So exactly when does "evolution" start and the processes the form various types of life start? My understanding is the general evolutionary theory basically says...
Please, go read any book on the science of the theory of evolution. Evolution has ZERO to do with how life starts or where it comes from. Nada. Evolution says basically this, "Hey, there's a bunch of creatures around, and they seem to be changing over time, let's observe them and see if we can figure out what is makes them change and how they go about it."
That's it. No more, no less. Please try to recall Darwin's work was called "The Origin of Species" not "The Origin of Life". And the theory has evolved a lot since his day, it is a present vastly different from his original ideas.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You seem to have missed something there, fixed it for you.
Perhaps you know of such that lists those active in the field within the last 10-20 years? Well more than half of that list have been dead for more than a century. In fact of the only two names anywhere on that list that could be considered still active one is an atheist the other a Unitarian.
1. "macro-evolution" is a term used by fundamentalists, not scientists, and
Oh I'm sorry... what terms do you use to differentiate between mutations that are caused due to genes that exist within a species genome and mutations that occur by creating new genes that did not exist in the species before?
It has been shown that mutation has nearly nothing to do with the evolutionary process. (Before you ask for a "source", please read *any* non-fictional work on evolution written in the last 15 years.)
2. no scientist would describe evolution as "randomly caused".
Oh right... because the first protiens that formed life willed it. Give me a fucking break man.
Evolution has nothing at all to do with the formation of life, it only deals with the changes of species over time.
Really your just picking apart semantics. The point stands.
Yes, the point does stand. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
Well, it's simple really. The reason for the over-roasted beans at Starbucks (which causes those of us who like the taste of straight coffee and espresso to cringe) is the fact that Starbucks doesn't sell coffee. They sell coffee flavored drinks. Starbucks is responsible for the latte craze after all. Most all of their products contain so many other flavorings , dairy and sugar that the coffee has to be stronger or you wouldn't taste it. If this seems unrealistic, just go to a Starbucks and order black coffee or straight espresso. The looks the employees and other customers give you are priceless. They became a nationally known name by selling frapachinos, not coffee.
Partisan or not, the fact remains thus. The title and the summary say nothing about anything political save to mention the man in question is a republican aide. Because he __is__ a republican aide. Did the title or the summary go on about how this is typical republican behavior? Nope. Several comments did, but that's not the summary or title is it? Admittedly it would be just as valid to call him a congressional aide. But I fail to see the noting of a job title as partisan.
The thing about the original wargames is that it was less a techno film and far more political. The story was a way to express the futility of the cold war.
This film will do the same, except backwards I bet. The "hacker" in question will have gotten into hacking from his experience pirating music and movies. Then one day he decides it would be cool to hack the guv'ment. He then disrupts some vital whatever and the terrorist are coming. So he must turn a new leaf and mend his ways to fix the problem he caused and in the end deletes his "stolen" media collection.
Moral of the first film, "War is futile."
Moral of the new film, "Pirate music and movies and the terrorizorphiles win."
It matters very little what the facts may be, us mystery novel fans will surely agree to that, assumption is so much more fun. I for one given all the other details would love to see what the suit's actual outcome was. Since we are all here speculating what person did what when with regard to whom it would be nice to have a full set of facts to base these guesses on.
If you don't care, that's fine. It's not like anyone on/. (including me) has an opinion that matters in anyway at all regarding this.
That fact that Sturgeon settled out of court rather than try to refute the claims actually lends a little credibility to it. After all, with claims that outrageous it should be easy for the defendant in the suit to win judgment in their favor if they are not true. Real easy to make the plaintiff out to be a nutter. But, instead he chose to settle. Makes one wish settled lawsuits were public records. Very interesting indeed.
Funny, as far as I know, with no body you can't prove someone is dead. Why is that relevent...
OH YEAH!! They haven't found Nina Reiser's body. That should put a dent in the prosecutor's case I think. Kind of like trying to prove that someone who has never had a million dollars stole a million dollars, especially when you found no money on them at all.
In other words, by goin to the lawyers, the money is going into the State of Washingtons coffers, and helps to lower taxes, benifiting the people who were duped.
Ah, that's why are state taxes are being raised. Good to know.
Consumers have been fed up with ads evr since Cable TV was promising to make television "ad free". What consumer cares at all about ads? We don't, it's the sellers that care about ads not the buyers.
