I read this on the Register yesterday. The/. headline is wrong. The court *didn't* find the company liable for software defects, they found them liable for misselling the product; the customer relied on the claims made by the company and those claims were wrong. The software was not capable of doing the job the customer needed, but the company claimed that it was.
Why aren't we allowed to see absolute temperature plots? Why are all the available graphs of temperature "anomalies"? What's so great about 1961-1990 that all other temperatures should be compared to that? Why aren't the anomalies across 1961-1990 zero?
Is someone afraid that if we see absolute temperature plots we will draw the "wrong" conclusions, i.e. anything other than what the IPCC continues to be paid billions to spout?
(unless there's something more formal in NZ law about accusation; maybe you can't formally accuse without evidence or something, in which case this is a lot less of a problem than the article makes out. IANANZL(IFINEAUKL).)
Just accuse back. Then your accuser will also be disconnected, and it'll be considerably worse for them as a company than for you as an individual.
When you are asked for proof you've got them, because if proof is needed before your accusers can be disconnected then you have ample grounds for demanding equal treatment, i.e. proof against you before your disconnection can take place.
> uses phrases like "very high confidence" and "very likely".
No it doesn't. It states definitely and unambiguously (at least in the summary): "...have increased markedly...". So the summary is at best misleading, if the rest of the report uses phrases like that.
It's a very interesting report. I'm not saying that from having read it in full, but I looked at the Summary For Policy Makers, specifically "Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750" (because that's all that any policy maker who trusts the IPCC will do), and the References; disregarding all IPCC references as this paper is presented as new information not a rehash of old, of which the only fact-based source (as opposed to other IPCC docs and administrative stuff like glossaries and unit definitions) is Heim, R.R., 2002: A Review of Twentieth-Century Drought Indices Used in the United States.
So there's no data covering 60% of the Summary time period mentioned (i.e. no data for 1750-1900), and the only data is about US-only droughts from 1900 to 2000. Actually on second thoughts that's not necessarily data, just a review of the drought indices (whatever they are), which might mean it doesn't talk about drought data at all.
Even taking into account the IPCC references I couldn't find any actual facts.
So from potentially no facts at all, they conclude that carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750? How does that work then? If there are actual facts, why aren't they listed in the References, and why didn't any of about 594 reviewers (18 names in the first column, 3 columns, 11 pages) spot this? It's true that I'm not a trained scientist (mine was an engineering degree) so maybe there's something lacking in my reviewing technique, maybe scientific docs don't list references in the References section or something.
Perhaps I should have read the whole thing. But if someone asks you if their C code is standards compliant, and presents you with 100,000,000 lines of code that start with "void main", then you already know after only 9 bytes that the answer is "no".
There's a very interesting documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle. If you're interested, grab the torrent and have a look. The most memorable comment in this for me was "1. the simplicity of the [anthropogenic warming] argument and 2. the complete disregard of all climate science up to that point".
"Several hundred scientific contributors and co-authors". Hmm. Annex 2, 13 names in the first column, 3 columns, 13 pages plus 1 column. The next chapter lists the reviewers. So that's about 520 contributors, NOT counting reviewers. It would be interesting to know what individual contributions were, perhaps if we take half a dozen each, we could collectively email them all and ask them politely how they contributed and what their backgrounds are?
Nope, only the Christians, you'll still have all the Muslims and everyone who thinks they're Christian but aren't. Also the Rapture will essentially prove that everything we've said all along is true and that final judgement is very imminent, and things are going to start getting VERY hairy. There's still hope though, although you get to lose your head, so it's far better to become a Christian before the rapture than after it. If we're wrong then the Rapture won't happen at all (at least, not to the Christians).
Eschatology (study of the end times) is a difficult subject and there are several different opinions on the Rapture, the Millennium, whether or not the church has to go through the Tribulation and so on, so don't read any of this too literally. What you can take out of it though, and what all eschatology students agree on, is that it's not going to be a walk in the park.
How did they determine that 2 miles of ice equals 120,000 years? This article seems free from the "haha at evolution" stuff you get on other sites about the lost squadron: http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/lost_squadron/lost_squadron.html 250 feet in 40 years suggests a "sink rate" of 6.25 feet/year. There are 10560 feet in 2 miles. 10560/6.25=1689.6 years.
Compression of the lower layers would obviously skew the results, but as far as 120,000 years?
That one's easy. It became a dog the moment a dog sperm fused with a dog ovum. A puppy isn't a different species from a dog; a puppy is a baby dog. It doesn't "become" a dog because it is a dog.
> Is something one species or two species?
That's the key question. Wiki states that "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." Note "capable of". It's not "only do so within certain social structures". A warbler becoming a different species altogether is one thing, but a ring species of warbler producing warblers that do not recognise each other as such, or "mostly don't reproduce", is simply variation within a species, not change from one species to another. I'd agree that it was a change from one subspecies to another, but variation in species, even if you invoke millions of years, is not change from one species to another.
> you pretty much start lumping all canines almost down to a single species
Out of interest, what's wrong with that? If a species is a group of organisms that CAN interbreed, classifying them further into subspecies isn't a problem. Lions and tigers, along with jaguars and leopards, are subspecies of the species Biggus Pussius. Chihuahuas and Great Danes would be subspecies of the species canine. If some of those subspecies do not reproduce for social or physical reasons, that's not evolution from one species to another.
