Sorry, these so called sources are so discredited, it isn't even funny. Just a bunch of raving loony creationists. Go to http://www.talkorigins.org [talkorigins.org] - there is plenty of info refuting these crackpots.
The depends; does `refuting' mean `saying lots of things I agree with, even if it is talking past the issues, erecting strawmen, arguing from false premises and fudging results' or does it mean `reasoning from the data to a contradiction'? Talk.origins is gunwhale-down with the former, and kind of deprived of the latter. They sometimes can't even tell who said what.
You're calling AAAS creationist?
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 2
The cites you give are creationist claptrap that would never be considered for any remotely scientific journal.
The last time I looked, the AAAS was not exactly creationist. Does your statement prove that you're so bigoted that you wouldn't read anything that you might disagree with?
A lot depends on your view of `random'. If by `random' you mean `many good, many neutral, many bad', then no.
If OTOH you mean `almost universally destructive' then yes. You can think of it as entropy, or as the effects of the Fall of man, it works out the same either way: consistently downhill, not up.
that's the basement of the darwinian theory
Basement? I think you meant `basis', and benign mutations are only one necessary precursor to evolution.
Another is effective natural selection. Natural selection as found in the wild acts in a strongly conservative manner, which in plain English means that it works to keep things the same, to destroy change. This is the complete opposite of Richard Dawkins' `methinks it is like a weasel' program, which acts with teleology and enormous strength to preserve specific changes.
Another precursor is that the basic genetic material have enough capacity for variation that it can bridge species barriers, which it evidently does not.
There also have to be viable lifeforms before biological evolution has anything upon which to operate, which is another big problem.
There are more. (-:
List of molecular biologists supporting creation
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 2
Here's a few to get you started:
Ian G. Macreadie, PhD Molecular Biology, Monash University, Aus (also genetics, biochemistry, author of over 70 research publications and five patents, also a co-recipient of the 1997 CSIRO Chairman's Medal)
Andre Eggen, PhD Animal/Molecular Genetics, Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (over 60 papers)
Kelly Hollowell, JD, PhD Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, University of Miami (also an attorney, published in the Journal of Neurobiology)
Gary Parker, BA in Biology/Chemistry (high hons), Wabash College, Crawfordville (admission to Phi Beta Kappa, masters thesis published in Copeia)
Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström, PhD Molecular Biology, Griffin University, Aus (Alexander von Humboldt Fellow at Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany)
Dr/Prof Leonid Korochkin, MD Genetics/Molecular Biology/Neurobiology (Russia)
Dr John Marcus, PhD Biological Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Dr Michael Behe, PhD Biochemistry (Prof Biochemistry at LeHigh)
Dr Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular and Cell Biology, UCB
Dr Gordon Mills, PhD Biochemistry, University of Michigan
...and an interesting one, Dr Hubert Yockey, who believes on grounds such as these that Darwinism did not produce or develop life, but has no idea what did.
I can also find about another two dozen biochemists and molecular biochemists, but don't have as much detail about their qualifications and careers. You really are asking something akin to references for Jewish scientists in Nazi Germany, but nevertheless...
One of the other ID sites has this to say about DBB: `It went through twelve printings before being issued in paperback, and has been cited and reviewed internationally in over one hundred publications, and was recently named by National Review and World magazine as one of the one hundred most important books of the 20th century.'
About Behe: `In addition to publishing over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals Dr. Behe has also written editorial features in The New York Times, Boston Review, the American Spectator and National Review and has presented and debated his work at various conferences, including at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, the University of Notre Dame, Princeton University, University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Cambridge University. Besides many radio and television interviews, in 1997, he was featured on two episodes of the PBS program Technopolitics.'
Since you seem to like argument from authority, here are some interesting and related quotes:
"The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts. The complex genetic apparatus in present-day organisms is so universal that one has few clues as to what the apparatus may have looked like in its most primitive form." (Dickerson, Richard E. [Professor of Molecular Biology, University of California, Los Angeles]., "Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life," Scientific American, Vol. 239, No. 3, September 1978, p.77).
"Due to this scarcity of financial resources the study of the origins of life has been forced to become a most efficient and cost-effective industry from just a thimble-full of facts the scientists engaged in that study manage to generate a virtually endless supply of theories!" (Scott, Andrew [biochemist and science writer], "The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, p.111).
