Perhaps you would like reading the book. It seems its actually much more linked to habits you develop and choices you make. Frugality has a lot to do with it. Working your own business (a matter of choice in the US) gives you a better chance.
If you read the article I linked to, you'll see that there is a higher proportion of millionaires from Scottish descent than most other nationalities. Why? They are frugal and teach their children to be frugal. I quote: "Thus the same $100,000 income-producing household of Scottish descent saves and invests at a level comparable to the typical American household that annually earns nearly $150,000." and "No other ancestry group has such a high concentration of millionaires from such a small concentration of high-income-producing households."
So, even if you can't make a high income (opporunity) your habits will be a very influential factor in your net worth. Another quote: "Many of the types of businesses we are in could be classified as dullnormal. We are welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors." indicates that it's not some special, rare stroke of luck. It's just the right to be in business for yourself.
Chance events happen to everyone, good and bad. The parents question was "You can exercise greater control over your socioeconomic standing? Honestly?". Yes, you can have greater control, probably better called influence. But, in a very real sense, you are right, chance happens, so you do not, by the strength of your will, get control as in absolute control.
Why don't you go away and pray to an invisible person? You know you want to. I'm not sure how you'll know you've successfully done it, but that's your problem.
By the results would seem the obvious answer. I left the religion I was brought up in because they didn't get what they prayed for, indicating that either (a) prayer, properly done, does not yield the desired results (for whatever reason) and was therefore not a worthwhile activity, or (b) they didn't know how to do it properly.
You are right. However, if you do not contribute to the tax pool, you shouldn't be allowed to utilize the services provided by the tax.
I'm not sure how workable this is. Unemployed people banned from parks? Orphaned children banned from school? People without a car banned from walking/bike riding on roads?
Tax may not be an ideologically perfect solution, but I think it's easier than coming up with a strict "user pays" system for essential services.
When you do anything that harms yourself, you are, in effect, stealing from the State.
Are you serious? The produce of my labour is mine. The fact that the government can tax a portion of what I decide to produce is irrelevent. If I can manage to live without earning any taxable income, I am free to do so.
The lack of evidence for God in the human genome is evidence against creationism and many other forms of religion.
So, your evidence against there being an invisible god is... *drum roll* you can't see him. Uh huh. I haven't read his work, but I suspect that this is where Dr. Collins thinks the ultimate logical error is kicking in.
It's not, in and of itself, proof, but nevertherless it is evidence;
Oh, and I was so sure you said "That's decisive for evolution." My apologies, I must have been thinking about a different WolfWithoutAClause.
I've looked at most of the Christian supposed evidence for the existence of God, and quite frankly, there isn't any that would past muster in any truly unbiased court of law.
Which has nothing at all to do with whether or not the similarities in the genome of bananas and humans is an effective refutation of creationism. You are, once again, arguing against points I haven't made.
So, let's turn this right around. Random religious slashdot guy says that guy in charge of the human genome project has found evidence of religion in the human genome! More News at 10.
Wow, you'd really have me there, if I'd ever said that. That would be a really telling point. If only I'd said it.
But I didn't. In any post.
Can you see the difference between me saying the genome is not evidence against god (in agreement with Dr. Collins), and saying it contains evidence for god (Which I have not said at all)?
You might remember I quoted Dr. Collins: "And therefore, science is completely unable, on purely logical grounds, to exclude the possibility of God. One who makes that particular stance has just made the ultimate logical error."
What part of ultimate logical error don't you understand. I challenge you to link to a post where I claim the genome contains evidence of god. I have not even said there exists no compelling evidence against creationism. I just said that you haven't given any.
Not much on this issue. Windows boxes are available everywhere, and many users don't understand the difference enough to make it an issue. I recommended to my mum to get a mac when she decided to buy a laptop. It would have suited her quite well, and the affordability is not really an issue for her at that price level. She was going to, but didn't find a shop with macs in her local area. Closest shop was about 1 hours drive away. The difference between a mac and pc was not enough for her to drive the miles or wait until she was at that city (probably goes every couple of months). She just didn't care, she got what was available where she does most of her shopping. If there had been mac and pc there, she would probably have got a mac on my recommendation. If there had been mac and no pc, she definitely would not have gone out of her way to get a pc. She's used RHEL at my place and doesn't see the difference (click here for email, here for the internet, here to get pictures off your camera).