> The point is that a population can continuously diversify, either over time or across physical distance, and that difference can quite easily accumulate to the point where populations genetically split in two.
Yes, but all the evidence we seem to have is only of change within a species, not change from one species to another. You can't extrapolate backwards over millions of years, without any other evidence, to prove a point. For example if the Moon orbit is increasing, does that mean that millions of years ago it was whizzing around a few inches off the ground? Of course not; that would be a daft conclusion. Like variations within species, extrapolation has its limits.
That's a very interesting post and article; thanks for that.
I noticed that the Wiki article only cites three examples. Three isn't really "multitudes". Do you have any references that list the others?
Also in the article it states that "However, the Lesser Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gull are sufficiently different that they do not normally interbreed". Now it would be somewhat inaccurate to state that dogs and horses "do not normally" interbreed; they cannot, and that's the end of it, and as far as I can tell you don't have to be a biology major to understand that. Why doesn't the article state "they CANNOT interbreed"? If they can, albeit in unusual situations, then they're the same species, and not a Ring Species.
The Wiki link on Ensatina is broken but I found http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm. Interestingly it tries to argue that the two subspecies, eschscholtzi and klauberi, show that Ensatina is a ring species on the basis that "near Cuyamaca State Park they APPARENTLY FAIL to interbreed", but it also states "Near Mount Palomar, these two subspecies meet in a very narrow zone and hybridize infrequently" (if you read the article you'll see I'm not misquoting). In other words, they can and do. Neither "infrequently" nor "apparently fail to" mean "never" or "cannot". Therefore Ensatina is not a ring species.
There is a difference. Macro evolution takes species A and produces species B where A and B cannot reproduce with each other. For example a horse and a dog cannot reproduce with each other, so they are different species.
Micro-evolution takes species A and produces a variation on species A, where the resulting animals can reproduce with each other to produce another of species A. For example Alsatians and Rottweilers are both dogs; they can reproduce with each other and this will result in another dog.
Of course, for micro-evolution to lead to macro-evolution, it cannot produce offspring that are infertile.
Also a theory is only a theory until there is some evidence. So the history of dogs must go something like: non-dog -> non-dog -> non-dog => dog -> dog. Where is the non-dog that became a dog? Or some other example. Any animal will do. Where is the non-horse that became a horse? Or a non-chimpanzee that became a chimpanzee? Or, as macro evolution is an ongoing process, a current known animal that has produces offspring of a different species? Just one example will do, and the litmus test is whether or not the offspring can reproduce with its parent species (actually, at least two examples must be needed otherwise obviously that new species of one animal will die off within one generation on account of not having a mate).
I don't follow you. This is a discussion about science, not sociology. What teachings about man and society do you think I'm throwing out?
Believing Jesus is God is not "the Christian cop-out" - it's the whole basis of Christian faith. If Jesus is not God then Christianity is null and void. See John 1 - the Word is clearly Jesus ("the Word became flesh and dwelt among us for a while"), who created everything ("without him nothing was made that has been made"), and Genesis 1 makes it clear (however you interpret it) that it was God that made everything. Also see Matthew 26:62-65 where the high priest asks Jesus directly if he is the Son of God, Jesus' answer is equally direct: yes, and the HP judges him guilty of blasphemy for giving that answer.
I try not to judge or classify people. I don't think my previous post suggests I do.
> And what is "wrong" with that small minority of scientific research?
Nope, you've completely lost me there. I didn't suggest any scientific research is wrong; on the contrary, I was arguing that scientific research is not incompatible with religion which seemed to be the previous poster's position.
> I don't think one can be both religious and scientific. The reason is that science tells you to believe that which the evidence shows to be true, and religions give the answers up front and then tell you not to even do the experiments.
I don't see why. Here's an example: Drop object 1, mass m1, hits the ground at time t1. Drop object 2, mass m2, hits the ground at time t2. Repeat several times, not forgetting to allow for wind resistance (for example by using exactly the same container each time with different contents). Observe t1=t2=t3... Conclusion: contrary to expectations, heavy objects don't drop faster than light objects. Further, given t_n, a value for the acceleration can be obtained (s=ut+att/2) I believe God created gravity, and there's two of the ways it works.
Could you point out exactly where this is unscientific? (There's probably a lot of scientific rigour missing since I'm not a trained scientist, but the above should at least qualify as an outline for a suitably qualified scientist to follow). If I were to perform the test in reality and give you quantified values for m_n and t_n, along with the descriptions of object_n, then anyone with an "I don't believe in God" axiom should be able to reproduce exactly the same results and come up with exactly the same conclusion. Does the different axiom make their result "scientific" and mine "unscientific", even if we both come up with exactly the same results?
> 'Do not test the Lord your God' is what we're told when we seek to investigate the existence of gods.
That's because a relationship with God is based on faith, not proof. "Do not test..." was Jesus' answer to Satan when he suggested he jump off a cliff to prove that God would prevent him coming to any harm. You will not come to know God through scientific proof, but you can easily get there through faith. This does not prevent the vast majority of scientific research.
> 'Faith is the belief in things not seen' is what the religious man tells us as he waves his hand in the manner of a jedi after experiments and analysis fail to show the Almighty.
Actually "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (KJV) or in a modern translation (NIV) "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1. This is nothing to do with the biblical view on scientific experimentation, but from a treatise on faith, which is defined in the dictionary as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Since science is all about logical proofs and material evidence, all this verse shows regarding science and religion is that they can quite easily coexist.