"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present
all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. New lines of thinking and experimentation must be tried." (Dose, Klaus [Director, Institute for Biochemistry, Gutenberg University, Germany], "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p.348).
"The first assumption was that non-living things gave rise to living material. This is still just an assumption. It is conceivable that living material might have suddenly appeared on this world in some peculiar manner, say from another planet, but this then raises the question, "Where did life originate on that planet?" We could say that life has always existed, but such an explanation is not a very satisfactory one. Instead, the explanation that nonliving things could have given rise to complex systems having the properties of living things is generally more acceptable to most scientists. There is, however, little evidence in favour of biogenesis and as yet we have no indication that it can be performed. There are many schemes by which biogenesis could have occurred but these are still suggestive schemes and nothing more. They may indicate experiments that can be performed, but they tell us nothing about what actually happened some 1,000 million years ago.
It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available." (Kerkut, Gerald A. [Emeritus Professor of Neuroscience, University of Southampton, UK], "Implications of Evolution," in Kerkut G.A., ed. "International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology, Division: Zoology," Volume 4, Pergamon Press: New York NY, 1960, p.150).
"But what if the vast majority of scientists all have
faith in the one unverified idea? The modern 'standard' scientific version of the origin of life on earth is one such idea, and we would be wise to check its real merit with great care. Has the cold blade of reason been applied with sufficient vigour in this case? Most scientists want to believe that life could have emerged spontaneously from the primeval waters, because it would confirm their belief in the explicability of Nature - the belief that all could be explained in terms of particles and energy and forces if only we had the time and the necessary intellect. They also want to believe because their arch opponents - religious fundamentalists such as creationists - do not believe in life's spontaneous origin. It is this combative atmosphere which sometimes encourages scientists writing and speaking about the origin of life to become as dogmatic and bigoted as the creationist opponents they so despise." (Scott, Andrew [biochemist and science writer], "The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, pp.111-112. Emphasis in original).
"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But, as Monod points out the machinery by which the cell (at least the nonprimitive cell which is the only one we know) translates the code `consists of a least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA' (Monod, 1970; 1971, 143). Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a really baffling circle: a vicious circle, it seems for any attempt to form a model, or a theory, of the genesis of the genetic code." (Popper, Karl R., [Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of London], "Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science," in "Studies in the Philosophy of Biology," Vol. 259, 1974, pp.259-284, p.270).
"Anyone trying to solve this puzzle immediately encounters a paradox. Nowadays nucleic acids are synthesized only with the help of proteins, and proteins are synthesized only if their corresponding nucleotide sequence is present. It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means." (Orgel, Leslie E. [biochemist and Resident Fellow, Salk Institute for Biological Studies], "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, Vol. 271, No. 4, October 1994, p.54).
I have seen no empirical evidence whatsoever, published in an accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journal, which supports any detail of the 'creation of the world' as described in the bible.
If it seems dark to you, it's because you're so far up yourself that you can't see out. (-:
...then tell me why you expect such an article to be considered for publication. There are many more examples around if you want them.
Nevertheless, Robert V Gentry, Willem J Ouweneel and other Creationist authors have had material published in journals like Nuclear Physics, Science, Nature and Journal of Geophysical Research, including the odd snippet of material which might cast doubt on the ruling Darwinist ideology.
Quote:
On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article *"Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps" to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn't want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn't even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a "slight bias" exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.
Adam means "mankind". It's symbolic. The first 3 chapters of Genesis is a poem, that rhymes. It's main point is: "I created EVERYTHING. I'll give you a quick ditty on how it started."
Actually, the root meaning of Adam is `red'. And the book StarLight and Time contains one example of a cosmology which fits Genesis as literal. It seems likely that there are others.
Fear is the mind-killer
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 3
Don't be stupidly faithful. God said to doubt all people, that includes the person who handed you the bible.
I guess the obvious response is `says who?' (-:
What God does say is `Prove all things, hold fast that which is good' in 1Thessalonians 5:21, but if you distrust the Bible, why would you apply just that one verse from it? (-:
God is not coin-op, not a performing monkey, but if you seriously ask Him to prove Himself to you personally (ask, not demand), He often will. But you must be listening. Or shall I quote you the parable of the man on the roof of the flooded house?
I will accept darwinian evolution as the best working model.
