Really? I suppose you have evidence to the contrary. I'm willing to change my opinion if folks can provide proof to the contrary. So the ball is in your court. I'm willing to convert, are you able to provide a reason.
Of course I know you can't. But the offer is on the table.
But what do I know, I'm just the stupidest person you've ever encountered.
You are absolutely wrong about Americans being told "from time they are very little that this is the best country in the world." Liberals and pointy headed academic types have been trying to convince us that America is a horrible place of persecution, and founded by a bunch of racists, sexists, homophobic, slave owners. They used to add religious nuts, but since they have started to try to rewrite history and say that religion had little to do with the founding of the country, they seem to recognize the contradiction, and have dropped it.
Of course there's a lot to be desired. I didn't say America was perfect. No country that elects Bill Clinton two times in a row doesn't have a lot to be desired. At the same time, where is a better place in the world?
You don't see folks dieing on home made rafts trying to get to Europe. South America doesn't have a history of protecting the helpless like America does. Asia isn't dominated by liberty. No other country has ever given so much money to poor countries than the US. In the US, the "poor" are considered at least middle class by world standards. It's recently been shown that folks on welfare have a higher chance of being obese than those who work for a living. That doesn't sound like they're starving to me.
The United States is the creative capital of the world. We stand for freedom, compassion, liberty, equality, and success. It's true that there are bad people in the United States, but evil exists everywhere. However, when you consider how much life is valued in America as opposed to the rest of the world, it becomes very clear to me that if I were ever to get sick or disabled, I would not want to live anywhere else.
We have the best doctors, best laws, and the best Chief Executive in the entire world.
As a privacy advocate, I respect your opinion very much. Perhaps because I used to share it. I have since seen that we need to have a higher standard for issuing identification in all states in the US. The bill does not mandate RFID, but it is an example of technology that is suggested for the states to adopt.
As for a national database,,, Even if a store could manage to scan my ID when I walked in, that does not mean that a national governmental database would have to have access to it, any more than they have access to my Pricechopper card. In fact, I work for a federal governmental organization as a network engineer, and I don't think, based on what I've seen, that the government could manage to implement a national database. Maybe if they outsource it, then after 10 years of bids and RFPs, we could possibly have a working prototype. Another 10 years or 20 trips to Mars later, we could have a small scale database running. It would probably run on MSSQL though, so good luck at getting a decent query out of it.
For what I've read, RFID's can be bypassed by encasing them in foil. I don't see why some smart entrepreneur wouldn't design a line of wallets and purses with a foil lining to block unwanted access to our ID's.
As for
you continue to try to discredit any objection to this legislation by stereotyping the dissenters as pasty-skinned, 40 year old single guys who live with their mothers
- I say, "If the pocket protector fits, wear it." It was not my high school football team at DEFCON this year. I don't imply that all geeks opposed to this must fit my stereo type, but I'm sure statistically significant numbers do.
Rather than my post being an attempt to silence dissidents, it is a call to get a life, and have some perspective. These things aren't the end of the world. The black helicopter crowd just seems to go unchecked on Slashdot.
I might be wrong, but I think this bill is a good thing. How politicians in the future use it, could be bad, I admit this. But then again, that is why it is far more important to elect good politicians than it is to have good laws. If you have bad elected officials then it doesn't matter how good the laws are, they will do what they want in the end.
You folks need to get a life and put the coffee and cigarettes down. The black helicopters aren't looking for you.
I'm a geek, and I suppose that carries with it a certain degree of paranoia, but this law is the only thing that stands between us and a National ID card a few years later. This law requires states to continue to provide drivers licenses, but establishes standards for the documents used to obtain an ID because the drivers licenses are used as a form of identification for gaining access to places that we don't want bad guys to be allowed to enter. It also has certain requirements for these IDs issued by states.
I'm not wild about the RFID thing, but I'm not worried if someone sniffs my ID and finds out that I'm a white male born in 1975, with brown hair and eyes, 5'10" and weigh 170 pounds.