> Religions seek an exception to the scientific method, specifically the parts where you do any science. Experimentation is forbidden, doubt is sin, and failure to believe can result in eternal damnation.
Really? Where do you get that from? Does my thought experiment above really condemn me to hell? In some religions it might, I accept that, but it doesn't in Christianity.
> Heresy. A concept foreign to science, but present in all the world's major religions. Freedom to think as you choose, to ask questions without being burned alive at the stake, hung, tortured, stretched or beheaded is a part of science and not a part of religion.
Not at all foreign to science. "Evolution isn't proven fact" is the ultimate scientific heresy. Try investigating the falsifiability of the theory of evolution and see what happens. Dictionary(heresy): "A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science." String theory is scienfic heresy, going by that definition, although I wouldn't have thought to call it that before looking up the definition.
I don't see how mutation can be less important than selection; without mutation, there's essentially nothing to select from. But as I understand the theory of evolution - and correct me if I'm wrong here - more complex organisms evolved from less complex organisms, and that new complexity can ONLY come from the mutation part of the theory. If so, mutation is where the new variations on, and eventually completely new, species come from in the first place.
What I always find interesting about Darwin's theory of evolution is that the word "evolution" is used in a completely different sense from other, quite common, usage of the same word.
For example, there is the evolution of the motor car, which has a designer (humans), who progressively refine the design intentionally (with occasional progress caused by random events) according to their own changing requirements.
Then there is the evolution of the computer, which similarly has a designer with specific goals in mind where randomness and bolts of lightning into a soup of modems, motherboards and RAM chips generally doesn't have a beneficial effect.
Compare Darwin's evolution, which has absolutely no designer and is completely random. Given the above examples, the word "evolution" seems a poor choice to describe Darwin's theories, perhaps it should instead be called "Darwin's theory of random mutation".
I think that's a fair comment. MercExchange's patent in this case though falls into the class "obvious idea" plus "with a computer". Here's my proposal: recognise the computer as a general purpose tool that is not part of the proposed invention and ignore the "with a computer" part when validating the patent. Streamlining a jet engine is probably going to need a computer for the implementation or for some of the design details to be hammered out, but the fundamental idea won't (for example the idea might be "squirting compound X into the input stream" which will have to be controlled somehow (with a computer, for example) but it's not the control mechanism that's being patented but the idea of squirting the compound into the input). On the other hand, "buy it now" plus "with a computer", minus "with a computer", only equals "buy it now", which as others have pointed out is an obvious business idea implemented in shops up and down every country on the planet and therefore shouldn't be patentable. This would also kill Amazon's 1-click crap, Eolas's tripe and every other patent we all whinge about, without blowing your jet engine streamliners, your Dysons etc out of the water.
Don't know how it works in the US (from watching too much Simpsons I have a vague idea y'all do an annual tax return, so just include it in that. There's bound to be an "Anything else you need to tell us about?" box, and if there isn't there's nothing to stop you including a statement on a separate letter.) but here in the UK it's a piece of cake to contact the tax office and make payment one way or another. Lack of knowledge is not a defence; the tax must be paid and can be paid quite easily; it's only not paid by people who want specifically to evade paying it.
Also you don't have to prove innocence here in the UK. The prosecution have to prove you guilty, and if you can produce reasonable paperwork to support your claim that you have paid all tax due there is no problem. I'm sure a defence like "I'm not guilty, here's the mileage on my car and receipts going back %d days that show the amount of petrol and oil I've purchased and the amount of tax paid, and my car does $d MPG, so a small amount of maths shows there is no obvious hole" would work just fine.
You're misreporting the facts. They were not fined simply for using greasecars. They were fined for tax evasion. For an accurate report on what really happened and why, try the BBC article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2312521.stm
"They have been threatened with sentences of up to seven years in prison if they continue."
This is misleading. That sentence is for tax evasion, and it's the same sentence regardless of tax avoided, whether that's income tax, corporation tax, inheritance tax, VAT, fuel tax and so on. It's not illegal in the UK to use cooking oil as fuel, it's illegal (as it is in the US and anywhere else that has compulsory fuel tax) to avoid paying taxes on fuel, just as it's illegal to avoid paying other forms of tax.
"Has the United Kingdom sold its soul to these devils?"
No, the British government has not "sold its soul to these devils", it is protecting its own tax revenue. If it were to permit use of cooking oil that had not been taxed as fuel it would lose a significant amount of tax revenue as more and more people would switch.
"They are supporting despotic regimes and terrorists."
On the contrary. All fuel is taxed regardless of whether it comes from "terrorists", the North Sea, Canada, Mexico or wherever.
"They ought to be encouraging and assisting the pioneers of [alternative fuel] industry"
On that point I agree with you. They don't do enough to encourage alternatives to fossil fuel. Fuel duty relief for cooking oil stands at just 20p per litre, which is mostly swallowed up by the difference between the production cost of petrol (21.7p in the BBC article) and the sale cost of cooking oil (35p).
Whatever you do, don't sign up to sys-con.com's mailing lists unless you know for absolutely 100% positively certain that you want to be pestered about Ajax conferences for the rest of your life. They WILL NOT remove you from their mailing lists. TBH I've no idea how I actually got on their lists in the first place.
No, loser pays is not an awful system. It would be if the loser paid whatever number the winner thinks up. But that isn't the case; the loser pays a suitable amount, determined by the court, that constitutes a penalty for not having a (provable) case.