Then, despite having your request declined, you get up from your seats, and pair up: two walk up to the first class section and site together, two go to the rear of the plane, and two take the middle near the exits.
I love this part of the story, it's really great. The first stories I read about this incident said there were five Imams, and they were sitting in their assigned seats. Seems the story keeps getting added to. The other bit is that is was suspect because they all kept checking on one of them. People also fail to mention that the man being checked up on by his companions was blind
I take it you don't live in and around Seattle and know no one who works for him. Because the grandparent's comment is *exactly* what it is like. Ask anyone who has an orange badge.
Tempering is done with oils. Not water. Ever. Steel will either shatter or explode if you attempt to temper with water or with anything water-based. Period.
I was attempting to dispell a myth, but basically yes. I grow tried of the fractured logic that is often used around here that if someone got sued then (insert whatever reverse engineering/file sharing/flying cyber-monkeys) is illegal. Law suits have nothing to do with whether or not something is legal. I was merely trying to illustrate the difference.
Though judging for the moderation, I seem to have failed.
Since IAAP (I am a paralegal) I say this. You simply fail to grasp the difference between something that is illegal and something that can be sued over.
An example. I build a set of stone steps for peoples gardens that resemble the function of other stone steps. I in fact base it on a popular design. I sell these from my basement. after a few years I'm selling them from a website or two and I have a large customer base. The manufacturer that made the original design I based mine on notices a decline in profits. The see me and my business, and in short order realize that I'm basically selling their product, but they had it first. At this stage they do not press the local prosecutor to file criminal charges against me because this practice is NOT ILLEGAL. What they do decide to do is estimate the size of my war chest. They determine that if they sue me for damaging their business by competing with a knockoff of their own product they can probably force me to settle or at the least my counsel won't be as aggressive as theirs. So they sue. They cry at the judge "Wah! he hurt our busy-ness!". The matter is then a civil one. It's up to the judge to decide if I willfully set out to damage their business.
I don't get sued for "reverse engineering" their stone steps, I get sued for entering a market and competing with the unfair advantage gained by reverse engineering in a direct attempt to gain market dominance over their pre-existing established business. I can reverse engineer to my hearts content, but if those what did the original work start losing money because of me, they will cry foul.
Get the difference?
Something illegal is criminal and punishable by law. A law suit is two or more entities disputing over damages inflicted by one of the two against the other and are now attempting to either recover said damages or refute the claims that damage was inflicted.
Slashdot Mirror
That's it. No more, no less. Please try to recall Darwin's work was called "The Origin of Species" not "The Origin of Life". And the theory has evolved a lot since his day, it is a present vastly different from his original ideas.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You seem to have missed something there, fixed it for you.
Perhaps you know of such that lists those active in the field within the last 10-20 years? Well more than half of that list have been dead for more than a century. In fact of the only two names anywhere on that list that could be considered still active one is an atheist the other a Unitarian.
Evolution has nothing at all to do with the formation of life, it only deals with the changes of species over time.
Yes, the point does stand. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
Well, it's simple really. The reason for the over-roasted beans at Starbucks (which causes those of us who like the taste of straight coffee and espresso to cringe) is the fact that Starbucks doesn't sell coffee. They sell coffee flavored drinks. Starbucks is responsible for the latte craze after all. Most all of their products contain so many other flavorings , dairy and sugar that the coffee has to be stronger or you wouldn't taste it. If this seems unrealistic, just go to a Starbucks and order black coffee or straight espresso. The looks the employees and other customers give you are priceless. They became a nationally known name by selling frapachinos, not coffee.
Partisan or not, the fact remains thus. The title and the summary say nothing about anything political save to mention the man in question is a republican aide. Because he __is__ a republican aide. Did the title or the summary go on about how this is typical republican behavior? Nope. Several comments did, but that's not the summary or title is it? Admittedly it would be just as valid to call him a congressional aide. But I fail to see the noting of a job title as partisan.
The thing about the original wargames is that it was less a techno film and far more political. The story was a way to express the futility of the cold war.
This film will do the same, except backwards I bet. The "hacker" in question will have gotten into hacking from his experience pirating music and movies. Then one day he decides it would be cool to hack the guv'ment. He then disrupts some vital whatever and the terrorist are coming. So he must turn a new leaf and mend his ways to fix the problem he caused and in the end deletes his "stolen" media collection.
