I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to somehow trigger it from the BIOS, similar to how you can boot some computers via LAN using a "wake-up" packet.
... What's tacked onto it? (No, I didn't RTFA.) This sounds like one of those seemingly innocuous bills that the **AA might push through Congress to once again "promote creativity," a.k.a. give consumers the chokehold.
...what we know with absolute certainty to be the truth.
Absolute certainty? Call me crazy, but having a philosophical mind, I'm always wary of any claims of "absolute certainty" about anything. For example, how do you know that you're not just a brain in a jar wired up to some alien-built supercomputer? How can you prove to me that I'm not dreaming? Obviously, things like this are a bit far-fetched, but it seems to me that the only way someone could touch on "absolute certainty" is to begin talking about God and Creation (which claim that God is the only way and the absolute truth, etc. etc.)... But weren't you just arguing against those very ideas?
So what exactly are you recommending? That we go to the RIAA and ask them to please be nice, and our problems will just vanish? It takes more than consumer complaints for these bastards to change.
I'm not sure whether you're trying to prove a point or just offering some information, but I can "prove" either side to you based on my own point of view.
Assuming evolution directly contradicts the Bible, it would be very easy for a scientist to claim that the Bible is just a collection of myths. Bam! Science wins!
It would also be easy for a Christian to claim that all evidence for evolution was planted by Satan. Bam! Religion wins!
So one could argue (on a very twisted level of logic) that we've just "disproven" both theism and evolution. I hope atheistic spontaneous creation sounds plausible to everyone, because it seems like that's where we're headed!
We were talking about irreducible complexity, not evolution in general. Those links described how an "irreducibly complex" system could be formed piece-by-piece if all the pieces were already in place in other systems (that's one point the articles make). Assuming all the pieces are indeed present, there are two ways the system could form:
1) Randomly.
2) Using instructions.
I'm not sure which of those you're implying is true, but I was assuming #2 (as #1 is highly unlikely, but who knows, maybe you enjoy dealing with randomness). I was simply asking the question of where those instructions might have come from, and how they might have formed. Did the instructions evolve before, after, or along with the components of the system?
My point is simply that evolution does not cover all of the bases, and if this was not a forum where religion was essentially banned from discussion, I would use it to fill in the missing gaps. As I said before, I do not disagree with evolution, and in fact, I think it goes hand-in-hand with scripture. One of the problems with many (not all, but many) scientists' thinking is that they believe everything will eventually be understood by science and science alone. Can I say that it won't? No! But can you say that it will?
Sometimes you just need to take a few steps out of faith and see where they lead. You might just learn a lot more than you were expecting.
With that, I've made my point. Flame all you want, but from this point on I won't respond unless it's particularly thought-provoking.
I've already admitted that ID has holes of its own. What I'm really looking for is someone to answer my questions about evolution. You can't seriously discuss ID or religion on these forums, because nobody will even consider it. I'm not arguing for ID at all, so it's pointless to continue bashing it. I'm bringing the debate to your home turf, and I'm giving you every opportunity in the world to answer my questions. Why can't you do so?
1) Please, for everyone's sake, learn to spell.
2) If there was a way to quantify irreducible complexity, I'd do it. If there was a way to quantify evolution, or intelligent design, or Charles Darwin, I'd do that too. What does quantification have to do with your point?
3) Otherwise you are simply stating that a system could not have come into being without external asistance simply because you cant think of a good explanation.
Good point, but that's not at all what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that the most common explanations for evolution (and ID also) tend to ignore presented evidence if they don't agree with it, and if you want to be truly scientific, you just can't do that. Fundamentalists aren't scientific, but they aren't claiming to be. However, I just can't see any way that a good scientist could debunk ID without considering the holes that our current theories have. Look at the recent/. article about politicians for a comparison (I'm too lazy to find the link).
I'm going to claim that these systems and others are irreducibly complex. I don't think it's impossible that I'm wrong, but saying "thus far no such system has been observed" is a bit of a blanket statement that seems to ignore all evidence to the contrary.
However, evolution is one of the most well-established theories that science has to offer. It is supported by evidence extremely well and is validated by hundreds of new observations every day.
Let me remind you that as widely-known and understood as evolution is, even Darwin himself admitted that the theory could be debunked if it could be proven that a system could not exist in an "intermediate" state such as that which evolution requires:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
As a proponent of evolution, I'm sure you've heard arguments such as irreducible/specified complexity and life's beginnings hundreds of times. Allow me to ask you, merely out of curiosity rather than criticism - How do you defend your position against those arguments?
Putting on my flame suit: Though I am a Christian, I personally believe that evolution is compatible with scripture. However, I also know better than to put my entire faith in a theory which has such holes (just like I question my religious beliefs on a regular basis). I am clearly not a fundamentalist, so not all Christians are "incapable of holding a logical thought" in their heads.
