Exactly, they need to clean up their own house first, before starting to throw stones. The word might be hypocritical as well as ironic.
These are the folks that were polishing up their own Bios on Wikipedia, took graft from the lobbyists which is currently under investigation, also censor by withholding information from the press, and create disinformation for consumption by the electorate.
Gee, where are all the weapons of Mass Destruction? Is the Iran nuclear episode just another smoke screen so they have an excuse for some other agenda?
Interesting comments, but it still remains to be answered as to why "they enjoy inflicting pain"? Empathy is not something that we are born with, it is something that we seem to learn from our environments, particurarly at a young age.
Even the experiments with young monkeys, seem to indicate a soft nurturing environment is prefered, even it provides no food, than to an environment that provides food but has none of the soft nurturing.
Where I think the error is, that we believe that by telling children to treat other children the way that they would like to be treated, that this will instill the desired behaviours. When in fact they treat others in the same way that they HAVE BEEN treated, because they really have no idea how they would like to be treated, if they have never experienced it. So is the behaviour because of the way that they are, or the way that they have been conditioned?
This is not making excuses, because excuses never solve anything. But the first step in trying to solve a problem, is the correct understanding of what causes it. I am not saying that this is the correct understanding, but I don't think that the "eye for an eye" approach is going to solve the issue either.
Bullies are basically cowards, they always pick on someone that they believe that they beat up, and never pick on anyone that they believe can beat them up.
Where does this trait come from? Usually they are the victim of some sort of either psychological or physical violence themselves, perhaps at home, that leaves them with an aberrant self image. I know that there came a time that I was big enough to beat the crap out of someone who had bullied me when they had been bigger than me. But would that have solved the underlying problem, which is basically how and the why they feel about themselves?
In my experience as adults the bullies have the biggest problem fitting in, because this social predisposition does not fit in very well in the present day workplace.
See the statement above, this is making the point that I have been trying to get across about scientists all along, in comparing them to 1500s religion. This is dogmatic and closed minded pure and simple. You don't know that cold fusion doesn't work for sure, any more that you know that they will ever get hot fusion to break-even, it just might require duplication of some more attributes of the Sun than extreme heat and pressure, for sustained reaction, and that these attributes may not be duplicate-able. The operative word in this sentence is "might". There just is not any supportable evidence either way, but maybe you should do some research into what has been happening with cold fusion in the last 10 years.
So perhaps you should use the three state logic, yes, no, and maybe, because the CORRECT ANSWER to cold fusion is "maybe". And not an authoritative dogmatic NO it doesn't work.
The correct answer to the ant and the fungus question was, "maybe, I don't know for sure yet".
And the point I was making about so called "empty space", was because when they did not need the concept that light might operate in a similar manner to sound any more, which was that there had to be a medium through which it travels. So then they went to the "we know for sure that space is empty" position, and started spouting this in all the publications. I took this crap in school.
In reality "ether" was just a word that they concocted in an earlier era, because they thought that there might be something occupying what seemed to be "empty" space, and this was supposed to be the medium of propagation for electromagnetic radiation, but they at that time were not sure what this might be. So in that respect the word "ether" was meant to represent "non-empty" space.
But Oh Gee, now we have the question of Zero Point Energy, and Dark Matter, so "empty space" may not be so empty after all? And then as a logical deduction, electromagnetic radiation might actually travel through this stuff, and just maybe it is even needed in order for light to travel at all? We might have a use for the word "ether" again, just change its meaning a bit? These are just questions, not any dogmatic statements of fact.
But did I ever hear we made a mistake about "empty space", when we were cramming all that dogmatic crap down your throat at school? When I would ask a simple question like: How do you know space is empty? We are the authority, and how dare you question our scientific authority. Then there was the religious crowd cramming the same kind of crap down my throat "God just went poof and there was the whole of creation" but then where did all those dinosaur bones come from? How dare you question our dogmatic authority! So I am still in the same kind of scenario right now, How do you know that cold fusion doesn't work?
"You are saying both alternatives should be considered" This statement is correct, that is what I am trying to say. And I think what you are saying is that they have picked the easy alternative, not because there is substantial proof either way, but just because it is easier to work with. I am not in total agreement with this approach, because some place, some where, someone will be spouting this position like it is a certainty.
