I live in America, the only country that cares and is doing the right thing for the world That's a patently absurd statement. There's a wide continuum.
would it not follow that people like me are not the problem? People like you are exactly the problem. They don't concern themselves with the consequences of their actions. America wouldn't have pollution control laws if everybody thought like you.
Forget all this doomsday stuff. There's quality of life to consider. You can look at places around the world that suffer from heavy pollution where laws to protect the environment are lax. You can look at where America was heading before it started caring about the environment. Your position is that you never want to think about the consequences of your actions on the environment. While understandable, it is completely selfish and naive.
The event should be referred to as "phenomenon", or maybe just a "boom", but not a "disaster". If you google for Tunguska, "Tunguska event" is the most common term.
Even if it is a good game, it won't matter. The whole title has become a joke, like Snakes on a Plane. It would have to be one of the best games ever to be taken seriously, not just a "good game" in an over-saturated shooter genre.
But where would it lead. Wouldn't it reduce the athletes to being the mere "flesh" in the battle between Novartis (formlerly Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz), Pfizer and Roche? We're already on that road: The Beam in Your Eye.
it's too much for you to read something properly spelled and punctuated, with proper grammer, but lacking capitals? Well, practically speaking, it is harder to read posts without capitals. It's a convention with a purpose. It makes it easier to pick out sentences. When you don't follow that convention, you make it harder on your readers. Whether it is your intention or not, that is inconsiderate.
I have always thought that Tolkien would have been way better as a screenwriter. [...] Crappy writer compared to everything else I have ever read. Is he the worst I have read? No, but he definitely tried to make up for poor quality by dumping on quantity. The movies by Jackson were already too long. I shudder to think how long Tolkien would have made them.
No, any description I've ever heard of the Intelligent Design, capital, being pushed in certain school districts is that the designer is a deity, not subject to the laws of nature. I think Intelligent Design has morphed from a God creator to "intelligent agent", either natural or supernatural. For example, Richard Dawkins says:
"Disingenuously, intelligent design advocates try to disguise their religious motives by claiming that the designer's identity is left open. Not necessarily Yahweh, it could be an alien from space. Scientists would not object to that in principle, because the stellar alien, who might indeed be god-like from our humble viewpoint, presumably evolved by a gradual, cumulative process."
If you modified ID to omit a supernatural designer, if you still have the political goals behind ID at heart you still end up with problems, because one of your political goals is that there's no such thing as evolution. I'll grant you that is a problem, but I'm interested in the basic principle of intelligent design, not the Intelligent Design movement. What concerns me is the arguments against Intelligent Design are often against the basic principle, though this basic principle is at the very heart of looking for intelligent life in the universe. In the rush to defend evolution and the science class, interesting areas of science are being painted with the same brush. I'm just trying to disentangle the two, and it sounds to me that you, in principle, should be in agreement with this.
Well, how do you explain all the extinct and transitional forms in the fossil record? I'll reiterate here that I am not anti-evolution, nor pro Intelligent Design replacing evolution. I'm not religious in any way, and I accept evolution as the best theory we have.
It is the basic principle that Intelligent Design rests on that I find worthwhile. To me it's the question of what is this thing we refer to as "intelligence", and how do we recognize it's artifacts? This question is at the heart of the search for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
The problem with injecting God into a "theory," whether it's God, god, Vishnu, Allah, Buddha, Zeus or Thor is that you're proposing that a supernatural force is at work. My understanding of Intelligent Design is that "intelligent agent" is the phrase used, not "God". Is it ever stated that the intelligent agent is supernatural?
Any theory that includes a god-like influence that actually DOES something is unscientific. You can have theories that include a god that creates everything and then doesn't (can't) ever do anything else, but at that point you don't gain anything (and can't gain anything) except complexity so Occam's razor says to forego the god explanation. What's the difference between an advanced alien race and something you might describe as "god-like"? What should we be looking for to find intelligent life in the universe? Are we ourselves not subject to laws of nature? Are we not intelligent? Are the things we create the result of the laws of nature or intelligence?
I'm not trying to defend Intelligent Design or even the lowercase version as something that should be taught in the classroom, precisely because it is not established science. I'm not trying to discredit evolution or further the cause of religion. What I am trying to do is recognize that a rather broad broom is being used to sweep away the arguments of Intelligent Design, in what I perceive to be an intellectually dishonest way.
I think you are less guilty of this, in that you leave some room for lowercase "intelligent design", though I'm having trouble discerning the difference between the basic arguments of the uppercase version and the lowercase version, except that perhaps you are inserting religious words and ideas whereas the basic principle only speaks of intelligence.
So I agree. End of discussion. Can I jump in before you go?
I don't know what Intelligent Design theory you're talking about, but the one that I've heard about is the one that some people in places like Texas and Kansas would like taught in school. THAT Intelligent Design is widely acknowledged (including by most religious people) as a thin veneer on the Christian creation myth. I agree that the motive for Intelligent Design is to further Christianity, but isn't the basic argument put forth the same lowercase "intelligent design" you have been talking about? Isn't the basic argument that evolution seems unlikely to have produced what we see today? Do the Intelligent Design proponents ever inject Christian reasoning, like arguing for Bible-based theories like a young earth?
