No, he's sent the update, it's just most people haven't updated their personal copies. There's a postal strike in the Betelgeuse system and a pile of SD cards about 5km high waiting for onward delivery...
What's biggoted about objecting to a fat person making your flight uncomfortable, because their (in 95% of cases) lack of restraint means their lard shares your seat with you?
Be honest, someone being fat is normally THEIR fault, and something they can do something about.
Someone being balck or gay does not make your flight uncomfortable if they sit next to you, is not something they can do something about, and is not 'a fault' based on lack of self control.
I think early man figured this one out a long long time ago, but had the common sense to cut it down to one or two days by developing simple missile weapons... best case scenario other than ambush and kill was to injure it and follow until it tired or died, (unless you had a cliff handy).... same logic is behind some horse breaking techniques. You just keep on getting inside the horse's comfort zone until it gets too tired or habituated to your presence to move away. Then you do the same with actually touching it, then with your weight on it, and then you are on top of a very tired horse who will give in quick.
... regional accreditation bodies in the US and international accreditation bodies like NARIC will not recognise the crazee religious or otherwise fake educational institutions.
So you will have someone with a MSc that isn't worth an MSc compared to anu worthwhile Uni'.
If you look at degrees in Pakistan (for example), most Bachelors degrees are only worth a Certificatke in HE or a Diploma in HE because the curriculums have so much religion in them you cannot fairly compare four years at University in Pakistan to four years elsewhere.
Looks like some Uni's in Texas are just the same, LOL
There's so much wrong with this post it is hard to know where to start.
It is indeed amazing how far you can go if you start with a fact, close your eyes, and then run with it.
Religions do, indeed, evolve. And this is why they survive; I have always found how some of the sternest critics of evolution stem from enculturations that have manifestly evolved rather droll. But to claim that Christianity is somehow more recognisable in its current form than Buddhism or Islam is false and shows an unprovable belief that Christianity is somehow monolithic and free of differentiation in its expression. It isn't.
Just as there are very secular modern Christians and Muslims and Buddhists, there are those who are not far removed from their coreligionists of many centuries in the past in their ideation and expression of their faith.
The next false claim (that Muslims make deserts) is sublime ignorance garnished with bigotry.
Do some research about the climate; you will see that from the start of the Iron age the climate of the Levant has typically been colder and more humid than the present climate with the change occurring at the end of the 'Little Ice Age'. Also, the Muslims were masters of the use of water and far more advanced than the Christians who lagged behind for hundreds of years. And finally, deforestation can be because of trees being used for construction and increased grazing; much of Britain's forests were lost during the height of the British Empire's naval power. Apparently if British Kings cut down trees it is a good thing, but if Turkish Sultans do it, it is desertification.
A Christian talking about atheistic massacres and criticizing Islam is guilty of a vast double standard considering the massacres of Jews and native peoples by Christians. The current fear Jews have of Muslims is a recent historical trend; for most of history a Jew has been far safer in a Muslim country than a Christian one. A Christian talking like this is also confusing politics with a lack of belief in god. There is no creed of atheism that requires murder. It's a dumb as associating belief in evolution with atheism.
The writer than dribbles on about 'atheistic birth rates'. LOL. Yes, of course, god really hates people who use condoms. Get a grip. Please, listen to your own prophet and stop swallowing camels whilst you strain out gnats.
If this is your god you are welcome to him, along with your ignorance and bigotry.
I suggest trying to see the good in each religious or non-religious tradition, and accepting that people, whether or not they believe in god, whatever god they choose to believe in, have to take responsibility for their actions and not blame god or the lack of belief in it for the wrong that they do is the path of wisdom.
Do it properly; HANG them first, then when they're not quite dead you cut them out, put them on the rack, and finally, cut them in quarters whilst they're still alive (well, whilst they're alive enough at the begining to get to see their own entrails).
Okay, so I'm a word nerd, but "millions of dollars in inventory turned up missing" is just a foul use of the language. How in the name of sweet little baby Jesus nailed to a tree can something "turn UP missing"? It's like proving god doesn't exist. Logically, you can't prove god doesn't exist, nor can things "turn up missing". "Turned out to be", "was shown to be", etc., it's not rocket science.