I don't know that I'd be prepared to take a stand alongside Lenin, Hitler, Mao and others, all social engineers working from a Darwinist background and using Social Darwinism to carry out their aims.
But it's a free country. Sort of.
Genetics doesn't work like that
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 2
I have a different Y chromosome than the people around me. As well, There are more than 3 observed X chromosomes in the world. Should we all be descended from Adam and Eve, we would all, without question have a single Y chromosome, and at most 3 X chromosomes.
You do put up some off-the-wall proposals, don't you? (-:
Your `proof' would break evolution just as surely as it broke creation, unless you want to posit a great number of parallel evolutionary steps at each point along the way from molecules to man.
Turning to a Christian perspective, there's the fall. Even if the race had started with a single, unalterable set of chromosomes, you'd expect to find significant damage in them by now, or to put it another way, significant variation due to damage.
But aside from all of that, there is natural variation built into sexual reproduction (and in lesser degree to asexual as well). If there wasn't, every child a couple had would be identical. You will agree that in practice they aren't?
Genetics discrediting evolution
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 2
Just wondering, exactly what parts of a genetics text book would disprove evolution?
Where shall I start...
The parts that describe genetic burden?
The parts that describe the mechanisms for correcting genetic drift?
The parts that describe processes and structures which literally could not possibly have formed gradually?
The parts which delve into rates of change and basically support, if anything, punk-eek?
The parts which attempt to describe `parallel evolution' with a straight face (e.g. large fructivorous bats, octopi and humans all share the same visual processing system (modulo a non-retroverted retina for the octopi), small insectivorous bats have a completely different visual system but share wing structure with the big bats) (another e.g., there are visual systems ranging from light spots though the arrays of sensors in some starfish, compound (multi-spot) insect eyes, other insects with compunded individual eyes, the complex crystal arrays of the trilobite, mantis shrimp (which see in up to 13 different colour ranges including UV, have filters, and can see polarised light), lobster eyes (the design was borrowed for an orbiting X-ray scope), our own eyes (and the non-inverted versions in cats, octopi et al), and no doubt more that I've forgotten or not yet run across, all of which or completely, structurally and neurologically different)?
The parts describing the many billions of nucleotides which go into our DNA?
The parts which touch on origin-of-life (and so origin-of-genetics) experiments (which are now less) definite than when Miller and Urey made their tar)?
The parts investigating mutation `clocks' (they contradict each other)?
Any one of these is a bit of a ball-breaker for evolution, and this is just one field!
Intrigue, scandal, romance, monsters, epic wars, planets created, travelogue, song, poetry, wild symbolic prophecy, history, floods, fires, rains of frogs, people raised from the dead, giants, miracles left and right... there's something in it for everyone! (-:
Just because it's in a book doesn't mean thats it's true!-Christian mom upon seeing son with genetics textbook.
Doubly hilarious because said mother would also claim that other things are true because they're in The Book.
Triply hilarious because the actual data (not necessarily the conclusions the book makes on said data) in the genetics textbook actually destroys the idea of Darwinist evolution (and PunkEek, if you care) pretty thoroughly. Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box makes some of the points involved in a really clear and readable way. So in theory Mum should be encouraging the reading of it...
Longer extensions work just dandy with Windows, and have done for seven years
Have done for at least 3 times as long under Unix and other systems (UCSD etc), but DOS/Windows set the pace with filetypes, and apparently still does. Sigh.
If it contacts the interent on a local file search, then that's bad. If it contacts microsoft when I search the net, that's bad.
That makes Linux EXCELLENT!
Fourteen days, no firewall? With an open invitation to crack, and a reward? I'd like to see XP survive fourteen minutes with a heap of services up... invitation or no.
It's also not really fair to compare it to Linux/Apache/MySQL, as SQL Server 2000 beats MySQL on MANY fronts, including speed and options.
For USD$20k a CPU (or anything near that) I'd be wanting it to hammer the life out of a USD$200 service on every front!
Some of the fronts that MS-SQL doesn't win on are significant. For example, the amount of traffic that sloshes back and forth do do replication is nothing short of amazing. And if you do want to replicate, why, that's another twenty thousand spondoolies (AUD$40k) down the tube, plus hardware.