I'm sick of the knee jerk reaction that geeks have. We have a bad reputation for a reason. We have earned it. There are too many of us that haven't been on a date in 5 years, and have learned the Klingon language while living in our parent's basement.
I honestly believe that if more of us would stop playing Everquest, and go to a park, then we'd stop acting like the government is just out to spy on the pron on our hard drives.
It's possible that I trust the government again now that the Good Guys(Republicans) are in power, and am blinded to what the bad guys(Liberals) could use their new authority for if they ever get back into power. But I don't think so. Who knows? Even if they do abuse their authority, this country will still be the best country in the world, and will survive. Eventually folks will get sick of having big brother look over their shoulder, and vote for politicians that will change the situation.
Do you mean to imply that every word of the Old and New testament were written by the "finger of God" rather than by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit? Or just the tablets that Moses brought down from the mountain?
In Genesis chapter 1 and Exodus 20, the original Hebrew the word for "Day" was "Yowm". The definition of "Yowm" was variable and derived by context. Here is a link to an online concordance that is worth looking at more than re-writing. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi ?number=03117&version=nas
The use of "Yowm" does not provide a clear cut definition for the period of time by rules of language, but if we use context, then it can be inferred as a 24 hour period,,, but who's to say?
For the first point: The fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists.
As a student of not only I.D., but also the debate itself on this issue, I would love to know what fossils have been found that support evolution. There are millions of fossils that exist of all kinds of creatures, but the problem for evolution is that there are no fossils that exist of a transitional form. If this is not true, then why are scientists still looking for "the missing link?"
That problem is obvious enough to some evolutionists that in their desperation to offer an explanation for the complete lack of transitional forms, they developed the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium." That theory says that evolution doesn't happen slowly over long periods of time, but rather in an explosion. The concept is sort of like a chicken hatches from a lizard egg, and not a half chicken-lizard. However I don't think even the most brazen evolutionist would construe their once beloved archaeopteryx to fill that bill.
If the author of this post believes that the sheer number of fossils that exist today bolsters evolution, then they are greatly mistaken. Fossils do not require a lot of time to form. Many fossils have been shown to be created in less than a century.
As an aside, the issue of the age of the Earth is not tied to Intelligent Design. I firmly believe in the Biblical account of creation, and everyone would probably describe me as "one of those fundamentalists", but I'm not convinced that the Earth can only be 6,000 years. We do not know for certain, how long the days of creation were. Moses never specified if they were 24 hour days or not. According to ancient Hebrew, there were multiple meanings for their word for "Day." As a personal bias, I think it was most likely to be 6,000 years based on the genealogy of Genesis, but only God knows.
For the second point: There are many very well respected Christian scientists who believe in Evolution as the means by which God brought man into existence. I respectfully disagree with them on both scientific grounds, but more importantly on theological grounds. The fundamental reason that Christians will come out of the wood work when ever Genesis is challenged is because it provides the foundation for the rest of the Bible.
If man was not created perfect and fell into a life of sin terminated by death, then there is no need for a savior. If we evolved as a cosmic accident resulting from purposeless processes over a long period of time, then Jesus was wrong in his doctrine, and therefore couldn't have been God as he claimed to be. In Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 as his defense of marriage and by extension the creation of man by God.
I think in the interest of defining what the debate is really about, I will say that no "fundamentalist" has any problem with the idea of evolution within a species. We have actually seen that take place in our life times. What we argue is evolution between species. That has never been seen to take place. In addition, there is no evidence that it ever has. There are a lot of theories, and I commend people much smarter than myself for attempting to get to the bottom of their quandary as creatively as they have and continue to do, and as long as their ideas are regarded as theories, then Christians and scientists alike will have no problems. The problem begins when one scientific "theory" is given the weight of scientific fact. When science books are written, evolution is assumed to have happened, and the rest of the book is written from that context. The problem is that scientists aren't any closer to proving their theory today as they were when Darwin proposed it in this book, "Origin of Species."
