Both theories should be taught in a philosophy or religion class, because neither is science.
There aren't two theories here. There is a theory (with which you are clearly unfamiliar) and an unfalsifiable pseudoscience (with which I hope you are unfamiliar). For future reference, try bringing up the argument of the watchmaker--it's more fleshed out than your presentation of irreducible complexity.
Intelligent Design theory does not promote one "designer" over another.
This is a bold-faced lie. There is nothing more to it. "Intelligent Design" was created with the explicit purpose of advancing the position of Judeo-Christian belief in American public schools. Yes, teleological philosophy existed before it, but Behe didn't just discover the works of Paley one day. Intelligent Design is Creationism in disguise. To say otherwise is to be uninformed (which is usually the case), or a liar (in the case of the members of the Discovery Institute).
No life is intrinsically worth more than any other life. Value is not intrinsic--it is an abstract concept created by humans. Things only have value because people value them. Certainly humans can and do value the lives of animals in addition to their own, but to speak of animal life having any independent value is meaningless.
As I tried to imply in the post, a financial market in organs can create a situation where murder or GBH for organs is profitable while a charitable system does not.
If there was a market in body parts people would be killed for those too and bribes would be paid to get unidentifed corpses into the system
You are correct that it would make it easier to put illegitimate organs into legitimate circulation (which is already a problem as per TFA), but there is already a market for body parts--it just happens to be illegal. If it were a regulated market, rather than an underground one, it would be much safer. Furthermore, the cost of body parts would go down if it were legal, since the risk associated with it decreases supply. While perhaps more people would voluntarily elect to donate organs who shouldn't, there is no doubt that fewer people would have their organs illegally taken than are today. Making a market illegitimate doesn't eliminate it; it simply increases the crime associated with it, like Prohibition or the War on Drugs.
There are two other good arguments against legalizing the sale of organs: that a price shouldn't be put on such things (which seems odd since we already put a price on medicine), and that there would be greater social inequity regarding who received organ transplants. While the latter concern is certainly valid, there would nonetheless be more organs donated overall, and more lives saved, even if it were skewed more towards the rich. It seems to me that it would be better to adopt some system and perhaps impose additional government regulation in order to ameliorate this, rather than to support a system under which more people die in a more democratic fashion.
Other animals not being as intelligent as humans (and shorter-lived in the case of most housepets such as dogs and cats), they really don't have much to live for if they become so ill.
It's both heartening and depressing to hear this. While this will be good for the games industry, it's sad that they have to buy into the system of corruption to avoid being the target of legislation. After all, there aren't any laws restricting children from seeing R-rated movies, yet politicians seem eager to jump on the anti-games bandwagon. Of course, the MPAA doesn't just lobby, they br^H^Hcontribute to campaigns.
Did you hear that? That's the sound of Richard Stallman screaming in agony at your comment, which can be heard not only here but all the way around the globe.
He made a counter-intuitive claim that is contrary to all actual double-blind testing and the natures of the file formats and psychoacoustics with nothing but anecdotal support. He did not make an argument worth debating. It is in fact quite possible that he did not even intend to spark an honest debate, but instead elicit angry responses, hence it was labeled as flamebait.
It is true that Apple really invents very little, but what they do instead is to take innovations and package them in a form available to (and desired by) consumers. Apple did not invent the GUI, nor USB, nor Unix, nor the mp3 player, nor online music distribution, nor home movie editing. However, they were the first to deliver some of these thing consumers (GUI, USB), and are the most successful in the rest. Edison didn't come up with the light bulb, nor Bell with the telephone, but we recognize their accomplishments. "Innovating" is probably an inaccurate term, though; I think, "pushing the envelope" would be better.
I haven't seen this before, but I wouldn't be surprised if it pops up in every Apple-related story on/. now. Better written than "*BSD is Dying," at least.