That makes "loser pays" a winning system, and a far more just system than America has, which is basically "whoever has the deepest pockets wins the case", unless it's something blindingly obvious like "famous footballer murders his wife"...oh, hang on, no, "monopoly company abuses their position", no, that doesn't work either...hmm...
Because what the loser pays is determined by the court, not the winner, it does mean that the winner has to keep a lid on costs. They can't go hiring a £10,000,000,000 per second lawyer because there's no guarantee that if they win they'd get all that back. So the winner can still lose out financially, and that fact is the winner's motivation to settle out of court. Look into it, properly I mean, rather than jumping to (inevitably wrong) conclusions, and you'll find there are reasons why countries with "loser pays" don't drop it in favour of something like the American joke-stice system.
> What is an "Alpha course"? you are spitting out incomprehensible nonsense.
I tried Googling "alpha course" and it was the number 1 hit. Now you understand what that is, is my statement still incomprehensible nonsense? (I'm not asking you if you agree with it or not, but it seems pretty clear to me and I'm wondering exactly which parts of my comment you find incomprehensible.)
> If you imply that God created us without having a need to do so, then you are claiming that God is simply playing with us.
Now who's spouting incomprehensible nonsense? (although to be fair it's more illogical than incomprehensible) If you do something for someone you love, if it isn't driven by need, is that just "playing with them"? If you buy your girlfriend flowers, and it isn't Feb.14 or her birthday, is that "just playing with her"?
> This proves the anthropocentric nature of religion, and of course by definition its fraud.
Christianity is anthopocentric because it claims that Man is God's greatest creation. That doesn't automatically prove it fraudulent; you need some intermediate steps. Why does anthropocentrism prove something fraudulent, and does it prove everything that is anthropocentric fraudulent (for example law, which by nature is completely about what people should and shouldn't do and is therefore anthropocentric. So is all law fraud too?), and if so how exactly?
> Actually, all your responses are "I don't know, but God works in mysterious ways".
No they're not.
> Is there a believer that care to respond with a rational argument?
Is there an unbeliever that cares to respond with a rational argument?
Took less than 10 seconds to think most of these up. Took longer to type most of them.
1. I'm not aware this is biblical; iirc it's something the American ID crowd came up with. It's not an argument I agree with, because God is not God of the gaps (in our knowledge), he's God of everything whether we understand it or not. If he's only God of the gaps then he isn't God.
2. Yes, he gave us free will, which is the ability to do his will or to choose otherwise. Evil is choosing otherwise, for example most people consider murder evil, and God said "You shall not commit murder".
3. You seem to miss a step out. God might know what decision you're going to make, but how does that mean you didn't choose that decision?
4. Does that mean God isn't allowed to create stuff he wants to create, even if he doesn't actually need to create it?
5. No idea, but perhaps: Sinful humans can't see God and live, so if God wasn't separated from us (in a sense) then we'd all be dead.
6. Why? What term do you feel would be sufficient?
7. Don't know how this worked, I wasn't there.
8. Exceeded my 10 seconds on this one.
9. Probably take more than 10 seconds to answer this one too. The Alpha course is a good one if you're really interested in finding out why Christians believe we're right. If Jesus really is what the bible says he is, then we are, and there seems to be plenty of corroborating evidence that he is, much of which is covered in Alpha week 1.
10. I don't see why this proves the bible is a man made story. But you have a good point, and I'll have to quote Job and say "Won't the creator of the whole world do what is right?"
11. Also can't see why this proves the bible is a man made story. They don't _all_ pick on humans all day long. Those that do, yes, they have nothing better to do. From the Christian POV, Satan prowls around like a hungry lion, looking for people to devour. Demons work for Satan, collectively they're seeking to overthrow God, and if you want to hack someone off a good way to do that is to pick on stuff that someone values. God values us, therefore Satan wants to make our lives as miserable as possible. Sorry, probably exceeded my 10 seconds on that one.
Do go on, but please leave out the non-sequiturs. 10 amounts to "I don't understand something therefore God doesn't exist" which is hardly a rational argument.
But I find myself insanely annoyed (border-line angry) at one thing she does. If she's driving towards you in the opposite direction and "thinks" you're speeding she will pull into the middle of the road with her SUV to get you to stop or slowdown. Easy answer: fit your car with a camcorder and film it happening. Then get her prosecuted for dangerous driving. You're quite right to be angry about that; even if you're breaking the law that is no justification for her deliberately driving dangerously. Particularly if you can prove you were driving within the speed limit at the time. Make sure the local press know about it too, that should force the law's hand.
...are MAILER_DAEMONs and their friends who are so stupid they bounce instead of reject likely to be intelligent enough to check an SPF record before sending a bounce message to someone who obviously didn't send it?
I too get loads of spam bounces sent to non-existent addresses "from" (random string)@(my domain), not to mention "please validate your message" challenges and autoreplies; my approach is one enormous blacklist that just autodeletes any messages from postmaster, mailer_daemon etc that aren't to my sending address, which works until some stupid postmaster decides to call himself Mail Delivery System or Mail Delivery Subsystem and so on, plus non-English versions, and the numer of variants on "undelivered mail" is equally astonishing - that, Mail delivery failed, delivery status notification, returned mail, delivery failure, mail system error, undeliverable, cannot be delivered, foreign variants...
