Why would your "few barrelfuls of used pinball machine parts" EVER disintegrate? What's magical about the 50 year mark that would cause metal parts to spontaneously fall apart? Just curious.
Step 1 is a good idea, but impractical. Given the nature of the internet tubes in general and Wikipedia in particular, every post can be made anonymously, even if the policy dictates otherwise. The subject of this controversy was actually posting anonymously, since all of the information "known" about him was fictitious.
Now that he's been found out, he can simply make another ID, another set of bogus information, and continue posting. His posts will be, in essence, anonymous.
...to me. I have the Cingular 8525 - it cost me $150 (for an upgrade) after company discount. In fact, once I sold my old 8125 on Ebay, I actually profited $80 from the upgrade. As far as I can tell from the Apple specs, my 8525 does everything the iPhone does and then some. Yes, it's bigger--and if that's an issue for you, you probably won't like the iPhone, either. Also, with my 8525, I have 3G network, while the iPhone is EDGE only in the U.S.
This is hardly "revolutionary" technology - I don't understand the appeal.
In the real world, there are a small handful of election judges watching a dozen or more voting machines.
In the real world, those judges are currently busy trying to validate the voters who came in behind you, and aren't watching what you're doing.
In the real world, there are many polling places with screens around the voting machines to allow for privacy.
In the real world, most election judges don't know their arseholes from their elbows when it comes to this technology, and don't know what they should be watching for in the first place.
In the real world, hackers routinely make it past the safeguards that are designed to prevent unauthorized access. I'm glad that you're comfortable with the idea that an election judge can keep things all safe and secure in a typical polling place. It must be very warm and fuzzy in your world.
Perhaps the most scathing charge you can make against those people, then, is hypocrisy or intellectual cowardice. They admit that God exists, and continue to live lives as though God does not exist.
The problem with this statement is that it implies that they should be living by a certain set of rules if there is a god, and another set of rules if not.
Depending on which god, which rules, and which society you live in that may or may not be the case. I make this point because you just called a lot of people hypocrites and intellectual cowards without cause. Their "god rule set" -- at least to them--does not require for them to jam their religions down other's throats.
We should be thanking these people for enjoying their faith without starting wars over it. We need a lot more like them.
Normally, a media outlet "finds or picks" which news items to report to you based on human bias. I don't see much of a difference - this process is automated, is all. It may be biased, it may not... just like any other media source.
The other point is that Google news is a news aggregator, but that hardly means that they should be used as a sole source, any more than cnn.com, or msnbc.com. I personally use it to see if any articles are up that aren't on my other sources, and to find other perspectives on articles I've already read.
I suppose that there are those who will use it for their only source of information, but I believe that those sorts of people would normally stick with one source anyway - preferably, one that presents stories that already match their world view. It's up to each individual to keep informed to a point that matches their comfort level.
Looking at the 107-key keyboard I am currently using, the answer to your question is:
1
I can't say that I've ever used the "Scroll Lock" key on this particular keyboard. I use everything else, routinely.
Perhaps a better question would be: What kind of keyboard are YOU using that has so many (apparently) worthless features, and why did you buy it if you didn't need those features? There are plenty of nice, standardized keyboards available at many retail outlets.
And as another poster has noted, fewer keys does not equate to a simpler keyboard. Again, looking at this keyboard, I actually use a great many more than 107 functions on it. Which means that each of those 53 keys on the smaller keyboard is going to have to do a lot more work to maintain the functionality I currently have (symbols, alt-function, ctrl-functions...).
Which means that each and every key is going to be a source of confusion. Right now, when I'm touch typing, I have to stop and look to remember which number key has the '&' character above it. I don't use that symbol as much as, say, '*', so I haven't internalized its position. Imagine having that issue with every single key, because they ALL perform multiple function?
Small keyboards have their place, but they're not some sort of panacea that will deliver us from the ongoing, continuing increase in funtionality that we require from our input device. The keyboards have gotten more complex because our needs have gotten more complex.
Re:Slitting their own throats
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
You, Sir, have insulted me, and I WILL NOT stand for it! Lumping the peoples of this country into a single, overly-generalized category of "sheep" is a horrible, extreme use of hyperbole, and I will not sit idly by...