I am not sure where I encountered the following concept, but I believe it was in Greek writing, maybe Plotinus. Every phenomenon is preceded by a cause, in a backward sequence of cause and effect. This either ends up at a "first cause" which is a cause that has no other, or the backward cause and effect is endless. But they admitted that they did not know which. The "first cause" scenario closely resembles the intelligent creation theory. And the "endless cause and effect" scenario, more closely resembles the random creation theory. Like the million monkeys on the typewriters would eventually type Hamlet theory. But this is only a logical framework within which to work and find empirical evidence either way, and in the meantime, the correct answer to either question is, I don't know for sure yet.
What you are saying is that something (intelligence and reason) came out of nothing. Well then what is this nothing, that everything evolved from?
The rules and laws of the Universe.
---The circular argument again, how or from where did these laws come to be, and if there are these laws that govern how things happen, then is that not leaning more toward indication of intelligent design, than roll the dice random luck? AND notice the question mark here, because you seem to think that I am making statements, when in fact I am asking questions.---
The scientific sleight of hand again, explaining a process and pretending that it is a cause. If you make the process explanation big enough, and put it far enough back in time, maybe no one will notice that the essential question still has not been answered. What caused this, and if part of this process outcome resulted in intelligence, then what is the supporting evidence, that no part of the cause was intelligent?
Why do you keep insisting on the idea that an intelligence must be behind things? If you have even the slightest understanding of maths or physics you will know that complexity can arise out of order.
---Explain how this "complexity" happens spontaneously, without a preceding cause, because I know for sure that that completely violates scientific principles and logic, to imply that things spontaneously happen without a cause. And secondly I am not insisting anything, I am simply ASKING what is the evidence that it is not intelligent design? You know using the true scientific principle, questioning instead of pretending to know. Notice the question mark again.---
If you are truly scientific you will have imperial evidence for this claim, or else there is no basis for the statement that there is no intelligence behind the evolutionary process.
Nonsense. You are putting forward the more complex case - that some intelligence is behind things. Prove it. Your ignorance of how things happen is not proof.
---Again the scientific dogma and circular argument, if you make a supposed statement of fact, such as "no intelligent design" or "intelligent design", to be scientific, each one or the other has to be supported by empirical evidence. Where is the evidence for "no intelligent design"? Where is the evidence for "intelligent design"? Where you are missing the point is that I am not convinced of either, because no one has shown me any conclusive evidence either way.
Where do you see that I take a position on either, I was just pointing at potential evidence and asking what does this support? The position that I take is that there has been no conclusive evidence shown to me either way, but where I see something that might, I ask the question. That is supposed to be the scientific way. If there is no evidence that something exists, that is NOT evidence that it doesn't exist. It just means that WE DON'T KNOW, something that I have never heard a scientist say about any of this. So all together now, on the subject of how the Universe came to be, WE DON'T KNOW!---
Most recent case of burning at the stake that I remember was Pons and Fleischman. A classic case of today's scientific closed mindedness, because they could not reproduce the same results, instead of asking themselves, what is different about our set-up that may be an unanticipated causal factor, it was easier to call Pons and Fleischman frauds and liars. This is scientific?
Oh, so you don't think that people haven't been asking what is different about their setups? How can you possible ask what is scientific when you haven't the slightest understanding of what actually goes on in science. You should be ashamed of yourself.
---Well I do know about the scientist self interest, versus the scientific position of wanting to know. The so called scientists that are getting billions of funding dollars for the Tokamak, did not want the government to know that there might be an alternative, that might be viable for a lot
This is exactly why I rejected both established science and established religion, because of their dogmas and circular arguments to support their dogmas.
What you are saying is that something (intelligence and reason) came out of nothing. Well then what is this nothing, that everything evolved from?
A circular argument that science ignores is: they have their "big bang" theory, it was all one big ball of s**t, that went boom, and wow we have galaxies, stars, planets, and life. The question still is where did the big ball of s**t come from? The scientific sleight of hand again, explaining a process and pretending that it is a cause. If you make the process explanation big enough, and put it far enough back in time, maybe no one will notice that the essential question still has not been answered. What caused this, and if part of this process outcome resulted in intelligence, then what is the supporting evidence, that no part of the cause was intelligent?
If you are truly scientific you will have imperial evidence for this claim, or else there is no basis for the statement that there is no intelligence behind the evolutionary process.
What I see here is no difference between the Grand Pubahs or Big Kunahs of the scientific world today, and the Grand Pubahs or Big Kunahs of religion in the 1500s. They each had / have dogmas and if you contradict their dogmas then you will be burned at the stake. Dogma of course is a position that is not supported by empirical evidence and reason.
