I think you're right in so many ways and wrong in so many more...
Scientists don't think that those oppose Evolution are evil (they don't have evil). They just think that they're stupid... and believe it or not there are just as many Science zealots as there are Baptist/Catholic Zealots. And in fact many reasonable scientists insist on forcing their religion onto children who's parents don't want them exposed to that sort of thought.
I think that science IS a religon. It's a core of beliefs that creates an entire body of thought which governs living. These various religions are different from their roots which is what makes this so difficult. Scientists believe through and through that they're right based on a set of rules that they've accepted. Theologens believe that they are right through and through based on a set of rules that they've accepted. Since both religions play by their own set of rules they will never agree on a score.
It's like putting a soccer player in a room with a football player. The football player thinks he scored because he walked over a white line, while the soccer player insists that he missed the tiny net that the football player claims dosen't even exist.
But you fell into the same trap that I mentioned earlier. You tried to pit Science against religion and placed it up as the 'real' one, versus 'religion'. Evolution is a theory that falls within the rules of 'Science' which is a body of thought, or a set of rules, which govern a particular way of life. Science is religion just like any other.
Probably responses: Science can be checked and proven or reproduced! Science can be refuted!
I agree. These are rules that were set up within the scientific community. These are all a part of the Science bible. The 10 commandments if you will. They are how science functions. They aren't laws of reality. They are a system devised by people to attain a certain goal.
Buddhism dosen't mesh with Catholisism, and Science dosen't mesh with Scientology.
The deeper problem here is that schools insist on teaching things to children that their parents don't want them taught. This is a wonderful example where vouchers should be used. If i'm not happy with the curriculum then I should be able to take my child to a school where he/she will be taught the way I'd like. And if I'm taking my child somewhere else, I should be able to get that child's share of the taxes being used to educate him or her and apply it toward what I think is the better education.
Everyone wants to claim that church-goers are the wakko zealots forcing ideas on other people... but let's look at this... in extremely religious areas people are having an extremely hard time getting local schools to teach the curriculum that THEY are paying for instead of teaching something that they don't want taught, that goes against their way of life, and is a slap in the face.
Scientists need to understand that by refusing to accept that this group of people does not want their theory, they are quite literally spitting on their way of life, their traditions, and their history. It's not a simple matter of saying 'Whoops! Guess I'll just turn over and let the school teach my son that my entire family tree is a moron for believing in God.'
Progress is great, but let's not lose sight of what we're asking others to give up in exchange for it.
And for the average person who works in a minimum wage job... or even a very well paying job... evolution doesn't mean diddly shit. It's like forcing me to give up my entire system of beliefs in order to admit to myself that pluto is really made of cheese... Who gives a shit?
What's funny... is that you'd get those same silly looks from an educated church pastor if you started spouting evolutionist theories.
Both sides of this thing have a theory. That theory came from an idea, which came from a belief, which is rooted in a religion.
Lets take the obvious one first. Your average southern baptist has his or her religion. A life centered around worshiping God and Jesus (over simplified for the sake of my keyboard's wellbeing) and that the world is generally lying to them. This religion led to their belief in the bible, stone tablets, eternal hellfire, etc. This in turn led to an idea about how things began, leading to a theory, which in this case is ID.
Now the average science-minded individual. His religion is the science itself. The belief that all knowledge can be synthesized, tested, and 'proven' as much as possible. The idea that the origins and diversity of life on this planet needs to fit into the existing system led to the theory of Evolution.
I don't care which one is right. It makes no difference what-so-ever. If you know without a doubt that evolution took place... hurray. so what? Enjoy. Same goes for ID. If you already believed it yourself then it makes no difference to prove it. You already knew it was true and you can't convince anyone of anything by arguing about it.
Now this is the real problem... to tell an evolutionist that they are wrong on this one, based on theological evidence, is to tell them that their life is worthless. It's telling them that their religion is simply a toy to be tinkered with as opposed to the 'real' religon.
On the other hand... to tell a baptist/catholic/etc that Intelligent Design is wrong, based on scientific evidence, does the very same thing. It strikes at the core of their beliefs. It tears the ground out from under them.
Both sides of this debate are going to respond violently because they're both trying to pull the foundation out from under the other.
