That's exactly my point. There are creationists who accept the evidence for evolution at small scales (size/time) and say they "believe in microevolution...", but are unable or unwilling to follow the logic (not to mention the empirical evidence) that extends the same process to large scales ("...but not macroevolution"). Yet the distinction between the two is as artificial as, as you so eloquently put, the distinction between an office building and a skyscraper.
I'm pretty sure we're in agreement. When I first asked the question I was kind-of hoping for an explanation from someone who actually makes that distinction between the macro- and microevolution process"es", in case I've missed anything.
That is scary, scary stuff. Maybe not scary if you believe in that crap, but imagine if a court had ruled that ALL creation "theories" had to be taught alongside evolution. Are you comfortable with the idea of your children being taught that the world came from fragments of a proto-god's egg? Or that we are effectively a supernatural wet spot after an orgy among creator gods? I could go on for a while, or even make up shit on my own. Where do you draw the line?
The impracticality of it aside, I wonder if this path were taken it would result in a great deal of public education.
While correct, that doesn't address my main point that the process in micro/macro is the same. Cf. the WP article: "The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution."
You're attacking what I've said unnecessarily. (1) I was speaking about companies generally. (2) I never said I personally held that attitude. (3) In fact, the world might benefit from more customer-oriented not-for-profit companies like yours. I mean, yours is obviously so focused on the customer that it's a not-for-profit operation, right?
This might be an interesting factoid, or possibly completely wrong, but I've heard that the reason we actually use pencils rather than pens on voting ballots in my part of Australia is because in the particularly humid parts of the state pens tend to block up and fail. You'd think it might be easier to modify than pens, but even then, probably still not as easy as black-box voting machines.
If you think that pirating can ever be completely eliminated then you're hopelessly naive. There will always be at least a small subset of gamers who pirate games just because they can, whether they are "copy protected" or not. Then, developers will continue to (falsely) believe that copy protection is economically beneficial, ignoring (or not realizing) that by doing so they are driving away real paying customers.
To continue your medical analogy, it's like the common cold. There is no treatment for the cold virus itself; it will always exist and the best you can do is treat the symptoms. But if your treatment gives you even worse side-effects... maybe you should try something else?
Slashdot Mirror
What change? As the English saw it, they were committing sedition and terrorism.
It all depends on which team you're playing for.
Links to said astro mailing lists, esp. their archives?
Perhaps volition is an illusion?
Phase 3, eh? So this was "???"?
Got a link? I've been looking for a good herglesnorzer.
That's easy: Because I really need the cash to support my cocaine habit!
Seems to work for middle management. At least, I think they're on something...
Last time a bird crapped on my car I dumped her.
Exactly how much energy would a Library of Congress contain, anyway?
I always wondered why they called it that...
That's exactly my point. There are creationists who accept the evidence for evolution at small scales (size/time) and say they "believe in microevolution...", but are unable or unwilling to follow the logic (not to mention the empirical evidence) that extends the same process to large scales ("...but not macroevolution"). Yet the distinction between the two is as artificial as, as you so eloquently put, the distinction between an office building and a skyscraper.
I'm pretty sure we're in agreement. When I first asked the question I was kind-of hoping for an explanation from someone who actually makes that distinction between the macro- and microevolution process"es", in case I've missed anything.
The impracticality of it aside, I wonder if this path were taken it would result in a great deal of public education.
While correct, that doesn't address my main point that the process in micro/macro is the same. Cf. the WP article: "The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution."
I don't get it. Where exactly is the line separating "micro"-evolution and "macro"-evolution, when it's the same process that takes place in each?
You're attacking what I've said unnecessarily. (1) I was speaking about companies generally. (2) I never said I personally held that attitude. (3) In fact, the world might benefit from more customer-oriented not-for-profit companies like yours. I mean, yours is obviously so focused on the customer that it's a not-for-profit operation, right?
It's about the profit. The customer is just a catalyst to profit. Beyond that, too many companies couldn't give a rats arse.
Go ahead, call me cynical.
And quantum electroptical tomographics. See, I can make shit up, too...
Rightly, that anger should be directed at the law (and lawmakers) that requires youtube to behave like that.
This might be an interesting factoid, or possibly completely wrong, but I've heard that the reason we actually use pencils rather than pens on voting ballots in my part of Australia is because in the particularly humid parts of the state pens tend to block up and fail. You'd think it might be easier to modify than pens, but even then, probably still not as easy as black-box voting machines.
You could always submit a patch...
If you think that pirating can ever be completely eliminated then you're hopelessly naive. There will always be at least a small subset of gamers who pirate games just because they can, whether they are "copy protected" or not. Then, developers will continue to (falsely) believe that copy protection is economically beneficial, ignoring (or not realizing) that by doing so they are driving away real paying customers.
To continue your medical analogy, it's like the common cold. There is no treatment for the cold virus itself; it will always exist and the best you can do is treat the symptoms. But if your treatment gives you even worse side-effects... maybe you should try something else?
Why yes, so I am.
Wait, you were joking?
+i Complex
I hope that was supposed to be the ACCC. I really do.
[Citation needed]
You expect mods to RTFA?