Most recent case of burning at the stake that I remember was Pons and Fleischman. A classic case of today's scientific closed mindedness, because they could not reproduce the same results, instead of asking themselves, what is different about our set-up that may be an unanticipated causal factor, it was easier to call Pons and Fleischman frauds and liars. This is scientific?
Because science still cannot answer the big question, by producing imperial evidence that supports either it is so, or it is not so, they resort to dogma, it is not so because we say so. Apart from being dogmatic, the only other similarity that I see between today's science and religion, is they both seem to agree that order came out of chaos, and something came out of nothing, neither seems to dispute this, but also neither one gives a satisfactory explanation for how this happened.
I know, why don't we just ignore it, or pretend that we already know the answer, even we have no evidence to support that position. Is this is science, or is this dogma? There was a man from Persia about 150 years ago who said "Religion without science is superstition, and science without religion is dead materialism", I believe Albert Einstein said something similar, "I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind."
his is exactly why I rejected both established science and established religion, because of their dogmas and circular arguments to support their dogmas.
What you are saying is that something (intelligence and reason) came out of nothing. Well then what is this nothing, that everything evolved from?
A circular argument that science ignores is: they have their "big bang" theory, it was all one big ball of s**t, that went boom, and wow we have galaxies, stars, planets, and life. The question still is where did the big ball of s**t come from? The scientific sleight of hand again, explaining a process and pretending that it is a cause. If you make the process explanation big enough, and put it far enough back in time, maybe no one will notice that the essential question still has not been answered. What caused this, and if part of this process outcome resulted in intelligence, then what is the supporting evidence, that no part of the cause was intelligent?
If you are truly scientific you will have imperial evidence for this claim, or else there is no basis for the statement that there is no intelligence behind the evolutionary process.
What I see here is no difference between the Grand Pubahs or Big Kunahs of the scientific world today, and the Grand Pubahs or Big Kunahs of religion in the 1500s. They each had / have dogmas and if you contradict their dogmas then you will be burned at the stake. Dogma of course is a position that is not supported by empirical evidence and reason.
Most recent case of burning at the stake that I remember was Pons and Fleischman. A classic case of today's scientific closed mindedness, because they could not reproduce the same results, instead of asking themselves, what is different about our set-up that may be an unanticipated causal factor, it was easier to call Pons and Fleischman frauds and liars. This is scientific?
Because science still cannot answer the big question, by producing imperial evidence that supports either it is so, or it is not so, they resort to dogma, it is not so because we say so. Apart from being dogmatic, the only other similarity that I see between today's science and religion, is they both seem to agree that order came out of chaos, and something came out of nothing, neither seems to dispute this, but also neither one gives a satisfactory explanation for how this happened.
I know, why don't we just ignore it, or pretend that we already know the answer, even we have no evidence to support that position. Is this is science, or is this dogma? There was a man from Persia about 150 years ago who said "Religion without science is superstition, and science without religion is dead materialism", I believe Albert Einstein said something similar, "I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind."
So dirt of the ground just organizes itself into complex life forms, and then returns to dirt of the ground again of it's own volition? There is no mystery here at all, there does not need to be any explanation of "cause and effect" you only have to deal with the "process" that connects the "effect with the cause" and ignore the fact that scientifically there always has to be a "cause". How scientific is that?
We can only speculate what that cause might be, but certainly if one of the "effects" (humans) is deemed to be intelligent, (maybe) then by deduction should the cause not be deemed intelligent too? Or is it a very scientific theory, and does not affront everyday reason, that dirt of the ground could all on its own turn into a complex brain, that by all accounts produces thought and reason, and then turn back into dirt of the ground which by all accounts cannot produce thought and reason, and then claim there is no other agency involved? No mystery here at all, science has got this major question all covered in the usual way, by ignoring it.
I probably should have used vultures or some such example of something that feeds mostly off dead things. But your example certainly raises the question of intelligent design, but maybe not benevolent design.
What's the big deal here, is everything on the face of the earth not a parasite? Does everything not live at the expense of something else? Do humans not eat animals? Does the lion not eat the zebra? Does the zebra not eat grass? In fact probably the least parasitic is fungus and other such life forms, that mostly feed on dead things.