...uh, sorry, Lost is back on. Get back to you later, k?
Okies, but first, let's be clear on this point: Whether or not his claim is valid, he is most definitely a guy trying to make a quick buck. Is this suit going to topple M$? No. Is it even going to make a dent? Highly unlikely. What will be the best possible result for the plaintiff? Quick buck. End of story.
This fact, of course, doesn't speak to the validity of his point in the slightest. And neither does his book, since it can only represent his viewpoint, complete with arguments designed to prove his case. Why would you consider a book written for a specific purpose and to express a specific point as evidence of anything? Every word has to be suspect, every point confirmed through an external, objective source.
Show me a book written by someone not directly affected by the alleged malfeasance, and I'll consider that evidence.
Read the book before taking the knee jerk reaction that everyone above has in saying that this is another guy trying to make a quick buck off of Microsoft.
So you're suggesting that I read the book of the guy who's trying to earn a quick buck off of M$ in order to understand why he thinks he has the right to earn the quick buck?
The above posts aren't knee-jerk reactions in this crowd. A knee-jerk reaction would be, "Yay, M$ is being sued again!!!"
This thing smells fishy, and just because the guy wrote a book defending his position doesn't make it smell any less.
That's a fascinating perspective. So you're saying that all of the lower layers in the Earth's crust are comprised of heavier, larger chunks, and the upper layers are all lighter, smaller bits? So, for instance, you'll never, ever have a sandstone layer below a heavier limestone or marble layer? You might want to do a bit more research on that one.
You don't have soil between the layers of rock, because the soil got compressed to the point that it became rock. That's how sedimentary rock forms. No evidence of soil? How about plant fossils? What'd they grow in? Oh, I know... they were picked up by by the flood waters, and deposited below several layers of rock.
What do you mean by "even". Are you referring to the depth of each layer, or the levelness? Depth is hardly even in most fossilized layers, they can vary from portions of an inch, to several feet thick, depending on the layer and location.
The "evidence" pointed out by this (not a all biased) article doesn't speak to what we're talking about here at all. It says that canyons that geologists claim took thousands of years to be carved may have been done in a shorter time. This isn't a news flash. The advent of new canyons after flash-flooding has been observed for decades. It has nothing to do with layering of fossils, other than those created due to volcanic upheaval.
Since you're obviously going to insist that the Noah's ark myth is real, perhaps you can give me some good answers to the following questions:
Other than the real issue of cramming two of every living creature into this ark (and the fact that the insect population alone would've maxed it out) - how did these creatures get re-distributed after the flood? How did places with unique creatures get populated? Let's take Australia as a good example... it has many, many creatures that don't exist anywhere else, yet were apparently on the Ark. How'd they get back home to the island after the flood?
Where was the food stored that kept many thousands of creatures alive for forty days and nights?
If the entire earth was flooded to such depth that the Ark ended up on a mountain top, where'd the water flow to afterward? Bear in mind that the entire Earth had to have one smooth surface of water for this to work - to get that kind of altitude, you have to have hundreds of times the amount of water currently on the surface of the Earth. Where'd it go?
Why isn't the ENTIRE Earth smooth and flat? With the exception of the mountain ranges, upheaval on this level would deposit the earth evenly across the continents, right? Valleys would be filled in, low-lying area built up.
If the answer to any of these questions is "God did it", then you're all done trying to claim that science backs up the story of Noah's ark.
Well said. Thank you for the insight. I will certainly be following up on the books you refer to... they seem to present a picture of the Puritans I wasn't aware of.
I have certainly read the Bible, several times. I admit that I haven't done much research into the individual books, other then those in the new testament and the Apocrypha.
We've had a slight misunderstanding on one large point. I'm not a creationist, by any stretch. I'm not even Christian, though I have been baptised, and was raised in a Christian household. My issue with the Bible is exactly what you've brought up here, that it (to my thinking) can't be a literal work that accurately reflects the words of God. However, in the environment in which I was raised, and by the people at the church I attended, it was presented as such. In my dealings with the Christians around me in my life, many of them (not all) consider it as such. My problem with the "Intelligent Design" paradigm is that it seems to be trying to reshape the Bible, to restructure the dogma so that it can survive alongside current science. This strikes me as hypocritical.
