"Wish I could figure out why I can't get it to use my custom MP3's as "ringtones" but that's not exactly an important feature for me."
Not sure how you are accessing it on the linux OS (since, omg, I haven't meddled with them much), but using my razr connected with Bluetooth to my powerbook I just click on the phone, and download the mp3s to the phone's sound file. Maybe it's a limitation fo the phone too, I don't know.
Your statement is based off the notion that time is not realitive, and that time is infinite. Yet the notion of time is a theory of itself and there are many theories about time.
Your statement also says something about beginnings and endings. Evolution does not give notion to a beginning, just to a process. ID attempts to define a plausible inception that could be used to "define" (remember theory not fact) evolution itself.
"There is sufficient evidence at present to justify the belief that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so. This evidence includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. The singularity theorems lead to an explication of the beginning of the universe that involves the notion of a Big Bang singularity, and the Quantum Cosmological Models represent the beginning largely in terms of the notion of a vacuum fluctuation. Theories that represent the universe as infinitely old or as caused to begin are shown to be at odds with or at least unsupported by these and other current cosmological notions.
My purpose in this paper is to argue that there is sufficient evidence at present to warrant the conclusion that the universe probably began to exist over ten billion years ago, and that it began to exist without being caused to do so. I believe accordingly that the positions held by many if not most contemporary philosophers concerning this issue are unjustified, for their beliefs typically fall into one of three mutually exclusive categories, (1) the universe is probably infinitely old, (2) the universe began to exist and its beginning was caused by God, and (3) insufficient evidence is available to enable us to decide about whether the universe began to exist or is infinitely old."
I'm not professing to all this guy writes, but it is an interesting read, and I hope it allows you to see that what I am really saying is that. . . ID should really bediscussed as a "beginning of the. .." Theory. Evolution is a process. ID is a process with a proposed "beginning." Neither of these conflict each other. Niether can be proven, neither can be falsified. Most people confuse the 2 as opposing views, and I would argue that the 2 are not even related. Proponents of one teach it as fact and teach the opposite as fiction, and so do proponents of the other.
The problem is, niether proven as fact. So don't act like it. (now before you evolution is fact people go nuts. ..Macro vs. Micro, one can be proven to happen, the other can't.)
Theology, philosophy, biology. . . they are all forms of science. Science is strictly a means or method of attempting to find understanding.
"God made it that way" adds nothing to our understanding of the world.
You really don't inderstand ID then. If by God you mean a being above ourselves, then maybe, but then again ID doesn't mean said being, just made it that way, but that said being or beings (let's not limit what intellegent design might be) had influence in or a direct part in forms of creation. I say forms of creation, because that is all evolution really is about. The change and progression of things. Ironicly people confuse this with natural selection which can be associated with the process of evolution, but does not totally define it.
Does the concept that something, someone or someones made intellegent efforts to "evolve" life change the basis of evolution? Can the two not opperate together? I think they can. I don't think one can cancel out the possibility of the other. Now natural selection, that is another story. But then again that can be proven to be effected or changed by intellegent design. If biological science was all about natural selection then the logical stance of a scientist would have to be, that they should only observe and not effect, because by intellegently effecting, one actually gives merit to the concept of ID, and in turn undermines natural selection.
I attended a art and design college as well (MCAD) and here is my take. ..
Learn the "analog" way of doing everything first. Did this wtih drawing, painting, sculpting, animation, and photography. Then we learned the digital versions of all of those.
Then comes your choice. . . Commercial Arts, or Fine Arts. If you choose commercial arts, then you will most likely spend more time doing digital work. Why? Because it get's things done cheaper and faster, and well, that's how you make more money. If you choose fine art, then you do what feels right, and it is only you who defines your medium, and not the bottom line.
Those lines are not always destinct from one another all the time, but you get the idea. This goes into anything. Think Carpentry, or food processing. If you build furnature because you love to build furniture, then you will be more geared to the "fine art" side of things, but if you do it to make big bucks in an industrial society, then you automate, and assembly line things. If you cook because you love to cook, or if you cook to sell canned soup to the masses to make money. . . well you get it.
Money or passion, commercial or not. One will always be the driving force, even if both are intended to be be involved.
And if you can't, then both Evolution (hate that term implies to little) and ID (or creationism whichever you prefer) can't be denied as possible. Thus them being a Theory.
So how do you disprove a theory?
You must test all possible statements of the theory, and if one contradicts another or proves incorrect in an experiment, then that theory can be disproven. (That being that the experiment is correct and repeatable.)
So my challenge to you is. . . Prove the Theory of ID is false. Prove Evolution is false. Take your pick. You can't do either.
So. . . . . Both are currently viable theories. So get over it.