She's computer illiterate enough that it doesn't matter what OS, she gets someone else to set it up anyway. She just gets what the shop has. I think you might be surprised just how many people are like that.
The genome coffee cup contains no coffee that anyone has found yet and there is much evidence that it is dry. Dr. Collins speculates wildly there *might* be some traces of coffee relating to the 0.6% difference between chimpanzees and humans, but absolutely no evidence of that has been found.
hahaha, random slashdot user says the guy in charge of the project that decoded the human genome "speculates wildly" about his work, and claims to know more about what evidence is in the genome!
I don't know whether the cup in front of me has coffee in it. I try to taste, it, but I cannot. I look inside. I see no evidence of coffee. I put my finger in the cup; it does not get wet. I invert it over my head, my hair is still dry. I have found no evidence of coffee being there. By your 'logic', I have shown no absence of coffee in my cup.
No, you are observing that coffee is actually not in the cup. That was not my line of reasoning at all. If you said, I see no evidence of coffee, so no coffee has been in the cup would be more akin to my point. What do you really think evidence of god would be? "Jehovah was here" written into the genome? Look with a powerful enough microscope and find a little bearded dude sitting on a throne in the genome pulling levers?
Wouldn't you think that if the genome showed some evidence that god wasn't real, that it might have come to the attention of the head of the human genome project? Do you think it's possible he might have considered it carefully before making the statement "And therefore, science is completely unable, on purely logical grounds, to exclude the possibility of God. One who makes that particular stance has just made the ultimate logical error." Your insistence on clinging to the "ultimate logical error" that science displays evidence that there is no god shows nothing about science, nothing about god, but quite a bit about you.
Anyway, you say the genome provides evidence that there is no god, the head of the human genome project says it doesn't. No offense, but I'm going to have to give more weight of credibility to Dr. Collins on this one.
You actually seem to have missed my point. You don't know whether those gene changes have a purpose or not. All you know is that with your current knowledge, you don't know of any significance to them. You are also ignoring that if biblical creation did take place, it would not prevent these changes happening anyway, so it is irrelevant if they are pointless or not.
Also, your earlier statement "So as we read the true book, not a book of man, but the book of life, the genome, we see the absence of God." is quite different to your current post "Nobody has found any evidence for God whatsoever in the genomes"
No.
You need to brush up on your logic. No evidence != see the absence.
I see no evidence that my wife just walked through the kitchen. This doesn't mean I have evidence my wife has not walked through the kitchen. I do not see an absence of my wife having been there, although I see no evidence of her having been there.
I notice you have conveniently decided not to deal with the fact that Dr. Collins calls your stance the ultimate logical error. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to apply logical analysis to your own arguements. It is therefore of no use to continue this discussion further.
It is said that Bible is a consistent with religion, but it is not only consistent with religion.
Who do you believe, a book written by a bunch of highly biased guys,
I have not been saying that creationism is correct or that a particular religious text is true, just that your points do not disprove it in any way. It would be possible to agree with everything I've said and believe in evolution as an atheist. I gave some possible answers a creationist might give to your points, which you could find on any creationist website. I haven't argued for creationism. Why you seem determined to hold fast to logically false arguements is beyond me. I would have thought you would prefer a strong arguement to one that can be easily refuted.
why buy an Apple cell phone when you can buy a Nokia phone for less money?
I was in mobile phone sales for a short while. I was surpised to find that many people will buy a phone on a higher cost plan than they use to get a phone they percieve to be fashionable. I didn't take any stats, but a significant portion of people will do this, even paying $20/month higher than their call usage. Not surprisingly, mobile phone bills were at the time a leading cause of personal bankruptcy (here in Oz). If there is another market where Apples strategy of high priced fashionable hardware is mainstream, it's mobile phones.
We've shown they code for the self same proteins, therefore the changes are pointless.
No, all you've shown is that you don't know any reason for the changes. There is a vast difference between you not knowing a reason for something, and there actually being no reason. In any case, as I have stated, these changes do not require evolution (in a "all living creatures are descended from single celled creatures" sense).
Nobody has found any evidence for God whatsoever in the genomes that have been examined...Collins believes in evolution and has hypothesised that moral values are derived from God.