If any person today tried to re-define the ancient Greek godhead in such a manner that it might seem plausible alongside current science, they'd be a laughingstock. But because the ID crowd has the Bible as the centerpoint of their argument, they're taken seriously by far too many people.
The scientific process is not really in conflict with Christianity.
Didn't say it was. I said there are conflicts between Genesis and scientific reality. Notice that I didn't lump all of Christendom into that.
Your theory about the flood creating all of the fossils is very limited, especially considering that the fossils in question are being found in multiple layers... if they were all laid from one event, they'd be at the same layer, or at least in clost proximity.
Please feel free to site other problems in other areas of science that show that a young earth is viable. I'm truly interested. From my current perspective, the dinosaurs alone are reason to label the Noah story as myth, while you seem to perceive it as fact.
Huh. Let's see... if all of these major branches of the Christian faith concede that evolution is likely to be real, then there's no one left to contest it, right? All of the news stories lately about textbooks being altered and church groups picketing to remove evolution teachings from schools are being done by... who?
Meanwhile, I look over my cube wall to my neighbor (a Catholic) and ask, "What do you think of evolution?"
He says, without even looking up from his monitor, "It's sin, pure and simple. Poisoning the minds of our kids. Now stop bugging me, I've got stuff to get done."
Apparently, everyone you're around thinks a bit more than that. Obviously, I need to move again.
It's entirely possible that both of you are speaking truthfully here.
Valid point. Here's my reference area: As a military member, I've lived in Tennessee, Florida, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Maryland, Texas, New Mexico, Japan, Korea, and southern England. I'm currently in Maryland. The 90% figure I posited would certainly not be true in Japan or England, but holds true every place else I've lived.
I'll debate the point as to whether Intelligent Design is "God's Evolution". I'd be more willing to accept that if the proponents of it weren't themselves putting it up to compete with evolution. If ID included evolution in its paradigm, I'd think that they would be trying to teach it as a subset, rather than trying to get it removed from school curiculae.
I think is a big problem with many, many Christians! Your education as a Christian shouldn't start and end as a child! The creation story is great for children! It is instructive about the nature of God, and can be easily understood by small minds. If you stop your education at that level, don't be surprised if you have a child-like understanding of God and Christian faith!
And therein lies one of my biggest problems with current Christian dogma. Two centuries ago, the Bible was the literal, unvarnished word of God. The Puritans were not children, with "small minds", they were mature, thinking adults, and for them, the Bible was true.
Now, you're telling me that my Biblical teachings shouldn't have ended at childhood, that I should look beyond the actual words of the Bible for some other meaning. Well, point the first: I've been studying religions, Christian and otherwise, all of my life. It's been a passion for as long as I can remember. Twenty years of that can be classified as "not childhood". I make this point, not to applaud my age or my learning, but to point out that just because I reference Sunday school doesn't mean that was the end of my study.
Are you telling me that the creation story is false? A fable designed for children? That doesn't work, on many, many levels. The Bible was most assuredly not written for children, nor intended for them. The stories, as written, were intended to portray the truth of the word of God, not bed-time stories. Unless you're willing to tell me that the people who put the Bible together were wrong, in either the scope of their endeavor, or the reasons for it, stating that the opening of Genesis was intended for children is, if you'll forgive me, a bit simple minded.
The Bible has been portrayed as the true word of God (not the fables of God, not the metaphorical allegories of God) for hundreds of years. Now, you'd like me to believe that it's ok, that the conflicts that exist between Genesis and scientific reality don't matter because the Bible was intended to be a children's story?
Nope, not buying it. I'll accept that the stories themselves, in their unwritten, oral tradition, were intended as allegories and cautionary tales. But the Bible itself was created to reflect the word of God, not fables, not children's stories.
You're a Christian and you're trying to fit your view of the Bible into the bigger picture of the world around you. I can appreciate that. But I don't think that re-inventing the history and purpose of the Bible is going to help you with that in the long run.
Yes, my demographic for Christion is one who believes that Jesus the Christ is the son of God. The Bible tells them that "whosoever believeth and is baptised shall be saved". For most of the Christians I know, it's as simple as that.
