Plenty in North GA as well. The deer and squirrels are all fat and happy. The question is how many acorns will be around in the Spring before the plants begin to bloom. Wildlife depend on two waves of acorns to last them the Winter, though both waves drop at about the same time: acorns from the white oak group are eaten early in the Winter b/c they are tasty at that time of year, while red oak acorns are stored away for early Spring b/c the high levels of tannins make them unpalatable in the Fall and early Winter.
It always amazes me how "scientists" can be so blatantly unscientific when they are bound and determined not to believe something. You speak of Science as this pure and incorruptible, binary, true-vs.-false kind of process, but you forget that Science has just as colorful a history as religion.
Back in the day the scientific view was that the Earth was the center of the universe, and was flat. The idea that it might, in fact, be round and orbit the Sun was considered preposterous and was given what you call a "public bitchslapping." It also used to be unimpeachable "fact" that spontaneous generation was the source of all life: meat begets maggots, etc. Even Aristotle is linked to this line of reasoning--the Wikipedia page on abiogenesis states, "According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, and so forth." It wasn't until Francesco Redi in 1668 that this started to be disproved.
Even today, when asked about the origins of life, many evolutionary scientists will advocate the Panspermia theory, claiming that there are seeds or germs of life floating around in the universe and that life on Earth arose from some of those germs. In my college biology class this was introduced as life arising from proteins on a meteor that crashed into Earth. This is a fine theory about how life came to Earth, and worthy of testing, but it still doesn't answer the question of the origin of Life. It just pushes the question back a little farther; instead of "How did life arise on Earth?" we have "How did life arise on that meteor?"
The point is that if you take Evolution to be true as the origins of life on Earth, you eventually come down to the same question: "Where did that come from?" For instance, say humans arose from apes, apes from some primal mammal, that mammal from a bird or reptile (depending on your interpretation of the geologic record), that bird or reptile from something vaguely resembling a fish, and that fishy thing ultimately from some bacteria. Okay, where did the bacteria come from? Some say deep ocean vents, some say meteors, some say the unique weather patterns of the Earth at that time (which we can only assume) created just the right environment for spontaneous generation (QED).
Add to this the new evidence arising to contradict our "facts" concerning the geologic timeline (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino _tissue.asp) and the problem of the "missing link," and you are left with a few good solid theories in a sea of conjecture and assumption.
The fact of the matter is that our scientific "facts" are always changing, and the evolution theory is not without it's holes and contradictions. A true scientist remains open to any theory (until it is tested) to explain the unknown, because blinders are meant for horses, not people.
I don't know where you find your 30 second, 50 cent salads, but in my experience salad makes an inconvenient snack in three ways: 1. In order to make your own, you must keep fresh veggies on hand. While this can be pretty cheap, it can be difficult to use all your produce before it goes bad--especially if you don't eat salads every day. Also, unless your "salad" consists of little more than lettuce, it will take at least a few minutes to chop the requisite veggies and wash them. 2. If you choose to forgo letting lettuce rot in your fridge, you can buy serving-sized salads in most grocery stores or restaurants with salad bars (even some of those dreaded fast food places sell salads). These, however, are a far cry from 50 cents; they usually cost more than the hamburger (which, by the way, only costs 5 bucks if you get the whole value meal). Most that I have seen cost somewhere between 3 and 6 dollars, depending on how healthy you want it to be. 3. It is not advisable to eat a salad while driving. Period.
The post in question is poorly structured for the audience at hand, I agree. He also should probably have used different evidence to back up his claim, seeing as he effectually reinforced the post he was arguing against. But the guy is just standing up for what he believes in.
I would like to assert, here, that having beliefs does not automatically make one stupid or a joke. If you think that he is wrong, or that his beliefs are stupid, then by all means post an intelligent counter-argument! Debate is a good thing--it forces us to think. Likewise, if you believe my post to the mods to be out of place, show me why ! Start a discussion!
This is "News for Nerds," right? Nerds are supposed to be smart, right?
I challenge you to prove it! Don't let this become like some silly angst-ridden emo blog. Rather, why not help foster an intelligent scientific repartee.
This post was clearly not meant to be funny. I've noticed over the year or so that I've been a member here that you have a habit of labeling posts as funny when they try to represent an unpopular viewpoint, particularly when this viewpoint is religious in nature. If you don't want to believe what a person has to say, that's fine--but it's no reason to call their argument a joke. I was under the impression that/. was meant to be nerd *news*, not some childish nerd popularity contest. Perhaps I was wrong...
In future, I would appreciate you giving *all* viewpoints--even ones which go against the crowd or which you may think are dumb--a fair mod. If the other readers don't agree, let them submit a credible argument against it.
And here I thought the basics of Christianity was Christ...