Slashdot Mirror
I read this on the Register yesterday. The /. headline is wrong. The court *didn't* find the company liable for software defects, they found them liable for misselling the product; the customer relied on the claims made by the company and those claims were wrong. The software was not capable of doing the job the customer needed, but the company claimed that it was.
Why aren't we allowed to see absolute temperature plots?
Why are all the available graphs of temperature "anomalies"?
What's so great about 1961-1990 that all other temperatures should be compared to that?
Why aren't the anomalies across 1961-1990 zero?
Is someone afraid that if we see absolute temperature plots we will draw the "wrong" conclusions, i.e. anything other than what the IPCC continues to be paid billions to spout?
(unless there's something more formal in NZ law about accusation; maybe you can't formally accuse without evidence or something, in which case this is a lot less of a problem than the article makes out. IANANZL(IFINEAUKL).)
Just accuse back. Then your accuser will also be disconnected, and it'll be considerably worse for them as a company than for you as an individual.
When you are asked for proof you've got them, because if proof is needed before your accusers can be disconnected then you have ample grounds for demanding equal treatment, i.e. proof against you before your disconnection can take place.
> uses phrases like "very high confidence" and "very likely".
No it doesn't. It states definitely and unambiguously (at least in the summary): "...have increased markedly...".
So the summary is at best misleading, if the rest of the report uses phrases like that.
It's a very interesting report. I'm not saying that from having read it in full, but I looked at the Summary For Policy Makers, specifically "Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750" (because that's all that any policy maker who trusts the IPCC will do), and the References; disregarding all IPCC references as this paper is presented as new information not a rehash of old, of which the only fact-based source (as opposed to other IPCC docs and administrative stuff like glossaries and unit definitions) is Heim, R.R., 2002: A Review of Twentieth-Century Drought Indices Used in the United States.
So there's no data covering 60% of the Summary time period mentioned (i.e. no data for 1750-1900), and the only data is about US-only droughts from 1900 to 2000. Actually on second thoughts that's not necessarily data, just a review of the drought indices (whatever they are), which might mean it doesn't talk about drought data at all.
Even taking into account the IPCC references I couldn't find any actual facts.
So from potentially no facts at all, they conclude that carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750? How does that work then? If there are actual facts, why aren't they listed in the References, and why didn't any of about 594 reviewers (18 names in the first column, 3 columns, 11 pages) spot this? It's true that I'm not a trained scientist (mine was an engineering degree) so maybe there's something lacking in my reviewing technique, maybe scientific docs don't list references in the References section or something.
Perhaps I should have read the whole thing. But if someone asks you if their C code is standards compliant, and presents you with 100,000,000 lines of code that start with "void main", then you already know after only 9 bytes that the answer is "no".
There's a very interesting documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle. If you're interested, grab the torrent and have a look. The most memorable comment in this for me was "1. the simplicity of the [anthropogenic warming] argument and 2. the complete disregard of all climate science up to that point".
"Several hundred scientific contributors and co-authors". Hmm. Annex 2, 13 names in the first column, 3 columns, 13 pages plus 1 column. The next chapter lists the reviewers. So that's about 520 contributors, NOT counting reviewers. It would be interesting to know what individual contributions were, perhaps if we take half a dozen each, we could collectively email them all and ask them politely how they contributed and what their backgrounds are?
> all the religious zealots will be gone
Nope, only the Christians, you'll still have all the Muslims and everyone who thinks they're Christian but aren't.
Also the Rapture will essentially prove that everything we've said all along is true and that final judgement is very imminent, and things are going to start getting VERY hairy. There's still hope though, although you get to lose your head, so it's far better to become a Christian before the rapture than after it.
If we're wrong then the Rapture won't happen at all (at least, not to the Christians).
Read all about it in Revelation, starting at Chapter 6. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=6&version=31
Either it's what you can expect, or it's what us poor sad deluded fools believe, so either way it's got to be worth a look.
Eschatology (study of the end times) is a difficult subject and there are several different opinions on the Rapture, the Millennium, whether or not the church has to go through the Tribulation and so on, so don't read any of this too literally. What you can take out of it though, and what all eschatology students agree on, is that it's not going to be a walk in the park.
Shouldn't the Billborg icon be replaced now? Say with a Ballmerborg, or maybe a Ballmerchair. Or even a chairborg.
How did they determine that 2 miles of ice equals 120,000 years?
This article seems free from the "haha at evolution" stuff you get on other sites about the lost squadron: http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/lost_squadron/lost_squadron.html
250 feet in 40 years suggests a "sink rate" of 6.25 feet/year.
There are 10560 feet in 2 miles.
10560/6.25=1689.6 years.
Compression of the lower layers would obviously skew the results, but as far as 120,000 years?
> What day does a puppy become a dog?
That one's easy. It became a dog the moment a dog sperm fused with a dog ovum. A puppy isn't a different species from a dog; a puppy is a baby dog. It doesn't "become" a dog because it is a dog.
> Is something one species or two species?
That's the key question. Wiki states that "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." Note "capable of". It's not "only do so within certain social structures". A warbler becoming a different species altogether is one thing, but a ring species of warbler producing warblers that do not recognise each other as such, or "mostly don't reproduce", is simply variation within a species, not change from one species to another. I'd agree that it was a change from one subspecies to another, but variation in species, even if you invoke millions of years, is not change from one species to another.