You've presented facts consistent with evolution, nobody is denying that. All I've been saying is that none of what you've said is decisive for evolution. The things you've said are consistent with evolution, but not only consistent with evolution. You seemed to be originally intending to refute creationism, I'm just pointing out that you haven't done so with your examples.
If the head of the Human Genome Project thinks that what you're saying is the ultimate logical error, do you think it might be worth re-examining your thinking? You might benefit from reading Mere Cristianity by C. S. Lewis.
Also, your earlier statement "So as we read the true book, not a book of man, but the book of life, the genome, we see the absence of God." is quite different to your current post "Nobody has found any evidence for God whatsoever in the genomes" as well as seeming to be contraditory to the views of Dr. Collins.
The thing is, for some genes you can make small differences to the genes, and they make no difference to the proteins that they code for. And you often find these differences in the genomes between different creatures.
All (modern day) creationists that I'm aware of acknowledge that natural selection exists, but say it causes differentiation within a "biblical kind". The existence of these differences in genes do not require creationism to be not true.
But these differences to the common genes are attributable to random drift, so you can predict how many of these irrelevant differences there would be, based on when two creatures separated their lineage.
This is more interesting. My field is not biology. I wasn't aware that we know closely enough when any species separated their lineage to make such a prediction, do you have a reference? In any case they are attributable to random drift, but this is still feasible under a creationist model that allows for natural selection.
A God that deliberately makes pointless, random changes to genes whilst designing animals makes no sense at all.
You haven't demonstrated that they are pointless, random changes though. Merely that we haven't discerned a purpose for them, which is quite different. You also seem to have missed a rather major theme in the bible, namely that humans are far below god in their capabilities and mental capacity and as a result, god's way of doing things is usually very different from ours. The fact that you would find something nonsensical is not at all a refutation of creationism, certainly not decisive for evolution.
So as we read the true book, not a book of man, but the book of life, the genome, we see the absence of God.
Francis_Collins may possibly disagree with you there. Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, believes in god. Not creationism, he'd probably agree with some things you've said, but to say the genome reveals an absence on god doesn't seem to be his view and I think he has some credibility.
Why would God need to give you 60% the same genes as bananas?
Possible answers:
Designed to live in the same basic environment (water, carbon, oxygen etc) so they require substantial similarity.
Symbiotic species (eg: bananas intake CO2, output O2, humans vice versa) could be expected to have some similarity to enable this.
Efficiency of design effort.
If you go down to small enough particles, everything is protons, neutrons and electrons. %100 identical components. I do not find this to be a convincing arguement for or against evolution.
I don't like everything I see either, I can't get away from sport on the TV at certain times of the year.
You can reasonably make a decision to not watch TV. Not being able to buy fuel without being exposed to something is very different.
...to deny their existance turns it into a "wedge issue".
Perhaps, but I didn't suggest its existence should be denied.
I'm not suggesting that porn should not "irk" you, I'm suggesting your "taste" should not be allowed to push "overtly sexual" people into dark alleys.
Again, not what I was advocating. Would you consider going to the toilet to be an activity that has been pushed into dark alleys? Signs are in every place to show where you can go. Nearly every building has a toilet. Nobody is embarrassed about it, and yet you have the ability to not see it. Would it really be so oppresive to "overtly sexual" people if they didn't foist it on me?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhh! Oh wait...what.... oh, you didn't put a link to it, phew, thanks:)
Seriously though, I know it's not exactly hardcore, but its there and unavoidable. To go back to my "going to the toilet" comparison, maybe its like someone taking a leak in the shopping centre car park. Well, he's not taking a crap, he's even turned away, so you can't actually see anything, and it's over a drain, so it won't get on you, but it's still not OK to most people. Nobody wants to stop him taking a leak, they just want him to do it out of sight. Right out of sight. I would prefer porn to be handled similarly rather than the way it is now. I just want the right to choose not to view it. At all.
Never really thought about it too much. I think that their are some things, that even if you find them acceptable, or even good, it's still appropriate to keep them private. I find an interesting comparison to using the toilet. Nobody is against it, yet their are clear boundaries of what's considered acceptable in public, and nobody is crying "You can't legislate morality!"
As for swinger mags, I think if people who aren't interested are confronted with them during their daily business, it's a problem. Here in Australia, for example, pretty much every service station (gas station) has porn prominently displayed. It is virtually impossible to go about your business without being confronted with porn, which is to say, at least some viewing is forced on you. It could be accessible without forcing it on everyone.
