Evolutionary theory clearly has mechanisms to deal with these flaws, "evolution is in progress" is not nearly as compelling as "these flaws balance out greater related benefits" (small birth canals and knee angles are directly related to our gargantuan crania and the way we evolved our hips for walking prior). Meanwhile, Intelligent Design requires all species are perfect (or at least the ones conceived in the perfect creator's image).
...the Raptors built that crude suspension bridge to Venezuela, planning to lie low and assume odd-jobs under the name "Mr Pilkington?" Or was that something else.
...we have lots of obvious design flaws. The useless appendix, birth canals that struggle to accomodate our ridiculously oversized crania, eyes that can only see three colors with no ultraviolet or infrared or ability to detect polarization of light like some other creatures, we're crappy runners and swimmers. We'd be great walkers, except that we have oddly angled knees that makes them destined to deteriorate. Despite all these obstacles to other means of travel, we get no flight. Perhaps most importantly, no friggin' laser beams.
What's the probability of a perfect God making such a ungainly creature in his image? Absolutely zero, Pangloss.
Maybe it's time we founded the Unintelligent Design movement.
Clearly, the BBC has tons of stories from China that aren't about censorship. For example, this story is not about Chinese censorship, it's about Microsoft's censorship, coincidentally in China. This story about political coersion doesn't even mention censorship. Frankly, with this range of topics, I don't see why these poor people, who are typically subject to such intolerable censorship, have anything to complain about.
Copyright creates one such monopoly. Since marginal cost is nil, marginal revenue alone controls pricing; as opposed to the efficient pricing based on the intersection supply and demand.
This basically means that the prices will be whatever rich kids with the most disposable income will pay, and the rest of us can go to hell.
Since D.I.Y. production is ever more feasible, and the joy of creating music negates any costs to making music, it's obvious that the efficient, market clearing price for music is free.
As referenced:
On Boing Boing!,
mentioning the 700 hobo names, which were recorded with geek-folk-copyleft-rocker Jonathan Coulton, as can be heard here,
or seen illustrated by a number of independent artists via Flickr,
and as was also mentioned with great humor on November 16th's Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
We're all still wondering where the extra energy comes from. The Engadget article helps:
"[The system] uses current fed from the car's battery to generate the hydrogen and oxygen from a distilled water and chemical mixture."
Ah ha! So the battery generates the hydrogen and oxygen, which are used to create energy, thereby saving some extra gas, gas which you can then use to recharge your battery.
Any program that looks at content to discover hit-ness is destined for failure. For example: Is disco a hit? Is third wave ska? (No offense to the Bee Gees or Reel Big Fish, but the answer requires deontic f'ing modal logic.)
You know who knows? Tower of Power:
"As you're striving to find the right road,
There's one thing that you should know:
What's hip today might become passe'.
What is hip? Tell me, tell me, if you think you know.
What is hip? And if you're really hip, the passing years will show
That you're into a hip trip, maybe hipper than hip.
WHAT IS HIP?"
--
So... do I get modded up for referencing metaphysics and funk in the same post?
...that hits have anything to do with their content? People are simple: they like music when it's force fed to them all the time. Buy off enough radio stations, tv commercial producers and malls, and BAM! It's a miracle, you've got a hit!
Besides, isn't this Slashdot? I thought we abandoned the idea that the record industry is actually relying on quality content to make money back during the lawsuits, or the collusive price gougings, or during the suck that was music around the turn of the millenium, (or maybe when we first started stealing from them, it's hard to say).
First off, we don't see in 3-D, we see in 2*2-D. We've had 3-D art for years, it's called "sculpture." The only difference between so-called "3-D" and traditional 2-D is parallax, and there are other ways to simulate depth from a static perspective, many of which are far more meaningful.
We simulate depth through motion, shading, relative sizes, overlapping and a slough of other visual clues that are easily captured on a 2-D screen.
Ask yourself, have you recently confused the foreground for the background in a film or a painting?
JP II discussed this in an encyclical 1996, where he said that if science and religion disagree, it's useful to remember that truth cannot contradict truth. (Implying that if science and religion disagree, and you've checked your scientific facts, maybe you don't actually understand your religion.)
I also like this quote: "In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact." I.e., a good theologian is first a good scientist.
JP II emphasises that the interplay between science and religion was heavily discussed by theologians in the 16-18th centuries; his stance is not exactly terra nova. So this story is really only about 300 years old, or: slightly fresher than the SCO lawsuits.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolutionary theory clearly has mechanisms to deal with these flaws, "evolution is in progress" is not nearly as compelling as "these flaws balance out greater related benefits" (small birth canals and knee angles are directly related to our gargantuan crania and the way we evolved our hips for walking prior). Meanwhile, Intelligent Design requires all species are perfect (or at least the ones conceived in the perfect creator's image).
Therefore,
ID is testable (and demonstrably false).
...the Raptors built that crude suspension bridge to Venezuela, planning to lie low and assume odd-jobs under the name "Mr Pilkington?" Or was that something else.
...we have lots of obvious design flaws. The useless appendix, birth canals that struggle to accomodate our ridiculously oversized crania, eyes that can only see three colors with no ultraviolet or infrared or ability to detect polarization of light like some other creatures, we're crappy runners and swimmers. We'd be great walkers, except that we have oddly angled knees that makes them destined to deteriorate. Despite all these obstacles to other means of travel, we get no flight. Perhaps most importantly, no friggin' laser beams.
What's the probability of a perfect God making such a ungainly creature in his image? Absolutely zero, Pangloss.
Maybe it's time we founded the Unintelligent Design movement.
Once again, the Index to Creationist Claims is the greatest resource on the internet for this discussion.
I put in Kimya Dawson, Hank Williams, Public Enemy, Blue Oyster Cult, and then my machine crashed.
Makes sense.
I always dug Audioscrobbler for social recommendations, I guess it's operating as Last.fm now.
...as a blog post, the article is worthless. As a blog comment, your thoughts are worthwhile.
Clearly, the BBC has tons of stories from China that aren't about censorship. For example, this story is not about Chinese censorship, it's about Microsoft's censorship, coincidentally in China. This story about political coersion doesn't even mention censorship. Frankly, with this range of topics, I don't see why these poor people, who are typically subject to such intolerable censorship, have anything to complain about.
To clarify:
In 1984, Winston Smith isn't "secure" at all, he's terrorized by the omnipotent state.
So Orwell's basically saying, "It sucks when you trade freedom for nothing."
Um, duh.
Brave New World is more intellectually honest, because they the citizens actually get something out of the deal.
...it starts flipping out and killing people?
Clearly, the future will be based on whuffie.
...showing us how much it'd suck to trade our freedom for security, then end up with neither.
I thought Brave New World was marginally more intellectually honest.
But on the whole, I'd have to agree with Propagandhi:
"I'd rather be imprisoned
In a George-Orwellian world,
Than this pacified society
Of happy boyz and gurlz.
I'd rather know my enemies
And let you know the same.
Whose windows to smash
And whose tires to slash
And where to point the fucking blame."
Or maybe I'm just shilling for the police state.
360 A.D. is the year they expected to be released.
...when dealing with monopolies.
Copyright creates one such monopoly. Since marginal cost is nil, marginal revenue alone controls pricing; as opposed to the efficient pricing based on the intersection supply and demand. This basically means that the prices will be whatever rich kids with the most disposable income will pay, and the rest of us can go to hell.
Since D.I.Y. production is ever more feasible, and the joy of creating music negates any costs to making music, it's obvious that the efficient, market clearing price for music is free.
Referencing WoW, that's one thing, it's been popping up in NPR stories and on freakin' Marketplace.
But referencing Leroy Jenkins, an obscure reference to a spoof clip by a machinima clan?
What's next, mainstream references to the Fruit Fucker?
As referenced: On Boing Boing!,
mentioning the 700 hobo names,
which were recorded with geek-folk-copyleft-rocker Jonathan Coulton,
as can be heard here,
or seen illustrated by a number of independent artists via Flickr,
and as was also mentioned with great humor on November 16th's Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
2 Ub3r1337 c14n5,
5kr1mm3d de_v3r0n4, 4
pvp s3rv3r,
n 4 h34t3d m47ch,
1499y 10v3r5 1057 7h31r 1iv35,
Fuxx1n9 t3h \/\/h00013 g4m3.
7w3r3 g3y 10v3r5, cuz
s1mul74n30u5 h34d5h075
l1k3 h4pp3n n3v3r5.
n d00d, if ur c0nfuxx0r3d, d0n7 f331 g3y,
g0 b4ck 4nd 5cr011 ^^^ 50m3, RTFA!
We're all still wondering where the extra energy comes from. The Engadget article helps:
"[The system] uses current fed from the car's battery to generate the hydrogen and oxygen from a distilled water and chemical mixture."
Ah ha! So the battery generates the hydrogen and oxygen, which are used to create energy, thereby saving some extra gas, gas which you can then use to recharge your battery.
To quote the Guinness gentlemen:
BRILLIANT!
That's why Americans prefer theatre to film.
Any program that looks at content to discover hit-ness is destined for failure. For example: Is disco a hit? Is third wave ska? (No offense to the Bee Gees or Reel Big Fish, but the answer requires deontic f'ing modal logic.) You know who knows? Tower of Power:
"As you're striving to find the right road,
There's one thing that you should know:
What's hip today might become passe'.
What is hip? Tell me, tell me, if you think you know.
What is hip? And if you're really hip, the passing years will show
That you're into a hip trip, maybe hipper than hip.
WHAT IS HIP?"
--
So... do I get modded up for referencing metaphysics and funk in the same post?
...that hits have anything to do with their content? People are simple: they like music when it's force fed to them all the time. Buy off enough radio stations, tv commercial producers and malls, and BAM! It's a miracle, you've got a hit!
Besides, isn't this Slashdot? I thought we abandoned the idea that the record industry is actually relying on quality content to make money back during the lawsuits, or the collusive price gougings, or during the suck that was music around the turn of the millenium, (or maybe when we first started stealing from them, it's hard to say).
Confessions of a Record Producer probably demands a plug.
I be monocular, you insensitive clod.
Arrr.
...in heroine attire.
First off, we don't see in 3-D, we see in 2*2-D. We've had 3-D art for years, it's called "sculpture." The only difference between so-called "3-D" and traditional 2-D is parallax, and there are other ways to simulate depth from a static perspective, many of which are far more meaningful.
We simulate depth through motion, shading, relative sizes, overlapping and a slough of other visual clues that are easily captured on a 2-D screen.
Ask yourself, have you recently confused the foreground for the background in a film or a painting?
So why does everyone think parallax is so damn holy? I'll wear glasses to watch a movie when I'm going blind, or when they help me control my latent magical powers.
...when someone calls you a socialist, it's a great sign they completely misunderstand capitalism?
Pro-Capitalism = Pro-Competition
Pro-Capitalism != Pro-Monopoly
JP II discussed this in an encyclical 1996, where he said that if science and religion disagree, it's useful to remember that truth cannot contradict truth. (Implying that if science and religion disagree, and you've checked your scientific facts, maybe you don't actually understand your religion.)
I also like this quote: "In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact." I.e., a good theologian is first a good scientist.
JP II emphasises that the interplay between science and religion was heavily discussed by theologians in the 16-18th centuries; his stance is not exactly terra nova. So this story is really only about 300 years old, or: slightly fresher than the SCO lawsuits.
Stephen "Ironman" Hawking is the only exception, he's a perfect specimen. But he's mostly machine now anyway, so that's hardly fair.