> you pretty much start lumping all canines almost down to a single species
Out of interest, what's wrong with that? If a species is a group of organisms that CAN interbreed, classifying them further into subspecies isn't a problem. Lions and tigers, along with jaguars and leopards, are subspecies of the species Biggus Pussius. Chihuahuas and Great Danes would be subspecies of the species canine. If some of those subspecies do not reproduce for social or physical reasons, that's not evolution from one species to another.
> The point is that a population can continuously diversify, either over time or across physical distance, and that difference can quite easily accumulate to the point where populations genetically split in two.
Yes, but all the evidence we seem to have is only of change within a species, not change from one species to another. You can't extrapolate backwards over millions of years, without any other evidence, to prove a point. For example if the Moon orbit is increasing, does that mean that millions of years ago it was whizzing around a few inches off the ground? Of course not; that would be a daft conclusion. Like variations within species, extrapolation has its limits.
That's a very interesting post and article; thanks for that.
I noticed that the Wiki article only cites three examples. Three isn't really "multitudes". Do you have any references that list the others?
Also in the article it states that "However, the Lesser Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gull are sufficiently different that they do not normally interbreed". Now it would be somewhat inaccurate to state that dogs and horses "do not normally" interbreed; they cannot, and that's the end of it, and as far as I can tell you don't have to be a biology major to understand that. Why doesn't the article state "they CANNOT interbreed"? If they can, albeit in unusual situations, then they're the same species, and not a Ring Species.
The Wiki link on Ensatina is broken but I found http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm. Interestingly it tries to argue that the two subspecies, eschscholtzi and klauberi, show that Ensatina is a ring species on the basis that "near Cuyamaca State Park they APPARENTLY FAIL to interbreed", but it also states "Near Mount Palomar, these two subspecies meet in a very narrow zone and hybridize infrequently" (if you read the article you'll see I'm not misquoting). In other words, they can and do. Neither "infrequently" nor "apparently fail to" mean "never" or "cannot". Therefore Ensatina is not a ring species.
There is a difference. Macro evolution takes species A and produces species B where A and B cannot reproduce with each other. For example a horse and a dog cannot reproduce with each other, so they are different species.
Micro-evolution takes species A and produces a variation on species A, where the resulting animals can reproduce with each other to produce another of species A. For example Alsatians and Rottweilers are both dogs; they can reproduce with each other and this will result in another dog.
Of course, for micro-evolution to lead to macro-evolution, it cannot produce offspring that are infertile.
Also a theory is only a theory until there is some evidence. So the history of dogs must go something like: non-dog -> non-dog -> non-dog => dog -> dog. Where is the non-dog that became a dog? Or some other example. Any animal will do. Where is the non-horse that became a horse? Or a non-chimpanzee that became a chimpanzee? Or, as macro evolution is an ongoing process, a current known animal that has produces offspring of a different species? Just one example will do, and the litmus test is whether or not the offspring can reproduce with its parent species (actually, at least two examples must be needed otherwise obviously that new species of one animal will die off within one generation on account of not having a mate).
I don't follow you. This is a discussion about science, not sociology. What teachings about man and society do you think I'm throwing out?
Believing Jesus is God is not "the Christian cop-out" - it's the whole basis of Christian faith. If Jesus is not God then Christianity is null and void. See John 1 - the Word is clearly Jesus ("the Word became flesh and dwelt among us for a while"), who created everything ("without him nothing was made that has been made"), and Genesis 1 makes it clear (however you interpret it) that it was God that made everything. Also see Matthew 26:62-65 where the high priest asks Jesus directly if he is the Son of God, Jesus' answer is equally direct: yes, and the HP judges him guilty of blasphemy for giving that answer.
I try not to judge or classify people. I don't think my previous post suggests I do.
> And what is "wrong" with that small minority of scientific research?
Nope, you've completely lost me there. I didn't suggest any scientific research is wrong; on the contrary, I was arguing that scientific research is not incompatible with religion which seemed to be the previous poster's position.
> I don't think one can be both religious and scientific. The reason is that science tells you to believe that which the evidence shows to be true, and religions give the answers up front and then tell you not to even do the experiments.
I don't see why. Here's an example:
Drop object 1, mass m1, hits the ground at time t1.
Drop object 2, mass m2, hits the ground at time t2.
Repeat several times, not forgetting to allow for wind resistance (for example by using exactly the same container each time with different contents).
Observe t1=t2=t3...
Conclusion: contrary to expectations, heavy objects don't drop faster than light objects. Further, given t_n, a value for the acceleration can be obtained (s=ut+att/2)
I believe God created gravity, and there's two of the ways it works.
Could you point out exactly where this is unscientific? (There's probably a lot of scientific rigour missing since I'm not a trained scientist, but the above should at least qualify as an outline for a suitably qualified scientist to follow). If I were to perform the test in reality and give you quantified values for m_n and t_n, along with the descriptions of object_n, then anyone with an "I don't believe in God" axiom should be able to reproduce exactly the same results and come up with exactly the same conclusion. Does the different axiom make their result "scientific" and mine "unscientific", even if we both come up with exactly the same results?
> 'Do not test the Lord your God' is what we're told when we seek to investigate the existence of gods.
That's because a relationship with God is based on faith, not proof. "Do not test..." was Jesus' answer to Satan when he suggested he jump off a cliff to prove that God would prevent him coming to any harm. You will not come to know God through scientific proof, but you can easily get there through faith. This does not prevent the vast majority of scientific research.