You are so right. . . . . I hate the argument, "But I can buy a PC for cheaper." Your right, you can. But you are buying a cheaper computer.
Now people can really talk specs to specs. Find me a PC with the same funtional features. (it can be done, now) then find me one of those that nywhere near the same asthetic qualities (anyone who says that doesn't matter also can understand marketing and the effect asthetics have on any purchase), and then tell me if you can find a PC that matches for a cheaper price.
Huh? No takers? Well then try this. Find a PC of the same exact price, then compare features. which one has more for the price? (Hint: it will be the mac.)
I'm sure you can find cheaper prices elsewhere, but remember apples to oranges, we are talking Full Retail Versions, not OEM prices, since we want to install it on our own hardware legally.
just curious. ..What audio filtering software are you talking about? Cause there are many options available for a mac user as well. What does your prefered software for the windoz only have that is not available of another brand of software available for the mac? I only ask because you are obviously using a mac, so why not use audio software that is mac software? Just seems the effort and time needed to first boot Classic, then boot VPC in classic, would seem to me to actually slow everything down much more then VPC in OSX, or getting new software that is native for the mac platform.
Are you really that ignorant??????? Who doesn't use a right click? I've been using right-click mice on an apple for years and years. And for that matter what does it have to do with using windows on a mac box, anyway?????? The right click functionality will be baded on the software, not hardware. And if you plan on using a single-button mouse on any box nowadays, your just plain silly. Right click functionality had been available and even customizable on a mac for years and years. In fact I prefer the default options in the right-click UI much better then on a Windoz box anyday. It's laid out better, but then again you should only expect that from a software company that put's focus on the UI anyway. I just love these silly people with the 1-click argument. That's so eighties.
This game requires one to mate to have offspring. What about artificial insimination*? What about adoption? Do the individual creatures have the ability to be "born with" tendencies to love one of the same gender? Can those homosexual creatures then be able to procreate with other means? I think the gays of the gaming world should unite and boycott the game because it does not seem to allow for their sexual preferences as well.
Of course, it would be hard to evolve without being able to produce offspring. Guess the gays are screwed either way.
Get off the right/left wing crap. It's a game. sarcasm implied
I would say it could do the exact opposite. Ironicly it involves ideas from both "evolution" More correctly "Darwinism", as well as ideas from "Intelligent Design" Maybe it's "rightwinged" and a "leftest" all wrapped up in one Microbe.
"Sandia consultant Malcolm Haines theorizes that some unknown energy source is involved, which is providing the machine with an extra jolt of energy just as the plasma ions are beginning to slow down."
Your 2 cents are like mites. (biblical reference) I think you will know what I mean. Priceless. Your comments are a very well articulated. Thank you. If I could mod you up, I sure would.
Never been on drugs, so I can't vouch for that, but I can say that yes, burnout is possible, and I did go through that. I also went through the trauma of blindness in one of my eyes, while attending an "art" college, and dealing with the struggles of realizing that the problem in my blind eye was also happening to my other eye just on a slower pace, and that I was half way though college with a major that kind of requires sight to be plausible. You still want to talk about burnout? And since you "have been there" then you can understand that yeah it was a slice of hell. That doesn't still make it a choice. And for that matter the Parent of my initial post seems to think his choice to go into the military was a "clice of hell" too, but the difference his he is complaining about it even though he chose it himself. Most people I know who are complainers, are also those who tend not to succeed.
"No, the problem is people like you who rose to greatness on the backs of the people around you, then immediately forgot them. These are the people who hire whatever crawls across the border for a fraction of what they'd have to pay a citizen for the same labor (when they pay them at all, as I understand it a good chunk of the illegals are more-or-less slaves) or hire Chinese laborers or Indian programmers for fractions of that, then whine when people complain. "It's not our job to give Americans jobs! They should be making their own out of moonbeams and fairy dust!" If it were just one or two, it wouldn't be bad, but entire industries have been erased from this country by this line of thought."
Funny your talking about people who make generalizations and take for granted where they came from, yet it seems that in doing so you have made the same mistakes in judgment about me, as you don't know me, yet make assumptions of such a great magnitude. Your right though there are people out there like that, but I'm not one of them. Your also right that a lot of people had to make choices that effected my life. For that I'm greatful, but of course I also had to make choices in order to be in the position to have their choices effect me at all. Either way it still hinges on my choices, first. I've also made bad choices in my life. But you don't hear me complaining that I had no other choice to make when I don't like the choice I did make, like the parent of my original post.
"So, what have you done to hire a struggling but determined college student these days?"
I'll send you a list if you would like, give me a couple of days to get it together.
But you don't get it. As an enlisted person they only have one angle to look at things. And that is. . . to follow orders.