I think that it's absolutely correct that ID is not science. It shouldn't be taught in a science classroom. It's a purely theological discussion that should be restricted to that playground.
But what I don't like is the mind-game that is played every time this fact is brought up. There's a demeaning aurra taken up anytime someone mentioned that ID isn't science. "Go play your little ID game somewhere else... we're doing the REAL stuff here". How about if we start saying that Evolution isn't Theology and shouldn't be taught in churches for a while just to make things fair.;)
actually yes... there have been hidden Goatse links in stories a couple of times in the last few weeks. Mostly sites that were getting slashdotted... and decided to be funny by redirecting them.:D
That was actually alot of really interesting reading. The comment was meant in jest, but thanks anyway.;) (a truely intelligent post on slashdot... I tip my hat)
Being someone's customer is identical to being their boss. When I hire you to cut my grass every weekend, then I am your boss in so long as you are fulfilling the job. As a customer I can very easily fire you by choosing to take my business elsewhere or to discontinue the current job. Where did the idea that customer's aren't bosses come from?
I disagree that they created the problem. This would be like accusing malls of creating shoplifting, or accusing ford for creating grand-theft-auto. They all created a venue that is being used unscrupulously... I say they SHOULD charge for the solution to the problem... just like you pay extra for an alarm system, or the club, or a security guard. If you expect results, you should expect to pay someone to provide them. Just because there's a huge hobbiest culture providing these things for free (ala linux) dosen't mean that it's a good long-term solution.
With that said, when you pay for a solution, it should _work_. What we're paying for is accountability.
This is miles off-topic, but a baby in the womb is attatched only by the umbilical cord. There is no blood transfered over this connection, only nutrients. Both mother and child have their own makeup and systems.
This 'connection' is akin to a mother breast-feeding her child, or holding hands. If abortion is legal, then it should be legal for mothers to kill children who are holding their hand to cross the street. (not nessicarily a bad thing.. lol)
It would make it easier to find the sites that actually use it correctly. Unfortunatly millions of porn-sites would register things like "havingsexwhilebuying.groceries" or "stickingitwhereever.u-name-it".
Anytime you give the power to the site itself to categorize itself, the sites will take advantage of that and screw up the system. This is exactly why meta-tags are generally ignored by search engines. They just become a tool to get to the top of the first page of results by scamsters.
Having a.xxx TLD wouldn't help this either. Granted.xxx would be ALL porn, but the rest of the TLDs would be no less infested with it.
It would be like building a whore-house in Las Vegas... You would expect to find whores in the house... but that dosen't mean they wouldn't be everywhere else too.
Bottom line... having a.xxx TLD would only make it easier to find porn, but no easier to avoid it.
You're exactly right. It's like jumping up and down screaming
HOLY SHIT 101!!! THIS ONLY HAPPENS ONCE EVERY 60,000 YEARS!!! HOLY SHIT 102!!! THIS ONLY HAPPENS ONCE EVERY 60,000 YEARS!!! HOLY SHIT 100!!! THIS ONLY HAPPENS ONCE EVERY 60,000 YEARS!!!
I would wager to bet that the position of the Earth and Mars is 'special' in each of the 21,900,000 days of that 60,000 years. Should we make an announcement for each day with the headline "Mars is closer than it's been in the last 60,000 years!.... but oh yeah it was closer in 2003.
No. This is not news worthy in a mainstream news source (the original source). This isn't even news. It's like having a headline that says "THE NUMBER 500 WAY BIGGER THAN 2!!!" and each subsequent year updating to a larger number. I'm not suggesting we tailor slashdot to john-everyman. I'm suggesting that slashdot raise to higher standards than reporting announcements about the movement of planetary bodies which are extremely predicatble.
Here's a headline for ya... Microsoft is conducting itself like a business! holy shit!!! I didn't see it coming!!!
and besides... like it or not most slashdot readers ARE john-everymen. They're nerds no less, but this annoucement is nothing more than a blurb in their RSS feed. Name one reason knowing this information bettered your life.;)
So it came unusually close in 2003... and now again in 2005... and they're expecting it again in 2018?
And so it's happening 3 times in 15 years... but we're going to blow that up to say "3 times in 60,000 years!!!"