The moment it's advertised though, it could rationally be said to be public. If you organise among your friends some activity, it's private. If you advertise it in the paper, it's public.
If you fail to agree and adhere to the license at that point, you will have violated the copyright owner's rights.
I'm not so sure on this part. I think EULA's are not enforceable everywhere, I don't know about here in Australia or in the US though. I don't think it's enforceable as you don't sign it, and have purchased the software before you see it. I don't really know, but as far as copyright, with a book, I don't think there can be any legal restriction on me reading it after purchase, even if the author doesn't want me to. Copyright doesn't restrict personal use of a legally produced and purchased product. I am quite sure, for example, that someone who releases a song can't require everyone who already purchased it to stop playing it, they can only control distribution/performance. To continue to play a CD may violate their wishes, but not their rights.
Legally speaking, entitling you to continued use and possession of the software after violating the license and against the wishes of the copyright owner is absurd, of course.
This arguement is dependent on whether the EULA is considered to be a valid contract. They certainly go way beyond copyright law and restrictions. Whether you go against the wishes of the copyright owner is completely irrelevant. The issue is whether you have violated their legal rights or your contractual obligations. AFAIK, in Australia there is no legal requirement for me to even read a "license agreement" to a legally produced copy of a copyright work that I have already purchased, and clicking "I Agree" doesn't legally bind me to a contract.
Where "use" or "installation" of the software may be considered a "performance" and without permission, you are in violation of copyright law.
The quote of the Act you gave specified public performance, which certainly doesn't cover the way I use software.
Thus, the point of copying would seem to be the installation.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're right here. Maybe if you were using a system installed before MS "revoked" your license you could get away with it. Not my problem anyway, I'm not using their stuff.
Doesn't copyright give them the right to control copying, not use? Do you need a licence for a book? Can your right to read a book you bought be revoked? It's copyright,yes? If they sell you a copy, surely that's your copy, just like a book.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you would like reading the book. It seems its actually much more linked to habits you develop and choices you make. Frugality has a lot to do with it. Working your own business (a matter of choice in the US) gives you a better chance.
If you read the article I linked to, you'll see that there is a higher proportion of millionaires from Scottish descent than most other nationalities. Why? They are frugal and teach their children to be frugal. I quote: "Thus the same $100,000 income-producing household of Scottish descent saves and invests at a level comparable to the typical American household that annually earns nearly $150,000." and "No other ancestry group has such a high concentration of millionaires from such a small concentration of high-income-producing households."
So, even if you can't make a high income (opporunity) your habits will be a very influential factor in your net worth. Another quote: "Many of the types of businesses we are in could be classified as dullnormal. We are welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors." indicates that it's not some special, rare stroke of luck. It's just the right to be in business for yourself.
Chance events happen to everyone, good and bad. The parents question was "You can exercise greater control over your socioeconomic standing? Honestly?". Yes, you can have greater control, probably better called influence. But, in a very real sense, you are right, chance happens, so you do not, by the strength of your will, get control as in absolute control.
You can exercise greater control over your socioeconomic standing? Honestly? (no, really, I want to know).
Yes. Most of America's millionaires are first-generation rich.
Why don't you go away and pray to an invisible person? You know you want to. I'm not sure how you'll know you've successfully done it, but that's your problem.
By the results would seem the obvious answer. I left the religion I was brought up in because they didn't get what they prayed for, indicating that either (a) prayer, properly done, does not yield the desired results (for whatever reason) and was therefore not a worthwhile activity, or (b) they didn't know how to do it properly.
You are right. However, if you do not contribute to the tax pool, you shouldn't be allowed to utilize the services provided by the tax.
I'm not sure how workable this is. Unemployed people banned from parks? Orphaned children banned from school? People without a car banned from walking/bike riding on roads?
Tax may not be an ideologically perfect solution, but I think it's easier than coming up with a strict "user pays" system for essential services.
When you do anything that harms yourself, you are, in effect, stealing from the State.
Are you serious? The produce of my labour is mine. The fact that the government can tax a portion of what I decide to produce is irrelevent. If I can manage to live without earning any taxable income, I am free to do so.
The lack of evidence for God in the human genome is evidence against creationism and many other forms of religion.