I don't think that the point is missed at all, I write contracts for a living, and when the other party has "got the hammer", the contract agreement is always written in their favour. So you are not going to get a licensing agreement that allows you to sue. In fact the license agreement will probably not even be "silent" about this issue, but specifically exclude it. Lawyers might be greedy, but they are not always stupid.
And this is still not air tight enough for the greedy patent trolls and lawyers, they want the "first to invent" turned into the "first to file" there-by invalidating any "prior art" defences.
But the patent system is there to protect inventors from invention theft, and there-by foster innovation. It works pretty well to foster greed don't you think? Maybe the patent system is an anachronism, that has lived past the end of its useful life?
It is not the humongous companies that I blame, or that should be blamed. They are living true to their missions, which is to grow market share and find new ways of making more money for their investors and shareholders, and somewhere mixed in with this, maybe, is the production of products and services that the customers find useful, or are willing to pay for.
It is the elected government that I blame and should be blamed, because irrespective of what Bill Gates thinks, the government is more powerful than any company. Does Bill tell the Chinese Government what to do? The government controls the law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, appoint Judges and deputies etc., but do they fairly represent the interests of the people who elected them???
The powerful companies do not need government consideration of their interests, that is only corporate welfare, these companies can look after their own interests, and the government should be making sure that these interests are not in conflict with public consumer interests.
I know that you are probably right here, about the players of influence in this matter. But who is going to be effected most by these proposed changes, and who is representing their voice and interests, the government that they elected???
Maybe some people remember the phrase "sunset industries". It was used about the US steel and auto industries about 20 to 30 years ago. The concept is right, there are in fact "sunset industries" that will be replaced by something else. But they chose a wrong industry, automobiles have not yet been replaced by something else, and neither has the industry significantly left the N. American shores, which I think is what they were referring to.
Now for wired phones, pre-recorded media, and some of the other things that Google is working on, may in fact be "sunset industries", but the "New Order" does not replace the "Old Order" without a significant amount of struggle. There will be a few wounded participants before this is over, some of them fatally.
You are right as I understand this development, these were two separate initiatives, in that they did not take the gecko feet and research the modus operandi and then say how can we apply this principle in useful technology. I think an insurance company did that.
So any similarities to carbon tubes was mostly accidental.
Before they complain about the dirt in anyone else's house, make sure their own house is clean. Congress should take care of the needs of the voting public, and not the big business interests, and their own interests. Graft, Graft, Graft.
The internet took away this business model and made it irrelevant. So why did Western Union not do like the recording industry, and start suing everybody for using E-mail. Start up their own little RIAA, or do they really understand when something is dead of old age, it makes sense to take it off life support.
Come on now, I try not to be jaded or cynical, but whose interests do you think the government represents, the voting citizens or big business? The people whom they have to steal the money from, or the ones who offer them graft? The interests of the people or self interests?
In the most recent demonstration of that, who was polishing up the rough spots from their wikipedia bios?
Yes there may be other explanations for the warming, if in fact it is occurring. There may be long weather pattern cycles of which we are not aware, and the earth may be self regulating. More CO2 equals more vigorous plant growth, which absorbs more of the suns radiation, and manifests it as carbon instead of heat.
There never has been a satisfactory explanation for the evidence of ancient tropical forests in artic regions. Could this have been extreme global warming?
Maybe we have had a different educational experience, which may be due to regional differences. You took part in your child's education and rightly so, I tried to do the same thing to accelerate the children's learning. But guess what, this made them a problem for the uniform public school system, because now the classes bored them and held them back, so it became the children's problem for being non-participatory.
I ended up taking them out of public school and putting them into a "charter" school. No more problems, because this school had a stated Mission or Agenda that is different from the public schools. It is an old, old principle, if something is not a stated intention in the first place, it will probably never materialize. In other words you are there to learn, the social / political function is secondary, same way when you have a job you are there to work, and not enough work done, and too much social / political activity can get you fired. This principle is an effective motivating factor anywhere.
Human equality, and human rights should be an intregal part of any society, but unfortunately this sometimes gets confused with uniformity. It was this wanting to level everyone down to a uniform indistinguishable mass that destroyed Russian communism.
Our education systems must teach that it is OK to excel if you have the talent and capacity, and also the education system must be the facilitator for this. My kids are all past the education stage now, but I still from time to time write the Superintendent of the school district to remind him of these issues. I get the standard reply, we have an approved curriculum that we must follow.
Slashdot Mirror
Here we go again "it is so, it is not" merry-go-round.
There is no such thing as gravity, the whole Universe Sucks!