The next item on my agenda is MySQL. I'd choose PostgreSQL instead. There are no licencing complications which might come back and bite you on the behind later, it's far more feature-complete, and while MySQL often eats it for some of the dirt-simple stuff, MySQL most assuredly won't eat PostgreSQL [more detail] as things get more complicated, that is, for anything noticeably more complex than a weblog.
Finally, and still on the lies-damn-lies-and-statistics track, do you use the actual hardware that Microsoft used to get some TPC wins with? No? In that case, the TPC ratings aren't very useful to you with your `only USD$10k' dual-Xeon server, are they? (-:
So in June of 1999, the company unplugged its [23] AS/400s and powered up 1200 NT servers it needed to replace them. But things didn't quite go as planned. "They found they couldn't make it work," [Dr Frank] Soltis told the crowd. "Today, one year after unplugging their AS/400s, they're back on the AS/400." That company is Microsoft.
Fifty NT boxes per AS/400! And they can all run Java. I'm impressed, how about you? (-:
It runs on all windows platforms except Win95 (which sucks ass anyway)
You've not installed it on a top-of-the-line Athlon. It goes amazingly fast. If it wasn't Windows (ie: crashy, insecure, patronising, sends reports home) it would be wonderful.
Mandrake's 8.2 release seems to have cured this. The `bugs' they're fixing post-release are almost entirely trivial. They're also releasing update kits like the one for a stable KDE3 desktop. The problem with avoiding all beta-quality apps is a baby-and-bathwater issue with avoiding the most complete and flexible apps as well. Any choice will be a compromise, no matter who makes it. 8.2 seems to have found a sweet spot in that it's close to the bleeding edge but very little is broken. For example, I plugged a second video card into this box before upgrading it (from 8.1b3) and the 8.2 installer found and configured that automagically (I didn't try expert mode that time, although I usually do just to see what questions I get asked) so now I'm dual-heading. Automatically.
The debilitating effect of Microsoft, again
on
JPEG2000 Coming Soon
·
· Score: 2
The extension for the new files will be ".jp2"
Yet again, a filetype goes from reasonably self-explanatory (.jpeg2) to cryptic (.jp2) in order to fit into Bill's broken inherited-from-CP/M-80 filesystem. They merely follow in the fottsteps of their predecessors (e.g..text ->.txt;.voice ->.voc;.common and.command ->.com;.html ->.htm;.htmls ->.hts and so on).
I guess I should be grateful that it's not.jp, where it would cause the same problems from Japan that PERL (.pl) does for Poland. The.pl wasn't Microsoft's fault, for a refreshing change, it was just laziness. Perhaps we should petition Larry for an official change to.perl?
I understand it, *nix is a bigger security threat than MS.
Not.
The problem arises because you trust the word of someone who can't add subtotals. All of the unique problems of Unix servers (includes all distributions of Linux and Solaris) taken together are easily outweighed by just one company, a company proven in court to be software pirates, theives, liars, monopolists and other things. It's not their paid word on this topic that you happen to be taking, is it, Coward?
These new world types have a bad rep in that regard. [...] I'd never noticed it with Aussies before but now you come to mention it...;-)
Ah, well, I guess I deserve it for parodying outmoded European humour. Maybe something from Austin Tayshus?
Watching grass, er, multiply
on
GNU Radio
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Besides, if you ever HAD monitored cellular, you't realize it's about as interesting as watching grass grow.
That depends on whether you've got a `transmit' button or not.
One place I worked at left a scanner running in the main office (the boss was more than a bit weird), and one day we got an entire 20-minute conversation between husband (on mobile) and wife (on land-line) discussing the previous weekend's partner-swapping exercise, ratings and so on, exploring the prospects for a repeat and so on.
Towards the end wife asked if it was wise to discuss this on the 'phone and husband returned copious assurances that since he was on a mobile (but evidently sitting still) the conversation would be chopped up across channels and nobody could make head or tail of it.
...it's `listen-to-me this' and `let-me-tell-you that'...
buy a small Island somewhere instead. Australia?
You can fit seven copies of Texas into Western Australia alone, with no folding or overlap. Yet idiot tourists still climb into taxis here in Perth and ask to be taken to Sydney (two days' drive, non-stop, no sleep). Australia is not small. Just Perth-Broome takes a full 24 hours at the speed limit (110km/h).
We do have some small islands, but they're fast becoming unavailable; for example, Christmas Island is becoming a spaceport, and already has a good income from.cx domains. And yes, they do have goats - but are much kinder to them than one of the domains suggests.
