From the gist of the conversation, you seem to be equating science with belief.
You maintain that scientists follow the "dogma" of some kind of science clergy, and that they should abandon their current methods and look for "alternate" explanations.
It's very likely that you are a highly religious person who is unable to imagine a world view without religious belief of some kind. I would wager you regard atheism and agnotisism as "belief systems", even though they are nothing of the kind. You must understand that there are people who simply do not live their lives "believing" in anything. They accept facts, but that is not belief. Belief is the acceptance of fiction, not fact.
To equate science with any kind of religion or belief system is an extreme fallacy. Science is about as far from religion as you can get.
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either.
Though it is obvious that Lott was inferring that if the highly racist Thurmond had been elected, the "problems", i.e. civil rights would not have happened.
Most of the stuff in their stories about the Aztecs though is about their cruelty and human sacrifice.
Interesting. I've always been puzzled by how Cortez and his rather megre expedition managed to conquer an entire empire. But if the Aztec Empire was an oppressive one, that might go a ways to explaining why tribes joined Cortez so quickly, and why it so quickly collapsed.
Iran is probably trying to create nuclear weapons. Their public policy is that Israel should be blown off the face of the Earth. Is it OK for us to intervene now?
Iran is trying to create nuclear weapons. Also, they are currently flanked on two of their borders by the army of their grentest nemesis, the US. All the while, they share no land border with Israel at all. It's clear that Mutually Assurred Destruction, rather than territorial ambitions, is at play here.
But I think you're implying that it's OK for Osama bin Laden to kill 3000 innocent Americans because the US had bases in Saudi Arabia. Is that what you're saying?
You're putting words in the grandparent's mouth. Words that came out of nowhere. Please take the rotting corpses of 9/11 victims off your waving banner. It's disrespectful.
We weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan when 9/11 happened. Nor when they bombed the embassies in Africa. Nor when they originally tried to bomb the twin towers.
That's correct. The US was instead in Saudi Arabia, propping up an oppressive dicatorship. It's still there. A lot of "terrorists" actuall come from Saudi.
There is no rhyme or reason to madmen, so please, spare us the attempt to try and suggest that if we just appease the terrorists, they'll leave us alone. It has never worked.
Demonstrably false. Look at Northern Ireland. By implementing reforms, the British Government has turned a virtual permanent warzone into a reasonably stable society. If they had continued to inflame sentiments by perpetuating their previous policies, bombs would still be going off in Belfast to this day.
Coercion and reform are required to quell any popular uprising. The only other solution is to kill everyone. The US didn't do that in Vietnam, and it's not going to do it in Iraq. The current situation in Iraq is a quagmire because they have only the coercion without the reform. Both are needed.
What's more, not all searches and seizures are forbidden, only those that are unreasonable. The interception of the communications of known foreign enemies of the US is per se reasonable.
Foreign persons are not citizens of the US, and are thus for the most part, outside the scope of the forth ammendment, so long as they remain outside the jurisdiction and control of the US.
Once within it however, the forth ammendment applies. You cannot wiretap their phone without due process. The president has no authority to do so, no matter how much of a threat they pose to national security. Without legal authorisation to contuct a wiretap, the president can't do jack.
If Osama Bin Laden himself was running his ultra high tech global Al-Queda control network with 52 metre display screen showing nuclear bomb locations in real time from staellie topography, right across from the White House, the president could not order a wiretap of the facility with due process.
This is pure genius because it utilizes such a simple, basic concept: accountability.
A pity that accountability is an anethema to our current capitalist systems. That's why they call it a "limited" company. The shareholders can just walk away after the companies puts babies in cat food for pasta's sake!. Total immunity.
Expect laws against these suits to be passed forthwith.
The military files an amicus brief to the effect that gays in the military in any capacity--even as a lawyer or translator--would be detrimental to national security. Or rather, gays who admit to being gay in contravention of "don't ask, don't tell" would be dangerous. Think about that logically.
It must be true. Clearly the penguins' pebbles were a secret soviet code of some kind.
This is more likely an effect that can be traced back to higher living standards, rather than spontanious global changes in the human gene pool. After all, 650 years is only about 40 generations.
The article implies that libel laws and laws againt computer-generated child-porn are synonymous with censorship.
The article is technically correct. Libel is a type of censorship. Anti-child-porn laws are also a type of censorship. Society censors actions or opinions it deems contrary to its smooth functioning.
I agree with censoring child porn, but not to the extent that I'd let the government compile intelligence on every googling citizen. I happen to think that supressive governments are worse than child porn, and I think the body count backs me up on that one.
He's the president, show some respect even if you don't agree with his policies and call him "President Bush". Also, for the love of god, stop calling Bill Clinton "President Clinton".
I don't know. Clinton was the last president to be freely and fairly elected. He was also the last president to act, you know, Presidential.
I was talking with him about evolution a couple of weeks ago and he basically came right out and said he thought it was full of it.