Exactly, they need to clean up their own house first, before starting to throw stones. The word might be hypocritical as well as ironic.
These are the folks that were polishing up their own Bios on Wikipedia, took graft from the lobbyists which is currently under investigation, also censor by withholding information from the press, and create disinformation for consumption by the electorate.
Gee, where are all the weapons of Mass Destruction? Is the Iran nuclear episode just another smoke screen so they have an excuse for some other agenda?
Interesting comments, but it still remains to be answered as to why "they enjoy inflicting pain"? Empathy is not something that we are born with, it is something that we seem to learn from our environments, particurarly at a young age.
Even the experiments with young monkeys, seem to indicate a soft nurturing environment is prefered, even it provides no food, than to an environment that provides food but has none of the soft nurturing.
Where I think the error is, that we believe that by telling children to treat other children the way that they would like to be treated, that this will instill the desired behaviours. When in fact they treat others in the same way that they HAVE BEEN treated, because they really have no idea how they would like to be treated, if they have never experienced it. So is the behaviour because of the way that they are, or the way that they have been conditioned?
This is not making excuses, because excuses never solve anything. But the first step in trying to solve a problem, is the correct understanding of what causes it. I am not saying that this is the correct understanding, but I don't think that the "eye for an eye" approach is going to solve the issue either.
Bullies are basically cowards, they always pick on someone that they believe that they beat up, and never pick on anyone that they believe can beat them up.
Where does this trait come from? Usually they are the victim of some sort of either psychological or physical violence themselves, perhaps at home, that leaves them with an aberrant self image. I know that there came a time that I was big enough to beat the crap out of someone who had bullied me when they had been bigger than me. But would that have solved the underlying problem, which is basically how and the why they feel about themselves?
In my experience as adults the bullies have the biggest problem fitting in, because this social predisposition does not fit in very well in the present day workplace.
Yep, I first saw this almost a month ago now.
"Cold Fusion simply doesn't work!"
See the statement above, this is making the point that I have been trying to get across about scientists all along, in comparing them to 1500s religion. This is dogmatic and closed minded pure and simple. You don't know that cold fusion doesn't work for sure, any more that you know that they will ever get hot fusion to break-even, it just might require duplication of some more attributes of the Sun than extreme heat and pressure, for sustained reaction, and that these attributes may not be duplicate-able. The operative word in this sentence is "might". There just is not any supportable evidence either way, but maybe you should do some research into what has been happening with cold fusion in the last 10 years.
So perhaps you should use the three state logic, yes, no, and maybe, because the CORRECT ANSWER to cold fusion is "maybe". And not an authoritative dogmatic NO it doesn't work.
The correct answer to the ant and the fungus question was, "maybe, I don't know for sure yet".
And the point I was making about so called "empty space", was because when they did not need the concept that light might operate in a similar manner to sound any more, which was that there had to be a medium through which it travels. So then they went to the "we know for sure that space is empty" position, and started spouting this in all the publications. I took this crap in school.
In reality "ether" was just a word that they concocted in an earlier era, because they thought that there might be something occupying what seemed to be "empty" space, and this was supposed to be the medium of propagation for electromagnetic radiation, but they at that time were not sure what this might be. So in that respect the word "ether" was meant to represent "non-empty" space.
But Oh Gee, now we have the question of Zero Point Energy, and Dark Matter, so "empty space" may not be so empty after all? And then as a logical deduction, electromagnetic radiation might actually travel through this stuff, and just maybe it is even needed in order for light to travel at all? We might have a use for the word "ether" again, just change its meaning a bit? These are just questions, not any dogmatic statements of fact.
But did I ever hear we made a mistake about "empty space", when we were cramming all that dogmatic crap down your throat at school? When I would ask a simple question like: How do you know space is empty? We are the authority, and how dare you question our scientific authority. Then there was the religious crowd cramming the same kind of crap down my throat "God just went poof and there was the whole of creation" but then where did all those dinosaur bones come from? How dare you question our dogmatic authority! So I am still in the same kind of scenario right now, How do you know that cold fusion doesn't work?
"You are saying both alternatives should be considered"
This statement is correct, that is what I am trying to say. And I think what you are saying is that they have picked the easy alternative, not because there is substantial proof either way, but just because it is easier to work with. I am not in total agreement with this approach, because some place, some where, someone will be spouting this position like it is a certainty.