Australian OTH radar can track aircraft taking off and landing in your home town, even though you're on the other side of the planet, even stealth aircraft. Australian rocket technology delivered three finished and operational destroyer-decoy systems for $AUD2M, the US spent $USD70M just getting a tethered rocket to hover. When I say `operational' I mean the US armed forces had to fly over and look to tell which was the decoy. Australian troops have often invaded and held places that US Marines, good as they are, couldn't (and it's worth adding that crew like the Ghurkas are even better). Australian agricultural innovation keeps American crops alive. This `small island' does a lot of stuff for Canada's Far South (that's the bits below the Great Lakes and above Mexico) with very few industrial resources.
Give us an American budget and there'd be no looking back. Fred would be finished by 2004 and a working SPS system in place by 2010. Putting our politicians in jail is only one of our many special methods. (-:
Since the Verisign sites represent about 5% of NetCraft's sample, the implication is that about 4.5% of the advantage was eaten by Apache gains in the same interval. If that's so (I doubt it) Microsoft must be bending over backwards to win the web server stats war starting at the biggest sites, and meanwhile losing ground at the smallest sites.
Lies, damn lies and statistics. But if true, we'll `nickel and dime' them to death. (-:
Slashdot Mirror
Concensus reality? The right God is the one with the most adherents?
The depends; does `refuting' mean `saying lots of things I agree with, even if it is talking past the issues, erecting strawmen, arguing from false premises and fudging results' or does it mean `reasoning from the data to a contradiction'? Talk.origins is gunwhale-down with the former, and kind of deprived of the latter. They sometimes can't even tell who said what.
Then again, who needs Creationists to disprove evolution?
The last time I looked, the AAAS was not exactly creationist. Does your statement prove that you're so bigoted that you wouldn't read anything that you might disagree with?
A lot depends on your view of `random'. If by `random' you mean `many good, many neutral, many bad', then no.
If OTOH you mean `almost universally destructive' then yes. You can think of it as entropy, or as the effects of the Fall of man, it works out the same either way: consistently downhill, not up.
Basement? I think you meant `basis', and benign mutations are only one necessary precursor to evolution.
Another is effective natural selection. Natural selection as found in the wild acts in a strongly conservative manner, which in plain English means that it works to keep things the same, to destroy change. This is the complete opposite of Richard Dawkins' `methinks it is like a weasel' program, which acts with teleology and enormous strength to preserve specific changes.
Another precursor is that the basic genetic material have enough capacity for variation that it can bridge species barriers, which it evidently does not.
There also have to be viable lifeforms before biological evolution has anything upon which to operate, which is another big problem.
There are more. (-:
...and an interesting one, Dr Hubert Yockey, who believes on grounds such as these that Darwinism did not produce or develop life, but has no idea what did.
I can also find about another two dozen biochemists and molecular biochemists, but don't have as much detail about their qualifications and careers. You really are asking something akin to references for Jewish scientists in Nazi Germany, but nevertheless...
One of the other ID sites has this to say about DBB: `It went through twelve printings before being issued in paperback, and has been cited and reviewed internationally in over one hundred publications, and was recently named by National Review and World magazine as one of the one hundred most important books of the 20th century.'
About Behe: `In addition to publishing over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals Dr. Behe has also written editorial features in The New York Times, Boston Review, the American Spectator and National Review and has presented and debated his work at various conferences, including at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, the University of Notre Dame, Princeton University, University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Cambridge University. Besides many radio and television interviews, in 1997, he was featured on two episodes of the PBS program Technopolitics.'
Since you seem to like argument from authority, here are some interesting and related quotes:
If it seems dark to you, it's because you're so far up yourself that you can't see out. (-:
Read these:
http://www.i5ive.com/article.cfm/christianity_sci
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/reviews/cm06_rev
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish-response.ht
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/RESOURCE/WARMING.HTM
http://www.rae.org/censor.html
...then tell me why you expect such an article to be considered for publication. There are many more examples around if you want them.
Nevertheless, Robert V Gentry, Willem J Ouweneel and other Creationist authors have had material published in journals like Nuclear Physics, Science, Nature and Journal of Geophysical Research, including the odd snippet of material which might cast doubt on the ruling Darwinist ideology.