I didn't know what to say. I just stood their stunned.
My home has always been full of books. As a child, I read constantly. One of my favourite books was a children's encyclopedia. By age nine I knew all about cosmology, electricity, geography, geology, evolution etc, etc. My family was never religious, so I grew up under the assumption that no one believed in religion anymore.
I only became aware that quite a significant portion of people are still religious when I was about twenty. It was pretty unnerving to find out that everyone around you was suddenly a lot different that what you had thought. I still haven't gotten over it.
So when he said that, I was pretty shaken. Had the creationist propagandists gotten to him? Was he going to become a religious nut? Was he going to become the thrall of the local clergy?
As it turns out, he was nothing of the sort. He just thought the whole idea was outlandish. More like "come off it" than "it can't be". He accepts dinosaurs, that we are descended from apes, etc, etc. He just finds it hard to accept the whole idea of evolution for some reason.
I still think it was down in part to his religious upbringing, but at the same time, evolution can still be a though theory to swallow for the non scientifically inclined. Especially without presenting the evidence, which, despite there being mountains of it, is never really put forward.
There need to be more programs on dinosaurs, ancient mammals, fossils, bacteria. Evolution needs to be presented in a scientific way once again, not in a hollywoodised "edutainment" form with fantasy battles between digitally animated dinosaurs. People will just equate it with sci-fi if that goes on.
Nope. His short term memory is fine. He has no effective long term memory capacity. He only remembers long term what he had remembered for the long term before the operation.
His short term is a-OK. His long term is where the problem is.
Slashdot Mirror
From the gist of the conversation, you seem to be equating science with belief.
You maintain that scientists follow the "dogma" of some kind of science clergy, and that they should abandon their current methods and look for "alternate" explanations.
It's very likely that you are a highly religious person who is unable to imagine a world view without religious belief of some kind. I would wager you regard atheism and agnotisism as "belief systems", even though they are nothing of the kind. You must understand that there are people who simply do not live their lives "believing" in anything. They accept facts, but that is not belief. Belief is the acceptance of fiction, not fact.
To equate science with any kind of religion or belief system is an extreme fallacy. Science is about as far from religion as you can get.
Though it is obvious that Lott was inferring that if the highly racist Thurmond had been elected, the "problems", i.e. civil rights would not have happened.
Most of the stuff in their stories about the Aztecs though is about their cruelty and human sacrifice.
Interesting. I've always been puzzled by how Cortez and his rather megre expedition managed to conquer an entire empire. But if the Aztec Empire was an oppressive one, that might go a ways to explaining why tribes joined Cortez so quickly, and why it so quickly collapsed.
We tried that. 1939. Didn't turn out so well.
Godwin's Law Invoked.
Iran is probably trying to create nuclear weapons. Their public policy is that Israel should be blown off the face of the Earth. Is it OK for us to intervene now?
Iran is trying to create nuclear weapons. Also, they are currently flanked on two of their borders by the army of their grentest nemesis, the US. All the while, they share no land border with Israel at all. It's clear that Mutually Assurred Destruction, rather than territorial ambitions, is at play here.
But I think you're implying that it's OK for Osama bin Laden to kill 3000 innocent Americans because the US had bases in Saudi Arabia. Is that what you're saying?
You're putting words in the grandparent's mouth. Words that came out of nowhere. Please take the rotting corpses of 9/11 victims off your waving banner. It's disrespectful.
We weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan when 9/11 happened. Nor when they bombed the embassies in Africa. Nor when they originally tried to bomb the twin towers.
That's correct. The US was instead in Saudi Arabia, propping up an oppressive dicatorship. It's still there. A lot of "terrorists" actuall come from Saudi.
There is no rhyme or reason to madmen, so please, spare us the attempt to try and suggest that if we just appease the terrorists, they'll leave us alone. It has never worked.
Demonstrably false. Look at Northern Ireland. By implementing reforms, the British Government has turned a virtual permanent warzone into a reasonably stable society. If they had continued to inflame sentiments by perpetuating their previous policies, bombs would still be going off in Belfast to this day.
Coercion and reform are required to quell any popular uprising. The only other solution is to kill everyone. The US didn't do that in Vietnam, and it's not going to do it in Iraq. The current situation in Iraq is a quagmire because they have only the coercion without the reform. Both are needed.
Bush has done more to hurt our country than bin Laden could dream of.
Some say this was one of bin Laden's objectives. He would bring down western society by making it tear itself apart chasing shadows.
What's more, not all searches and seizures are forbidden, only those that are unreasonable. The interception of the communications of known foreign enemies of the US is per se reasonable.
Foreign persons are not citizens of the US, and are thus for the most part, outside the scope of the forth ammendment, so long as they remain outside the jurisdiction and control of the US.
Once within it however, the forth ammendment applies. You cannot wiretap their phone without due process. The president has no authority to do so, no matter how much of a threat they pose to national security. Without legal authorisation to contuct a wiretap, the president can't do jack.
