In exactly the same way that both sides of the Evolution debate "make interesting points". In other words, you have rational science and a bunch of lunatic crackpots, and you give credence to the lunatic crackpots.
You keep insulting and impugning, but you have made no rational argument yet. Insults are not reason.
Given the fact that you are actually stating that the crackpots have opinions as valid as those of scientists
Again, ad hominem is not debate, it is the rambling of an idiot. It is intellectually barren.
I find it staggering that people who stand up-right actually give credit to the Intelligent Design crackpots. That is what you are doing here. There is no difference whatsoever.
That is your opinion, of course, I have a different opinion and I have done my share of reading on the issues. The difference is that I don't see a "slam-dunk" by the "scientists" (Question: how many independent scientific organizations were allowed access to the evidence?) There has been NO independent investigation, and that in itself is problematic.
So, insult away, be as rude as you want, but note that you are the one behaving unreasonably.
Given that you have shown here that you would rather put your faith in absurd fairy tales than in hard science
I have no "faith" to put anywhere. I have carefully considered opinions, and IMHO neither camp has unassailable science. Both sides make interesting points.
This is not a matter of believing one opinion or another. Neither is atheism. It is about believing and not believing.
"believing" is often a bad thing. As an atheist, "believing" is patently absurd.
Your argument has been insult and absurdities, when you can present some facts I'll listen.
People assume that their intuition on how a complex system they know basically nothing about should work is worth something. It is not.
Everyone assumes that not agreeing with them is the sign of some form of ignorance. There are lots of things that can't be explained easily in the WTC collapse, and only a fool would overlook such matters as trivial.
If you care to use a logical argument about why the building fell inward and in place, rather than coming apart and falling any which way, please do tell. Hint: don't use opinion, use facts and science, if you can't, don't even bother posting.
Actually, no, you are not. You are what I would call a selective atheist. You are unable to use the logic that you use to disregard fairies in the sky on other aspects of your life. You are what I would call a wanna-be atheist. Someone who would like to be an atheist but who is unable to let go of some of the fairytale stories.
Don't worry, if you really have a brain you will grow out of it.
I'm an atheist Actually, no, you are not.
LOL, what do you know about anything? I should know whether or not I'm an Atheist.
You are unable to use the logic that you use to disregard fairies in the sky on other aspects of your life.
So, because I refuse to blindly believe one opinion over another, I am unable to use Logic? Are you insane?
I would suggest that you cool off and consider what you just accused a person, of which you have no personal knowledge, of being and ask yourself who needs to use their logic functions of their brain more?
I'm quite skeptical of the whole thing, if you disagree, then lets discuss facts and science. You have merely just used insult assuming your point is so unassailable that only a moron would disagree. Well, personally, I don't have an opinion one way or the other, I just find the contradictions and opportunities interesting and curious.
Don't worry, if you really have a brain you will grow out of it.
I'm probably older than you, and from this exchange, I'd bet a lot smarter as well.
Thousands of people in the building every day, 24 hours a day. Nobody saw a single person drilling or laying explosives. Nobody saw anything. The only people who "see" things are the cracpots.
People can be in a building 24x7 and not notice anything if it is done right. The cleaning crew, the security guards at night. Hell, fire alarm inspectors. No one would see anything as we quickly decide to see what makes the most sense.
In a building that large, there are maintenance elevators and access ways to get to inside of the building not generally accessible to others.
Like I've been trying to say. I'm not advocating the theory, but I think there is room for reasonable doubt and there are things that should give people pause to believing the official report.
I don't believe the conspiracy theory and I don't believe the official story. I'm just interested in all the facts and history.
There is exactly the same amount of facts supporting a controlled demolition as there is supporting ID.
I'm not trying to support or deny the controlled demolition theory, that being said, there are some odd things about the World Trade Center collapse that have not been explained.
Again, I'm not saying I believe it, but I have a doubt of the official explanation.
There does seem to be an explosion on impact of the plane. There do seem to be explosions in the building below the floors where the plane hit. The buildings falling within their footprint seems a little too convenient and counter intuitive.
