We don't know 100% about ANYTHING. Gravity for example--we're still not sure about the existence of the gravitron, the nature of dark matter, whether or not we need a cosmological constant or if gravity just works differently at very large distances, etc.
But we generally don't go around saying that gravity doesn't exist because, well, that flies in the face of common observation and common sense.
Evolution HAS been observed, and evolution DOES follow common sense (unfortunately, many people lack this trait and bring up a bunch of completely ridiculous and irrelevant objections.) Therefore, most scientists simply take it for granted, just as they take the fundementals of gravity for granted--but that does not mean we don't have anything more to learn about how life evolved.
7) Evolution of the eye. We have no indication of how or why the eye evolved. Likewise, we have no indication of why there are creatures that have existed for 50 million years, like bats, and have been blind for the entire period.
This is just one of those arguments that have absolutely no basis in science or common sense, yet keeps getting repeated because no one has bothered to stop and think about it. Basic light sensativity (the kind that exists in single-celled organisms) is better than none at all. Color sensativity is better than basic light sensativity. Color sensativity with a very crude lense (only partially focused) is better than no lense at all. And an entire, perfectly focused eye is better than a half-focused eye. If you doubt these things, just think about how much very basic information an eye supplies--the time of day, the movement of a predator, the color of a poisonous plant, etc. There is no mystery, only a basic origin (a light sensative cell) and a chain of cumulative improvements.
Some animals (though not bats) are blind, probably for brainpower reasons. Visual processing takes a lot of energy, energy that could be redirected into other endevors, such as sound/smell processing or greater intelligence. If little is to be gained by sight, for instance if a creature spends its entire life underground or in deep ocean, then there really isn't a strong evolutionary incentive to keep (or develop) those eyeballs.
Your other arguments are fairly moot, too, but this one is a pet peeve of mine. For all the logic it contains, you might as well say that the ocean is conclusive proof that lakes don't exist.
Before someone objects, let me rephrase: the VAST majority of the time unexplained phenomena are merely the result of insufficient data. Very very VERY rarely new theories (like General Relativity) are born, and in these cases the burden of proof is on the new theory.
There will always be unexplained phenomena in any scientific field. Call them "holes" if you must, but they are not indicative of a flawed theory (rather, they are indicative of insufficient data.)
Actually, MDMA may not be all that bad. It is linked to brain damage in rats, but the same study also proved that you could prevent 100% of the damage by administering an SSRI (Prozac, Zoloft, St. John's Wort, etc.)
Well, it sounded like you were out to trivialize the advantages computers have over consoles. Certainly, the first two advantages are trivial (i.e. easily duplicated by consoles if they ever chose to.), but the third is not. I cannot see consoles supporting and providing a way to install third-party mods in the forseeable future.
Take a look at Morrowind for the Xbox and Morrowind for the PC--there's really no comparison. For the PC, a few choice mods yields far superior character models, new races to play and new monsters to fight, companions to aid you, pack animals to haul your lewt, new weapons and clothes, atmospheric sounds and music, new quests and storylines, etc.
A game that embraces the mod community can rise above its flaws (and believe me, Morrowind has plenty of those) and prolong its life for many years to come. If you need more proof of this, just look at the StarCraft UMS (Use Map Settings) crowd.
Oh yeah--you also forgot:
4. Better Graphics (for those of us willing to pay for them)
I don't know if it works on really ancient systems--a 486, for example--but I've used Firefox on a p2 laptop with 128MB of ram and (aside from the initial load time, which is nigh ) it still outperformed IE. It crashed less, too.
...or by pedantically arguing about peripheral issues that have no bearing on the issue at hand.
You have no grasp of the issue at hand. The issue is not terrorists, it is MONEY and HUMAN LIFE. I don't give a SHIT about terrorists, because I'm much much MUCH more likely to die in a car crash or plane crash or a mugging or a drive-by or a heart attack. These measures are a waste of our money for what should be a relatively low-priority issue, though it has been MADE an uber-high priority issue by fear mongering from the media and our leaders.
You want a solution for terrorism? Fine, here ya go, in three easy steps:
1.Tell Isreal to go fuck itself. Do not stick up for them in the UN and do not sell them any more weapons. Sucks for them, but they should accept the consequences of founding a nation in the middle of a bunch of intolerant, religious, zealot nations. The United States has no business taking sides in a religious war, regardless of how unfair side A or B is being treated.