I don't believe that Intelligent Design is science. I don't know that evolution is the right answer, but I do know that all portions of it derive from observation and hypothesis based upon observation.
Intelligent Design is based upon faith, and the concept that a system as complex as a human being "obviously" couldn't have evolved naturally. This, in a nutshell, is not science. It's wishful thinking. It's an attempt to twist a current line of thinking (along with its plethora of evidence) to fit a more palatable paradigm.
One of my main problems with this idea, though, is it's inherent contradiction with traditional Christian dogma. For centuries, we've been told that the Bible is the unaltered, absolutely correct word of God. People have died in gruesome ways for saying otherwise.
Now, though, as the evidence for a non-creationistic universe mounts, we have people attempting to subvert rational science (as Christians have subverted many of the holidays and rites they couldn't stamp out of Pagan cultures) so that it somehow fits into some idea that might be somewhat based upon at least the idea of the Bible.
I've read in this forum that suddenly we're to believe that the Bible isn't the true word of God, but that portions of it are. Or that the Old testament is metaphorical, but the New Testament is true. This fluctuation and change in an old system seem to me to be evidence that the system is not base upon reality. When new science disproves old, we dump the old science. When new science disproves old religion, the religion attempts to change itself to fit the new science. This doesn't make the new religion valid, just more up-to-date.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. "Most"? 90% of the Christians I personally know tell me that the Bible is the literal word of God, and evolution is one of Satan's attempts to derail good Christians and keep them from the kingdom of Heaven.
I know a lot of Christians.
It's all well and good to re-interpret your religion in the light of modern-day knowledge... I'm all for that. But justifying your view by claiming that "most" of your demographic agree with you is loose science at best. From what I'm seeing, we're living in a society that is growing more conservative and backwards in its thinking about God and science, not the other way around.
One last point - the Sunday school I went to as a child focused on the creation story as being VERY important. And it drew no distinction whatsoever between the old and new testaments in regards to validity or accuracy.
Your concerns are valid - if this technology even existed. Or will exist, any time soon. Or if Sony had a prototype, or at least some sort of study showing that this was possible.
This patent was granted for something that not only doesn't exist, but for something which we have no idea how to make exist.
We have a method for changimg the document itself: Amendment.
Yep, I believe I referred to Article 5 in my post.
Do you REALLY want to make an amendment to change the wording of the First Amendment? Think about it for a second. Who do you trust in the Senate to write a bill that would have wording you'd agree with?
I must have the abbreviated version of the First Amendment.
You're absolutely right - the Bill of Rights does not directly account for this sort of regulation regarding types of speech. So, by all means, let's stick to exactly what it says - after all, the beloved forefathers, with their magic crystal balls, accounted for every possible use and mis-use of this document, right?
Why is the U.S. Constitution so sacred? It's an old document, founded in a time of relative innocence. It has fantastically high ideals that I personally believe we should strive to uphold. Having said that, there are certainly those in our society who can and will cheerfully abuse that same document to their own betterment. We're talking about more here than what is covered by a simplistic and sarcastic reference to "fairness".
The mega corporations will cheerfully lie in order to pull the last possible penny from your pocket. Not "mis-lead", not "mis-inform", but outright "lie". This is a historically proven truism.
Should there be no regulations in this regard? No protections for the buyer? If we only look to the First Amendment in regards to this issue, then that's what we're left with.
In my opinion, we have to allow for common sense in law making. It's dangerous, but otherwise, we're left with a document with no flexibility to fix those loopholes found by the unscrupulous. Article V allows for changes to be made, but those changes must be made carefully, sparingly. Any time you open the Constitution for real change, you take the risk that it will be modified by those in power for their own ends, rather than for the betterment of the majority.
Applying the common sense rule, and allowing for laws that plug the loopholes without opening the document for change, gives us a solution with less risk. Laws that control those who's only goal is profiting for themselves (whether monetarily, or politically) without impinging upon the ideals of the magic document are necessary. More necessary yet is the attention of the above-average citizen who looks at these laws with a skeptical eye, ready to raise the bullshit flag when controls are overly strict, or made without regard to the comman man.