Now, if I were inclined to disregard the controlled demolition argument, I would disregard these things an satisfy myself with plausible explanations. If I believed the controlled demolition theory, I'd point to these things as proof.
In the absence of belief either way, they just seem odd in and of themselves. They could just be how these buildings collapsed. The sub-flooring giving way, the insulation on the trusses burning and weakening the internal structure, blowing out Windows as they go. The pressurized building would, of course, "pop" on the impact of the plane, etc.
I don't believe the government and I don't believe the conspiracy theorists, and, alas, I don't believe government funded scientific institutions since the shrub.
I do know that the use of language like "crackpot theories" is an intentional logical fallacy intended to discredit a theory without any real intellectual proof. When people use that sort of language, it is intentional. REAL SCIENCE makes a crapckpot theory OBVIOUS and does not need such a characterization. When people use this language, I am skeptical of what they claim.
You know, most of the grognards who cry about how lego "used to be" haven't played with some of the more recent kits. There's some seriously clever design in some of them, and I find it inspiring to see how other people do things to incorporate them into my own design.
I disagree. My son, who is 17 didn't find them nearly as interesting as I did as a kid.
When you have a blank slate from which to start, anything you make is interesting. If you set up a previous expectation of how something should be built, then you tend more to think of it as a kit. That is a generality, of course, and my observation.
Mindstorms was/is a very interesting system. Kids with no previous experience with robotics or programming, seem to follow the instructions and build what's in the books. Those that see the Mindstorms block as a means to their ends do better.
The mindstorms computer is a generic computing block, but so few kids go beyond the pre-packaged designs. The old legos, bucket of blocks mentality, seemed to inspire more creativity. No only did you have to imagine the wheels, you had to imagine it rolling.
What physical evidence of a controlled demolition exists that can't be explained in a more likely manner? Do you have any idea how long such a procedure takes? And that the interior is basically gutted? I think someone might have noticed....
A LOT of people have noticed. A LOT of people have claimed things.
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in anything without fact. I posses extreme skepticism. I can easily disbelieve either scenario. I don't believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition and I don't believe it was only the result of the plane crash.
In my mind there are enough irregularities in the whole thing and there is enough world intrigue to justify a HUGE amount of skepticism on all sides. Unless I do the work, myself, or it is done by an organization that I can reasonably trust, I'm not going to "believe" anything if it doesn't satisfy my skepticism.
I have seen buildings collapse because of fire, small buildings, but buildings. They did not fall neatly into themselves. There is probably a good explanation, but I have not seen one put forth.
I did not post as a troll. I am generally concerned about the use of language "crackpot theories."
Some people STILL consider "Global Warming" a "crackpot theory."
Some consider "Evolution" as a crackpot theory.
Insulting an idea with no logical argument is no less a logical fallacy than the ad hominem attack. You may not agree with people who claim that the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition, but unless you can understand their argument and refute their points on merit, you are no different than the people who believe in intelligent design or that global warming is a myth.
I would submit, there are more facts and science supporting a controlled demolition of the word trade center buildings than there is evidence supporting Intelligent Design.
No, because I don't refuse to consider a controlled demolition as a "crackpot theory" my original post was ranked troll. This doesn't mean I believe it, but there are some serious irregularities in how the buildings came down.
The use of language is interesting, don't you think? I'm not prepared to entertain any real conspiracy theories, but I have been fairly curious about one point I can't quite understand: Why are there so many similarities to the way the buildings fell to a controlled demolition?
Almost everyone that watches the collapse of the world trade center buildings and compares them to films of controlled demolitions sees that they look the same.
There are probably many plausible and well researched reasons for this, but no one has addressed them, but merely use language to attempt to discredit any such questions. That's what I find most interesting about the whole thing.
The machine has one job. One job only. It counts votes.
I've been developing software for almost three decades, and I can't understand how you can write software so bad that it can't count.
I can't believe it is a simple error. There is a reason why this is happening and it isn't about "counting" votes, its about about choosing which votes count.