2. Do not invade any more sandy countries just because we don't like their leaders. If you're worried about WMDs, you need to look at North Korea. If you're worried about people suffering needlessly, you need to look at Africa. Just leave the Arabs the fuck alone unless their government openly condones hostilies toward us.
3. Continue spreading the wonders of computers and the internet, cable (or satellite) TV, Hollywood, pop music, pornography, etc. "Progress" will weaken and destroy their fundementalism, just as it has all but destroyed many purtian Christian values in Americia.
But again, at this point terrorism really isn't a major concern, and that was MY point that you utterly failed to grasp. I don't live to fight terrorism. There are more important battles to be fought, problems that are much more real and lethal that I'd rather our government spend its money on. The problem you are DEMANDING we address RIGHT NOW is simply not in the top ten list of our problems, nor even our top 100.
If you don't believe me, go look at the numbers. And if you're still not conviced, why don't you come back and tell me that my niece's life wasn't worth saving because it was only a car that hit her, not a airliner piloted by some crazy deluded fuckwad.
I said a THIRD of the money, didn't I? No one is arguing that absolutely no security precautions should be taken.
My argument is not false, because I do not believe that the goal should be to stop terrorism at all costs. If the point is SAVING HUMAN LIFE (and I believe it should be), then our money is very obviously being wasted. If the point isn't saving human lives, then what is it?
No, he's saying that every dollar spent by the government is a dollar that could be spent elsewhere. If the UK or the USA took even a third of their terrorism money and put it towards building safer roads or more hospitals or training more police officers, they would save a hundredfold more lives.
By spending such a ridiculous amount on anti-terrorism, we are in fact giving the terrorists exactly what they want--we are allowing our *terror* to outweigh good our judgement and concern for human life.
Please show me where it says in the bible that God caused life to appear out of nowhere. Please show me where the bible references TIME at all after those first seven days, when God was creating humans, plants, and animals. There is no indication whatsoever that God snapped his fingers and life suddenly appeared. By believing in this man-invented concept of creationism, you are claiming to understand how your god did these things and how long it took him.
Your catagorical disbelief of evolution (as opposed to specific objections, like irregularities in the evidence) is not supported by the world around us, and it is not supported by the very book you claim to follow. It is illogical, irrational, extremely arrogant, and is modded flamebait for very good reason.
As for the "it's just a theory" horseshit, well, if you haven't figured out how worthless that statement is by now, you really are beyond all reason. Things like eletricity and gravity and relativity and nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are all theories, and have all field very real, practical results. Evolution, too, has shown itself to be real as best it can, but no one can prove it to be absolutely, unquestionably true any more than they could prove that an electrons are real by picking one up and showing it to me.
But you go ahead and keep believing that electrons aren't real because you can't observe them directly. Just try not to get hit by a bolt of lightning...
2. I hate all you bastards that actually had POWER afterwards. For the rest of us (even the ones with generators), a good battery-operated radio was infinitely more useful.
I'm sorry to break it to ya, but this is what mainstream Christianity believes. They believe in a personal god that (at least to some extent) manipulates world events. This being is completely invisible and traceless and supposedly exists in heaven (which is protrayed in the bible as existing above the earth.) We were "made in his own image", so it's not too inaccurate to call it a man--oh yeah, and God is almost always referred to as "He."
"An invisible man in the sky that manipulates world events" is an entirely valid description, and like it or not this belief does tend to fly in the face of logic and rationality. Mind you, I'm not dissing Christianity here--there are more things to life than common sense and rationality, and I don't think most atheists understand the true importance of religion--but when explained to an outsider, it's still a silly-sounding belief, and one that will very naturally lead to some degree of ridicule.
In a sense, the parent's post wasn't flamebait, but most flavors of Christianity are by nature of their very claims. If you are a Christian, then it's your responsibilty to take those flames in stride, and avoid attacking them with flames of your own.
As my understanding of relativity goes, there is no real need to go faster than light. We often hera the phrase "light from that star takes blah blah blah years to reach us," but what is so rarely mentioned is we're measuring time from our point of view. From the photon's point of view, no time has elapsed at all. TRUE LIGHTSPEED TRAVEL IS INSTANTANEOUS FROM THE SUBJECT'S POINT OF VIEW. Read that over and over until it sinks in.