"In case you haven't figured it out yet adults aren't responsible for other peoples teenagers and for the most part are impartial to what happens to them when they infringe upon peoples rights."
Good Bless America!
This isn't at poster, it's at the attitude displayed by the comments which are far from unique in the USA.
Doesn't the fact America is massively more violent than Europe and social attidues like this somehow link? Obviously, there's massive disparity of income too that drives the violence, but that in itself is also maintained by 'I'm alright Jack' attitudes like this.
You should remember that Radiohead are distributing nothing; the double vinyl LP isn't out for weeks yet, and the CD won't be out until next year. Their production costs and distribution costs are covered by sale of downloads. And the cost of the website is not great, either in design costs or bandwidth. Conceivably any band could sell via download and have their mate Burt do the website, and finance a production run.
And recording an album at home now has far higher quality to cost ratio than even ten years ago.
So for modest cosst, any band can do this.
Radiohead are actually showing people a new business model.
Obviously anyone can put it up for download; getting the downloads IS easier if you've already got a fan base. But bands are breaking through purely on word-of-mouth and downloads. Put that together with the above business model and... well, let's see how long it is until a no-label band get sufficient buzz going to have downloads enough to show on the, and then sell through in the majors when you can afford the hard copies.
Yup, that sounds a more accurate way of putting it. They were still wrong though. Mark you, I'm still waiting for Terabit pidgeon protocol, what do I know?
"There are creationists who have science training and knowledge"
There are? Well, why don't they actually use it?
If we look at one major subdivision of Creationists, the Young Earth Creationists or YEC's, it is impossible to assert they utilise any scientific knowledge in forming those Creationistic beliefs as to be a YEC you basically have to deny modern science at every point it contradicts the Bible (or the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad gita). A Creation occurring well after written records, a Global Flood that took place after the Great Pyramid at Giza was built and after trees still growing today were saplings. So, whether through ignorance or cognitive dissonance, a YEC cannot claim to use science.
The second division, Old Earth Creationists, equally ignore droves of modern scientific facts. They (typically) demand a differentiation between macro and micro evolution that doesn't really exist, and carp on about the lack of transitionals when this shows a very poor knowledge of the process of fossilisation or time scales or evolution. They seem unaware species go through transitions in time just as Ring Species go through transitions in geography.
The last and most contemptible category (because of their heavily marketed and disingenuous attempt to be taken seriously as scientists) are the Intelligent Design posse, or ID-ots as I like to call them. Whilst they of any group of Creationists should know better, they parade something which at best is a hypothesis which contradicts its own basic premise - that complex design requires a designer - in hypothizing the existence of a designer with no designer (special pleading of eternally existing creators is not scientific). They also typically repeat refuted claims; they still chunter on about irreducible complexity despite the fact most if not all of the examples they use have been soundly rebtted and shown to be reducible.
So please, in your apologism for Creationists, give me some examples of where they use scientific training to construct their faith-based beliefs. Well?
I'll tell that to my fiance, she'll be most relieved to know the vomit exiting her body when she accidentally consumes cow lactose is a figment of her poor ickle imagination. Or rather 'íncorrect', LOL.
Mmmm... I think saying "I really don't think" is quite honest of you, although it is already painfully obvious to most of us here.
Humans originally didn't have the enzymes to digest cow lactose; why should they? It serves no purpose in a hunter-gatherers genome.
Most infants can digest lactose well enough to get by as they are expressing genes at that age to aid in the digestion of human milk, but by age 5 cow milk normally makes a lactose intolerent person puke mucus.
Occasionally through mutation some did have the right enzymes to digest cow lactose through adulthood, but as humans did not keep cows those people had no advantage over other people without the mutation, so the mutation was lost as it had no benefit.
When humans started to keep cows they had access to a new food source, milk.
This would have been used to feed infants to replace or suppliment the mother's milk, probably as part of the weaning process.