> 'Faith is the belief in things not seen' is what the religious man tells us as he waves his hand in the manner of a jedi after experiments and analysis fail to show the Almighty.
Actually "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (KJV) or in a modern translation (NIV) "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1. This is nothing to do with the biblical view on scientific experimentation, but from a treatise on faith, which is defined in the dictionary as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Since science is all about logical proofs and material evidence, all this verse shows regarding science and religion is that they can quite easily coexist.
> Religions seek an exception to the scientific method, specifically the parts where you do any science. Experimentation is forbidden, doubt is sin, and failure to believe can result in eternal damnation.
Really? Where do you get that from? Does my thought experiment above really condemn me to hell? In some religions it might, I accept that, but it doesn't in Christianity.
> Heresy. A concept foreign to science, but present in all the world's major religions. Freedom to think as you choose, to ask questions without being burned alive at the stake, hung, tortured, stretched or beheaded is a part of science and not a part of religion.
Not at all foreign to science. "Evolution isn't proven fact" is the ultimate scientific heresy. Try investigating the falsifiability of the theory of evolution and see what happens. Dictionary(heresy): "A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science." String theory is scienfic heresy, going by that definition, although I wouldn't have thought to call it that before looking up the definition.
I don't see how mutation can be less important than selection; without mutation, there's essentially nothing to select from. But as I understand the theory of evolution - and correct me if I'm wrong here - more complex organisms evolved from less complex organisms, and that new complexity can ONLY come from the mutation part of the theory. If so, mutation is where the new variations on, and eventually completely new, species come from in the first place.
What I always find interesting about Darwin's theory of evolution is that the word "evolution" is used in a completely different sense from other, quite common, usage of the same word.
For example, there is the evolution of the motor car, which has a designer (humans), who progressively refine the design intentionally (with occasional progress caused by random events) according to their own changing requirements.
Then there is the evolution of the computer, which similarly has a designer with specific goals in mind where randomness and bolts of lightning into a soup of modems, motherboards and RAM chips generally doesn't have a beneficial effect.
Compare Darwin's evolution, which has absolutely no designer and is completely random. Given the above examples, the word "evolution" seems a poor choice to describe Darwin's theories, perhaps it should instead be called "Darwin's theory of random mutation".
Or crookedspire for that matter http://www.chesterfieldparishchurch.org.uk/spire.php
I think that's a fair comment. MercExchange's patent in this case though falls into the class "obvious idea" plus "with a computer". Here's my proposal: recognise the computer as a general purpose tool that is not part of the proposed invention and ignore the "with a computer" part when validating the patent. Streamlining a jet engine is probably going to need a computer for the implementation or for some of the design details to be hammered out, but the fundamental idea won't (for example the idea might be "squirting compound X into the input stream" which will have to be controlled somehow (with a computer, for example) but it's not the control mechanism that's being patented but the idea of squirting the compound into the input). On the other hand, "buy it now" plus "with a computer", minus "with a computer", only equals "buy it now", which as others have pointed out is an obvious business idea implemented in shops up and down every country on the planet and therefore shouldn't be patentable. This would also kill Amazon's 1-click crap, Eolas's tripe and every other patent we all whinge about, without blowing your jet engine streamliners, your Dysons etc out of the water.
Don't know how it works in the US (from watching too much Simpsons I have a vague idea y'all do an annual tax return, so just include it in that. There's bound to be an "Anything else you need to tell us about?" box, and if there isn't there's nothing to stop you including a statement on a separate letter.) but here in the UK it's a piece of cake to contact the tax office and make payment one way or another. Lack of knowledge is not a defence; the tax must be paid and can be paid quite easily; it's only not paid by people who want specifically to evade paying it.
Also you don't have to prove innocence here in the UK. The prosecution have to prove you guilty, and if you can produce reasonable paperwork to support your claim that you have paid all tax due there is no problem. I'm sure a defence like "I'm not guilty, here's the mileage on my car and receipts going back %d days that show the amount of petrol and oil I've purchased and the amount of tax paid, and my car does $d MPG, so a small amount of maths shows there is no obvious hole" would work just fine.
You're misreporting the facts. They were not fined simply for using greasecars. They were fined for tax evasion. For an accurate report on what really happened and why, try the BBC article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2312521.stm
"They have been threatened with sentences of up to seven years in prison if they continue."
This is misleading. That sentence is for tax evasion, and it's the same sentence regardless of tax avoided, whether that's income tax, corporation tax, inheritance tax, VAT, fuel tax and so on. It's not illegal in the UK to use cooking oil as fuel, it's illegal (as it is in the US and anywhere else that has compulsory fuel tax) to avoid paying taxes on fuel, just as it's illegal to avoid paying other forms of tax.
"Has the United Kingdom sold its soul to these devils?"
No, the British government has not "sold its soul to these devils", it is protecting its own tax revenue. If it were to permit use of cooking oil that had not been taxed as fuel it would lose a significant amount of tax revenue as more and more people would switch.
"They are supporting despotic regimes and terrorists."
On the contrary. All fuel is taxed regardless of whether it comes from "terrorists", the North Sea, Canada, Mexico or wherever.
"They ought to be encouraging and assisting the pioneers of [alternative fuel] industry"
On that point I agree with you. They don't do enough to encourage alternatives to fossil fuel. Fuel duty relief for cooking oil stands at just 20p per litre, which is mostly swallowed up by the difference between the production cost of petrol (21.7p in the BBC article) and the sale cost of cooking oil (35p).