You can't blatantly steal an election without getting noticed. You can, however, lose a number of votes that don't seem statistically important on any one machine, but when combined with many, can alter the results of a close election.
That's what gerrymandering is all about, keep everything close, and small errors can let you win.
The stupid will always be the prime target for those who will take their money. The prime candidate is, of course, government lotteries, you know, taxation for those who are lacking math skills.
Anyone who sends money to an entity that can not be properly vetted is a greedy fool.
Is that a criminal action? No. If we locked up everyone that was stupid and greedy, we wouldn't have any police, state level politicians, public school teachers, car salesmen, plumbers, electricians, car mechanics, etc.
it's just not a good enough reason to "hate the police."
I'm not going to go on my typical police rant, but this is not an isolated incident, but a general pattern of behavior seemingly for police everywhere.
I know a LOT of police. I have a step brother who is head of a police union. I have plenty of stories.
The police almost NEVER come to your door to "help" you. Even if they save your life, keep your mouth shut. In Boston the last few years we've had fairly peaceful celebrations after some sports wins, and the police are leading the homicide and injury count.
In dorchester and southie (Boston, MA) under-achievers became criminals or cops. The cops are worse.
I've already seen it: This is akin to the local sheriff saying he will no longer prosecute muggings where the victim did not go to the hospital.
This equivocations seem to say that these people want *all* the laws enforced without any regard to a prioritizing by benefit to society.
The key they mentioned was "criminal law for monetary GAIN."
They are right in refusing to criminally prosecute citizens where no appreciable harm was incurred for the monetary enrichment of a single party. Its like watching a car speeding a little but otherwise safely and *NOT* pulling them over and giving them a ticket.
There isn't a single country in the world in which you would want all the laws enforced consistently.
Yes but simple telescopes and the ability to sit outside a house and listen in did exist. So it's not clear cut.
Again, see point stated 3 back: How is listening to a conversation in a public place different from tapping a person's phone? A police "tail" can not enter private property. People have the right to keep personal secrets.
"outside a house" and listen, not on private property.
Implying something which could be written out is not a good way for people to understand what you mean.
The problem with the U.S. Constitution is that it is written in plain english with canonical expressions and phases that embodied complex discussions and compromises made during the construction of the document.
What we have then, is a two tier interpretation: First, the chore of making sure that what we read in to the document is what was intended. We do this by examining the history of the words and supporting documents of the people involved. The second, and probably harder, step is to understand how the ideals articulated but the document apply to today's society.
The 4th amendment declares a great deal of privacy in the colonial times. There ware no wired communications, so being "secure" in personal affects and papers meant you could keep your business secret from the government.
lso nothing about secrets is mentioned in the Fourth.
The Fourth Amendment:
"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."
It has been commonly interpreted that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" clause implies and provides that people have the right to privacy.
Seriously, out of nowhere, a tiny company starts to sell mac clones. It was so sketchy, we on slashdot originally called it a hoax.
Now, they got the guys who beat Apple once before representing them in the fight.
Curiouser and curiouser. It may be an intentionally staged dispute by various oems to create a Mac market for themselves. Vista is not moving boxes, but Mac compatible motherboards may be profitable.
The objective may be Apple's refusal to allow MacOS on non-Mac hardware. If they win, and Apple is not able to enforce this restriction, I can see a whole bunch of clones flooding the market.
Slashdot Mirror
In exactly the same way that both sides of the Evolution debate "make interesting points". In other words, you have rational science and a bunch of lunatic crackpots, and you give credence to the lunatic crackpots.
You keep insulting and impugning, but you have made no rational argument yet. Insults are not reason.
Given the fact that you are actually stating that the crackpots have opinions as valid as those of scientists
Again, ad hominem is not debate, it is the rambling of an idiot. It is intellectually barren.
I find it staggering that people who stand up-right actually give credit to the Intelligent Design crackpots. That is what you are doing here. There is no difference whatsoever.