Yes, it is impossible to reach the speed of light, but that's not really a problem. Using slower than light technology, it is perfectly (theoretically) possible to cross the Milky Way in five seconds. Five seconds to YOU that is--the rest of the universe would strongly disagree (probably on the order of many millions of years.)
The problem has never been traveling faster than light, because such a thing is clearly absurd (what's faster than instantaneous travel?)--the problem is cancelling out time dialation which is really just good old fashioned time travel.
For those of us that are joining late, remember that as you move faster through space the universe around you seems to speed up AND space itself seems to contract--from your frame of reference distances are shorter, and you thus do not need to travel as far.
Anyway, last time I checked most physicists were not comfortable completely ruling out all possibilty of time travel (if not on the macroscopic scale, then at least on the microscopic scale.) If time travel may still be possible, then so is faster than light travel. The two are, in fact, one and the same.
Appologies for errors, but I'm coming down off of a pretty nasty buzz right now. (Heh... it's a pretty sad state of things when a high school dropout with a hangover has to explain 100 year old scientific concepts.)
I know that "not guilty" !="innocent", but I thought it was possible for an acquitted person to seek a declaration of innocence from the court, whereupon the burden of proof fell on them to prove that they did NOT commit the crime. I'm not sure whether this has any legal implications (perhaps the charges are completely expunged from one's record?) or if it's simply a good faith gesture intended to help restore the defendant's reputation.
Of course, I might just be misremembering an episode of Law and Order or something...
As I understand it, Firefox makes aggressive use of unused resources. If you're not having any slowdowns, then take a deep breath and realize that it's just doing what it's supposed to do.
If you do have accompanying slowdowns, then you have a specific, rare problem. See the other replies you've gotten so far for suggestions.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't know 100% about ANYTHING. Gravity for example--we're still not sure about the existence of the gravitron, the nature of dark matter, whether or not we need a cosmological constant or if gravity just works differently at very large distances, etc.
But we generally don't go around saying that gravity doesn't exist because, well, that flies in the face of common observation and common sense.
Evolution HAS been observed, and evolution DOES follow common sense (unfortunately, many people lack this trait and bring up a bunch of completely ridiculous and irrelevant objections.) Therefore, most scientists simply take it for granted, just as they take the fundementals of gravity for granted--but that does not mean we don't have anything more to learn about how life evolved.
This is just one of those arguments that have absolutely no basis in science or common sense, yet keeps getting repeated because no one has bothered to stop and think about it. Basic light sensativity (the kind that exists in single-celled organisms) is better than none at all. Color sensativity is better than basic light sensativity. Color sensativity with a very crude lense (only partially focused) is better than no lense at all. And an entire, perfectly focused eye is better than a half-focused eye. If you doubt these things, just think about how much very basic information an eye supplies--the time of day, the movement of a predator, the color of a poisonous plant, etc. There is no mystery, only a basic origin (a light sensative cell) and a chain of cumulative improvements.
Some animals (though not bats) are blind, probably for brainpower reasons. Visual processing takes a lot of energy, energy that could be redirected into other endevors, such as sound/smell processing or greater intelligence. If little is to be gained by sight, for instance if a creature spends its entire life underground or in deep ocean, then there really isn't a strong evolutionary incentive to keep (or develop) those eyeballs.
Your other arguments are fairly moot, too, but this one is a pet peeve of mine. For all the logic it contains, you might as well say that the ocean is conclusive proof that lakes don't exist.
and mistranslated. And rewritten (witness differences between Judaic, Islamic, and Christian creation myths.)
Before someone objects, let me rephrase: the VAST majority of the time unexplained phenomena are merely the result of insufficient data. Very very VERY rarely new theories (like General Relativity) are born, and in these cases the burden of proof is on the new theory.
There will always be unexplained phenomena in any scientific field. Call them "holes" if you must, but they are not indicative of a flawed theory (rather, they are indicative of insufficient data.)
Actually, MDMA may not be all that bad. It is linked to brain damage in rats, but the same study also proved that you could prevent 100% of the damage by administering an SSRI (Prozac, Zoloft, St. John's Wort, etc.)