If Osama Bin Laden himself was running his ultra high tech global Al-Queda control network with 52 metre display screen showing nuclear bomb locations in real time from staellie topography, right across from the White House, the president could not order a wiretap of the facility with due process.
This is pure genius because it utilizes such a simple, basic concept: accountability.
A pity that accountability is an anethema to our current capitalist systems. That's why they call it a "limited" company. The shareholders can just walk away after the companies puts babies in cat food for pasta's sake!. Total immunity.
Expect laws against these suits to be passed forthwith.
Because FISA actually rejected some requests. Without FISA, nothing gets rejected.
The military files an amicus brief to the effect that gays in the military in any capacity--even as a lawyer or translator--would be detrimental to national security. Or rather, gays who admit to being gay in contravention of "don't ask, don't tell" would be dangerous. Think about that logically.
It must be true. Clearly the penguins' pebbles were a secret soviet code of some kind.
Where do you see that in the U.S., really? You can speak out against the government without fear of retribution from the government.
Tell that to Russel Tice.
The grandparent may have been a little sensationalist, but the parent is a quintessential troll.
Use mod points wisely. They cannot be unused.
In other words... I think there are better theories out there.
If you're going to suggest Intelligent Design, then all the Slashdotters are going to laugh at you.
This is more likely an effect that can be traced back to higher living standards, rather than spontanious global changes in the human gene pool. After all, 650 years is only about 40 generations.
The article implies that libel laws and laws againt computer-generated child-porn are synonymous with censorship.
The article is technically correct. Libel is a type of censorship. Anti-child-porn laws are also a type of censorship. Society censors actions or opinions it deems contrary to its smooth functioning.
I agree with censoring child porn, but not to the extent that I'd let the government compile intelligence on every googling citizen. I happen to think that supressive governments are worse than child porn, and I think the body count backs me up on that one.
With 53% in support of a breach in their own constitution, its sounds more like their apathetic and/or treasonable to me.
He's the president, show some respect even if you don't agree with his policies and call him "President Bush". Also, for the love of god, stop calling Bill Clinton "President Clinton".
I don't know. Clinton was the last president to be freely and fairly elected. He was also the last president to act, you know, Presidential.
I'm willing to bet that their scanning every call coming in from either specific areas (such as Afganistan)
And the UK. And France. And the the Middle East.
Who are we kidding. They're tapping everything if they're tapping anything at all.
I've just switched to Macs after 17 years of PC ownership* (Dos, then Windows, then Linux). Boy, am I feeling smug right at this moment.
There are layers or irony here I just can't begin to elucidate on.
What about EFI?
That would be an ecumenical matter.
You must be using the new math.
What's important is that he tried, not that he got the correct answer.
Given this, the question is "do the monkey police have a vice squad?"
We'll know the answer once reports of monkey's in Armani pastel jackets over white t-shirts have been corroberated.
It's my own father.
I was talking with him about evolution a couple of weeks ago and he basically came right out and said he thought it was full of it.
I didn't know what to say. I just stood their stunned.
My home has always been full of books. As a child, I read constantly. One of my favourite books was a children's encyclopedia. By age nine I knew all about cosmology, electricity, geography, geology, evolution etc, etc. My family was never religious, so I grew up under the assumption that no one believed in religion anymore.
I only became aware that quite a significant portion of people are still religious when I was about twenty. It was pretty unnerving to find out that everyone around you was suddenly a lot different that what you had thought. I still haven't gotten over it.
So when he said that, I was pretty shaken. Had the creationist propagandists gotten to him? Was he going to become a religious nut? Was he going to become the thrall of the local clergy?
As it turns out, he was nothing of the sort. He just thought the whole idea was outlandish. More like "come off it" than "it can't be". He accepts dinosaurs, that we are descended from apes, etc, etc. He just finds it hard to accept the whole idea of evolution for some reason.
I still think it was down in part to his religious upbringing, but at the same time, evolution can still be a though theory to swallow for the non scientifically inclined. Especially without presenting the evidence, which, despite there being mountains of it, is never really put forward.
There need to be more programs on dinosaurs, ancient mammals, fossils, bacteria. Evolution needs to be presented in a scientific way once again, not in a hollywoodised "edutainment" form with fantasy battles between digitally animated dinosaurs. People will just equate it with sci-fi if that goes on.
There is no God. Just like there is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny.
You were lied too and I don't think the lies you were told should be taught to more innocent children. Especially not in public schools.
Nope. His short term memory is fine. He has no effective long term memory capacity. He only remembers long term what he had remembered for the long term before the operation.
His short term is a-OK. His long term is where the problem is.
By changing the name they made it less evil.
RMS==DRM. The layers of irony here are astounding. Stallman is going to be p/o'ed
It's still simply to make the propaganda change though. RMS=="Restrictions Management System". Wait! "wRongs Management System".
Perhaps their next acronym will be "Gag Nuturing Utility"