I am not sure where I encountered the following concept, but I believe it was in Greek writing, maybe Plotinus. Every phenomenon is preceded by a cause, in a backward sequence of cause and effect. This either ends up at a "first cause" which is a cause that has no other, or the backward cause and effect is endless. But they admitted that they did not know which. The "first cause" scenario closely resembles the intelligent creation theory. And the "endless cause and effect" scenario, more closely resembles the random creation theory. Like the million monkeys on the typewriters would eventually type Hamlet theory. But this is only a logical framework within which to work and find empirical evidence either way, and in the meantime, the correct answer to either question is, I don't know for sure yet.
What you are saying is that something (intelligence and reason) came out of nothing. Well then what is this nothing, that everything evolved from?
The rules and laws of the Universe.
---The circular argument again, how or from where did these laws come to be, and if there are these laws that govern how things happen, then is that not leaning more toward indication of intelligent design, than roll the dice random luck? AND notice the question mark here, because you seem to think that I am making statements, when in fact I am asking questions.---
The scientific sleight of hand again, explaining a process and pretending that it is a cause. If you make the process explanation big enough, and put it far enough back in time, maybe no one will notice that the essential question still has not been answered. What caused this, and if part of this process outcome resulted in intelligence, then what is the supporting evidence, that no part of the cause was intelligent?
Why do you keep insisting on the idea that an intelligence must be behind things? If you have even the slightest understanding of maths or physics you will know that complexity can arise out of order.
---Explain how this "complexity" happens spontaneously, without a preceding cause, because I know for sure that that completely violates scientific principles and logic, to imply that things spontaneously happen without a cause. And secondly I am not insisting anything, I am simply ASKING what is the evidence that it is not intelligent design? You know using the true scientific principle, questioning instead of pretending to know. Notice the question mark again.---
If you are truly scientific you will have imperial evidence for this claim, or else there is no basis for the statement that there is no intelligence behind the evolutionary process.
Nonsense. You are putting forward the more complex case - that some intelligence is behind things. Prove it. Your ignorance of how things happen is not proof.
---Again the scientific dogma and circular argument, if you make a supposed statement of fact, such as "no intelligent design" or "intelligent design", to be scientific, each one or the other has to be supported by empirical evidence. Where is the evidence for "no intelligent design"? Where is the evidence for "intelligent design"? Where you are missing the point is that I am not convinced of either, because no one has shown me any conclusive evidence either way.
Where do you see that I take a position on either, I was just pointing at potential evidence and asking what does this support? The position that I take is that there has been no conclusive evidence shown to me either way, but where I see something that might, I ask the question. That is supposed to be the scientific way. If there is no evidence that something exists, that is NOT evidence that it doesn't exist. It just means that WE DON'T KNOW, something that I have never heard a scientist say about any of this. So all together now, on the subject of how the Universe came to be, WE DON'T KNOW!---
Most recent case of burning at the stake that I remember was Pons and Fleischman. A classic case of today's scientific closed mindedness, because they could not reproduce the same results, instead of asking themselves, what is different about our set-up that may be an unanticipated causal factor, it was easier to call Pons and Fleischman frauds and liars. This is scientific?
Oh, so you don't think that people haven't been asking what is different about their setups? How can you possible ask what is scientific when you haven't the slightest understanding of what actually goes on in science. You should be ashamed of yourself.
---Well I do know about the scientist self interest, versus the scientific position of wanting to know. The so called scientists that are getting billions of funding dollars for the Tokamak, did not want the government to know that there might be an alternative, that might be viable for a lot
This is exactly why I rejected both established science and established religion, because of their dogmas and circular arguments to support their dogmas.
What you are saying is that something (intelligence and reason) came out of nothing. Well then what is this nothing, that everything evolved from?
A circular argument that science ignores is: they have their "big bang" theory, it was all one big ball of s**t, that went boom, and wow we have galaxies, stars, planets, and life. The question still is where did the big ball of s**t come from? The scientific sleight of hand again, explaining a process and pretending that it is a cause. If you make the process explanation big enough, and put it far enough back in time, maybe no one will notice that the essential question still has not been answered. What caused this, and if part of this process outcome resulted in intelligence, then what is the supporting evidence, that no part of the cause was intelligent?
If you are truly scientific you will have imperial evidence for this claim, or else there is no basis for the statement that there is no intelligence behind the evolutionary process.
