a year, and in the US if he gets caught the Government pays him more money to clean up his mess. If there were enforced regulations, those millions would never be in the hands of the few. That money would have to pay to process and clean up.
It is cost effective to kill certain endangered animals. There are a few wealthy people that pay for the skins, horns, etc... Some use these parts as trophies, others resell smaller chunks to make more profit. The 2 poachers that can eat for a week on what they sell from killing a Rhino don't benefit, they get to eat. Again, this is not population but a few greedy people fucking things up.
We can look at farming, energy production, fishing, manufacturing, health care, etc.. and we get the same result over and over. The problem is not due to the number of people in society, but with a few people gaining more and more wealth by abusing people and resources.
Here in America, we still have a democracy.
Today this is very questionable, thirty years ago I would have agreed with you. I am not saying that we don't, but rather that the last few tests have failed so I have no confidence. You can investigate Ross Perot and what happened to him just as easy as the next guy. You can also investigate Ron Paul and see what happened to him, including the leader of Iowa's Republican caucus stating on public radio "Ron Paul will not win in Iowa" a week before the primaries followed by numerous problems and suspicious events during Iowa's primary.
The propaganda spread by media of "if you don't vote Republican or Democrat you waste your vote" gets repeated by everyone with an interest in holding power, which is a powerful piece of rhetoric that people fall for. That, and media refusing to cover anyone except for who the establishment want's in office together mean the only way to get entrenched people out of power is by word of mouth balloting and promoting. With Ron Paul this happened, and the media outlets all started repeating the message "Ron Paul is Crazy" without ever providing evidence to this claim which swayed the public. During interviews, the would merely ask Ron Paul "What do you think of being so-and-so's running mate?" and during televised debates he was cut off or not shown for "commercial breaks".
My son had no difficulty catching on to the games being played against Ron Paul, so if you can think critically you should have also.
FWIW, I may be wrong about 30 years ago as well. Reagan was a douche that massively deregulated and made sure that rich people kept more of their money. He started the chain of moving manufacturing over seas, bank monopolization, etc... in addition of course to spending our tax dollars on illegal wars and backing illegal acts of the CIA (Iran/Contra). His administration also set the stage for the banana wars in Venezuela, where Dole mercenaries massacred thousands.
And you are just a plain lire.
He is a misspelled musical instrument?
When a party has had consentual sex several times prior to intercourse while sleeping, it shoul be apparent that the claim is false. If illegal entry was also a charge perhaps there would be some merit. As it was, they had consentual sex a few hours prior, fell asleep, and he decided to wake her up sexually. This happens normally in relationships.
This is what is called speculation, and would be thrown out in court. Snowden claimed long ago he didn't, these people are claiming he did. I trust Snowden a bit more than I trust most of the shitheads we currently have in Government, and could easily find character witnesses who are unbiased to support Snowden.
Keep being distracted by all the hand waives though.
For what it's worth, IANAL either. I am not fooled by the distractions they keep playing against people.
The Feb. 10 memo was signed by Ethan Bauman, the NSA’s director of legislative affairs. It was sent to the congressional committees after repeated questions from senior members about whether the NSA intended to hold any of its employees accountable for the security lapses that enable Snowden to gain access to massive volumes of classified documents that he later leaked to the news media.
“Has anybody been disciplined at NSA for dropping the ball so badly?” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., demanded of NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander at a Dec. 11 hearing. Alexander at the time replied that the agency had three “cases” that “we’re currently reviewing.” (An NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines declined comment Wednesday night, writing in an email: “I don’t have anything for your story.”)
They don't want to stop spying and shitting on personal liberties, they want people held accountable for giving a whistle blower access to data. TFA is of course a piece of government run propaganda^W^W^Wshit, who never does real journalism. They simply repeat the "kill the messenger" message these hearings bring out from the people holding government offices. A real journalist asks real questions, and points out truth that should make people uncomfortable if they are doing something wrong.