Well, it sounded like you were out to trivialize the advantages computers have over consoles. Certainly, the first two advantages are trivial (i.e. easily duplicated by consoles if they ever chose to.), but the third is not. I cannot see consoles supporting and providing a way to install third-party mods in the forseeable future.
Take a look at Morrowind for the Xbox and Morrowind for the PC--there's really no comparison. For the PC, a few choice mods yields far superior character models, new races to play and new monsters to fight, companions to aid you, pack animals to haul your lewt, new weapons and clothes, atmospheric sounds and music, new quests and storylines, etc.
A game that embraces the mod community can rise above its flaws (and believe me, Morrowind has plenty of those) and prolong its life for many years to come. If you need more proof of this, just look at the StarCraft UMS (Use Map Settings) crowd.
Oh yeah--you also forgot:
4. Better Graphics (for those of us willing to pay for them)
Bold? BOLD?!
What the fuck is wrong with me today?
Ok, I'm hitting PREVIEW now...
Argh, it ate half of my parathetical sentence
*which is nigh impossible to beat due to IE being integrated into the OS)
I don't know if it works on really ancient systems--a 486, for example--but I've used Firefox on a p2 laptop with 128MB of ram and (aside from the initial load time, which is nigh ) it still outperformed IE. It crashed less, too.
There are so many disturbing things about that headline...I don't even know where to begin...
...or by pedantically arguing about peripheral issues that have no bearing on the issue at hand.
You have no grasp of the issue at hand. The issue is not terrorists, it is MONEY and HUMAN LIFE. I don't give a SHIT about terrorists, because I'm much much MUCH more likely to die in a car crash or plane crash or a mugging or a drive-by or a heart attack. These measures are a waste of our money for what should be a relatively low-priority issue, though it has been MADE an uber-high priority issue by fear mongering from the media and our leaders.
You want a solution for terrorism? Fine, here ya go, in three easy steps:
1.Tell Isreal to go fuck itself. Do not stick up for them in the UN and do not sell them any more weapons. Sucks for them, but they should accept the consequences of founding a nation in the middle of a bunch of intolerant, religious, zealot nations. The United States has no business taking sides in a religious war, regardless of how unfair side A or B is being treated.
2. Do not invade any more sandy countries just because we don't like their leaders. If you're worried about WMDs, you need to look at North Korea. If you're worried about people suffering needlessly, you need to look at Africa. Just leave the Arabs the fuck alone unless their government openly condones hostilies toward us.
3. Continue spreading the wonders of computers and the internet, cable (or satellite) TV, Hollywood, pop music, pornography, etc. "Progress" will weaken and destroy their fundementalism, just as it has all but destroyed many purtian Christian values in Americia.
But again, at this point terrorism really isn't a major concern, and that was MY point that you utterly failed to grasp. I don't live to fight terrorism. There are more important battles to be fought, problems that are much more real and lethal that I'd rather our government spend its money on. The problem you are DEMANDING we address RIGHT NOW is simply not in the top ten list of our problems, nor even our top 100.
If you don't believe me, go look at the numbers. And if you're still not conviced, why don't you come back and tell me that my niece's life wasn't worth saving because it was only a car that hit her, not a airliner piloted by some crazy deluded fuckwad.
I said a THIRD of the money, didn't I? No one is arguing that absolutely no security precautions should be taken.
My argument is not false, because I do not believe that the goal should be to stop terrorism at all costs. If the point is SAVING HUMAN LIFE (and I believe it should be), then our money is very obviously being wasted. If the point isn't saving human lives, then what is it?
No, he's saying that every dollar spent by the government is a dollar that could be spent elsewhere. If the UK or the USA took even a third of their terrorism money and put it towards building safer roads or more hospitals or training more police officers, they would save a hundredfold more lives.
By spending such a ridiculous amount on anti-terrorism, we are in fact giving the terrorists exactly what they want--we are allowing our *terror* to outweigh good our judgement and concern for human life.
He created heaven and earth in 6 days. He created man, woman, plants and animals at an unspecified time after the 7th.
Please show me where it says in the bible that God caused life to appear out of nowhere. Please show me where the bible references TIME at all after those first seven days, when God was creating humans, plants, and animals. There is no indication whatsoever that God snapped his fingers and life suddenly appeared. By believing in this man-invented concept of creationism, you are claiming to understand how your god did these things and how long it took him.