But what do I know? I probably believe the Earth is still flat, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Really? I suppose you have evidence to the contrary. I'm willing to change my opinion if folks can provide proof to the contrary. So the ball is in your court. I'm willing to convert, are you able to provide a reason.
Of course I know you can't. But the offer is on the table.
But what do I know, I'm just the stupidest person you've ever encountered.
You are absolutely wrong about Americans being told "from time they are very little that this is the best country in the world." Liberals and pointy headed academic types have been trying to convince us that America is a horrible place of persecution, and founded by a bunch of racists, sexists, homophobic, slave owners. They used to add religious nuts, but since they have started to try to rewrite history and say that religion had little to do with the founding of the country, they seem to recognize the contradiction, and have dropped it. Of course there's a lot to be desired. I didn't say America was perfect. No country that elects Bill Clinton two times in a row doesn't have a lot to be desired. At the same time, where is a better place in the world?
You don't see folks dieing on home made rafts trying to get to Europe. South America doesn't have a history of protecting the helpless like America does. Asia isn't dominated by liberty. No other country has ever given so much money to poor countries than the US. In the US, the "poor" are considered at least middle class by world standards. It's recently been shown that folks on welfare have a higher chance of being obese than those who work for a living. That doesn't sound like they're starving to me.
The United States is the creative capital of the world. We stand for freedom, compassion, liberty, equality, and success. It's true that there are bad people in the United States, but evil exists everywhere. However, when you consider how much life is valued in America as opposed to the rest of the world, it becomes very clear to me that if I were ever to get sick or disabled, I would not want to live anywhere else.
We have the best doctors, best laws, and the best Chief Executive in the entire world.
As for a national database,,, Even if a store could manage to scan my ID when I walked in, that does not mean that a national governmental database would have to have access to it, any more than they have access to my Pricechopper card. In fact, I work for a federal governmental organization as a network engineer, and I don't think, based on what I've seen, that the government could manage to implement a national database. Maybe if they outsource it, then after 10 years of bids and RFPs, we could possibly have a working prototype. Another 10 years or 20 trips to Mars later, we could have a small scale database running. It would probably run on MSSQL though, so good luck at getting a decent query out of it.
For what I've read, RFID's can be bypassed by encasing them in foil. I don't see why some smart entrepreneur wouldn't design a line of wallets and purses with a foil lining to block unwanted access to our ID's.
As for - I say, "If the pocket protector fits, wear it." It was not my high school football team at DEFCON this year. I don't imply that all geeks opposed to this must fit my stereo type, but I'm sure statistically significant numbers do. Rather than my post being an attempt to silence dissidents, it is a call to get a life, and have some perspective. These things aren't the end of the world. The black helicopter crowd just seems to go unchecked on Slashdot.
I might be wrong, but I think this bill is a good thing. How politicians in the future use it, could be bad, I admit this. But then again, that is why it is far more important to elect good politicians than it is to have good laws. If you have bad elected officials then it doesn't matter how good the laws are, they will do what they want in the end.
I lived in Texas for a year and a half. Does that count? : )
You folks need to get a life and put the coffee and cigarettes down. The black helicopters aren't looking for you.
I'm a geek, and I suppose that carries with it a certain degree of paranoia, but this law is the only thing that stands between us and a National ID card a few years later. This law requires states to continue to provide drivers licenses, but establishes standards for the documents used to obtain an ID because the drivers licenses are used as a form of identification for gaining access to places that we don't want bad guys to be allowed to enter. It also has certain requirements for these IDs issued by states.
I'm not wild about the RFID thing, but I'm not worried if someone sniffs my ID and finds out that I'm a white male born in 1975, with brown hair and eyes, 5'10" and weigh 170 pounds.
I'm sick of the knee jerk reaction that geeks have. We have a bad reputation for a reason. We have earned it. There are too many of us that haven't been on a date in 5 years, and have learned the Klingon language while living in our parent's basement.