Seriously,
>" the rituals, the idea that people should suffer, that only bad people are poor, that only bad people are rich, that we should hate certain people,"
None of that is tought by Christianity; whoever told you so was lieing through their teeth!
Christianity is about Jesus Christ. Plain and simple. Christ--fully God and fully man--loved us so much he died to pay the price for our sins. That's a price that we *can't* pay, folks! It is true that God hates sin; but God does *not* hate the sinner!
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8
What's more, Jesus calls his followers to love *everyone* just as he loves us. That means loving even those who are hard to *like.* As for being poor and rich, wealth has nothing to do with righteousness. Often bad people do become rich, but their riches won't help them when they die. Often God blesses good people with wealth, as he did after his trial of Job. Often bad people are poor, but they are seldom poor *because* they are bad. And often good people are poor, but I have seen some amazing blessings given to such people through their lack of "stuff."
My point is this: you have been seriously mislead as to the heart of Christianity. If this was done by someone calling themselves a Christian, then I am truly sorry. It breaks my heart every time I hear stories like these; there are so many people out there who just don't get it.
If you have any other objections, or would like me to clarify something for you, please send me an email: essorg_nire@yahoo.com.
Duh, I don't have funds to waste on silly internet gambling! I've found something much more effective at draining away all of my money. It looks sort of like a slot machine, and the more money you put in, the less product it seems to give back, thus provoking an endless cycle of money spending and product not-getting.
That's right friends, I'm talking about the gas pump!
With such great money drains on every corner, who would bother going all the way to the internet to waste their money?
I would just like to point out, as a biologist and a Christian, that these two fields are not mutually exclusive. I firmly believe in creation, and I am facinated by the science I am constantly learning, but neither field rules out the other. I'm sure some believers have seriously mishandled debates to this effect, and for that I appologize, but I would beg you to remember that we are all human and subject to error.
(I also appologize for my apparent over-use of conjunctions today:P)
Well, I'm grateful for the positive moderation, but that wasn't meant to be funny. I truly want to know what currivan meant by this statement. It confuses me because I know that verse well and find nothing "negatively informative" in it.
For most TV I would agree with you, but (as I keep trying to convince my boyfriend) there *are* intelligent programs out there if you know where to look. Most things I've seen on both the History and Discovery channels, for instance, have definitely been positive information. Even kids' programs, when watched in an unfamiliar language, can be highly enlightening. I was home sick from middle school one day and learned the word "yellow" in Spanish ("amarillo") while watching a Spanish equivalent of Sesame Street.
While one must wade through an astonishing volume of crap to find worthwhile viewing material on television these days, I maintain that it is entirely possible for an intelligent person to watch intelligent TV.
OK, I get the "no dating your co-workers" thing; you're just asking for trouble if you do. However, I find it very depressing to be told I cannot even make friends with the person working next to me all day every day of the week.
Dictionary.com defines to "fraternize" as:
1. To associate with others in a brotherly or congenial way.
2. To associate on friendly terms with an enemy or opposing group, often in violation of discipline or orders.
Now, unless they are claiming that my co-worker is my enemy or an otherwise opposing group, they are reffering to the first definition. Notice that this says nothing about dating or having sex with others. If my employer bans me from fraternizing with my co-workers, they have banned me from associating with them. Have you ever gotten in an elevator with people you see every day and felt an incredibly awkward silence b/c no one really has anything to say to each other? It sucks. We tend to issolate ourselves enough as it is; we don't need a simple, friendly "hello" to be banned as well!
I like to get to know the people I work with. I like to know who they are, what is going on in their lives, and what things I may be able to sympathize with them about. It makes for a friendlier, more enjoyable work environment to be able to look over to the next desk and say, "Hey Bill, how's your son's baseball team doing?" or "You know Jan, there is a really great play showing tonight which I think you would love! Would you like to come see it with me?" It means oen can actually have friends at the office.
To be banned from simply talking to my co-workers/friends outside of the office is to be told I can only be a part-time friend. "Oh I know we're friends at the office, but don't bother me once the work day is over. I only have time for you and your problems while we're on the clock." Does this sound lame to anyone else but me?
I agree that this is an infraction of human rights. My employer may only dictate what I do on my own time if those actions hurt the company, and that kind of decision should be made on a case-by-case basis.
What we really need to do is ask our local Ministries of Magic (or comparable branches of government) if they will please break decorrum and give us some enchanted windows for our office buildings. Then if we muggles are really super nice to the wizarding population (when we can identify them), Magical Maintenance may just give us beautiful sun-shiny days all year long!
According to Wikipedia "A star system or stellar system is a group of stars (and possibly smaller bodies such as planets or asteroids) that orbit one another (systems with planetary bodies orbiting stars, are referred to as solar systems or planetary systems)."