Honestly... the New Orleans Saints win playoff games more rarely than this occurs. Which brings be back to my original comment: Seems like every few years we hear that Mars is WHOA! close to the earth. Other than it's significance to NASA's mars mission and palmists, all this means to john-everyman is that the red dot in the sky is a little brighter.
Doesn't something like this happen every year these days? I feel like every few months I read that, "Mars is closer than it's been in a REALLY REALLY long time." I mean I'm sure each of these has it's own special significance, but for us average people on the ground all this means is that the red dot is a bit larger...
for the less computer adept... having the company that "made their computer" say that their search engine is better than that college-startup named "Gafoogle" or whatever is pretty convincing. Not to mention it'll prolly be the default engine in the next version of IE and will probably search straight from the location bar. Google may be better, but MSN search is nothing to scoff at. I think they'll have their work cut out for them if they want to stay on top of the popularity curve.
Re:"Essentially" the same data?
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
So... I should load Macromedia Fireworks, Dreamweaver, Flex, Coldfusion, Studio, JRun, Freehand, Authorware, and Contribute every time I want to edit a flash file with MM Flash?
Or should Photoshop also load up Illustrator, GoLive, and Premier?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're right in so many ways and wrong in so many more...
Scientists don't think that those oppose Evolution are evil (they don't have evil). They just think that they're stupid... and believe it or not there are just as many Science zealots as there are Baptist/Catholic Zealots. And in fact many reasonable scientists insist on forcing their religion onto children who's parents don't want them exposed to that sort of thought.
I think that science IS a religon. It's a core of beliefs that creates an entire body of thought which governs living. These various religions are different from their roots which is what makes this so difficult. Scientists believe through and through that they're right based on a set of rules that they've accepted. Theologens believe that they are right through and through based on a set of rules that they've accepted. Since both religions play by their own set of rules they will never agree on a score.
It's like putting a soccer player in a room with a football player. The football player thinks he scored because he walked over a white line, while the soccer player insists that he missed the tiny net that the football player claims dosen't even exist.
But you fell into the same trap that I mentioned earlier. You tried to pit Science against religion and placed it up as the 'real' one, versus 'religion'. Evolution is a theory that falls within the rules of 'Science' which is a body of thought, or a set of rules, which govern a particular way of life. Science is religion just like any other.
Probably responses: Science can be checked and proven or reproduced! Science can be refuted!
I agree. These are rules that were set up within the scientific community. These are all a part of the Science bible. The 10 commandments if you will. They are how science functions. They aren't laws of reality. They are a system devised by people to attain a certain goal.
Buddhism dosen't mesh with Catholisism, and Science dosen't mesh with Scientology.
The deeper problem here is that schools insist on teaching things to children that their parents don't want them taught. This is a wonderful example where vouchers should be used. If i'm not happy with the curriculum then I should be able to take my child to a school where he/she will be taught the way I'd like. And if I'm taking my child somewhere else, I should be able to get that child's share of the taxes being used to educate him or her and apply it toward what I think is the better education.
Everyone wants to claim that church-goers are the wakko zealots forcing ideas on other people... but let's look at this... in extremely religious areas people are having an extremely hard time getting local schools to teach the curriculum that THEY are paying for instead of teaching something that they don't want taught, that goes against their way of life, and is a slap in the face.
Scientists need to understand that by refusing to accept that this group of people does not want their theory, they are quite literally spitting on their way of life, their traditions, and their history. It's not a simple matter of saying 'Whoops! Guess I'll just turn over and let the school teach my son that my entire family tree is a moron for believing in God.'
Progress is great, but let's not lose sight of what we're asking others to give up in exchange for it.
And for the average person who works in a minimum wage job... or even a very well paying job... evolution doesn't mean diddly shit. It's like forcing me to give up my entire system of beliefs in order to admit to myself that pluto is really made of cheese... Who gives a shit?
What's funny... is that you'd get those same silly looks from an educated church pastor if you started spouting evolutionist theories.
;)
Both sides of this thing have a theory. That theory came from an idea, which came from a belief, which is rooted in a religion.
Lets take the obvious one first. Your average southern baptist has his or her religion. A life centered around worshiping God and Jesus (over simplified for the sake of my keyboard's wellbeing) and that the world is generally lying to them. This religion led to their belief in the bible, stone tablets, eternal hellfire, etc. This in turn led to an idea about how things began, leading to a theory, which in this case is ID.