I honestly believe that if more of us would stop playing Everquest, and go to a park, then we'd stop acting like the government is just out to spy on the pron on our hard drives.
It's possible that I trust the government again now that the Good Guys(Republicans) are in power, and am blinded to what the bad guys(Liberals) could use their new authority for if they ever get back into power. But I don't think so. Who knows? Even if they do abuse their authority, this country will still be the best country in the world, and will survive. Eventually folks will get sick of having big brother look over their shoulder, and vote for politicians that will change the situation.
In the mean time, you guys need to get some sun.
Do you mean to imply that every word of the Old and New testament were written by the "finger of God" rather than by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit? Or just the tablets that Moses brought down from the mountain?
i ?number=03117&version=nas
In Genesis chapter 1 and Exodus 20, the original Hebrew the word for "Day" was "Yowm". The definition of "Yowm" was variable and derived by context. Here is a link to an online concordance that is worth looking at more than re-writing. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cg
The use of "Yowm" does not provide a clear cut definition for the period of time by rules of language, but if we use context, then it can be inferred as a 24 hour period,,, but who's to say?
For the first point: The fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists. As a student of not only I.D., but also the debate itself on this issue, I would love to know what fossils have been found that support evolution. There are millions of fossils that exist of all kinds of creatures, but the problem for evolution is that there are no fossils that exist of a transitional form. If this is not true, then why are scientists still looking for "the missing link?" That problem is obvious enough to some evolutionists that in their desperation to offer an explanation for the complete lack of transitional forms, they developed the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium." That theory says that evolution doesn't happen slowly over long periods of time, but rather in an explosion. The concept is sort of like a chicken hatches from a lizard egg, and not a half chicken-lizard. However I don't think even the most brazen evolutionist would construe their once beloved archaeopteryx to fill that bill. If the author of this post believes that the sheer number of fossils that exist today bolsters evolution, then they are greatly mistaken. Fossils do not require a lot of time to form. Many fossils have been shown to be created in less than a century. As an aside, the issue of the age of the Earth is not tied to Intelligent Design. I firmly believe in the Biblical account of creation, and everyone would probably describe me as "one of those fundamentalists", but I'm not convinced that the Earth can only be 6,000 years. We do not know for certain, how long the days of creation were. Moses never specified if they were 24 hour days or not. According to ancient Hebrew, there were multiple meanings for their word for "Day." As a personal bias, I think it was most likely to be 6,000 years based on the genealogy of Genesis, but only God knows. For the second point: There are many very well respected Christian scientists who believe in Evolution as the means by which God brought man into existence. I respectfully disagree with them on both scientific grounds, but more importantly on theological grounds. The fundamental reason that Christians will come out of the wood work when ever Genesis is challenged is because it provides the foundation for the rest of the Bible. If man was not created perfect and fell into a life of sin terminated by death, then there is no need for a savior. If we evolved as a cosmic accident resulting from purposeless processes over a long period of time, then Jesus was wrong in his doctrine, and therefore couldn't have been God as he claimed to be. In Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 as his defense of marriage and by extension the creation of man by God. I think in the interest of defining what the debate is really about, I will say that no "fundamentalist" has any problem with the idea of evolution within a species. We have actually seen that take place in our life times. What we argue is evolution between species. That has never been seen to take place. In addition, there is no evidence that it ever has. There are a lot of theories, and I commend people much smarter than myself for attempting to get to the bottom of their quandary as creatively as they have and continue to do, and as long as their ideas are regarded as theories, then Christians and scientists alike will have no problems. The problem begins when one scientific "theory" is given the weight of scientific fact. When science books are written, evolution is assumed to have happened, and the rest of the book is written from that context. The problem is that scientists aren't any closer to proving their theory today as they were when Darwin proposed it in this book, "Origin of Species." But what do I know? I probably believe the Earth is still flat, right?