Re:Although this seems "reasonable" in light of th
on
Google Delists BMW-Germany
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In effect, google is dictating the terms upon which the entire web must operate...
I disagree. Does Google dominate the search market? Yes. However, I don't recall them ever using anti-competitive techniques to get there, unlike a certain Redmond-based corporation that we all love to hate. The difference here is that Google is at the top because customers like their services, not because the competition was intentionally squashed. I agree that Google needs to use a lot more discretion in the way it operates certain aspects, but I think claiming that the company is "dictating the terms upon which the entire web must operate" is a bit over the top.
Isn't the purpose of this article to patch user ignorance?
You know, the saddest part is that the only people who will learn about this virus in time to do anything about it are the ones who are least likely to have become infected in the first place.
So if you hook this up to a Windows box, does it blow up like the androids on the old Star Trek?
If by "blow up," you mean BSOD, then I'd say your chances are pretty good. Then again, who knows... with Vista's Red SOD and all, we might uncover new levels of crashing.;-)
Re:Obligatory Troll...
on
IE7 Leaked
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
If look at the security hole listings for IE, there are exactly 3 buffer overflow problems found in the entire history of the browser.
Three documented buffer overflow problems. Keep in mind that Microsoft is well known for its lack of documentation in both bugs and operating system "features." Also remember that buffer overflows aren't the only kind of "non-stupid-user" vulnerability in any application (e.g. heap overflows).
And of course when running as non-admin, all the security exploits are irrelavent.
Disregarding the fact that "irrelavent" is not an English word, how many Windows users do you know who actually run as a non-admin? I don't; I know I should, but it's a pain in the ass, and I consider myself knowledgeable enough to know how to prevent most issues and to fix any that should happen to come up as a result of vulnerabilities.
I'd like to see someone do a study regarding the TCO for small businesses. It seems like nowadays the focus is on large corporations, but we can't forget that "Mom & Pop stores" bring large amounts of revenue as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to somehow trigger it from the BIOS, similar to how you can boot some computers via LAN using a "wake-up" packet.
... What's tacked onto it? (No, I didn't RTFA.) This sounds like one of those seemingly innocuous bills that the **AA might push through Congress to once again "promote creativity," a.k.a. give consumers the chokehold.
...what we know with absolute certainty to be the truth.
Absolute certainty? Call me crazy, but having a philosophical mind, I'm always wary of any claims of "absolute certainty" about anything. For example, how do you know that you're not just a brain in a jar wired up to some alien-built supercomputer? How can you prove to me that I'm not dreaming? Obviously, things like this are a bit far-fetched, but it seems to me that the only way someone could touch on "absolute certainty" is to begin talking about God and Creation (which claim that God is the only way and the absolute truth, etc. etc.)... But weren't you just arguing against those very ideas?
...rather than actually competing on an equal footing.
Actually, I don't think that's what Linux wants to do at all.
So what exactly are you recommending? That we go to the RIAA and ask them to please be nice, and our problems will just vanish? It takes more than consumer complaints for these bastards to change.
... It is? I was able to load the page just fine.
Top 10 Strangest MP3 Players :-)
I'm not sure whether you're trying to prove a point or just offering some information, but I can "prove" either side to you based on my own point of view.
Assuming evolution directly contradicts the Bible, it would be very easy for a scientist to claim that the Bible is just a collection of myths. Bam! Science wins!
It would also be easy for a Christian to claim that all evidence for evolution was planted by Satan. Bam! Religion wins!
So one could argue (on a very twisted level of logic) that we've just "disproven" both theism and evolution. I hope atheistic spontaneous creation sounds plausible to everyone, because it seems like that's where we're headed!
We were talking about irreducible complexity, not evolution in general. Those links described how an "irreducibly complex" system could be formed piece-by-piece if all the pieces were already in place in other systems (that's one point the articles make). Assuming all the pieces are indeed present, there are two ways the system could form:
1) Randomly.
2) Using instructions.
I'm not sure which of those you're implying is true, but I was assuming #2 (as #1 is highly unlikely, but who knows, maybe you enjoy dealing with randomness). I was simply asking the question of where those instructions might have come from, and how they might have formed. Did the instructions evolve before, after, or along with the components of the system?
My point is simply that evolution does not cover all of the bases, and if this was not a forum where religion was essentially banned from discussion, I would use it to fill in the missing gaps. As I said before, I do not disagree with evolution, and in fact, I think it goes hand-in-hand with scripture. One of the problems with many (not all, but many) scientists' thinking is that they believe everything will eventually be understood by science and science alone. Can I say that it won't? No! But can you say that it will?