... *drum roll* you can't see him. Uh huh. I haven't read his work, but I suspect that this is where Dr. Collins thinks the ultimate logical error is kicking in.
So, your evidence against there being an invisible god is
It's not, in and of itself, proof, but nevertherless it is evidence;
Oh, and I was so sure you said "That's decisive for evolution." My apologies, I must have been thinking about a different WolfWithoutAClause.
I've looked at most of the Christian supposed evidence for the existence of God, and quite frankly, there isn't any that would past muster in any truly unbiased court of law.
Which has nothing at all to do with whether or not the similarities in the genome of bananas and humans is an effective refutation of creationism. You are, once again, arguing against points I haven't made.
Adult brain tissue is indeed a "clump of cells".
You are a "clump of cells".
So, let's turn this right around. Random religious slashdot guy says that guy in charge of the human genome project has found evidence of religion in the human genome! More News at 10.
Wow, you'd really have me there, if I'd ever said that. That would be a really telling point. If only I'd said it.
But I didn't. In any post.
Can you see the difference between me saying the genome is not evidence against god (in agreement with Dr. Collins), and saying it contains evidence for god (Which I have not said at all)?
You might remember I quoted Dr. Collins: "And therefore, science is completely unable, on purely logical grounds, to exclude the possibility of God. One who makes that particular stance has just made the ultimate logical error."
What part of ultimate logical error don't you understand. I challenge you to link to a post where I claim the genome contains evidence of god. I have not even said there exists no compelling evidence against creationism. I just said that you haven't given any.
What is there that the Geek doesn't see?
Not much on this issue. Windows boxes are available everywhere, and many users don't understand the difference enough to make it an issue. I recommended to my mum to get a mac when she decided to buy a laptop. It would have suited her quite well, and the affordability is not really an issue for her at that price level. She was going to, but didn't find a shop with macs in her local area. Closest shop was about 1 hours drive away. The difference between a mac and pc was not enough for her to drive the miles or wait until she was at that city (probably goes every couple of months). She just didn't care, she got what was available where she does most of her shopping. If there had been mac and pc there, she would probably have got a mac on my recommendation. If there had been mac and no pc, she definitely would not have gone out of her way to get a pc. She's used RHEL at my place and doesn't see the difference (click here for email, here for the internet, here to get pictures off your camera).
She's computer illiterate enough that it doesn't matter what OS, she gets someone else to set it up anyway. She just gets what the shop has. I think you might be surprised just how many people are like that.
The genome coffee cup contains no coffee that anyone has found yet and there is much evidence that it is dry. Dr. Collins speculates wildly there *might* be some traces of coffee relating to the 0.6% difference between chimpanzees and humans, but absolutely no evidence of that has been found.
hahaha, random slashdot user says the guy in charge of the project that decoded the human genome "speculates wildly" about his work, and claims to know more about what evidence is in the genome!
Thanks for that!
I don't know whether the cup in front of me has coffee in it. I try to taste, it, but I cannot. I look inside. I see no evidence of coffee. I put my finger in the cup; it does not get wet. I invert it over my head, my hair is still dry. I have found no evidence of coffee being there. By your 'logic', I have shown no absence of coffee in my cup.
No, you are observing that coffee is actually not in the cup. That was not my line of reasoning at all. If you said, I see no evidence of coffee, so no coffee has been in the cup would be more akin to my point. What do you really think evidence of god would be? "Jehovah was here" written into the genome? Look with a powerful enough microscope and find a little bearded dude sitting on a throne in the genome pulling levers?
Wouldn't you think that if the genome showed some evidence that god wasn't real, that it might have come to the attention of the head of the human genome project? Do you think it's possible he might have considered it carefully before making the statement "And therefore, science is completely unable, on purely logical grounds, to exclude the possibility of God. One who makes that particular stance has just made the ultimate logical error." Your insistence on clinging to the "ultimate logical error" that science displays evidence that there is no god shows nothing about science, nothing about god, but quite a bit about you.
Anyway, you say the genome provides evidence that there is no god, the head of the human genome project says it doesn't. No offense, but I'm going to have to give more weight of credibility to Dr. Collins on this one.
You need to brush up on your logic. No evidence != see the absence.
I see no evidence that my wife just walked through the kitchen. This doesn't mean I have evidence my wife has not walked through the kitchen. I do not see an absence of my wife having been there, although I see no evidence of her having been there.