So really, if we want to get technical, "planetary system" would be the most appropriate.
Not that it matters.
Slashdot Mirror
Plenty in North GA as well. The deer and squirrels are all fat and happy. The question is how many acorns will be around in the Spring before the plants begin to bloom. Wildlife depend on two waves of acorns to last them the Winter, though both waves drop at about the same time: acorns from the white oak group are eaten early in the Winter b/c they are tasty at that time of year, while red oak acorns are stored away for early Spring b/c the high levels of tannins make them unpalatable in the Fall and early Winter.
No way! PARENTS might think about SEX?!!?? ...You're kidding, right?
It always amazes me how "scientists" can be so blatantly unscientific when they are bound and determined not to believe something. You speak of Science as this pure and incorruptible, binary, true-vs.-false kind of process, but you forget that Science has just as colorful a history as religion.o _tissue.asp) and the problem of the "missing link," and you are left with a few good solid theories in a sea of conjecture and assumption.
Back in the day the scientific view was that the Earth was the center of the universe, and was flat. The idea that it might, in fact, be round and orbit the Sun was considered preposterous and was given what you call a "public bitchslapping." It also used to be unimpeachable "fact" that spontaneous generation was the source of all life: meat begets maggots, etc. Even Aristotle is linked to this line of reasoning--the Wikipedia page on abiogenesis states, "According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, and so forth." It wasn't until Francesco Redi in 1668 that this started to be disproved.
Even today, when asked about the origins of life, many evolutionary scientists will advocate the Panspermia theory, claiming that there are seeds or germs of life floating around in the universe and that life on Earth arose from some of those germs. In my college biology class this was introduced as life arising from proteins on a meteor that crashed into Earth. This is a fine theory about how life came to Earth, and worthy of testing, but it still doesn't answer the question of the origin of Life. It just pushes the question back a little farther; instead of "How did life arise on Earth?" we have "How did life arise on that meteor?" The point is that if you take Evolution to be true as the origins of life on Earth, you eventually come down to the same question: "Where did that come from?" For instance, say humans arose from apes, apes from some primal mammal, that mammal from a bird or reptile (depending on your interpretation of the geologic record), that bird or reptile from something vaguely resembling a fish, and that fishy thing ultimately from some bacteria. Okay, where did the bacteria come from? Some say deep ocean vents, some say meteors, some say the unique weather patterns of the Earth at that time (which we can only assume) created just the right environment for spontaneous generation (QED).
Add to this the new evidence arising to contradict our "facts" concerning the geologic timeline (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Din
The fact of the matter is that our scientific "facts" are always changing, and the evolution theory is not without it's holes and contradictions. A true scientist remains open to any theory (until it is tested) to explain the unknown, because blinders are meant for horses, not people.
I don't know where you find your 30 second, 50 cent salads, but in my experience salad makes an inconvenient snack in three ways:
1. In order to make your own, you must keep fresh veggies on hand. While this can be pretty cheap, it can be difficult to use all your produce before it goes bad--especially if you don't eat salads every day. Also, unless your "salad" consists of little more than lettuce, it will take at least a few minutes to chop the requisite veggies and wash them.
2. If you choose to forgo letting lettuce rot in your fridge, you can buy serving-sized salads in most grocery stores or restaurants with salad bars (even some of those dreaded fast food places sell salads). These, however, are a far cry from 50 cents; they usually cost more than the hamburger (which, by the way, only costs 5 bucks if you get the whole value meal). Most that I have seen cost somewhere between 3 and 6 dollars, depending on how healthy you want it to be.
3. It is not advisable to eat a salad while driving. Period.
I would like to assert, here, that having beliefs does not automatically make one stupid or a joke. If you think that he is wrong, or that his beliefs are stupid, then by all means post an intelligent counter-argument! Debate is a good thing--it forces us to think. Likewise, if you believe my post to the mods to be out of place, show me why ! Start a discussion!
This is "News for Nerds," right? Nerds are supposed to be smart, right?
I challenge you to prove it! Don't let this become like some silly angst-ridden emo blog. Rather, why not help foster an intelligent scientific repartee.
This post was clearly not meant to be funny. I've noticed over the year or so that I've been a member here that you have a habit of labeling posts as funny when they try to represent an unpopular viewpoint, particularly when this viewpoint is religious in nature. If you don't want to believe what a person has to say, that's fine--but it's no reason to call their argument a joke. I was under the impression that /. was meant to be nerd *news*, not some childish nerd popularity contest. Perhaps I was wrong...
In future, I would appreciate you giving *all* viewpoints--even ones which go against the crowd or which you may think are dumb--a fair mod. If the other readers don't agree, let them submit a credible argument against it.
That made me smile!