Sometimes you just need to take a few steps out of faith and see where they lead. You might just learn a lot more than you were expecting.
With that, I've made my point. Flame all you want, but from this point on I won't respond unless it's particularly thought-provoking.
My point exactly.
Thanks! Now we're getting somewhere. Would you mind providing a link to a website which tells me how the first life began out of proteins?
Agreed, and thank you for your answer. Now, let me ask you this... From where did the instructions for building this system come?
I've already admitted that ID has holes of its own. What I'm really looking for is someone to answer my questions about evolution. You can't seriously discuss ID or religion on these forums, because nobody will even consider it. I'm not arguing for ID at all, so it's pointless to continue bashing it. I'm bringing the debate to your home turf, and I'm giving you every opportunity in the world to answer my questions. Why can't you do so?
1) Please, for everyone's sake, learn to spell. /. article about politicians for a comparison (I'm too lazy to find the link).
2) If there was a way to quantify irreducible complexity, I'd do it. If there was a way to quantify evolution, or intelligent design, or Charles Darwin, I'd do that too. What does quantification have to do with your point?
3) Otherwise you are simply stating that a system could not have come into being without external asistance simply because you cant think of a good explanation.
Good point, but that's not at all what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that the most common explanations for evolution (and ID also) tend to ignore presented evidence if they don't agree with it, and if you want to be truly scientific, you just can't do that. Fundamentalists aren't scientific, but they aren't claiming to be. However, I just can't see any way that a good scientist could debunk ID without considering the holes that our current theories have. Look at the recent
Okay, now you need to argue your point.
Examples:
-The bacterial flagellum
-DNA replication mechanisms
-Cell division
-Cilium
-Blood clotting
I'm going to claim that these systems and others are irreducibly complex. I don't think it's impossible that I'm wrong, but saying "thus far no such system has been observed" is a bit of a blanket statement that seems to ignore all evidence to the contrary.
However, evolution is one of the most well-established theories that science has to offer. It is supported by evidence extremely well and is validated by hundreds of new observations every day.
Let me remind you that as widely-known and understood as evolution is, even Darwin himself admitted that the theory could be debunked if it could be proven that a system could not exist in an "intermediate" state such as that which evolution requires:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
As a proponent of evolution, I'm sure you've heard arguments such as irreducible/specified complexity and life's beginnings hundreds of times. Allow me to ask you, merely out of curiosity rather than criticism - How do you defend your position against those arguments?
Putting on my flame suit: Though I am a Christian, I personally believe that evolution is compatible with scripture. However, I also know better than to put my entire faith in a theory which has such holes (just like I question my religious beliefs on a regular basis). I am clearly not a fundamentalist, so not all Christians are "incapable of holding a logical thought" in their heads.
In effect, google is dictating the terms upon which the entire web must operate...
I disagree. Does Google dominate the search market? Yes. However, I don't recall them ever using anti-competitive techniques to get there, unlike a certain Redmond-based corporation that we all love to hate. The difference here is that Google is at the top because customers like their services, not because the competition was intentionally squashed. I agree that Google needs to use a lot more discretion in the way it operates certain aspects, but I think claiming that the company is "dictating the terms upon which the entire web must operate" is a bit over the top.
Well, seems this does not do linux.
Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I've never seen a Linux system that would have a use for a product like Genesis.
Isn't the purpose of this article to patch user ignorance?
You know, the saddest part is that the only people who will learn about this virus in time to do anything about it are the ones who are least likely to have become infected in the first place.
Hey, how did you know what software we were running?
-SixApart CEO
So if you hook this up to a Windows box, does it blow up like the androids on the old Star Trek?
;-)
If by "blow up," you mean BSOD, then I'd say your chances are pretty good. Then again, who knows... with Vista's Red SOD and all, we might uncover new levels of crashing.
I, for one, welcome our new pirating overlords.
If look at the security hole listings for IE, there are exactly 3 buffer overflow problems found in the entire history of the browser.
Three documented buffer overflow problems. Keep in mind that Microsoft is well known for its lack of documentation in both bugs and operating system "features." Also remember that buffer overflows aren't the only kind of "non-stupid-user" vulnerability in any application (e.g. heap overflows).
And of course when running as non-admin, all the security exploits are irrelavent.
Disregarding the fact that "irrelavent" is not an English word, how many Windows users do you know who actually run as a non-admin? I don't; I know I should, but it's a pain in the ass, and I consider myself knowledgeable enough to know how to prevent most issues and to fix any that should happen to come up as a result of vulnerabilities.
I'd like to see someone do a study regarding the TCO for small businesses. It seems like nowadays the focus is on large corporations, but we can't forget that "Mom & Pop stores" bring large amounts of revenue as well.