Or, we can stick with stubborn tenacity to the wording of the original document, ignoring the changes that come about regularly as our society morphs and evolves.
I only used the word "terrorist" to speak to a point made by the parent.
Since you bring it up, though, the word "terrorist" has to be a part of every security discussion for the same reason that the word "hackers" has to be part of every network security discussion. They're the current, prevalent threat at exactly the types of places this technology will be used. When you discuss National Security, you don't speak of thieves or swindlers, you speak of terrorists.
It's a broad label that covers a wide range of persons and activities, but even so, it's accurate.
Is it overused? Of course.
Is it fear mongering? Certainly.
Is the threat overstated? We don't know yet. Ask me again in 20 years.
Meanwhile, if you want to draw attention to something that is a real, valid concern, you trot out the biggest words you can.
Why would a terrorist want your passport information? Why not? Instead of manufacturing papers with a faked identity and false history, make a passport with an RFID which is almost identical to yours, except with a different picture. Now they have an irrefutable (supposedly) ID, with a valid, verifiable history already in place. One which would raise no red flags whatsoever, which would match with any record checks you'd care to run. Yeah, they could get this by simply stealing your passport, but then you'd know your passport was stolen. With this handy, remotely exploitable security hole, you'd never have a clue that your identity was even at risk, much less stolen.
It's a worst-case scenario, yeah. Please assure me that it's impossible, and I will retract my concerns.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would your "few barrelfuls of used pinball machine parts" EVER disintegrate? What's magical about the 50 year mark that would cause metal parts to spontaneously fall apart? Just curious.
Now that he's been found out, he can simply make another ID, another set of bogus information, and continue posting. His posts will be, in essence, anonymous.
This is hardly "revolutionary" technology - I don't understand the appeal.
In the real world, there are a small handful of election judges watching a dozen or more voting machines.
In the real world, those judges are currently busy trying to validate the voters who came in behind you, and aren't watching what you're doing.
In the real world, there are many polling places with screens around the voting machines to allow for privacy.
In the real world, most election judges don't know their arseholes from their elbows when it comes to this technology, and don't know what they should be watching for in the first place.
In the real world, hackers routinely make it past the safeguards that are designed to prevent unauthorized access. I'm glad that you're comfortable with the idea that an election judge can keep things all safe and secure in a typical polling place. It must be very warm and fuzzy in your world.
The problem with this statement is that it implies that they should be living by a certain set of rules if there is a god, and another set of rules if not.
Depending on which god, which rules, and which society you live in that may or may not be the case. I make this point because you just called a lot of people hypocrites and intellectual cowards without cause. Their "god rule set" -- at least to them--does not require for them to jam their religions down other's throats.
We should be thanking these people for enjoying their faith without starting wars over it. We need a lot more like them.
Normally, a media outlet "finds or picks" which news items to report to you based on human bias. I don't see much of a difference - this process is automated, is all. It may be biased, it may not... just like any other media source.
The other point is that Google news is a news aggregator, but that hardly means that they should be used as a sole source, any more than cnn.com, or msnbc.com. I personally use it to see if any articles are up that aren't on my other sources, and to find other perspectives on articles I've already read.
I suppose that there are those who will use it for their only source of information, but I believe that those sorts of people would normally stick with one source anyway - preferably, one that presents stories that already match their world view. It's up to each individual to keep informed to a point that matches their comfort level.
1
I can't say that I've ever used the "Scroll Lock" key on this particular keyboard. I use everything else, routinely.
Perhaps a better question would be: What kind of keyboard are YOU using that has so many (apparently) worthless features, and why did you buy it if you didn't need those features? There are plenty of nice, standardized keyboards available at many retail outlets.
And as another poster has noted, fewer keys does not equate to a simpler keyboard. Again, looking at this keyboard, I actually use a great many more than 107 functions on it. Which means that each of those 53 keys on the smaller keyboard is going to have to do a lot more work to maintain the functionality I currently have (symbols, alt-function, ctrl-functions...).
Which means that each and every key is going to be a source of confusion. Right now, when I'm touch typing, I have to stop and look to remember which number key has the '&' character above it. I don't use that symbol as much as, say, '*', so I haven't internalized its position. Imagine having that issue with every single key, because they ALL perform multiple function?