That is your opinion, of course, I have a different opinion and I have done my share of reading on the issues. The difference is that I don't see a "slam-dunk" by the "scientists" (Question: how many independent scientific organizations were allowed access to the evidence?) There has been NO independent investigation, and that in itself is problematic.
So, insult away, be as rude as you want, but note that you are the one behaving unreasonably.
Given that you have shown here that you would rather put your faith in absurd fairy tales than in hard science
I have no "faith" to put anywhere. I have carefully considered opinions, and IMHO neither camp has unassailable science. Both sides make interesting points.
This is not a matter of believing one opinion or another. Neither is atheism. It is about believing and not believing.
"believing" is often a bad thing. As an atheist, "believing" is patently absurd.
Your argument has been insult and absurdities, when you can present some facts I'll listen.
People assume that their intuition on how a complex system they know basically nothing about should work is worth something. It is not.
Everyone assumes that not agreeing with them is the sign of some form of ignorance. There are lots of things that can't be explained easily in the WTC collapse, and only a fool would overlook such matters as trivial.
If you care to use a logical argument about why the building fell inward and in place, rather than coming apart and falling any which way, please do tell. Hint: don't use opinion, use facts and science, if you can't, don't even bother posting.
I'm an atheist.
Actually, no, you are not. You are what I would call a selective atheist. You are unable to use the logic that you use to disregard fairies in the sky on other aspects of your life. You are what I would call a wanna-be atheist. Someone who would like to be an atheist but who is unable to let go of some of the fairytale stories.
Don't worry, if you really have a brain you will grow out of it.
I'm an atheist
Actually, no, you are not.
LOL, what do you know about anything? I should know whether or not I'm an Atheist.
You are unable to use the logic that you use to disregard fairies in the sky on other aspects of your life.
So, because I refuse to blindly believe one opinion over another, I am unable to use Logic? Are you insane?
I would suggest that you cool off and consider what you just accused a person, of which you have no personal knowledge, of being and ask yourself who needs to use their logic functions of their brain more?
I'm quite skeptical of the whole thing, if you disagree, then lets discuss facts and science. You have merely just used insult assuming your point is so unassailable that only a moron would disagree. Well, personally, I don't have an opinion one way or the other, I just find the contradictions and opportunities interesting and curious.
Don't worry, if you really have a brain you will grow out of it.
I'm probably older than you, and from this exchange, I'd bet a lot smarter as well.
And that is precisely why you religious nutcases still make noise in a world that ought to be sane by now.
I'm an atheist.
Thousands of people in the building every day, 24 hours a day. Nobody saw a single person drilling or laying explosives. Nobody saw anything. The only people who "see" things are the cracpots.
People can be in a building 24x7 and not notice anything if it is done right. The cleaning crew, the security guards at night. Hell, fire alarm inspectors. No one would see anything as we quickly decide to see what makes the most sense.
In a building that large, there are maintenance elevators and access ways to get to inside of the building not generally accessible to others.
Like I've been trying to say. I'm not advocating the theory, but I think there is room for reasonable doubt and there are things that should give people pause to believing the official report.
I don't believe the conspiracy theory and I don't believe the official story. I'm just interested in all the facts and history.
There is exactly the same amount of facts supporting a controlled demolition as there is supporting ID.
I'm not trying to support or deny the controlled demolition theory, that being said, there are some odd things about the World Trade Center collapse that have not been explained.
Again, I'm not saying I believe it, but I have a doubt of the official explanation.
There does seem to be an explosion on impact of the plane. There do seem to be explosions in the building below the floors where the plane hit. The buildings falling within their footprint seems a little too convenient and counter intuitive.
Now, if I were inclined to disregard the controlled demolition argument, I would disregard these things an satisfy myself with plausible explanations. If I believed the controlled demolition theory, I'd point to these things as proof.
In the absence of belief either way, they just seem odd in and of themselves. They could just be how these buildings collapsed. The sub-flooring giving way, the insulation on the trusses burning and weakening the internal structure, blowing out Windows as they go. The pressurized building would, of course, "pop" on the impact of the plane, etc.