As those infants grew older those with tolerence to lactose had access to a renewable food resource denied to those who were intolerent to lactose. Those lactose intolerent infants whose parents kept feeding them milk would have been sickly and malnourished.
There would be such a big ebenfit to lactose tolerence that somethng called 'runaway evolution' took place. It's a bit like how mudskippers evolved; if ten fish of a species in a river survive a drought survive because of x charecteristics only they (in that species) have, after that drought all members of that species have x characteristic.
Similarly with human lactose tolerance the stronger, better fed, healthier members of the population with lactose tolerence would have had way more offspring then those who didn't have the genes for it, and those offsrping would fare better.
If 5% increase in genetic transfer through natural selection can make a new characteristic spread throughout a population in less than 200 generations, think how more quickly one with a much higher advantage might spread.
Guns are part of an extended phenotype, and are NOT subject to genetic transmission. Idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he's sent the update, it's just most people haven't updated their personal copies. There's a postal strike in the Betelgeuse system and a pile of SD cards about 5km high waiting for onward delivery...
What's biggoted about objecting to a fat person making your flight uncomfortable, because their (in 95% of cases) lack of restraint means their lard shares your seat with you?
Be honest, someone being fat is normally THEIR fault, and something they can do something about.
Someone being balck or gay does not make your flight uncomfortable if they sit next to you, is not something they can do something about, and is not 'a fault' based on lack of self control.
Asshat.
I think early man figured this one out a long long time ago, but had the common sense to cut it down to one or two days by developing simple missile weapons... best case scenario other than ambush and kill was to injure it and follow until it tired or died, (unless you had a cliff handy). ... same logic is behind some horse breaking techniques. You just keep on getting inside the horse's comfort zone until it gets too tired or habituated to your presence to move away. Then you do the same with actually touching it, then with your weight on it, and then you are on top of a very tired horse who will give in quick.
Your dad specifying a 15 year system life is like you telling him that you want an injection that will neuter your cat for five years.
Wanty wanty no havey.
Why on earth should your non-techy dad's computer wants be of any more relevance than a non-vet's animal healthcare wants?
Get a couple of big disk Core 2 with 4GB mem and XP, or buy with Vista and get a voucher so you can junk it for W7.
Install Open Office or MS Office.
Tell him it should last 15 years.
Fix it if it doesn't.
... regional accreditation bodies in the US and international accreditation bodies like NARIC will not recognise the crazee religious or otherwise fake educational institutions.
So you will have someone with a MSc that isn't worth an MSc compared to anu worthwhile Uni'.
If you look at degrees in Pakistan (for example), most Bachelors degrees are only worth a Certificatke in HE or a Diploma in HE because the curriculums have so much religion in them you cannot fairly compare four years at University in Pakistan to four years elsewhere.
Looks like some Uni's in Texas are just the same, LOL
Oh my good Darwin, what on earth have we here?
There's so much wrong with this post it is hard to know where to start.
It is indeed amazing how far you can go if you start with a fact, close your eyes, and then run with it.
Religions do, indeed, evolve. And this is why they survive; I have always found how some of the sternest critics of evolution stem from enculturations that have manifestly evolved rather droll. But to claim that Christianity is somehow more recognisable in its current form than Buddhism or Islam is false and shows an unprovable belief that Christianity is somehow monolithic and free of differentiation in its expression. It isn't.
Just as there are very secular modern Christians and Muslims and Buddhists, there are those who are not far removed from their coreligionists of many centuries in the past in their ideation and expression of their faith.
The next false claim (that Muslims make deserts) is sublime ignorance garnished with bigotry.
Do some research about the climate; you will see that from the start of the Iron age the climate of the Levant has typically been colder and more humid than the present climate with the change occurring at the end of the 'Little Ice Age'. Also, the Muslims were masters of the use of water and far more advanced than the Christians who lagged behind for hundreds of years. And finally, deforestation can be because of trees being used for construction and increased grazing; much of Britain's forests were lost during the height of the British Empire's naval power. Apparently if British Kings cut down trees it is a good thing, but if Turkish Sultans do it, it is desertification.