My guess would be chal from challenge, cog from cogitate, gen from generic, ide from chloride, with the stress on the cog.
Whatever you do, don't sign up to sys-con.com's mailing lists unless you know for absolutely 100% positively certain that you want to be pestered about Ajax conferences for the rest of your life. They WILL NOT remove you from their mailing lists. TBH I've no idea how I actually got on their lists in the first place.
No, loser pays is not an awful system. It would be if the loser paid whatever number the winner thinks up. But that isn't the case; the loser pays a suitable amount, determined by the court, that constitutes a penalty for not having a (provable) case.
That makes "loser pays" a winning system, and a far more just system than America has, which is basically "whoever has the deepest pockets wins the case", unless it's something blindingly obvious like "famous footballer murders his wife"...oh, hang on, no, "monopoly company abuses their position", no, that doesn't work either...hmm...
Because what the loser pays is determined by the court, not the winner, it does mean that the winner has to keep a lid on costs. They can't go hiring a £10,000,000,000 per second lawyer because there's no guarantee that if they win they'd get all that back. So the winner can still lose out financially, and that fact is the winner's motivation to settle out of court. Look into it, properly I mean, rather than jumping to (inevitably wrong) conclusions, and you'll find there are reasons why countries with "loser pays" don't drop it in favour of something like the American joke-stice system.
> What is an "Alpha course"? you are spitting out incomprehensible nonsense.
I tried Googling "alpha course" and it was the number 1 hit. Now you understand what that is, is my statement still incomprehensible nonsense? (I'm not asking you if you agree with it or not, but it seems pretty clear to me and I'm wondering exactly which parts of my comment you find incomprehensible.)
> If you imply that God created us without having a need to do so, then you are claiming that God is simply playing with us.
Now who's spouting incomprehensible nonsense? (although to be fair it's more illogical than incomprehensible) If you do something for someone you love, if it isn't driven by need, is that just "playing with them"? If you buy your girlfriend flowers, and it isn't Feb.14 or her birthday, is that "just playing with her"?
> This proves the anthropocentric nature of religion, and of course by definition its fraud.
Christianity is anthopocentric because it claims that Man is God's greatest creation. That doesn't automatically prove it fraudulent; you need some intermediate steps. Why does anthropocentrism prove something fraudulent, and does it prove everything that is anthropocentric fraudulent (for example law, which by nature is completely about what people should and shouldn't do and is therefore anthropocentric. So is all law fraud too?), and if so how exactly?
> Actually, all your responses are "I don't know, but God works in mysterious ways".
No they're not.
> Is there a believer that care to respond with a rational argument?
Is there an unbeliever that cares to respond with a rational argument?
Took less than 10 seconds to think most of these up. Took longer to type most of them.
1. I'm not aware this is biblical; iirc it's something the American ID crowd came up with. It's not an argument I agree with, because God is not God of the gaps (in our knowledge), he's God of everything whether we understand it or not. If he's only God of the gaps then he isn't God.
2. Yes, he gave us free will, which is the ability to do his will or to choose otherwise. Evil is choosing otherwise, for example most people consider murder evil, and God said "You shall not commit murder".
3. You seem to miss a step out. God might know what decision you're going to make, but how does that mean you didn't choose that decision?
4. Does that mean God isn't allowed to create stuff he wants to create, even if he doesn't actually need to create it?
5. No idea, but perhaps: Sinful humans can't see God and live, so if God wasn't separated from us (in a sense) then we'd all be dead.
6. Why? What term do you feel would be sufficient?
7. Don't know how this worked, I wasn't there.
8. Exceeded my 10 seconds on this one.
9. Probably take more than 10 seconds to answer this one too. The Alpha course is a good one if you're really interested in finding out why Christians believe we're right. If Jesus really is what the bible says he is, then we are, and there seems to be plenty of corroborating evidence that he is, much of which is covered in Alpha week 1.
10. I don't see why this proves the bible is a man made story. But you have a good point, and I'll have to quote Job and say "Won't the creator of the whole world do what is right?"
11. Also can't see why this proves the bible is a man made story. They don't _all_ pick on humans all day long. Those that do, yes, they have nothing better to do. From the Christian POV, Satan prowls around like a hungry lion, looking for people to devour. Demons work for Satan, collectively they're seeking to overthrow God, and if you want to hack someone off a good way to do that is to pick on stuff that someone values. God values us, therefore Satan wants to make our lives as miserable as possible. Sorry, probably exceeded my 10 seconds on that one.
Do go on, but please leave out the non-sequiturs. 10 amounts to "I don't understand something therefore God doesn't exist" which is hardly a rational argument.
...are MAILER_DAEMONs and their friends who are so stupid they bounce instead of reject likely to be intelligent enough to check an SPF record before sending a bounce message to someone who obviously didn't send it?
I too get loads of spam bounces sent to non-existent addresses "from" (random string)@(my domain), not to mention "please validate your message" challenges and autoreplies; my approach is one enormous blacklist that just autodeletes any messages from postmaster, mailer_daemon etc that aren't to my sending address, which works until some stupid postmaster decides to call himself Mail Delivery System or Mail Delivery Subsystem and so on, plus non-English versions, and the numer of variants on "undelivered mail" is equally astonishing - that, Mail delivery failed, delivery status notification, returned mail, delivery failure, mail system error, undeliverable, cannot be delivered, foreign variants...