I don't believe the government and I don't believe the conspiracy theorists, and, alas, I don't believe government funded scientific institutions since the shrub.
I do know that the use of language like "crackpot theories" is an intentional logical fallacy intended to discredit a theory without any real intellectual proof. When people use that sort of language, it is intentional. REAL SCIENCE makes a crapckpot theory OBVIOUS and does not need such a characterization. When people use this language, I am skeptical of what they claim.
You know, most of the grognards who cry about how lego "used to be" haven't played with some of the more recent kits. There's some seriously clever design in some of them, and I find it inspiring to see how other people do things to incorporate them into my own design.
I disagree. My son, who is 17 didn't find them nearly as interesting as I did as a kid.
When you have a blank slate from which to start, anything you make is interesting. If you set up a previous expectation of how something should be built, then you tend more to think of it as a kit. That is a generality, of course, and my observation.
Mindstorms was/is a very interesting system. Kids with no previous experience with robotics or programming, seem to follow the instructions and build what's in the books. Those that see the Mindstorms block as a means to their ends do better.
The mindstorms computer is a generic computing block, but so few kids go beyond the pre-packaged designs. The old legos, bucket of blocks mentality, seemed to inspire more creativity. No only did you have to imagine the wheels, you had to imagine it rolling.
grew up with these lego sets and to me, the coolest thing was not just assembling the set the way it was meant to be
In my day there was no "meant to be" it was just a tub of blocks. We built airplanes, subs, buildings, and cars with square wheels.
I'm not that old, 45, but close!
My generation didn't have any lego people, hell we only had rectangles. No curves. I remember "clear" legos being introduced and wanting them.
These days, the lego's are barely what I remember. Specially shaped parts, windshields, wheels!
We had to PRETEND our model cars with square wheels could role. Thee days, kids don't have to imagine anything!!!
It is.
LOL. There is no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks.
What physical evidence of a controlled demolition exists that can't be explained in a more likely manner? Do you have any idea how long such a procedure takes? And that the interior is basically gutted? I think someone might have noticed....
A LOT of people have noticed. A LOT of people have claimed things.
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in anything without fact. I posses extreme skepticism. I can easily disbelieve either scenario. I don't believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition and I don't believe it was only the result of the plane crash.
In my mind there are enough irregularities in the whole thing and there is enough world intrigue to justify a HUGE amount of skepticism on all sides. Unless I do the work, myself, or it is done by an organization that I can reasonably trust, I'm not going to "believe" anything if it doesn't satisfy my skepticism.
I have seen buildings collapse because of fire, small buildings, but buildings. They did not fall neatly into themselves. There is probably a good explanation, but I have not seen one put forth.
I did not post as a troll. I am generally concerned about the use of language "crackpot theories."
Some people STILL consider "Global Warming" a "crackpot theory."
Some consider "Evolution" as a crackpot theory.
Insulting an idea with no logical argument is no less a logical fallacy than the ad hominem attack. You may not agree with people who claim that the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition, but unless you can understand their argument and refute their points on merit, you are no different than the people who believe in intelligent design or that global warming is a myth.
I would submit, there are more facts and science supporting a controlled demolition of the word trade center buildings than there is evidence supporting Intelligent Design.
No, because I don't refuse to consider a controlled demolition as a "crackpot theory" my original post was ranked troll. This doesn't mean I believe it, but there are some serious irregularities in how the buildings came down.
The use of language is interesting, don't you think? I'm not prepared to entertain any real conspiracy theories, but I have been fairly curious about one point I can't quite understand: Why are there so many similarities to the way the buildings fell to a controlled demolition?
Almost everyone that watches the collapse of the world trade center buildings and compares them to films of controlled demolitions sees that they look the same.
There are probably many plausible and well researched reasons for this, but no one has addressed them, but merely use language to attempt to discredit any such questions. That's what I find most interesting about the whole thing.
The machine has one job. One job only. It counts votes.
I've been developing software for almost three decades, and I can't understand how you can write software so bad that it can't count.