A Christian talking about atheistic massacres and criticizing Islam is guilty of a vast double standard considering the massacres of Jews and native peoples by Christians. The current fear Jews have of Muslims is a recent historical trend; for most of history a Jew has been far safer in a Muslim country than a Christian one. A Christian talking like this is also confusing politics with a lack of belief in god. There is no creed of atheism that requires murder. It's a dumb as associating belief in evolution with atheism.
The writer than dribbles on about 'atheistic birth rates'. LOL. Yes, of course, god really hates people who use condoms. Get a grip. Please, listen to your own prophet and stop swallowing camels whilst you strain out gnats.
If this is your god you are welcome to him, along with your ignorance and bigotry.
I suggest trying to see the good in each religious or non-religious tradition, and accepting that people, whether or not they believe in god, whatever god they choose to believe in, have to take responsibility for their actions and not blame god or the lack of belief in it for the wrong that they do is the path of wisdom.
LOL. And I was doing 'Find on page' with 14 as the search string to see if anyone else had picked up on this yet.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, C14 is a horse of ma different coulour and no one claims it's worth a damn out beyond, what, 60,000 years bp.
As such this whole thread is fun but largely off topic.
"fell noticeably short of the Earth's atmosphere"
Hasn't anyone noticed the huge technological leap Iran have made. A rocket launch that falls short of the atmoshpere? How does one do that exactly?
Duct tape, mole grips, and a hammer. Universal tool kit.
Embrace the semicolon! Don't overdo it of course, but that goes for most things in life!
Do it properly; HANG them first, then when they're not quite dead you cut them out, put them on the rack, and finally, cut them in quarters whilst they're still alive (well, whilst they're alive enough at the begining to get to see their own entrails).
Traditional values, gotta love them...
Okay, so I'm a word nerd, but "millions of dollars in inventory turned up missing" is just a foul use of the language. How in the name of sweet little baby Jesus nailed to a tree can something "turn UP missing"? It's like proving god doesn't exist. Logically, you can't prove god doesn't exist, nor can things "turn up missing". "Turned out to be", "was shown to be", etc., it's not rocket science.
At least one of the 'people' in this thread IS a chatbot...
Everything has been downhill since TWAIN;
T.echnology W.ithout A.n I.nteresting N.ame
Now THEM were the days...
"In case you haven't figured it out yet adults aren't responsible for other peoples teenagers and for the most part are impartial to what happens to them when they infringe upon peoples rights."
Good Bless America!
This isn't at poster, it's at the attitude displayed by the comments which are far from unique in the USA.
Doesn't the fact America is massively more violent than Europe and social attidues like this somehow link? Obviously, there's massive disparity of income too that drives the violence, but that in itself is also maintained by 'I'm alright Jack' attitudes like this.
You should remember that Radiohead are distributing nothing; the double vinyl LP isn't out for weeks yet, and the CD won't be out until next year. Their production costs and distribution costs are covered by sale of downloads. And the cost of the website is not great, either in design costs or bandwidth. Conceivably any band could sell via download and have their mate Burt do the website, and finance a production run.
And recording an album at home now has far higher quality to cost ratio than even ten years ago.
So for modest cosst, any band can do this.
Radiohead are actually showing people a new business model.
Obviously anyone can put it up for download; getting the downloads IS easier if you've already got a fan base. But bands are breaking through purely on word-of-mouth and downloads. Put that together with the above business model and... well, let's see how long it is until a no-label band get sufficient buzz going to have downloads enough to show on the, and then sell through in the majors when you can afford the hard copies.
Itnteresting replies; it's nice to get well-informed responses. I'm used to providing them in discussions about evolutionary biology ;-)
;-P
However, I like being better informed, Creationists never seem to feel the same way though
Yup, that sounds a more accurate way of putting it. They were still wrong though. Mark you, I'm still waiting for Terabit pidgeon protocol, what do I know?
... I remember reading articles in 1997 saying how 56k was the top-whack copper could provide.