Small keyboards have their place, but they're not some sort of panacea that will deliver us from the ongoing, continuing increase in funtionality that we require from our input device. The keyboards have gotten more complex because our needs have gotten more complex.
You, Sir, have insulted me, and I WILL NOT stand for it! Lumping the peoples of this country into a single, overly-generalized category of "sheep" is a horrible, extreme use of hyperbole, and I will not sit idly by...
...uh, sorry, Lost is back on. Get back to you later, k?
Thanks very much :)
We now have independant evidence that that guy trying to grab a quick buck has a legitimate complaint.
This fact, of course, doesn't speak to the validity of his point in the slightest. And neither does his book, since it can only represent his viewpoint, complete with arguments designed to prove his case. Why would you consider a book written for a specific purpose and to express a specific point as evidence of anything? Every word has to be suspect, every point confirmed through an external, objective source.
Show me a book written by someone not directly affected by the alleged malfeasance, and I'll consider that evidence.
So you're suggesting that I read the book of the guy who's trying to earn a quick buck off of M$ in order to understand why he thinks he has the right to earn the quick buck?
The above posts aren't knee-jerk reactions in this crowd. A knee-jerk reaction would be, "Yay, M$ is being sued again!!!"
This thing smells fishy, and just because the guy wrote a book defending his position doesn't make it smell any less.
Not as funny, though :)
According to Google, Peter Ulm is the Microsoft account manager for Commonwealth Bank.
http://www.google.com/search?biw=1272&hl=en&q=micr osoft+who+is+the+account+manager+for+the+Commonwea lth+Bank+of+Australia&btnG=Google+Search/
Google knows all. Who needs a M$ solution?
You don't have soil between the layers of rock, because the soil got compressed to the point that it became rock. That's how sedimentary rock forms. No evidence of soil? How about plant fossils? What'd they grow in? Oh, I know... they were picked up by by the flood waters, and deposited below several layers of rock.
What do you mean by "even". Are you referring to the depth of each layer, or the levelness? Depth is hardly even in most fossilized layers, they can vary from portions of an inch, to several feet thick, depending on the layer and location.
The "evidence" pointed out by this (not a all biased) article doesn't speak to what we're talking about here at all. It says that canyons that geologists claim took thousands of years to be carved may have been done in a shorter time. This isn't a news flash. The advent of new canyons after flash-flooding has been observed for decades. It has nothing to do with layering of fossils, other than those created due to volcanic upheaval.
Since you're obviously going to insist that the Noah's ark myth is real, perhaps you can give me some good answers to the following questions:
Other than the real issue of cramming two of every living creature into this ark (and the fact that the insect population alone would've maxed it out) - how did these creatures get re-distributed after the flood? How did places with unique creatures get populated? Let's take Australia as a good example... it has many, many creatures that don't exist anywhere else, yet were apparently on the Ark. How'd they get back home to the island after the flood?
Where was the food stored that kept many thousands of creatures alive for forty days and nights?
If the entire earth was flooded to such depth that the Ark ended up on a mountain top, where'd the water flow to afterward? Bear in mind that the entire Earth had to have one smooth surface of water for this to work - to get that kind of altitude, you have to have hundreds of times the amount of water currently on the surface of the Earth. Where'd it go?
Why isn't the ENTIRE Earth smooth and flat? With the exception of the mountain ranges, upheaval on this level would deposit the earth evenly across the continents, right? Valleys would be filled in, low-lying area built up.
If the answer to any of these questions is "God did it", then you're all done trying to claim that science backs up the story of Noah's ark.
I have certainly read the Bible, several times. I admit that I haven't done much research into the individual books, other then those in the new testament and the Apocrypha.
We've had a slight misunderstanding on one large point. I'm not a creationist, by any stretch. I'm not even Christian, though I have been baptised, and was raised in a Christian household. My issue with the Bible is exactly what you've brought up here, that it (to my thinking) can't be a literal work that accurately reflects the words of God. However, in the environment in which I was raised, and by the people at the church I attended, it was presented as such. In my dealings with the Christians around me in my life, many of them (not all) consider it as such. My problem with the "Intelligent Design" paradigm is that it seems to be trying to reshape the Bible, to restructure the dogma so that it can survive alongside current science. This strikes me as hypocritical.