Do you even speak Latin? Would you care to explain why it is superior to English, and why we should model English grammar after Latin despite them having very different grammars? Or were you unaware that the prohibition against ending sentences with a preposition is an antiquated prescriptive notion put forth by writers from the Enlightenment who felt that we all ought to emulate the ancient Romans and Greeks?
Kramer: "I don't wear a watch."
Elaine: "Well, what do you do?"
Kramer: "Well, I tell time by the sun."
Elaine: "How close do you get?"
Kramer: "Well, I can guess within the hour."
Elaine: "I can guess within the hour and I don't even have to look at the sun."
Kramer: "Yeah."
Elaine: "So what do you do at night?"
Kramer: "Well, night's tougher, but it's only a couple of hours."
Take a better linguistics class. English has changed so radically that one would not even recognize Old English as being English at all unless familiar with it. Major changes in English were not gradual and slight, but relatively sudden and drastic, like the influx of French, or the Great Vowel Shift.
Furthermore, "Where were you at?" is a perfectly fine sentence. The notion that sentences should not end prepositions is an arbitrary prescriptive notion based on Latin grammar. Latin, of course, is far superior to English, since the wise and learned Romans used it, compared to whom we are but poor imitators. And Latin, of course, is a vulgar language compared to Greek, which has been a vulgar language for thousands of years since it started going downhill after the death of Homer. In fact, language has been becoming unintelligibly so quickly for so long, I am amazed that it even exists anymore at all.
There is a time for prescriptive language. It is certainly unacceptable to use the language of instant messaging in a professional or academic context. Certainly you could argue that there is a problem with people failing to grasp the distinction between formal and informal language, and the need for being able to communicate in the former. But language does not get "worse," nor is there "good" or "bad" language. Such as notion is as silly as claiming that one color is better than another.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to break it to ya, Senator Buttars, but you are an ape, as are all Homo sapiens.
We all realized the errors of our ways and made Ned Ludd Day a national holiday?
If you're so interested in creating jobs, why not start banning labor-saving technology?
The internet is serious business.
There aren't two theories here. There is a theory (with which you are clearly unfamiliar) and an unfalsifiable pseudoscience (with which I hope you are unfamiliar). For future reference, try bringing up the argument of the watchmaker--it's more fleshed out than your presentation of irreducible complexity.
This is a bold-faced lie. There is nothing more to it. "Intelligent Design" was created with the explicit purpose of advancing the position of Judeo-Christian belief in American public schools. Yes, teleological philosophy existed before it, but Behe didn't just discover the works of Paley one day. Intelligent Design is Creationism in disguise. To say otherwise is to be uninformed (which is usually the case), or a liar (in the case of the members of the Discovery Institute).
It's a good thing that nobody believes that the complex information in living things is the result of random processes, then.
Sometimes when I eat too many Irish children, it throws my grammar off a bit.
No life is intrinsically worth more than any other life. Value is not intrinsic--it is an abstract concept created by humans. Things only have value because people value them. Certainly humans can and do value the lives of animals in addition to their own, but to speak of animal life having any independent value is meaningless.
If there was a market in body parts people would be killed for those too and bribes would be paid to get unidentifed corpses into the system
You are correct that it would make it easier to put illegitimate organs into legitimate circulation (which is already a problem as per TFA), but there is already a market for body parts--it just happens to be illegal. If it were a regulated market, rather than an underground one, it would be much safer. Furthermore, the cost of body parts would go down if it were legal, since the risk associated with it decreases supply. While perhaps more people would voluntarily elect to donate organs who shouldn't, there is no doubt that fewer people would have their organs illegally taken than are today. Making a market illegitimate doesn't eliminate it; it simply increases the crime associated with it, like Prohibition or the War on Drugs.
There are two other good arguments against legalizing the sale of organs: that a price shouldn't be put on such things (which seems odd since we already put a price on medicine), and that there would be greater social inequity regarding who received organ transplants. While the latter concern is certainly valid, there would nonetheless be more organs donated overall, and more lives saved, even if it were skewed more towards the rich. It seems to me that it would be better to adopt some system and perhaps impose additional government regulation in order to ameliorate this, rather than to support a system under which more people die in a more democratic fashion.