Snowden denied claims of "tricking" people or "stealing" long ago. I think the more likely collaboration was people sympathetic to his cause who gave access and pointed at things. This means they are not jailed as being whistle blowers, because.. well there is a history of (especially this administration) punishing whistle blowers.
What does TFA and the message boil down to? Easy, more "kill the whistle blowers" message and more "fuck the citizens" messages. Not one lick of journalism of course, just more repeated propaganda.
What is televangelism? I'll take swords for 500, Alex.
So having to actually seek out a channel which has a televangelism is having it "crammed down your throat"? Your use does not match the definition or common use of the terminology. I guess having to seek out a Chinese speaking channel on TV is also "having it crammed down our throat" in your distorted view of the world.
First, as I demonstrated above, it is false that Christianity doesn't get talked about or mentioned in comical ways.
See above, same thing applies. Comics surely occasionally make fun of Christians, but this is not cramming it down someone's throat either. John Stewart (and many other comedians) admit to be Jewish on with some regularity, show me a comedian that admits to being Christian that is on National TV and does so on TV.
Second, I think you're confusing "right to free speech" with "right to be listened to" (a right that doesn't exist). You have the right to talk about Christianity, but the rest of society is not obligated to listen. You're being ignored, not censored.
Huh? So "Duck Dynasty" was not censuring? AMC had to reverse their decision to fire the guy because of rare public backlash, but the event is well documented and factual I can't say I envy your level of delusion.
I'm not the GP, so I don't want to talk about Christian indoctrination. I just disagree with your notion that Christianity is somehow a victim of persecution in the US.
It's not about opinion, it's about fact. Observe and measure just like science tells us. I gave an easy factual starting point for your investigation and you chose to simply make up stories. Sounds strikingly familiar to what people claim to have against those Religious people.
It takes a great amount of insanity to keep blaming the same repeated actions as "stupidity."
George Gordon Byron
“Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.”
Huh? Where? There is no pushing of Christianity. If anything, at least today, Christians are being persecuted in the US. A Christian can't pray in schools, but an Islamist can. A Christian can't talk about Religion on TV, but atheism and a belief that nothing is required for the Universe to exist sure gets pushed on people (and that view is _NOT_ scientific without the Philosophy to present the alternative logic). We may hear comical mentions about Jews on some regular TV, or Pagans, or Islam. There is no discussion about Christianity in media because any Christian that tries to talk about their belief is censored and punished. I'm sure you heard about Duck Dynasty, and that is just a very recent highly publicized event. If you look around a bit, you will see this is a theme.
If you want to talk about this proposal as Christian indoctrination I challenge you to show me a single reference to Christianity. It says "teach the controversy" which obviously infers that there should be some education regarding creation. That said, numerous Religions have belief in a creator, and in fact a huge portion of science called Philosophy deal with that same question (does the Universe require a creator?). There is no "pushing Christianity" in the real world, at least not any more than pushing any other Religion and in most cases much less than pushing a satanic/luciferian view of 'do what though wilt'.
If you take what I said to heart bias becomes a non-issue. Bias is taught, where if people are taught to think critically, evaluate data, and dig for answers the bias goes away.
I don't disagree that certain forces want this issue for political means more than learning. Those forces happen to live on both sides of the aisle however. Atheism is being pushed on people just like Religion is pushed on people. If you actually stopped and thought about the question you could come to your own conclusion and be a much better person because of that.
Add this:
-1. Request all demands for "Free Work" in writing. This will make 3 easy if it's needed, and may excuse or exclude 2 (these types of demands). 1 is probably a good idea, rarely does a company change enough where this nonsense will not happen again.
Make sure you keep your head out of your ass when you read this, because I am not pro either side but arguing the middle. DNA did not answer all of the questions. DNA gave us a marvelous way of looking at data and new Science. We have some very good and solid theories with DNA, but not much more "proof" than we had with fossils, especially when it comes to macro vs. micro evolution. Now you can re-read what I wrote above, because it still applies.