You label such things as political information. . . yet such "information" at all has nothing to do with the duties of an inlisted person. You eat when told, you pee when told, you sleep when told, and you kill when told. And for that "choice" that enlisted person gets the best healthcare, while enlisted, get's paid a very decent wage, and get's many more opportunities provided for themselves after their enlistment is over. They make a choice to give up personal "freedoms" in order to protect our's.
And. . . If it answers your question, my only thought is. . . . I believe most intellegence can be taught, but the only major factor in the way of that is self motivation to learn.
Slashdot Mirror
Better yet.
Then their gun supplier can just kill them for non-payment. Oh wait, that won't work, cause I'm guessing they only accept cash.
ok, Coward.
Who's the better person?
The one who incorrectly (however very commonly) missused the work ironic, or the person who hides as a coward and yells out from the crowd an insult?
Not sure how you are accessing it on the linux OS (since, omg, I haven't meddled with them much), but using my razr connected with Bluetooth to my powerbook I just click on the phone, and download the mp3s to the phone's sound file. Maybe it's a limitation fo the phone too, I don't know.
Your statement is based off the notion that time is not realitive, and that time is infinite. Yet the notion of time is a theory of itself and there are many theories about time.
Your statement also says something about beginnings and endings. Evolution does not give notion to a beginning, just to a process. ID attempts to define a plausible inception that could be used to "define" (remember theory not fact) evolution itself.
A good read for you might be. .
Here is an excerpt. . .
I'm not professing to all this guy writes, but it is an interesting read, and I hope it allows you to see that what I am really saying is that. . . ID should really bediscussed as a "beginning of the. .
The problem is, niether proven as fact. So don't act like it. (now before you evolution is fact people go nuts. .
Theology, philosophy, biology. . . they are all forms of science. Science is strictly a means or method of attempting to find understanding.
You really don't inderstand ID then. If by God you mean a being above ourselves, then maybe, but then again ID doesn't mean said being, just made it that way, but that said being or beings (let's not limit what intellegent design might be) had influence in or a direct part in forms of creation. I say forms of creation, because that is all evolution really is about. The change and progression of things. Ironicly people confuse this with natural selection which can be associated with the process of evolution, but does not totally define it.
Does the concept that something, someone or someones made intellegent efforts to "evolve" life change the basis of evolution? Can the two not opperate together? I think they can. I don't think one can cancel out the possibility of the other. Now natural selection, that is another story. But then again that can be proven to be effected or changed by intellegent design. If biological science was all about natural selection then the logical stance of a scientist would have to be, that they should only observe and not effect, because by intellegently effecting, one actually gives merit to the concept of ID, and in turn undermines natural selection.
I attended a art and design college as well (MCAD) and here is my take. . .
Learn the "analog" way of doing everything first. Did this wtih drawing, painting, sculpting, animation, and photography. Then we learned the digital versions of all of those.
Then comes your choice. . . Commercial Arts, or Fine Arts. If you choose commercial arts, then you will most likely spend more time doing digital work. Why? Because it get's things done cheaper and faster, and well, that's how you make more money. If you choose fine art, then you do what feels right, and it is only you who defines your medium, and not the bottom line.
Those lines are not always destinct from one another all the time, but you get the idea. This goes into anything. Think Carpentry, or food processing. If you build furnature because you love to build furniture, then you will be more geared to the "fine art" side of things, but if you do it to make big bucks in an industrial society, then you automate, and assembly line things. If you cook because you love to cook, or if you cook to sell canned soup to the masses to make money. . . well you get it.
Money or passion, commercial or not. One will always be the driving force, even if both are intended to be be involved.
ok, how do you prove/disprove an theory?
well, you can't prove a theory fully.
And if you can't, then both Evolution (hate that term implies to little) and ID (or creationism whichever you prefer) can't be denied as possible. Thus them being a Theory.
So how do you disprove a theory?
You must test all possible statements of the theory, and if one contradicts another or proves incorrect in an experiment, then that theory can be disproven. (That being that the experiment is correct and repeatable.)
So my challenge to you is. . . Prove the Theory of ID is false. Prove Evolution is false. Take your pick. You can't do either.
So. . . . . Both are currently viable theories. So get over it.
Diddo on that.
I dare say Yahoo is "better" at most everything, with the user in mind. OMG
You are so right. . . . . I hate the argument, "But I can buy a PC for cheaper." Your right, you can. But you are buying a cheaper computer.
Now people can really talk specs to specs. Find me a PC with the same funtional features. (it can be done, now) then find me one of those that nywhere near the same asthetic qualities (anyone who says that doesn't matter also can understand marketing and the effect asthetics have on any purchase), and then tell me if you can find a PC that matches for a cheaper price.