Now the average science-minded individual. His religion is the science itself. The belief that all knowledge can be synthesized, tested, and 'proven' as much as possible. The idea that the origins and diversity of life on this planet needs to fit into the existing system led to the theory of Evolution.
I don't care which one is right. It makes no difference what-so-ever. If you know without a doubt that evolution took place... hurray. so what? Enjoy. Same goes for ID. If you already believed it yourself then it makes no difference to prove it. You already knew it was true and you can't convince anyone of anything by arguing about it.
Now this is the real problem... to tell an evolutionist that they are wrong on this one, based on theological evidence, is to tell them that their life is worthless. It's telling them that their religion is simply a toy to be tinkered with as opposed to the 'real' religon.
On the other hand... to tell a baptist/catholic/etc that Intelligent Design is wrong, based on scientific evidence, does the very same thing. It strikes at the core of their beliefs. It tears the ground out from under them.
Both sides of this debate are going to respond violently because they're both trying to pull the foundation out from under the other.
I think that it's absolutely correct that ID is not science. It shouldn't be taught in a science classroom. It's a purely theological discussion that should be restricted to that playground.
But what I don't like is the mind-game that is played every time this fact is brought up. There's a demeaning aurra taken up anytime someone mentioned that ID isn't science. "Go play your little ID game somewhere else... we're doing the REAL stuff here". How about if we start saying that Evolution isn't Theology and shouldn't be taught in churches for a while just to make things fair.
actually yes... there have been hidden Goatse links in stories a couple of times in the last few weeks. Mostly sites that were getting slashdotted... and decided to be funny by redirecting them. :D
Yay! now he can have the hoards of slashdotters voting AGAINST him because it'll be funny.
I'm pretty sure Apple had 'aliases' in MacOS somewhere before MS had shortcuts in Windows as well.
That was actually alot of really interesting reading. The comment was meant in jest, but thanks anyway. ;) (a truely intelligent post on slashdot... I tip my hat)
Being someone's customer is identical to being their boss. When I hire you to cut my grass every weekend, then I am your boss in so long as you are fulfilling the job. As a customer I can very easily fire you by choosing to take my business elsewhere or to discontinue the current job. Where did the idea that customer's aren't bosses come from?
I'd love to know what 'The most thorough beta tester' means... lol
"He loved our software so we bought him beer..."
oh? Good! In that case I'd like to fire them immediatly. Whatever funding that they're recieving from me will henceforth be refunded to me.
What? I can't get a refund? WHAT?!?! I can't fire them?! I can't even NOT hire them next time?!?!?!
This is bullshit.
The NSA has customers? How long do you think it'll be before Microsoft tries to 'aquire' them as the latest 'innovation' in computer security? :D
I disagree that they created the problem. This would be like accusing malls of creating shoplifting, or accusing ford for creating grand-theft-auto. They all created a venue that is being used unscrupulously... I say they SHOULD charge for the solution to the problem... just like you pay extra for an alarm system, or the club, or a security guard. If you expect results, you should expect to pay someone to provide them. Just because there's a huge hobbiest culture providing these things for free (ala linux) dosen't mean that it's a good long-term solution.
With that said, when you pay for a solution, it should _work_. What we're paying for is accountability.
Like spelling and grammar!
This is miles off-topic, but a baby in the womb is attatched only by the umbilical cord. There is no blood transfered over this connection, only nutrients. Both mother and child have their own makeup and systems.
This 'connection' is akin to a mother breast-feeding her child, or holding hands. If abortion is legal, then it should be legal for mothers to kill children who are holding their hand to cross the street. (not nessicarily a bad thing.. lol)
Because it's Office is better.
well yes and no...
.xxx TLD wouldn't help this either. Granted .xxx would be ALL porn, but the rest of the TLDs would be no less infested with it.
.xxx TLD would only make it easier to find porn, but no easier to avoid it.
It would make it easier to find the sites that actually use it correctly. Unfortunatly millions of porn-sites would register things like "havingsexwhilebuying.groceries" or "stickingitwhereever.u-name-it".