Even if there were, filling those gaps with god has proven to be wrong countless times.
Ahh, so much bias and so little time. We can't teach the gaps because it harms your belief. Got it!
Are you so insecure in your own beliefs that you rationalize that it harms people to learn both sides of the debate? The science is pretty good mind you, and anyone that learns to think and study should come to the correct conclusion. Learning the other side of the debate is not a threat to the science. You however are on shaky ground with your own beliefs, so fear somebody thinking about the answer.
That is really what this boils down to, with you and every other lame ass with mod points that downgrades any post that does not attempt to belittle the non-atheists.
I agree that it would be great to teach high school students some theory of science and give them the tools to separate good science from bad science and pseudo science such as astrology, creationism and "young earth theories". I have a hard time believing this is what the senator in SC is proposing though.
Since it's not currently implemented this would be a good time to look at implementation instead of jumping immediately to censorship right? I'm curious to see if will be implemented correctly myself.
That said, Big Bang in all of it's various forms has been taught as factual. Prior to the expanding vacuum theories we were taught that a 270,000 light year diameter ball of mass blew up. Funny how atheists had no problem teaching this as fact, even though it's absolutely wrong. We know it's wrong today because people questioned what they were fed and told was "fact".
Another piece that you don't mention except to call pseudo science is that creation not only attempts to answer the "what" happened, but "why" it happened. Science likes to take this as purely accidental and survival of the fittest, where religion does not. The two things are distinctly different questions with potentially distinctly different answers. We will never have a scientific answer for what caused the Universe to exist.
There are thousands of years of work done on that particular question, and it's an incredibly powerful method of teaching people to think and question. Very few will encourage people to investigate that question, both extremes of atheism and religion feed you their answer and chastise thought.
That I believe is the key point, but overlooked in the haste of bile and bias. Teaching people to question is a good thing. Teaching your bias is not so good, and both sides do it (though both deny it).
I always read this bile from atheists when anyone points out that evolution has some holes in it. Instead of admitting there are holes, they immediately jump to "you must believe in _that_". Turning that around, Religious people do the same thing. We end up with an argument where few will actually sit and think about the issues.
Anyone claiming evolution has holes in it's theory is chastised on this site, and anyone that disagrees with an atheist is chastised and censored. It must be right because somebody said it's right, and if you question you are a Troll or Flamebait and must not be seen.
We don't know the "correct" theory for the cause of the Universe, or creation of the Universe, which is what Religion attempts to answer. It is quite a marvelous question for hundreds of valid reasons (critical thinking, logic, ethics, morality). Funny that most atheists will claim "big bang" answers the question, and when they are shown that is wrong they claim "the question does not matter".
The problem really is that people lump the question of the origin of the Universe into Religion at their first convenience to prevent people from looking at the question in it's raw form.
Taking away TFA's straw man, where does it say that SC is teaching nothing, or teaching that evolution is false? Read it again! There is no such claim, you are inventing the whole "creationism" portion of the argument.
Would you be fine with this same restriction for the big bang? There are hundreds of various theories of Big Bang, with thousands of estimates for the age of the Universe, with thousands more estimates of how the event started and what the landscape looked like.
My guess is that you would have problems with that one, because then your belief becomes challenged.
If I were to claim "My state will teach Newtonian theory of gravity is not fact" would you have issues with it? How about Einstein's theory of gravity? I would be correct in teaching them that those two theories were/are not factual, and showing where the gaps are. This is how we make progress in science and improve theories.
Would teaching where these theories seem to fail mean that "I refuse to teach about gravity" and all of my students are idiots because I taught them to question what someone else want's them taught as "fact" (this matches the straw man TFA erects and you seem to believe)?
I'm not sure what article you are referring to but I don't see anyone claiming "not teach their children what is accepted in the scientific community". I read "argued against teaching natural selection as fact, " and "teach them the controversy".
Evolution and Natural selection surely have some gaps, which is why there is still some controversy. You may not like the other side, so choose to ignore the gaps which makes you biased. Just like the other side is biased, but of course that is difficult to come to grips with our own shortcomings.