If any person today tried to re-define the ancient Greek godhead in such a manner that it might seem plausible alongside current science, they'd be a laughingstock. But because the ID crowd has the Bible as the centerpoint of their argument, they're taken seriously by far too many people.
Your theory about the flood creating all of the fossils is very limited, especially considering that the fossils in question are being found in multiple layers... if they were all laid from one event, they'd be at the same layer, or at least in clost proximity.
Please feel free to site other problems in other areas of science that show that a young earth is viable. I'm truly interested. From my current perspective, the dinosaurs alone are reason to label the Noah story as myth, while you seem to perceive it as fact.
Meanwhile, I look over my cube wall to my neighbor (a Catholic) and ask, "What do you think of evolution?"
He says, without even looking up from his monitor, "It's sin, pure and simple. Poisoning the minds of our kids. Now stop bugging me, I've got stuff to get done."
Apparently, everyone you're around thinks a bit more than that. Obviously, I need to move again.
Valid point. Here's my reference area: As a military member, I've lived in Tennessee, Florida, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Maryland, Texas, New Mexico, Japan, Korea, and southern England. I'm currently in Maryland. The 90% figure I posited would certainly not be true in Japan or England, but holds true every place else I've lived.
I'll debate the point as to whether Intelligent Design is "God's Evolution". I'd be more willing to accept that if the proponents of it weren't themselves putting it up to compete with evolution. If ID included evolution in its paradigm, I'd think that they would be trying to teach it as a subset, rather than trying to get it removed from school curiculae.
Now, you're telling me that my Biblical teachings shouldn't have ended at childhood, that I should look beyond the actual words of the Bible for some other meaning. Well, point the first: I've been studying religions, Christian and otherwise, all of my life. It's been a passion for as long as I can remember. Twenty years of that can be classified as "not childhood". I make this point, not to applaud my age or my learning, but to point out that just because I reference Sunday school doesn't mean that was the end of my study.
Are you telling me that the creation story is false? A fable designed for children? That doesn't work, on many, many levels. The Bible was most assuredly not written for children, nor intended for them. The stories, as written, were intended to portray the truth of the word of God, not bed-time stories. Unless you're willing to tell me that the people who put the Bible together were wrong, in either the scope of their endeavor, or the reasons for it, stating that the opening of Genesis was intended for children is, if you'll forgive me, a bit simple minded.
The Bible has been portrayed as the true word of God (not the fables of God, not the metaphorical allegories of God) for hundreds of years. Now, you'd like me to believe that it's ok, that the conflicts that exist between Genesis and scientific reality don't matter because the Bible was intended to be a children's story?
Nope, not buying it. I'll accept that the stories themselves, in their unwritten, oral tradition, were intended as allegories and cautionary tales. But the Bible itself was created to reflect the word of God, not fables, not children's stories.
You're a Christian and you're trying to fit your view of the Bible into the bigger picture of the world around you. I can appreciate that. But I don't think that re-inventing the history and purpose of the Bible is going to help you with that in the long run.
Yes, my demographic for Christion is one who believes that Jesus the Christ is the son of God. The Bible tells them that "whosoever believeth and is baptised shall be saved". For most of the Christians I know, it's as simple as that.
I don't believe that Intelligent Design is science. I don't know that evolution is the right answer, but I do know that all portions of it derive from observation and hypothesis based upon observation.
Intelligent Design is based upon faith, and the concept that a system as complex as a human being "obviously" couldn't have evolved naturally. This, in a nutshell, is not science. It's wishful thinking. It's an attempt to twist a current line of thinking (along with its plethora of evidence) to fit a more palatable paradigm.
One of my main problems with this idea, though, is it's inherent contradiction with traditional Christian dogma. For centuries, we've been told that the Bible is the unaltered, absolutely correct word of God. People have died in gruesome ways for saying otherwise.
Now, though, as the evidence for a non-creationistic universe mounts, we have people attempting to subvert rational science (as Christians have subverted many of the holidays and rites they couldn't stamp out of Pagan cultures) so that it somehow fits into some idea that might be somewhat based upon at least the idea of the Bible.