Anytime you give the power to the site itself to categorize itself, the sites will take advantage of that and screw up the system. This is exactly why meta-tags are generally ignored by search engines. They just become a tool to get to the top of the first page of results by scamsters.
Having a
It would be like building a whore-house in Las Vegas... You would expect to find whores in the house... but that dosen't mean they wouldn't be everywhere else too.
Bottom line... having a
I love this... I've read through the first few pages of comments and this is my observation:
Microsoft takes a pro-active step toward curbing spam, something that we universally hate, and for some reason MS is taking insult left and right.
If you're going to deride them at least do it when it's appropriate... not when they're taking a legit step toward finding a solution.
You're exactly right. It's like jumping up and down screaming
;)
HOLY SHIT 101!!! THIS ONLY HAPPENS ONCE EVERY 60,000 YEARS!!!
HOLY SHIT 102!!! THIS ONLY HAPPENS ONCE EVERY 60,000 YEARS!!!
HOLY SHIT 100!!! THIS ONLY HAPPENS ONCE EVERY 60,000 YEARS!!!
I would wager to bet that the position of the Earth and Mars is 'special' in each of the 21,900,000 days of that 60,000 years. Should we make an announcement for each day with the headline "Mars is closer than it's been in the last 60,000 years!.... but oh yeah it was closer in 2003.
No. This is not news worthy in a mainstream news source (the original source). This isn't even news. It's like having a headline that says "THE NUMBER 500 WAY BIGGER THAN 2!!!" and each subsequent year updating to a larger number. I'm not suggesting we tailor slashdot to john-everyman. I'm suggesting that slashdot raise to higher standards than reporting announcements about the movement of planetary bodies which are extremely predicatble.
Here's a headline for ya... Microsoft is conducting itself like a business! holy shit!!! I didn't see it coming!!!
and besides... like it or not most slashdot readers ARE john-everymen. They're nerds no less, but this annoucement is nothing more than a blurb in their RSS feed. Name one reason knowing this information bettered your life.
oor... if you want to avoid being a duchecake... install MS Office at home. ;)
I don't understand why you folks torture yourselves for fun by forcing yourselves to use lower-quality software for the hell of it.
So it came unusually close in 2003... and now again in 2005... and they're expecting it again in 2018?
And so it's happening 3 times in 15 years... but we're going to blow that up to say "3 times in 60,000 years!!!"
Honestly... the New Orleans Saints win playoff games more rarely than this occurs. Which brings be back to my original comment: Seems like every few years we hear that Mars is WHOA! close to the earth. Other than it's significance to NASA's mars mission and palmists, all this means to john-everyman is that the red dot in the sky is a little brighter.
Doesn't something like this happen every year these days? I feel like every few months I read that, "Mars is closer than it's been in a REALLY REALLY long time." I mean I'm sure each of these has it's own special significance, but for us average people on the ground all this means is that the red dot is a bit larger...
hmm... the world's most powerful computer... extremely expensive... built by a private company...
Yeah... they're definatly losing money on this. businesses love to lose money.
Even if it's just a pissing contest, they're gaining publicity that (they think) is worth the cost.
for the less computer adept... having the company that "made their computer" say that their search engine is better than that college-startup named "Gafoogle" or whatever is pretty convincing. Not to mention it'll prolly be the default engine in the next version of IE and will probably search straight from the location bar. Google may be better, but MSN search is nothing to scoff at. I think they'll have their work cut out for them if they want to stay on top of the popularity curve.
So... I should load Macromedia Fireworks, Dreamweaver, Flex, Coldfusion, Studio, JRun, Freehand, Authorware, and Contribute every time I want to edit a flash file with MM Flash?
Or should Photoshop also load up Illustrator, GoLive, and Premier?
Naw... there's no bloat in OO.org
So you understand fully why other countries would want to use their own (or one not controlled by the US) for reasons of power.
Yet you fail to understand why the US would not want to give up that very same power. There's no motivation to do so.
Take your halfway informed and yet braindead kumbaiya rhetoric and... well do something with it that dosen't make you sound so damn stupid.
"Einstein sent more than 14,500 letters. But he received more than 16,200, and responded to only a quarter of them."
I'll admit that my math isn't the best around... but I'm pretty sure that 1/4 of 16,200 is less than 14,500...