Quote:
There is a layman's version of the article on-line at ICR (ref 5 mentions Nature).
Any questions so far?
Actually, the root meaning of Adam is `red'. And the book StarLight and Time contains one example of a cosmology which fits Genesis as literal. It seems likely that there are others.
I guess the obvious response is `says who?' (-:
What God does say is `Prove all things, hold fast that which is good' in 1Thessalonians 5:21, but if you distrust the Bible, why would you apply just that one verse from it? (-:
God is not coin-op, not a performing monkey, but if you seriously ask Him to prove Himself to you personally (ask, not demand), He often will. But you must be listening. Or shall I quote you the parable of the man on the roof of the flooded house?
I don't know that I'd be prepared to take a stand alongside Lenin, Hitler, Mao and others, all social engineers working from a Darwinist background and using Social Darwinism to carry out their aims.
But it's a free country. Sort of.
You do put up some off-the-wall proposals, don't you? (-:
Your `proof' would break evolution just as surely as it broke creation, unless you want to posit a great number of parallel evolutionary steps at each point along the way from molecules to man.
Turning to a Christian perspective, there's the fall. Even if the race had started with a single, unalterable set of chromosomes, you'd expect to find significant damage in them by now, or to put it another way, significant variation due to damage.
But aside from all of that, there is natural variation built into sexual reproduction (and in lesser degree to asexual as well). If there wasn't, every child a couple had would be identical. You will agree that in practice they aren't?
Where shall I start...
The parts that describe genetic burden?
The parts that describe the mechanisms for correcting genetic drift?
The parts that describe processes and structures which literally could not possibly have formed gradually?
The parts which delve into rates of change and basically support, if anything, punk-eek?
The parts which attempt to describe `parallel evolution' with a straight face (e.g. large fructivorous bats, octopi and humans all share the same visual processing system (modulo a non-retroverted retina for the octopi), small insectivorous bats have a completely different visual system but share wing structure with the big bats) (another e.g., there are visual systems ranging from light spots though the arrays of sensors in some starfish, compound (multi-spot) insect eyes, other insects with compunded individual eyes, the complex crystal arrays of the trilobite, mantis shrimp (which see in up to 13 different colour ranges including UV, have filters, and can see polarised light), lobster eyes (the design was borrowed for an orbiting X-ray scope), our own eyes (and the non-inverted versions in cats, octopi et al), and no doubt more that I've forgotten or not yet run across, all of which or completely, structurally and neurologically different)?
The parts describing the many billions of nucleotides which go into our DNA?
The parts which touch on origin-of-life (and so origin-of-genetics) experiments (which are now less) definite than when Miller and Urey made their tar)?
The parts investigating mutation `clocks' (they contradict each other)?
Any one of these is a bit of a ball-breaker for evolution, and this is just one field!
Intrigue, scandal, romance, monsters, epic wars, planets created, travelogue, song, poetry, wild symbolic prophecy, history, floods, fires, rains of frogs, people raised from the dead, giants, miracles left and right... there's something in it for everyone! (-:
Doubly hilarious because said mother would also claim that other things are true because they're in The Book.
Triply hilarious because the actual data (not necessarily the conclusions the book makes on said data) in the genetics textbook actually destroys the idea of Darwinist evolution (and PunkEek, if you care) pretty thoroughly. Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box makes some of the points involved in a really clear and readable way. So in theory Mum should be encouraging the reading of it...
I wonder... are we far enough off topic yet? (-:
Have done for at least 3 times as long under Unix and other systems (UCSD etc), but DOS/Windows set the pace with filetypes, and apparently still does. Sigh.
That makes Linux EXCELLENT!
Fourteen days, no firewall? With an open invitation to crack, and a reward? I'd like to see XP survive fourteen minutes with a heap of services up... invitation or no.
For USD$20k a CPU (or anything near that) I'd be wanting it to hammer the life out of a USD$200 service on every front!
Some of the fronts that MS-SQL doesn't win on are significant. For example, the amount of traffic that sloshes back and forth do do replication is nothing short of amazing. And if you do want to replicate, why, that's another twenty thousand spondoolies (AUD$40k) down the tube, plus hardware.
The next item on my agenda is MySQL. I'd choose PostgreSQL instead. There are no licencing complications which might come back and bite you on the behind later, it's far more feature-complete, and while MySQL often eats it for some of the dirt-simple stuff, MySQL most assuredly won't eat PostgreSQL [more detail] as things get more complicated, that is, for anything noticeably more complex than a weblog.