A big part of science used to be not accepting what someone gives you and following the scientific methods. Teaching people to question what they are told surely has benefits. Are you so biased that questions are only valid about someone else' belief?
I really can't imagine why you believe this. The fact that vikings reached the East coast of North America is widely known today and no one of substance has any issue with it.
What? I never claimed to have that belief, and if you go back and read again what I wrote you will see why I mentioned it. It's that people are taught something different from what we know to be true, or given a completely different perception based on not teaching specific things we know.
Cite someone that isn't a bonehead blogger or poaster in some forum
Well there spelling champ, go read public school curriculum. My complaint was not just that what people are taught is wrong or right, it's that people are taught bias to further someone's political agenda. Don't insert your own extreme value into that. For example, if you convince people that Columbus was a hero that rescued the indigenous people from a life of drudgery and inevitable death due to ignorance, it makes the slaughtering of millions of native people much easier to swallow and normalize. Teaching that the Pilgrims and Indians got together and had a nice Thanksgiving dinner lessens the reality of events back then.
Sure, in College you can learn a different "science" and a different message. The obvious problem is that one bias seems to often be traded for another bias.
Reading their science gives me no compelling reason to believe that it had to be the ocean that migrated the gourds over someone carrying them. People lived in both locations during the time periods described, so either is valid. They claim "fact" but I fail to see any facts at all. The DNA evidence shows a relationship between the two gourds, but does not show "how" a gourd traveled over the ocean.
Your and their hypothetical "they would not have carried the gourds" would imply that they did not understand very basic agriculture. Plant A = good food and over there it does not exist, so lets move some good food seeds from here to there. Plant B makes a great container, and we don't have these over there either.
That hypothesis works if you assume that there was no possible way people could have been skilled enough to cross a body of water intentinoally. The knowledge of the stars possessed by the Sumerian's actually demonstrates that navigation may have been possible. Boat building is a big question mark for sure, but ancient Egypt was not doing poorly in that area and the knowledge they had for larger ships demonstrates prior knowledge.
Last I checked, "Science" required indisputable proof in order to claim something as fact. In this case, there is no such proof. This is not any great revelation, because lots of science lately has been anything but science.
They gave a bunch of crap and claimed to know the answer. Typical "science" lately, I guess.
They believe based on DNA that the gourds in the Americas are more similar to African gourds than Asian. That's something, but they can't explain the Asian gourds or origin. So I'm not sure how they can claim to know that the gourds traveled by Ocean, when we have humans that traveled further back than 10,000 years.
I guess if you assume that nobody could boat back then, they would be on to something. Vessels made specifically for sea fairing fit within that 10,000 year time frame, but we have no idea when the first small boats were used.
I see this as more bias in Science. Many people swear that Columbus was the first person in America still today, ignoring the population that was already living and thriving here for thousands of years before that. People still doubt that Vikings made it to the US even though materials have been found that sure look and date Viking. And of course you can't mention the Neanderthal remains that have been found mixed in with other "native" people's dating back much further than 10,000 years in Canada and the US.
It seems like "science" want's you to believe that up until the white European everyone was sub-human and had trouble simply banging sticks together. Ten minutes of study on Sumeria should get you questioning this teaching.
In summary, they speculate that the only way for a gourd to get to the US was by drifting on the ocean. People were too stupid to even accidentally travel across the ocean. The lack of fingerprints on fossilized gourds is proof positive that they are right. (hopefully you can detect sarcasm)
Slightly more powerful than wget to me is a wrapper around wget. Perl and Bash scripts are way beyond the average users. To politicians scripts can be used to claim "voodoo" or "saintly" depending on who writes the scripts. The NSAs scripts are obviously saintly, while anybody else is probably voodoo.
It was your mention I think the day may come, but only after graphical editing becomes more ubiquitous. which was not very clear. The additional context here adds the required distinction, thank you.