It's been a long time since I've read "A Modest Proposal" (http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Courses/95c/ Texts/modest.html/), but I quite enjoyed it. I'm glad to find someone else who liked it, too.
hehe :-D
Seriously,
>" the rituals, the idea that people should suffer, that only bad people are poor, that only bad people are rich, that we should hate certain people,"
None of that is tought by Christianity; whoever told you so was lieing through their teeth!
Christianity is about Jesus Christ. Plain and simple. Christ--fully God and fully man--loved us so much he died to pay the price for our sins. That's a price that we *can't* pay, folks! It is true that God hates sin; but God does *not* hate the sinner!
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8
What's more, Jesus calls his followers to love *everyone* just as he loves us. That means loving even those who are hard to *like.* As for being poor and rich, wealth has nothing to do with righteousness. Often bad people do become rich, but their riches won't help them when they die. Often God blesses good people with wealth, as he did after his trial of Job. Often bad people are poor, but they are seldom poor *because* they are bad. And often good people are poor, but I have seen some amazing blessings given to such people through their lack of "stuff."
My point is this: you have been seriously mislead as to the heart of Christianity. If this was done by someone calling themselves a Christian, then I am truly sorry. It breaks my heart every time I hear stories like these; there are so many people out there who just don't get it.
If you have any other objections, or would like me to clarify something for you, please send me an email: essorg_nire@yahoo.com.
Duh, I don't have funds to waste on silly internet gambling! I've found something much more effective at draining away all of my money. It looks sort of like a slot machine, and the more money you put in, the less product it seems to give back, thus provoking an endless cycle of money spending and product not-getting. That's right friends, I'm talking about the gas pump! With such great money drains on every corner, who would bother going all the way to the internet to waste their money?
(I also appologize for my apparent over-use of conjunctions today :P)
Well, I'm grateful for the positive moderation, but that wasn't meant to be funny. I truly want to know what currivan meant by this statement. It confuses me because I know that verse well and find nothing "negatively informative" in it.
For most TV I would agree with you, but (as I keep trying to convince my boyfriend) there *are* intelligent programs out there if you know where to look. Most things I've seen on both the History and Discovery channels, for instance, have definitely been positive information. Even kids' programs, when watched in an unfamiliar language, can be highly enlightening. I was home sick from middle school one day and learned the word "yellow" in Spanish ("amarillo") while watching a Spanish equivalent of Sesame Street. While one must wade through an astonishing volume of crap to find worthwhile viewing material on television these days, I maintain that it is entirely possible for an intelligent person to watch intelligent TV.
What exactly do you mean by this?
OK, I get the "no dating your co-workers" thing; you're just asking for trouble if you do. However, I find it very depressing to be told I cannot even make friends with the person working next to me all day every day of the week.
Dictionary.com defines to "fraternize" as:
1. To associate with others in a brotherly or congenial way.
2. To associate on friendly terms with an enemy or opposing group, often in violation of discipline or orders.
Now, unless they are claiming that my co-worker is my enemy or an otherwise opposing group, they are reffering to the first definition. Notice that this says nothing about dating or having sex with others. If my employer bans me from fraternizing with my co-workers, they have banned me from associating with them.
Have you ever gotten in an elevator with people you see every day and felt an incredibly awkward silence b/c no one really has anything to say to each other? It sucks. We tend to issolate ourselves enough as it is; we don't need a simple, friendly "hello" to be banned as well!
I like to get to know the people I work with. I like to know who they are, what is going on in their lives, and what things I may be able to sympathize with them about. It makes for a friendlier, more enjoyable work environment to be able to look over to the next desk and say, "Hey Bill, how's your son's baseball team doing?" or "You know Jan, there is a really great play showing tonight which I think you would love! Would you like to come see it with me?" It means oen can actually have friends at the office.
To be banned from simply talking to my co-workers/friends outside of the office is to be told I can only be a part-time friend. "Oh I know we're friends at the office, but don't bother me once the work day is over. I only have time for you and your problems while we're on the clock."
Does this sound lame to anyone else but me?
I agree that this is an infraction of human rights. My employer may only dictate what I do on my own time if those actions hurt the company, and that kind of decision should be made on a case-by-case basis.
What we really need to do is ask our local Ministries of Magic (or comparable branches of government) if they will please break decorrum and give us some enchanted windows for our office buildings. Then if we muggles are really super nice to the wizarding population (when we can identify them), Magical Maintenance may just give us beautiful sun-shiny days all year long!
According to Wikipedia "A star system or stellar system is a group of stars (and possibly smaller bodies such as planets or asteroids) that orbit one another (systems with planetary bodies orbiting stars, are referred to as solar systems or planetary systems)." So really, if we want to get technical, "planetary system" would be the most appropriate. Not that it matters.