Huh? No takers? Well then try this. Find a PC of the same exact price, then compare features. which one has more for the price? (Hint: it will be the mac.)
Um. . . . . . http://www.apple.com/macosx/No Retail Version of OS X? Well This says I can buy the Full Version of the OS for $129.00.
Try http://store.royaldiscount.com/miwixpprosp2.html for a Full Retail Version of XP Home. $210.00
I'm sure you can find cheaper prices elsewhere, but remember apples to oranges, we are talking Full Retail Versions, not OEM prices, since we want to install it on our own hardware legally.
just curious. . .What audio filtering software are you talking about? Cause there are many options available for a mac user as well. What does your prefered software for the windoz only have that is not available of another brand of software available for the mac? I only ask because you are obviously using a mac, so why not use audio software that is mac software? Just seems the effort and time needed to first boot Classic, then boot VPC in classic, would seem to me to actually slow everything down much more then VPC in OSX, or getting new software that is native for the mac platform.
Are you really that ignorant??????? Who doesn't use a right click? I've been using right-click mice on an apple for years and years. And for that matter what does it have to do with using windows on a mac box, anyway?????? The right click functionality will be baded on the software, not hardware. And if you plan on using a single-button mouse on any box nowadays, your just plain silly. Right click functionality had been available and even customizable on a mac for years and years. In fact I prefer the default options in the right-click UI much better then on a Windoz box anyday. It's laid out better, but then again you should only expect that from a software company that put's focus on the UI anyway.
I just love these silly people with the 1-click argument. That's so eighties.
This game requires one to mate to have offspring. What about artificial insimination*? What about adoption? Do the individual creatures have the ability to be "born with" tendencies to love one of the same gender? Can those homosexual creatures then be able to procreate with other means? I think the gays of the gaming world should unite and boycott the game because it does not seem to allow for their sexual preferences as well.
Of course, it would be hard to evolve without being able to produce offspring. Guess the gays are screwed either way.
Get off the right/left wing crap. It's a game. sarcasm implied
Well said. What he said. . . That's what I'm talking about.
I would say it could do the exact opposite. Ironicly it involves ideas from both "evolution" More correctly "Darwinism", as well as ideas from "Intelligent Design" Maybe it's "rightwinged" and a "leftest" all wrapped up in one Microbe.
am I first
Your probably right, of course if your boots are encrusted in shit, then you must still be stuck on the farm. Guess I got a one up on you there. ;)
Your 2 cents are like mites. (biblical reference)
I think you will know what I mean. Priceless. Your comments are a very well articulated. Thank you.
If I could mod you up, I sure would.
Never been on drugs, so I can't vouch for that, but I can say that yes, burnout is possible, and I did go through that. I also went through the trauma of blindness in one of my eyes, while attending an "art" college, and dealing with the struggles of realizing that the problem in my blind eye was also happening to my other eye just on a slower pace, and that I was half way though college with a major that kind of requires sight to be plausible.
You still want to talk about burnout? And since you "have been there" then you can understand that yeah it was a slice of hell. That doesn't still make it a choice. And for that matter the Parent of my initial post seems to think his choice to go into the military was a "clice of hell" too, but the difference his he is complaining about it even though he chose it himself. Most people I know who are complainers, are also those who tend not to succeed.
Funny your talking about people who make generalizations and take for granted where they came from, yet it seems that in doing so you have made the same mistakes in judgment about me, as you don't know me, yet make assumptions of such a great magnitude.
Your right though there are people out there like that, but I'm not one of them.
Your also right that a lot of people had to make choices that effected my life. For that I'm greatful, but of course I also had to make choices in order to be in the position to have their choices effect me at all. Either way it still hinges on my choices, first. I've also made bad choices in my life.
But you don't hear me complaining that I had no other choice to make when I don't like the choice I did make, like the parent of my original post.
I'll send you a list if you would like, give me a couple of days to get it together.
But you don't get it. As an enlisted person they only have one angle to look at things. And that is. . . to follow orders.
You label such things as political information. . . yet such "information" at all has nothing to do with the duties of an inlisted person. You eat when told, you pee when told, you sleep when told, and you kill when told. And for that "choice" that enlisted person gets the best healthcare, while enlisted, get's paid a very decent wage, and get's many more opportunities provided for themselves after their enlistment is over. They make a choice to give up personal "freedoms" in order to protect our's.
Well, Karma is crap.
And. . . If it answers your question, my only thought is. . . . I believe most intellegence can be taught, but the only major factor in the way of that is self motivation to learn.
Must have been rough when the checks stopped. Funny, I didn't get any checks. And my car's engine blew up too. imagine that.
Must have been that redneck didn't want to seem gay swimmin' nude with my brothers thing.