Moral of the first film, "War is futile."
Moral of the new film, "Pirate music and movies and the terrorizorphiles win."
You know, you are absolutely correct.
/. (including me) has an opinion that matters in anyway at all regarding this.
It matters very little what the facts may be, us mystery novel fans will surely agree to that, assumption is so much more fun. I for one given all the other details would love to see what the suit's actual outcome was. Since we are all here speculating what person did what when with regard to whom it would be nice to have a full set of facts to base these guesses on.
If you don't care, that's fine. It's not like anyone on
That fact that Sturgeon settled out of court rather than try to refute the claims actually lends a little credibility to it. After all, with claims that outrageous it should be easy for the defendant in the suit to win judgment in their favor if they are not true. Real easy to make the plaintiff out to be a nutter. But, instead he chose to settle. Makes one wish settled lawsuits were public records. Very interesting indeed.
Funny, as far as I know, with no body you can't prove someone is dead. Why is that relevent...
OH YEAH!! They haven't found Nina Reiser's body. That should put a dent in the prosecutor's case I think. Kind of like trying to prove that someone who has never had a million dollars stole a million dollars, especially when you found no money on them at all.
Consumers have been fed up with ads evr since Cable TV was promising to make television "ad free". What consumer cares at all about ads? We don't, it's the sellers that care about ads not the buyers.
But, that is in fact what they are. How do you think they make money? The magic money fairy pays them for brodcasting free news?
I mean really, how big was that fish?
I take it you don't live in and around Seattle and know no one who works for him. Because the grandparent's comment is *exactly* what it is like. Ask anyone who has an orange badge.
The firmware in you washing machine won't run on a white box either.
Twice.
Three words. Elf Bitch Romance.
Seriously, what the hell was that about, what did it have to do with the ring, and who's ass was it pulled from?
Tempering is done with oils. Not water. Ever. Steel will either shatter or explode if you attempt to temper with water or with anything water-based. Period.
I was attempting to dispell a myth, but basically yes. I grow tried of the fractured logic that is often used around here that if someone got sued then (insert whatever reverse engineering/file sharing/flying cyber-monkeys) is illegal. Law suits have nothing to do with whether or not something is legal. I was merely trying to illustrate the difference.
Though judging for the moderation, I seem to have failed.
It just goes to show, it's really just a question of your honesty.
The book "Myth and History in the Creation of Yellowstone National Park" By Paul Schullery and Lee Whittlesey is a good start.
Since IAAP (I am a paralegal) I say this. You simply fail to grasp the difference between something that is illegal and something that can be sued over.
An example. I build a set of stone steps for peoples gardens that resemble the function of other stone steps. I in fact base it on a popular design. I sell these from my basement. after a few years I'm selling them from a website or two and I have a large customer base. The manufacturer that made the original design I based mine on notices a decline in profits. The see me and my business, and in short order realize that I'm basically selling their product, but they had it first. At this stage they do not press the local prosecutor to file criminal charges against me because this practice is NOT ILLEGAL. What they do decide to do is estimate the size of my war chest. They determine that if they sue me for damaging their business by competing with a knockoff of their own product they can probably force me to settle or at the least my counsel won't be as aggressive as theirs. So they sue. They cry at the judge "Wah! he hurt our busy-ness!". The matter is then a civil one. It's up to the judge to decide if I willfully set out to damage their business.
I don't get sued for "reverse engineering" their stone steps, I get sued for entering a market and competing with the unfair advantage gained by reverse engineering in a direct attempt to gain market dominance over their pre-existing established business. I can reverse engineer to my hearts content, but if those what did the original work start losing money because of me, they will cry foul.
Get the difference?
Something illegal is criminal and punishable by law. A law suit is two or more entities disputing over damages inflicted by one of the two against the other and are now attempting to either recover said damages or refute the claims that damage was inflicted.
I take it you don't know the history of the conservation efforts in Yellowstone National Park to which I refer.
Also, putting words in people's mouths is a filthy habit.
Simple answer, we don't.
Not unless we are willing to risk another disater like Yellowstone, this time on a global scale.
We've shown in our history time and time again that anything humanity tries to fix only ends up more broken.