I notice you have conveniently decided not to deal with the fact that Dr. Collins calls your stance the ultimate logical error. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to apply logical analysis to your own arguements. It is therefore of no use to continue this discussion further.
It is said that Bible is a consistent with religion, but it is not only consistent with religion.
Who do you believe, a book written by a bunch of highly biased guys,
I have not been saying that creationism is correct or that a particular religious text is true, just that your points do not disprove it in any way. It would be possible to agree with everything I've said and believe in evolution as an atheist. I gave some possible answers a creationist might give to your points, which you could find on any creationist website. I haven't argued for creationism. Why you seem determined to hold fast to logically false arguements is beyond me. I would have thought you would prefer a strong arguement to one that can be easily refuted.
why buy an Apple cell phone when you can buy a Nokia phone for less money?
I was in mobile phone sales for a short while. I was surpised to find that many people will buy a phone on a higher cost plan than they use to get a phone they percieve to be fashionable. I didn't take any stats, but a significant portion of people will do this, even paying $20/month higher than their call usage. Not surprisingly, mobile phone bills were at the time a leading cause of personal bankruptcy (here in Oz). If there is another market where Apples strategy of high priced fashionable hardware is mainstream, it's mobile phones.
We've shown they code for the self same proteins, therefore the changes are pointless.
No, all you've shown is that you don't know any reason for the changes. There is a vast difference between you not knowing a reason for something, and there actually being no reason. In any case, as I have stated, these changes do not require evolution (in a "all living creatures are descended from single celled creatures" sense).
Nobody has found any evidence for God whatsoever in the genomes that have been examined...Collins believes in evolution and has hypothesised that moral values are derived from God.
Perhaps you might like to read his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief before you make any more statements like that. As I said, he probably agrees with you on some points, but he has also said "And therefore, science is completely unable, on purely logical grounds, to exclude the possibility of God. One who makes that particular stance has just made the ultimate logical error."
You've presented facts consistent with evolution, nobody is denying that. All I've been saying is that none of what you've said is decisive for evolution. The things you've said are consistent with evolution, but not only consistent with evolution. You seemed to be originally intending to refute creationism, I'm just pointing out that you haven't done so with your examples.
If the head of the Human Genome Project thinks that what you're saying is the ultimate logical error, do you think it might be worth re-examining your thinking? You might benefit from reading Mere Cristianity by C. S. Lewis.
Also, your earlier statement "So as we read the true book, not a book of man, but the book of life, the genome, we see the absence of God." is quite different to your current post "Nobody has found any evidence for God whatsoever in the genomes" as well as seeming to be contraditory to the views of Dr. Collins.
The thing is, for some genes you can make small differences to the genes, and they make no difference to the proteins that they code for. And you often find these differences in the genomes between different creatures.
All (modern day) creationists that I'm aware of acknowledge that natural selection exists, but say it causes differentiation within a "biblical kind". The existence of these differences in genes do not require creationism to be not true.
But these differences to the common genes are attributable to random drift, so you can predict how many of these irrelevant differences there would be, based on when two creatures separated their lineage.
This is more interesting. My field is not biology. I wasn't aware that we know closely enough when any species separated their lineage to make such a prediction, do you have a reference? In any case they are attributable to random drift, but this is still feasible under a creationist model that allows for natural selection.
A God that deliberately makes pointless, random changes to genes whilst designing animals makes no sense at all.
You haven't demonstrated that they are pointless, random changes though. Merely that we haven't discerned a purpose for them, which is quite different. You also seem to have missed a rather major theme in the bible, namely that humans are far below god in their capabilities and mental capacity and as a result, god's way of doing things is usually very different from ours. The fact that you would find something nonsensical is not at all a refutation of creationism, certainly not decisive for evolution.
So as we read the true book, not a book of man, but the book of life, the genome, we see the absence of God.
Francis_Collins may possibly disagree with you there. Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, believes in god. Not creationism, he'd probably agree with some things you've said, but to say the genome reveals an absence on god doesn't seem to be his view and I think he has some credibility.
Why would God need to give you 60% the same genes as bananas?
Possible answers:
Designed to live in the same basic environment (water, carbon, oxygen etc) so they require substantial similarity.
Symbiotic species (eg: bananas intake CO2, output O2, humans vice versa) could be expected to have some similarity to enable this.
Efficiency of design effort.