Pah!
Cricket is easy. You have two teams of eleven.
The team that is in go out to bat, and the team that are out go out to field.
When all of the team that is in get out, the team that's out goes in.
Repeat. Endlessly.
Brockian Ultra Cricket is the same but involves Universes, or something, instead of balls.
What's not like about a sport with a position called 'Silly Mid-Off'?
"There are creationists who have science training and knowledge"
There are? Well, why don't they actually use it?
If we look at one major subdivision of Creationists, the Young Earth Creationists or YEC's, it is impossible to assert they utilise any scientific knowledge in forming those Creationistic beliefs as to be a YEC you basically have to deny modern science at every point it contradicts the Bible (or the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad gita). A Creation occurring well after written records, a Global Flood that took place after the Great Pyramid at Giza was built and after trees still growing today were saplings. So, whether through ignorance or cognitive dissonance, a YEC cannot claim to use science.
The second division, Old Earth Creationists, equally ignore droves of modern scientific facts. They (typically) demand a differentiation between macro and micro evolution that doesn't really exist, and carp on about the lack of transitionals when this shows a very poor knowledge of the process of fossilisation or time scales or evolution. They seem unaware species go through transitions in time just as Ring Species go through transitions in geography.
The last and most contemptible category (because of their heavily marketed and disingenuous attempt to be taken seriously as scientists) are the Intelligent Design posse, or ID-ots as I like to call them. Whilst they of any group of Creationists should know better, they parade something which at best is a hypothesis which contradicts its own basic premise - that complex design requires a designer - in hypothizing the existence of a designer with no designer (special pleading of eternally existing creators is not scientific). They also typically repeat refuted claims; they still chunter on about irreducible complexity despite the fact most if not all of the examples they use have been soundly rebtted and shown to be reducible.
So please, in your apologism for Creationists, give me some examples of where they use scientific training to construct their faith-based beliefs. Well?
I'll tell that to my fiance, she'll be most relieved to know the vomit exiting her body when she accidentally consumes cow lactose is a figment of her poor ickle imagination. Or rather 'íncorrect', LOL.
Ain't it great we all get to be right? Well, apart from elucido, but that's pretty obvious... :-P
I'm right on the macro view (any unbeneficial trait will be lost)
p3d0 explains why (mutation)
Bastard correctly points out genes for survival-neutral traits are not subject to natural selection
My fiance is lactose intolerent; I was being deliberately vauge ;-)
Mmmm... I think saying "I really don't think" is quite honest of you, although it is already painfully obvious to most of us here.
Humans originally didn't have the enzymes to digest cow lactose; why should they? It serves no purpose in a hunter-gatherers genome.
Most infants can digest lactose well enough to get by as they are expressing genes at that age to aid in the digestion of human milk, but by age 5 cow milk normally makes a lactose intolerent person puke mucus.
Occasionally through mutation some did have the right enzymes to digest cow lactose through adulthood, but as humans did not keep cows those people had no advantage over other people without the mutation, so the mutation was lost as it had no benefit.
When humans started to keep cows they had access to a new food source, milk.
This would have been used to feed infants to replace or suppliment the mother's milk, probably as part of the weaning process.
As those infants grew older those with tolerence to lactose had access to a renewable food resource denied to those who were intolerent to lactose. Those lactose intolerent infants whose parents kept feeding them milk would have been sickly and malnourished.
There would be such a big ebenfit to lactose tolerence that somethng called 'runaway evolution' took place. It's a bit like how mudskippers evolved; if ten fish of a species in a river survive a drought survive because of x charecteristics only they (in that species) have, after that drought all members of that species have x characteristic.
Similarly with human lactose tolerance the stronger, better fed, healthier members of the population with lactose tolerence would have had way more offspring then those who didn't have the genes for it, and those offsrping would fare better.
If 5% increase in genetic transfer through natural selection can make a new characteristic spread throughout a population in less than 200 generations, think how more quickly one with a much higher advantage might spread.
Guns are part of an extended phenotype, and are NOT subject to genetic transmission. Idiot.