What I see here is no difference between the Grand Pubahs or Big Kunahs of the scientific world today, and the Grand Pubahs or Big Kunahs of religion in the 1500s. They each had / have dogmas and if you contradict their dogmas then you will be burned at the stake. Dogma of course is a position that is not supported by empirical evidence and reason.
Most recent case of burning at the stake that I remember was Pons and Fleischman. A classic case of today's scientific closed mindedness, because they could not reproduce the same results, instead of asking themselves, what is different about our set-up that may be an unanticipated causal factor, it was easier to call Pons and Fleischman frauds and liars. This is scientific?
Because science still cannot answer the big question, by producing imperial evidence that supports either it is so, or it is not so, they resort to dogma, it is not so because we say so. Apart from being dogmatic, the only other similarity that I see between today's science and religion, is they both seem to agree that order came out of chaos, and something came out of nothing, neither seems to dispute this, but also neither one gives a satisfactory explanation for how this happened.
I know, why don't we just ignore it, or pretend that we already know the answer, even we have no evidence to support that position. Is this is science, or is this dogma? There was a man from Persia about 150 years ago who said "Religion without science is superstition, and science without religion is dead materialism", I believe Albert Einstein said something similar, "I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind."
his is exactly why I rejected both established science and established religion, because of their dogmas and circular arguments to support their dogmas. What you are saying is that something (intelligence and reason) came out of nothing. Well then what is this nothing, that everything evolved from? A circular argument that science ignores is: they have their "big bang" theory, it was all one big ball of s**t, that went boom, and wow we have galaxies, stars, planets, and life. The question still is where did the big ball of s**t come from? The scientific sleight of hand again, explaining a process and pretending that it is a cause. If you make the process explanation big enough, and put it far enough back in time, maybe no one will notice that the essential question still has not been answered. What caused this, and if part of this process outcome resulted in intelligence, then what is the supporting evidence, that no part of the cause was intelligent? If you are truly scientific you will have imperial evidence for this claim, or else there is no basis for the statement that there is no intelligence behind the evolutionary process. What I see here is no difference between the Grand Pubahs or Big Kunahs of the scientific world today, and the Grand Pubahs or Big Kunahs of religion in the 1500s. They each had / have dogmas and if you contradict their dogmas then you will be burned at the stake. Dogma of course is a position that is not supported by empirical evidence and reason. Most recent case of burning at the stake that I remember was Pons and Fleischman. A classic case of today's scientific closed mindedness, because they could not reproduce the same results, instead of asking themselves, what is different about our set-up that may be an unanticipated causal factor, it was easier to call Pons and Fleischman frauds and liars. This is scientific? Because science still cannot answer the big question, by producing imperial evidence that supports either it is so, or it is not so, they resort to dogma, it is not so because we say so. Apart from being dogmatic, the only other similarity that I see between today's science and religion, is they both seem to agree that order came out of chaos, and something came out of nothing, neither seems to dispute this, but also neither one gives a satisfactory explanation for how this happened. I know, why don't we just ignore it, or pretend that we already know the answer, even we have no evidence to support that position. Is this is science, or is this dogma? There was a man from Persia about 150 years ago who said "Religion without science is superstition, and science without religion is dead materialism", I believe Albert Einstein said something similar, "I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind."
So dirt of the ground just organizes itself into complex life forms, and then returns to dirt of the ground again of it's own volition? There is no mystery here at all, there does not need to be any explanation of "cause and effect" you only have to deal with the "process" that connects the "effect with the cause" and ignore the fact that scientifically there always has to be a "cause". How scientific is that?
We can only speculate what that cause might be, but certainly if one of the "effects" (humans) is deemed to be intelligent, (maybe) then by deduction should the cause not be deemed intelligent too? Or is it a very scientific theory, and does not affront everyday reason, that dirt of the ground could all on its own turn into a complex brain, that by all accounts produces thought and reason, and then turn back into dirt of the ground which by all accounts cannot produce thought and reason, and then claim there is no other agency involved? No mystery here at all, science has got this major question all covered in the usual way, by ignoring it.
I probably should have used vultures or some such example of something that feeds mostly off dead things. But your example certainly raises the question of intelligent design, but maybe not benevolent design.
What's the big deal here, is everything on the face of the earth not a parasite? Does everything not live at the expense of something else? Do humans not eat animals? Does the lion not eat the zebra? Does the zebra not eat grass? In fact probably the least parasitic is fungus and other such life forms, that mostly feed on dead things.