Your catagorical disbelief of evolution (as opposed to specific objections, like irregularities in the evidence) is not supported by the world around us, and it is not supported by the very book you claim to follow. It is illogical, irrational, extremely arrogant, and is modded flamebait for very good reason.
As for the "it's just a theory" horseshit, well, if you haven't figured out how worthless that statement is by now, you really are beyond all reason. Things like eletricity and gravity and relativity and nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are all theories, and have all field very real, practical results. Evolution, too, has shown itself to be real as best it can, but no one can prove it to be absolutely, unquestionably true any more than they could prove that an electrons are real by picking one up and showing it to me.
But you go ahead and keep believing that electrons aren't real because you can't observe them directly. Just try not to get hit by a bolt of lightning...
1. There were four, not three.
2. I hate all you bastards that actually had POWER afterwards. For the rest of us (even the ones with generators), a good battery-operated radio was infinitely more useful.
I can't believe no one has pointed out the blindingly obvious GNOME counterpart--Gikipedia. "Geeky-pedia."
The marketing practically writes itself.
I'm sorry to break it to ya, but this is what mainstream Christianity believes. They believe in a personal god that (at least to some extent) manipulates world events. This being is completely invisible and traceless and supposedly exists in heaven (which is protrayed in the bible as existing above the earth.) We were "made in his own image", so it's not too inaccurate to call it a man--oh yeah, and God is almost always referred to as "He."
"An invisible man in the sky that manipulates world events" is an entirely valid description, and like it or not this belief does tend to fly in the face of logic and rationality. Mind you, I'm not dissing Christianity here--there are more things to life than common sense and rationality, and I don't think most atheists understand the true importance of religion--but when explained to an outsider, it's still a silly-sounding belief, and one that will very naturally lead to some degree of ridicule.
In a sense, the parent's post wasn't flamebait, but most flavors of Christianity are by nature of their very claims. If you are a Christian, then it's your responsibilty to take those flames in stride, and avoid attacking them with flames of your own.
As my understanding of relativity goes, there is no real need to go faster than light. We often hera the phrase "light from that star takes blah blah blah years to reach us," but what is so rarely mentioned is we're measuring time from our point of view. From the photon's point of view, no time has elapsed at all. TRUE LIGHTSPEED TRAVEL IS INSTANTANEOUS FROM THE SUBJECT'S POINT OF VIEW. Read that over and over until it sinks in.
Yes, it is impossible to reach the speed of light, but that's not really a problem. Using slower than light technology, it is perfectly (theoretically) possible to cross the Milky Way in five seconds. Five seconds to YOU that is--the rest of the universe would strongly disagree (probably on the order of many millions of years.)
The problem has never been traveling faster than light, because such a thing is clearly absurd (what's faster than instantaneous travel?)--the problem is cancelling out time dialation which is really just good old fashioned time travel. For those of us that are joining late, remember that as you move faster through space the universe around you seems to speed up AND space itself seems to contract--from your frame of reference distances are shorter, and you thus do not need to travel as far.
Anyway, last time I checked most physicists were not comfortable completely ruling out all possibilty of time travel (if not on the macroscopic scale, then at least on the microscopic scale.) If time travel may still be possible, then so is faster than light travel. The two are, in fact, one and the same.
Appologies for errors, but I'm coming down off of a pretty nasty buzz right now. (Heh... it's a pretty sad state of things when a high school dropout with a hangover has to explain 100 year old scientific concepts.)
I know that "not guilty" !="innocent", but I thought it was possible for an acquitted person to seek a declaration of innocence from the court, whereupon the burden of proof fell on them to prove that they did NOT commit the crime. I'm not sure whether this has any legal implications (perhaps the charges are completely expunged from one's record?) or if it's simply a good faith gesture intended to help restore the defendant's reputation.
Of course, I might just be misremembering an episode of Law and Order or something...
Well put. Gives me an idea for a new sig, in fact...
As I understand it, Firefox makes aggressive use of unused resources. If you're not having any slowdowns, then take a deep breath and realize that it's just doing what it's supposed to do.
If you do have accompanying slowdowns, then you have a specific, rare problem. See the other replies you've gotten so far for suggestions.
...buying themselves a new soul?