What has been bothering me about this Intelligent Design debate is that the typical knee-jerk argument of "not science" that you hear also applies against the lowercase "intelligent design" that you said could be scientific. It seems like a whole (potential) theory of science is being discarded because of the motives of some Christians. In particular, the search for "intelligent" life in the universe. Is that science?
No, it looked funny as in odd, not funny as in comic. It just seemed jumbled together, maybe because "scr" is often pronounced together. Anyways, Google agrees with you as far as popular usage is concerned.
Sentences end in a single period. "..." implies that you are trailing off and haven't completed your thoughts. Grammar (not "grammer") and spelling is important in getting your message across on Slashdot, too.
Enjoying that $1.50 gas, I bet? You lucky bastard! In any case, welcome to the year 2007. While we may not have the cheap fuel and rockin' grunge music you're used to [...] Can you believe that in early 1999 gas cost less than $1 a gallon? Kobain died in '94.
Hopefully CmdrTaco will require you to use javascript or flash to post comments so we can finally weed those people out:-) I do almost all my web browsing without Javascript or Flash and use my own colors and fonts. Oddly enough, it actuallys works for the vast majority of sites I visit, including Slashdot. The thing is most web pages don't need dynamic behavior, and don't need to be over-specified.
It's a big system. There are lots of good things about it, and "starting over" would throw away those good things and be replaced with... well we don't know. There will always be imperfections, and always some reason to complain about the "idiots in power". You're just advocating to blow up the system and replace them with other idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget all this doomsday stuff. There's quality of life to consider. You can look at places around the world that suffer from heavy pollution where laws to protect the environment are lax. You can look at where America was heading before it started caring about the environment. Your position is that you never want to think about the consequences of your actions on the environment. While understandable, it is completely selfish and naive.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Could you follow etiquette and put your sig as part fo your profile?
Even if it is a good game, it won't matter. The whole title has become a joke, like Snakes on a Plane. It would have to be one of the best games ever to be taken seriously, not just a "good game" in an over-saturated shooter genre.
This is not an endorsement of any charge of racism. You'll find plenty of debate on both sides.
Ha, that's even better than Kaufman reading The Great Gatsby :)
I agree with your post, but you gotta admit that the dwarf tossing bit was really out of place. Or was that in the book too?
"Disingenuously, intelligent design advocates try to disguise their religious motives by claiming that the designer's identity is left open. Not necessarily Yahweh, it could be an alien from space. Scientists would not object to that in principle, because the stellar alien, who might indeed be god-like from our humble viewpoint, presumably evolved by a gradual, cumulative process." If you modified ID to omit a supernatural designer, if you still have the political goals behind ID at heart you still end up with problems, because one of your political goals is that there's no such thing as evolution. I'll grant you that is a problem, but I'm interested in the basic principle of intelligent design, not the Intelligent Design movement. What concerns me is the arguments against Intelligent Design are often against the basic principle, though this basic principle is at the very heart of looking for intelligent life in the universe. In the rush to defend evolution and the science class, interesting areas of science are being painted with the same brush. I'm just trying to disentangle the two, and it sounds to me that you, in principle, should be in agreement with this. Well, how do you explain all the extinct and transitional forms in the fossil record? I'll reiterate here that I am not anti-evolution, nor pro Intelligent Design replacing evolution. I'm not religious in any way, and I accept evolution as the best theory we have.
It is the basic principle that Intelligent Design rests on that I find worthwhile. To me it's the question of what is this thing we refer to as "intelligence", and how do we recognize it's artifacts? This question is at the heart of the search for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
I'm not trying to defend Intelligent Design or even the lowercase version as something that should be taught in the classroom, precisely because it is not established science. I'm not trying to discredit evolution or further the cause of religion. What I am trying to do is recognize that a rather broad broom is being used to sweep away the arguments of Intelligent Design, in what I perceive to be an intellectually dishonest way.
I think you are less guilty of this, in that you leave some room for lowercase "intelligent design", though I'm having trouble discerning the difference between the basic arguments of the uppercase version and the lowercase version, except that perhaps you are inserting religious words and ideas whereas the basic principle only speaks of intelligence.
What has been bothering me about this Intelligent Design debate is that the typical knee-jerk argument of "not science" that you hear also applies against the lowercase "intelligent design" that you said could be scientific. It seems like a whole (potential) theory of science is being discarded because of the motives of some Christians. In particular, the search for "intelligent" life in the universe. Is that science?
No, it looked funny as in odd, not funny as in comic. It just seemed jumbled together, maybe because "scr" is often pronounced together. Anyways, Google agrees with you as far as popular usage is concerned.
Sentences end in a single period. "..." implies that you are trailing off and haven't completed your thoughts. Grammar (not "grammer") and spelling is important in getting your message across on Slashdot, too.
I'm not the original anonymous poster, but I agree with him. The concatenation looked funny. Also, a single line break doesn't make a paragraph.
Where can I get this 20 GHz single core processor?
It's a big system. There are lots of good things about it, and "starting over" would throw away those good things and be replaced with... well we don't know. There will always be imperfections, and always some reason to complain about the "idiots in power". You're just advocating to blow up the system and replace them with other idiots.