I don't think that the point is missed at all, I write contracts for a living, and when the other party has "got the hammer", the contract agreement is always written in their favour. So you are not going to get a licensing agreement that allows you to sue. In fact the license agreement will probably not even be "silent" about this issue, but specifically exclude it. Lawyers might be greedy, but they are not always stupid.
And this is still not air tight enough for the greedy patent trolls and lawyers, they want the "first to invent" turned into the "first to file" there-by invalidating any "prior art" defences.
But the patent system is there to protect inventors from invention theft, and there-by foster innovation. It works pretty well to foster greed don't you think? Maybe the patent system is an anachronism, that has lived past the end of its useful life?
It is not the humongous companies that I blame, or that should be blamed. They are living true to their missions, which is to grow market share and find new ways of making more money for their investors and shareholders, and somewhere mixed in with this, maybe, is the production of products and services that the customers find useful, or are willing to pay for.
It is the elected government that I blame and should be blamed, because irrespective of what Bill Gates thinks, the government is more powerful than any company. Does Bill tell the Chinese Government what to do? The government controls the law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, appoint Judges and deputies etc., but do they fairly represent the interests of the people who elected them???
The powerful companies do not need government consideration of their interests, that is only corporate welfare, these companies can look after their own interests, and the government should be making sure that these interests are not in conflict with public consumer interests.
I know that you are probably right here, about the players of influence in this matter. But who is going to be effected most by these proposed changes, and who is representing their voice and interests, the government that they elected???
Maybe some people remember the phrase "sunset industries". It was used about the US steel and auto industries about 20 to 30 years ago. The concept is right, there are in fact "sunset industries" that will be replaced by something else. But they chose a wrong industry, automobiles have not yet been replaced by something else, and neither has the industry significantly left the N. American shores, which I think is what they were referring to.
Now for wired phones, pre-recorded media, and some of the other things that Google is working on, may in fact be "sunset industries", but the "New Order" does not replace the "Old Order" without a significant amount of struggle. There will be a few wounded participants before this is over, some of them fatally.
You are right as I understand this development, these were two separate initiatives, in that they did not take the gecko feet and research the modus operandi and then say how can we apply this principle in useful technology. I think an insurance company did that.
So any similarities to carbon tubes was mostly accidental.
Before they complain about the dirt in anyone else's house, make sure their own house is clean. Congress should take care of the needs of the voting public, and not the big business interests, and their own interests. Graft, Graft, Graft.
The internet took away this business model and made it irrelevant. So why did Western Union not do like the recording industry, and start suing everybody for using E-mail. Start up their own little RIAA, or do they really understand when something is dead of old age, it makes sense to take it off life support.
Come on now, I try not to be jaded or cynical, but whose interests do you think the government represents, the voting citizens or big business? The people whom they have to steal the money from, or the ones who offer them graft? The interests of the people or self interests?
In the most recent demonstration of that, who was polishing up the rough spots from their wikipedia bios?
Maybe they mean a blank DVD. That miht make it worth the trouble.
Yes there may be other explanations for the warming, if in fact it is occurring. There may be long weather pattern cycles of which we are not aware, and the earth may be self regulating. More CO2 equals more vigorous plant growth, which absorbs more of the suns radiation, and manifests it as carbon instead of heat.
There never has been a satisfactory explanation for the evidence of ancient tropical forests in artic regions. Could this have been extreme global warming?
Maybe we have had a different educational experience, which may be due to regional differences. You took part in your child's education and rightly so, I tried to do the same thing to accelerate the children's learning. But guess what, this made them a problem for the uniform public school system, because now the classes bored them and held them back, so it became the children's problem for being non-participatory.
I ended up taking them out of public school and putting them into a "charter" school. No more problems, because this school had a stated Mission or Agenda that is different from the public schools. It is an old, old principle, if something is not a stated intention in the first place, it will probably never materialize. In other words you are there to learn, the social / political function is secondary, same way when you have a job you are there to work, and not enough work done, and too much social / political activity can get you fired. This principle is an effective motivating factor anywhere.
Human equality, and human rights should be an intregal part of any society, but unfortunately this sometimes gets confused with uniformity. It was this wanting to level everyone down to a uniform indistinguishable mass that destroyed Russian communism.
Our education systems must teach that it is OK to excel if you have the talent and capacity, and also the education system must be the facilitator for this. My kids are all past the education stage now, but I still from time to time write the Superintendent of the school district to remind him of these issues. I get the standard reply, we have an approved curriculum that we must follow.