Other animals not being as intelligent as humans (and shorter-lived in the case of most housepets such as dogs and cats), they really don't have much to live for if they become so ill.
Chavez was democratically elected. Mugabe was democratically elected. Hell, even Castro and Mubarak and Assad were "elected."
I hope a zombie Patrick Henry eats your brain. Zombie Ben Franklin would join in, but he'd be too busy hitting on zombie women.
So what you're saying is that since alot of people say it irregardless, people shouldn't try to be precise in writing?
Your post reminds me of the old adage, "Any sufficiently advanced fanboyism is indistinguishable from trolling."
It's both heartening and depressing to hear this. While this will be good for the games industry, it's sad that they have to buy into the system of corruption to avoid being the target of legislation. After all, there aren't any laws restricting children from seeing R-rated movies, yet politicians seem eager to jump on the anti-games bandwagon. Of course, the MPAA doesn't just lobby, they br^H^Hcontribute to campaigns.
Did you hear that? That's the sound of Richard Stallman screaming in agony at your comment, which can be heard not only here but all the way around the globe.
He made a counter-intuitive claim that is contrary to all actual double-blind testing and the natures of the file formats and psychoacoustics with nothing but anecdotal support. He did not make an argument worth debating. It is in fact quite possible that he did not even intend to spark an honest debate, but instead elicit angry responses, hence it was labeled as flamebait.
It is true that Apple really invents very little, but what they do instead is to take innovations and package them in a form available to (and desired by) consumers. Apple did not invent the GUI, nor USB, nor Unix, nor the mp3 player, nor online music distribution, nor home movie editing. However, they were the first to deliver some of these thing consumers (GUI, USB), and are the most successful in the rest. Edison didn't come up with the light bulb, nor Bell with the telephone, but we recognize their accomplishments. "Innovating" is probably an inaccurate term, though; I think, "pushing the envelope" would be better.
I have "open safe files" enabled and it didn't do anything. I even tried opening the file myself, and it didn't do anything, on 10.4.5.
I haven't seen this before, but I wouldn't be surprised if it pops up in every Apple-related story on /. now. Better written than "*BSD is Dying," at least.
English had nominal inflection, but we got rid of it. Blame the French, if you must.
Do you even speak Latin? Would you care to explain why it is superior to English, and why we should model English grammar after Latin despite them having very different grammars? Or were you unaware that the prohibition against ending sentences with a preposition is an antiquated prescriptive notion put forth by writers from the Enlightenment who felt that we all ought to emulate the ancient Romans and Greeks?
Kramer: "I don't wear a watch."
Elaine: "Well, what do you do?"
Kramer: "Well, I tell time by the sun."
Elaine: "How close do you get?"
Kramer: "Well, I can guess within the hour."
Elaine: "I can guess within the hour and I don't even have to look at the sun."
Kramer: "Yeah."
Elaine: "So what do you do at night?"
Kramer: "Well, night's tougher, but it's only a couple of hours."
Furthermore, "Where were you at?" is a perfectly fine sentence. The notion that sentences should not end prepositions is an arbitrary prescriptive notion based on Latin grammar. Latin, of course, is far superior to English, since the wise and learned Romans used it, compared to whom we are but poor imitators. And Latin, of course, is a vulgar language compared to Greek, which has been a vulgar language for thousands of years since it started going downhill after the death of Homer. In fact, language has been becoming unintelligibly so quickly for so long, I am amazed that it even exists anymore at all.
There is a time for prescriptive language. It is certainly unacceptable to use the language of instant messaging in a professional or academic context. Certainly you could argue that there is a problem with people failing to grasp the distinction between formal and informal language, and the need for being able to communicate in the former. But language does not get "worse," nor is there "good" or "bad" language. Such as notion is as silly as claiming that one color is better than another.