If you go down to small enough particles, everything is protons, neutrons and electrons. %100 identical components. I do not find this to be a convincing arguement for or against evolution.
I don't like everything I see either, I can't get away from sport on the TV at certain times of the year.
...to deny their existance turns it into a "wedge issue".
You can reasonably make a decision to not watch TV. Not being able to buy fuel without being exposed to something is very different.
Perhaps, but I didn't suggest its existence should be denied.
I'm not suggesting that porn should not "irk" you, I'm suggesting your "taste" should not be allowed to push "overtly sexual" people into dark alleys.
Again, not what I was advocating. Would you consider going to the toilet to be an activity that has been pushed into dark alleys? Signs are in every place to show where you can go. Nearly every building has a toilet. Nobody is embarrassed about it, and yet you have the ability to not see it. Would it really be so oppresive to "overtly sexual" people if they didn't foist it on me?
"TV week's" front cover.
:)
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhh! Oh wait...what.... oh, you didn't put a link to it, phew, thanks
Seriously though, I know it's not exactly hardcore, but its there and unavoidable. To go back to my "going to the toilet" comparison, maybe its like someone taking a leak in the shopping centre car park. Well, he's not taking a crap, he's even turned away, so you can't actually see anything, and it's over a drain, so it won't get on you, but it's still not OK to most people. Nobody wants to stop him taking a leak, they just want him to do it out of sight. Right out of sight. I would prefer porn to be handled similarly rather than the way it is now. I just want the right to choose not to view it. At all.
Never really thought about it too much. I think that their are some things, that even if you find them acceptable, or even good, it's still appropriate to keep them private. I find an interesting comparison to using the toilet. Nobody is against it, yet their are clear boundaries of what's considered acceptable in public, and nobody is crying "You can't legislate morality!"
As for swinger mags, I think if people who aren't interested are confronted with them during their daily business, it's a problem. Here in Australia, for example, pretty much every service station (gas station) has porn prominently displayed. It is virtually impossible to go about your business without being confronted with porn, which is to say, at least some viewing is forced on you. It could be accessible without forcing it on everyone.
The moment it's advertised though, it could rationally be said to be public. If you organise among your friends some activity, it's private. If you advertise it in the paper, it's public.
Name three.
Kennards Hire, Europcar, De Bortoli Wines. Desktop use too.
Article with a bigger list here.
Booze is cheaper when you're not paying for a place to sit for twenty minutes.
Cheaper is not everyones highest priority.
I don't think it's saying copyright is a similar issue to the environment, but that it's gaining a similar level of political importance.
If you fail to agree and adhere to the license at that point, you will have violated the copyright owner's rights.
I'm not so sure on this part. I think EULA's are not enforceable everywhere, I don't know about here in Australia or in the US though. I don't think it's enforceable as you don't sign it, and have purchased the software before you see it. I don't really know, but as far as copyright, with a book, I don't think there can be any legal restriction on me reading it after purchase, even if the author doesn't want me to. Copyright doesn't restrict personal use of a legally produced and purchased product. I am quite sure, for example, that someone who releases a song can't require everyone who already purchased it to stop playing it, they can only control distribution/performance. To continue to play a CD may violate their wishes, but not their rights.
Legally speaking, entitling you to continued use and possession of the software after violating the license and against the wishes of the copyright owner is absurd, of course.
This arguement is dependent on whether the EULA is considered to be a valid contract. They certainly go way beyond copyright law and restrictions. Whether you go against the wishes of the copyright owner is completely irrelevant. The issue is whether you have violated their legal rights or your contractual obligations. AFAIK, in Australia there is no legal requirement for me to even read a "license agreement" to a legally produced copy of a copyright work that I have already purchased, and clicking "I Agree" doesn't legally bind me to a contract.
Where "use" or "installation" of the software may be considered a "performance" and without permission, you are in violation of copyright law.
The quote of the Act you gave specified public performance, which certainly doesn't cover the way I use software.
Thus, the point of copying would seem to be the installation.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're right here. Maybe if you were using a system installed before MS "revoked" your license you could get away with it. Not my problem anyway, I'm not using their stuff.
Doesn't copyright give them the right to control copying, not use? Do you need a licence for a book? Can your right to read a book you bought be revoked? It's copyright ,yes? If they sell you a copy, surely that's your copy, just like a book.