Finally, and still on the lies-damn-lies-and-statistics track, do you use the actual hardware that Microsoft used to get some TPC wins with? No? In that case, the TPC ratings aren't very useful to you with your `only USD$10k' dual-Xeon server, are they? (-:
It's appropriate that you should list the system which Microsoft's accounting system is based. Favourite quote:
Fifty NT boxes per AS/400! And they can all run Java. I'm impressed, how about you? (-:
You've not installed it on a top-of-the-line Athlon. It goes amazingly fast. If it wasn't Windows (ie: crashy, insecure, patronising, sends reports home) it would be wonderful.
Mandrake's 8.2 release seems to have cured this. The `bugs' they're fixing post-release are almost entirely trivial. They're also releasing update kits like the one for a stable KDE3 desktop. The problem with avoiding all beta-quality apps is a baby-and-bathwater issue with avoiding the most complete and flexible apps as well. Any choice will be a compromise, no matter who makes it. 8.2 seems to have found a sweet spot in that it's close to the bleeding edge but very little is broken. For example, I plugged a second video card into this box before upgrading it (from 8.1b3) and the 8.2 installer found and configured that automagically (I didn't try expert mode that time, although I usually do just to see what questions I get asked) so now I'm dual-heading. Automatically.
Yet again, a filetype goes from reasonably self-explanatory (.jpeg2) to cryptic (.jp2) in order to fit into Bill's broken inherited-from-CP/M-80 filesystem. They merely follow in the fottsteps of their predecessors (e.g.
I guess I should be grateful that it's not
Not.
The problem arises because you trust the word of someone who can't add subtotals. All of the unique problems of Unix servers (includes all distributions of Linux and Solaris) taken together are easily outweighed by just one company, a company proven in court to be software pirates, theives, liars, monopolists and other things. It's not their paid word on this topic that you happen to be taking, is it, Coward?
Ah, well, I guess I deserve it for parodying outmoded European humour. Maybe something from Austin Tayshus?
That depends on whether you've got a `transmit' button or not.
One place I worked at left a scanner running in the main office (the boss was more than a bit weird), and one day we got an entire 20-minute conversation between husband (on mobile) and wife (on land-line) discussing the previous weekend's partner-swapping exercise, ratings and so on, exploring the prospects for a repeat and so on.
Towards the end wife asked if it was wise to discuss this on the 'phone and husband returned copious assurances that since he was on a mobile (but evidently sitting still) the conversation would be chopped up across channels and nobody could make head or tail of it.
And me with no transmit button. Sigh.
You can fit seven copies of Texas into Western Australia alone, with no folding or overlap. Yet idiot tourists still climb into taxis here in Perth and ask to be taken to Sydney (two days' drive, non-stop, no sleep). Australia is not small. Just Perth-Broome takes a full 24 hours at the speed limit (110km/h).
We do have some small islands, but they're fast becoming unavailable; for example, Christmas Island is becoming a spaceport, and already has a good income from
Australian OTH radar can track aircraft taking off and landing in your home town, even though you're on the other side of the planet, even stealth aircraft. Australian rocket technology delivered three finished and operational destroyer-decoy systems for $AUD2M, the US spent $USD70M just getting a tethered rocket to hover. When I say `operational' I mean the US armed forces had to fly over and look to tell which was the decoy. Australian troops have often invaded and held places that US Marines, good as they are, couldn't (and it's worth adding that crew like the Ghurkas are even better). Australian agricultural innovation keeps American crops alive. This `small island' does a lot of stuff for Canada's Far South (that's the bits below the Great Lakes and above Mexico) with very few industrial resources.
Give us an American budget and there'd be no looking back. Fred would be finished by 2004 and a working SPS system in place by 2010. Putting our politicians in jail is only one of our many special methods. (-:
Since the Verisign sites represent about 5% of NetCraft's sample, the implication is that about 4.5% of the advantage was eaten by Apache gains in the same interval. If that's so (I doubt it) Microsoft must be bending over backwards to win the web server stats war starting at the biggest sites, and meanwhile losing ground at the smallest sites.
Lies, damn lies and statistics. But if true, we'll `nickel and dime' them to death. (-: