"This is the big issue (pun intended) that many environmentalists don't like about wind turbines--the sheer size of the newest models cause visual pollution and that is the major reason why the planned wind turbine farm off the coast of Martha's Vineyard/Nantucket Island has been tied up in litigation."
While I can appreciate what you said, I would argue quite strongly against most of the people you describe being "environmentalists".
I do not believe preserving your property values and aesthetic appeal qualify one to be an "environmentalist".
"I dislike the labelling of this worm as Linux/Slapper."
is only because of this
"I also know that tomorrow a colleague will say something akin to, 'Quit razzing my Windows platforms. Your precious Linux also has security problems.'"
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were asking how the VC's make money.
As for how this service makes money, I dunno. Frankly I think the whole "media by amateurs for anyone with enough time to find it" idea is dumb. I have no desire to see other's photos (when did we stop being bored to death by slideshows?) or their poorly produced, grainy, and generally uninteresting videos.
So, again, I don't know how the service will make money. My guess is it won't.
You know, i think it's funny that you hammer this guy for his ignorance, whe you have accepted this
"As for the weather, it isnt' a sign of the appocalypse, it's a sign of global warming"
as fact.
You sir, have simply replaced his religion with yours.
And no, I don't reject global warming. I reject the idea (as stated in this otherwise lucid post) that the cause of our current WEATHER is global warming.
"Is creationism or ID scientific? I would say probably not. But the origin of life is one of the few places where religion and science must intersect."
Just so I'm clear, you want us to teach an idea (it does not rise to the level of a theory) that isn't science, in a science class. That's the gist, correct?
And by doing so, you're giving tacit approval of the idea, by making it appear that it belongs in a science class.
The only thing you've demonstrated in your post is a gross misunderstanding of what science is, and how it should be taught. Based on this, I have to ask how long you've been on the Kansas school board.
"Its very weak because you are arguing that science should not include faith,"
Where did I say that? How does substituting one dity for another in any way call faith into question?
"Formulating the FSM doesn't not prove this, it is just an ad-homeniem attack on faith"
I think you need to look up what an ad hominem attack is.
And finally, you need to answer my question. All you did was create a straw man, the idea that science should not include faith.
So, again, why is "God" acceptable as the creator of the univers, while FSM isn't? Why does drawing comparisons between two deities become mocking faith?
Ok, then I choose to lambaste your beliefs. Remember, you asked for it.
Fundamentalists are, at their core, cowards who are afraid of the world. Instead of examining the working of their environment, and altering their world view based on the new information, they close themselves off to knowledge, in the futile hope that their ignorance will somehow lead them to salvation.
Fundamentalist is now synonymous with intrusive, ignorant, and intolerant.
"If we say that it is open to interpretation because it only has some nice stories, then what parts do we follow and what parts are just there as example?"
Well, I suggest you start with stoning the homosexuals to death, then go from there.
Wouldn't want to be accused of injecting your own beliefs.
"The fundies do NOT know who those rabbis where, but knowing that they can't talk to them, they don't even try to talk to those rabbis who have ACTUALLY studied the Genesis, or read the writings of the first christian bishops and martyrs on the subject."
YES! I agree, well said.
"In other words, the fundies are taking a text they did NOT write, and they claim to be the only ones who know the correct interpretation (i.e. claiming to be something equivalent to a Pope). Under what basis? With what authority?"
Unfortunately, you left out one of the most important parts of "theories" their ability to predict.
While I am forced to agree with your assertion that ID is a theory, that is only due to the inaccuracy of language, not because it meets the test of a scientific theory.
If you accept the standards that are normally used in science, and reject the language games, then no, ID does not rise to the level of a theory because it has no predictive value.
So, mods, if someone of a religious persuasion posts their beliefs, as GP did, and I post my beliefs, as I did, I'm a troll, but GP isn't?
Explain please, why my post is a troll, apart from the fact that it offends the far too delicate sensibilities of religious folks?
Was I rude? No. Was I unpleasant, difficult, mean, or otherwise confrontational? No.
Most importantly, was I trolling for responses (which, mods, is why you should mod a post "troll")? No.
I wonder why you didn't bother to post your rebuttal, but instead used your mod points. It must be because you know your position (religion) is indefensible, so you use your power to try to silence me.
Shoudln't you be running the country George, instead of modding me down?
"I don't see why the two theories can't be merged"
Well, let me try to illustrate my perspective.
If you were to make the following statement in mixed company
"I believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster and that he(yes, he), had a hand in creating the universe"
it would not be taken seriously. Chances are your faculties would be privately questioned, and it could be seen as a sign of a mental disorder.
Now what you said was
"I believe in a God and that he(yes, he), had a hand in creating the universe"
Somehow, your statement is acceptable. The reality is, your statement is just as ridiculous.
So to answer your question, the reason the theories can't be merged is because people like you believe in a fairy tale, and attempt to portray it as fact.
"Of course, it'd probably be best if fundmentalists actually talked to, say, the rabbis who wrote the whole thing down."
Why? I mean apart from them being dead for thousands of years, would it really be enlightening in any way to hear a different, yet equally self serving account of a fictional event?
"So, therefore, the government should not check that anyone drives on the road with a haywire jalopy, and if it breaks down, crashes and kills a widow driving her three orphans to soccer practice, it's though luck for the widow?"
Yet another example of why analogies are such a bad idea when debating.
"Because emotions aren't something that one can always control with impunity?"
Perhaps, but whining is a behavior, not an emotion.
I sincerely hope the follow up isn't a post dedicated to how difficult it is to control one's own behavior...
"IME emotions - both good and bad - spark thought, and thought leads to greater productivity."
I don't think the research is as conclusive on this as you seem to think. If you would care to show me the studies that support your point, we could discuss them in more detail.
The desire for TV on a mobile isn't coming from consumers, it's being pitched to them by phone companies desperate to set themselves apart somehow.
Without a new feature to set themselves apart, they will be seen as technologically deficient. If the other guy has it, we must have it too.
Of course, whether TV is actually useable (much like early internet on cellphones) isn't really important. Only that it is offered to make someone sign a contract.
Slashdot Mirror
"This is the big issue (pun intended) that many environmentalists don't like about wind turbines--the sheer size of the newest models cause visual pollution and that is the major reason why the planned wind turbine farm off the coast of Martha's Vineyard/Nantucket Island has been tied up in litigation."
While I can appreciate what you said, I would argue quite strongly against most of the people you describe being "environmentalists".
I do not believe preserving your property values and aesthetic appeal qualify one to be an "environmentalist".
I have stopped believing you
I have to wonder if this
"I dislike the labelling of this worm as Linux/Slapper."
is only because of this
"I also know that tomorrow a colleague will say something akin to, 'Quit razzing my Windows platforms. Your precious Linux also has security problems.'"
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were asking how the VC's make money.
As for how this service makes money, I dunno. Frankly I think the whole "media by amateurs for anyone with enough time to find it" idea is dumb. I have no desire to see other's photos (when did we stop being bored to death by slideshows?) or their poorly produced, grainy, and generally uninteresting videos.
So, again, I don't know how the service will make money. My guess is it won't.
Ideally by building this into a thriving business, then selling the stock (or other investment vehicle) they got in exchange for their capital.
"OK, I'm going slowly so lets see who can follow the main idea of a post."
Funny, because not only were you condescending, but you missed the point again.
I WAS NOT TALKING IN ANY WAY ABOUT ID.
Referencing it in your answer is unnecessary, because I was in NO WAY discussing ID.
SO, reread MY post again, then REREAD IT AGAIN, then have someone smarter than you read it, THEN reply.
And don't bring up ID, because it relates to MY post in no way whatsoever.
You know, i think it's funny that you hammer this guy for his ignorance, whe you have accepted this
"As for the weather, it isnt' a sign of the appocalypse, it's a sign of global warming"
as fact.
You sir, have simply replaced his religion with yours.
And no, I don't reject global warming. I reject the idea (as stated in this otherwise lucid post) that the cause of our current WEATHER is global warming.
You missed the point completely.
Quote a part of my post that in anyway discusses ID, and I'll eat my shoes.
I didn;t reference ID, and made no mention of it in my post. Furthermore, I made no reference of the parent's mentions of ID (if there were any).
So explain why I should consider your opinion, when you are unable to find the main idea of a post?
Please don't reply with "we were talking about ID so I assumed..." because my post was clear and to the point. You just missed it.
"Is creationism or ID scientific? I would say probably not. But the origin of life is one of the few places where religion and science must intersect."
Just so I'm clear, you want us to teach an idea (it does not rise to the level of a theory) that isn't science, in a science class. That's the gist, correct?
And by doing so, you're giving tacit approval of the idea, by making it appear that it belongs in a science class.
The only thing you've demonstrated in your post is a gross misunderstanding of what science is, and how it should be taught. Based on this, I have to ask how long you've been on the Kansas school board.
"Any fundamentalist worth his salt could accept and refute these points merely by referring to the Old Testament:"
At which point I would point right back at the old testament, where it is stated there is only one god.
So, while they could refute it, they would be displaying the inherent contradictions in the text.
"Its very weak because you are arguing that science should not include faith,"
Where did I say that? How does substituting one dity for another in any way call faith into question?
"Formulating the FSM doesn't not prove this, it is just an ad-homeniem attack on faith"
I think you need to look up what an ad hominem attack is.
And finally, you need to answer my question. All you did was create a straw man, the idea that science should not include faith.
So, again, why is "God" acceptable as the creator of the univers, while FSM isn't? Why does drawing comparisons between two deities become mocking faith?
Ok, then I choose to lambaste your beliefs. Remember, you asked for it.
Fundamentalists are, at their core, cowards who are afraid of the world. Instead of examining the working of their environment, and altering their world view based on the new information, they close themselves off to knowledge, in the futile hope that their ignorance will somehow lead them to salvation.
Fundamentalist is now synonymous with intrusive, ignorant, and intolerant.
You have only yourselves to blame.
"If we say that it is open to interpretation because it only has some nice stories, then what parts do we follow and what parts are just there as example?"
Well, I suggest you start with stoning the homosexuals to death, then go from there.
Wouldn't want to be accused of injecting your own beliefs.
"The fundies do NOT know who those rabbis where, but knowing that they can't talk to them, they don't even try to talk to those rabbis who have ACTUALLY studied the Genesis, or read the writings of the first christian bishops and martyrs on the subject."
YES! I agree, well said.
"In other words, the fundies are taking a text they did NOT write, and they claim to be the only ones who know the correct interpretation (i.e. claiming to be something equivalent to a Pope). Under what basis? With what authority?"
YES! I agree, well said.
"As a catholic..."
Um, look at the time...
Don't feel too bad, I got a troll mod for arguing the other side of this, essentially the same way you did.
While I think you're a kook, you didn't deserve to be modded down.
Unfortunately, you left out one of the most important parts of "theories" their ability to predict.
While I am forced to agree with your assertion that ID is a theory, that is only due to the inaccuracy of language, not because it meets the test of a scientific theory.
If you accept the standards that are normally used in science, and reject the language games, then no, ID does not rise to the level of a theory because it has no predictive value.
Tell me what is the difference between the argument "The flying spaghetti monster created life" and "God created life".
You dismiss the point as "very weak" while failing to refute it.
Why is one so patently ridiculous, while the other has been accepted by seemingly reasonable, intelligent individuals.
What is the difference?
So, mods, if someone of a religious persuasion posts their beliefs, as GP did, and I post my beliefs, as I did, I'm a troll, but GP isn't?
Explain please, why my post is a troll, apart from the fact that it offends the far too delicate sensibilities of religious folks?
Was I rude? No. Was I unpleasant, difficult, mean, or otherwise confrontational? No.
Most importantly, was I trolling for responses (which, mods, is why you should mod a post "troll")? No.
I wonder why you didn't bother to post your rebuttal, but instead used your mod points. It must be because you know your position (religion) is indefensible, so you use your power to try to silence me.
Shoudln't you be running the country George, instead of modding me down?
"I don't see why the two theories can't be merged"
Well, let me try to illustrate my perspective.
If you were to make the following statement in mixed company
"I believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster and that he(yes, he), had a hand in creating the universe"
it would not be taken seriously. Chances are your faculties would be privately questioned, and it could be seen as a sign of a mental disorder.
Now what you said was
"I believe in a God and that he(yes, he), had a hand in creating the universe"
Somehow, your statement is acceptable. The reality is, your statement is just as ridiculous.
So to answer your question, the reason the theories can't be merged is because people like you believe in a fairy tale, and attempt to portray it as fact.
"Of course, it'd probably be best if fundmentalists actually talked to, say, the rabbis who wrote the whole thing down."
Why? I mean apart from them being dead for thousands of years, would it really be enlightening in any way to hear a different, yet equally self serving account of a fictional event?
"So, therefore, the government should not check that anyone drives on the road with a haywire jalopy, and if it breaks down, crashes and kills a widow driving her three orphans to soccer practice, it's though luck for the widow?"
Yet another example of why analogies are such a bad idea when debating.
"No one should need to leave, and supressing ppls freedom of speech ."
in the workplace is just the beginning
When has freedom of speech ever applied to the workplace?
I don't understand why people are citing rights they never had as an argument in this case.
"Because emotions aren't something that one can always control with impunity?"
Perhaps, but whining is a behavior, not an emotion.
I sincerely hope the follow up isn't a post dedicated to how difficult it is to control one's own behavior...
"IME emotions - both good and bad - spark thought, and thought leads to greater productivity."
I don't think the research is as conclusive on this as you seem to think. If you would care to show me the studies that support your point, we could discuss them in more detail.
"2 inches is more than enough..."
Is that a british porno?
The desire for TV on a mobile isn't coming from consumers, it's being pitched to them by phone companies desperate to set themselves apart somehow.
Without a new feature to set themselves apart, they will be seen as technologically deficient. If the other guy has it, we must have it too.
Of course, whether TV is actually useable (much like early internet on cellphones) isn't really important. Only that it is offered to make someone sign a contract.