I've read in this forum that suddenly we're to believe that the Bible isn't the true word of God, but that portions of it are. Or that the Old testament is metaphorical, but the New Testament is true. This fluctuation and change in an old system seem to me to be evidence that the system is not base upon reality. When new science disproves old, we dump the old science. When new science disproves old religion, the religion attempts to change itself to fit the new science. This doesn't make the new religion valid, just more up-to-date.
I know a lot of Christians.
It's all well and good to re-interpret your religion in the light of modern-day knowledge... I'm all for that. But justifying your view by claiming that "most" of your demographic agree with you is loose science at best. From what I'm seeing, we're living in a society that is growing more conservative and backwards in its thinking about God and science, not the other way around.
One last point - the Sunday school I went to as a child focused on the creation story as being VERY important. And it drew no distinction whatsoever between the old and new testaments in regards to validity or accuracy.
This patent was granted for something that not only doesn't exist, but for something which we have no idea how to make exist.
Don't be too concerned.
Do you REALLY want to make an amendment to change the wording of the First Amendment? Think about it for a second. Who do you trust in the Senate to write a bill that would have wording you'd agree with?
You're absolutely right - the Bill of Rights does not directly account for this sort of regulation regarding types of speech. So, by all means, let's stick to exactly what it says - after all, the beloved forefathers, with their magic crystal balls, accounted for every possible use and mis-use of this document, right?
Why is the U.S. Constitution so sacred? It's an old document, founded in a time of relative innocence. It has fantastically high ideals that I personally believe we should strive to uphold. Having said that, there are certainly those in our society who can and will cheerfully abuse that same document to their own betterment. We're talking about more here than what is covered by a simplistic and sarcastic reference to "fairness".
The mega corporations will cheerfully lie in order to pull the last possible penny from your pocket. Not "mis-lead", not "mis-inform", but outright "lie". This is a historically proven truism.
Should there be no regulations in this regard? No protections for the buyer? If we only look to the First Amendment in regards to this issue, then that's what we're left with.
In my opinion, we have to allow for common sense in law making. It's dangerous, but otherwise, we're left with a document with no flexibility to fix those loopholes found by the unscrupulous. Article V allows for changes to be made, but those changes must be made carefully, sparingly. Any time you open the Constitution for real change, you take the risk that it will be modified by those in power for their own ends, rather than for the betterment of the majority.
Applying the common sense rule, and allowing for laws that plug the loopholes without opening the document for change, gives us a solution with less risk. Laws that control those who's only goal is profiting for themselves (whether monetarily, or politically) without impinging upon the ideals of the magic document are necessary. More necessary yet is the attention of the above-average citizen who looks at these laws with a skeptical eye, ready to raise the bullshit flag when controls are overly strict, or made without regard to the comman man.
Or, we can stick with stubborn tenacity to the wording of the original document, ignoring the changes that come about regularly as our society morphs and evolves.
Since you bring it up, though, the word "terrorist" has to be a part of every security discussion for the same reason that the word "hackers" has to be part of every network security discussion. They're the current, prevalent threat at exactly the types of places this technology will be used. When you discuss National Security, you don't speak of thieves or swindlers, you speak of terrorists.
It's a broad label that covers a wide range of persons and activities, but even so, it's accurate.
Is it overused? Of course.
Is it fear mongering? Certainly.
Is the threat overstated? We don't know yet. Ask me again in 20 years.
Meanwhile, if you want to draw attention to something that is a real, valid concern, you trot out the biggest words you can. Why would a terrorist want your passport information? Why not? Instead of manufacturing papers with a faked identity and false history, make a passport with an RFID which is almost identical to yours, except with a different picture. Now they have an irrefutable (supposedly) ID, with a valid, verifiable history already in place. One which would raise no red flags whatsoever, which would match with any record checks you'd care to run. Yeah, they could get this by simply stealing your passport, but then you'd know your passport was stolen. With this handy, remotely exploitable security hole, you'd never have a clue that your identity was even at risk, much less stolen.
It's a worst-case scenario, yeah. Please assure me that it's impossible, and I will retract my concerns.