I can't believe it is a simple error. There is a reason why this is happening and it isn't about "counting" votes, its about about choosing which votes count.
You can't blatantly steal an election without getting noticed. You can, however, lose a number of votes that don't seem statistically important on any one machine, but when combined with many, can alter the results of a close election.
That's what gerrymandering is all about, keep everything close, and small errors can let you win.
The stupid will always be the prime target for those who will take their money. The prime candidate is, of course, government lotteries, you know, taxation for those who are lacking math skills.
Anyone who sends money to an entity that can not be properly vetted is a greedy fool.
Is that a criminal action? No. If we locked up everyone that was stupid and greedy, we wouldn't have any police, state level politicians, public school teachers, car salesmen, plumbers, electricians, car mechanics, etc.
Vampires and monster movie lore has the creatures ever rising once the hero's attention has been shifted.
We need to keep after SCO. There was an article about how SCO is partnering with another company that they "trust."
We need to boycott EVERY company that does business with SCO.
SCO is a corporate cancer that must not be allowed to survive.
it's just not a good enough reason to "hate the police."
I'm not going to go on my typical police rant, but this is not an isolated incident, but a general pattern of behavior seemingly for police everywhere.
I know a LOT of police. I have a step brother who is head of a police union. I have plenty of stories.
The police almost NEVER come to your door to "help" you. Even if they save your life, keep your mouth shut. In Boston the last few years we've had fairly peaceful celebrations after some sports wins, and the police are leading the homicide and injury count.
In dorchester and southie (Boston, MA) under-achievers became criminals or cops. The cops are worse.
All too often Police confuse "fighting crime" and "protecting the peace" with authoritarian "because I said so and I have a gun" mentality.
I refrain from a rant, but the more police I meet, the more I hate the police.
I've already seen it:
This is akin to the local sheriff saying he will no longer prosecute muggings where the victim did not go to the hospital.
This equivocations seem to say that these people want *all* the laws enforced without any regard to a prioritizing by benefit to society.
The key they mentioned was "criminal law for monetary GAIN."
They are right in refusing to criminally prosecute citizens where no appreciable harm was incurred for the monetary enrichment of a single party. Its like watching a car speeding a little but otherwise safely and *NOT* pulling them over and giving them a ticket.
There isn't a single country in the world in which you would want all the laws enforced consistently.
Yes but simple telescopes and the ability to sit outside a house and listen in did exist. So it's not clear cut.
Again, see point stated 3 back:
How is listening to a conversation in a public place different from tapping a person's phone? A police "tail" can not enter private property. People have the right to keep personal secrets.
"outside a house" and listen, not on private property.
Implying something which could be written out is not a good way for people to understand what you mean.
The problem with the U.S. Constitution is that it is written in plain english with canonical expressions and phases that embodied complex discussions and compromises made during the construction of the document.
What we have then, is a two tier interpretation: First, the chore of making sure that what we read in to the document is what was intended. We do this by examining the history of the words and supporting documents of the people involved. The second, and probably harder, step is to understand how the ideals articulated but the document apply to today's society.
The 4th amendment declares a great deal of privacy in the colonial times. There ware no wired communications, so being "secure" in personal affects and papers meant you could keep your business secret from the government.
lso nothing about secrets is mentioned in the Fourth.
The Fourth Amendment:
"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."
It has been commonly interpreted that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" clause implies and provides that people have the right to privacy.
This is a VERY interesting case. Who is Psystar?
Seriously, out of nowhere, a tiny company starts to sell mac clones. It was so sketchy, we on slashdot originally called it a hoax.
Now, they got the guys who beat Apple once before representing them in the fight.
Curiouser and curiouser. It may be an intentionally staged dispute by various oems to create a Mac market for themselves. Vista is not moving boxes, but Mac compatible motherboards may be profitable.
The objective may be Apple's refusal to allow MacOS on non-Mac hardware. If they win, and Apple is not able to enforce this restriction, I can see a whole bunch of clones flooding the market.