Firefox is copying Chrome, because the marketers don't want them to get too far behind. It's just like "this one is better, it goes to 11, it's one louder".
My dad bought a Renault Alliance because it was Motor Trend Car of the Year in 1983. What a mistake. That is still the worst car I have ever driven by a long way.
But he then separated the seed, and planted only the GMO seed and then used Roundup on it, showing intent to defraud. Monsanto claims they wouldn't go after a farmer that used their seed unwittingly and didn't use Roundup on it (not that I believe them because they are pure evil in my mind).
I live in California and I can tell you that the food I grow is pretty expensive compared to the market. I constantly have to fertilize the soil with Miracle Grow or something to grow anything, and then rabbits, snails, coyotes, birds, rats, etc. eat it before I do. Whatever little is left, I might as well just buy the produce compared to those prices ($20 Miracle Grow + fences, etc. for 10 tomatoes, 5 strawberries and 10 yellow squash--pretty expensive compared to the 99 Cents store or Costco, who both have excellent produce, much better than the supermarkets).
Given the way my weight dropped when I quit eating carbs (70 pounds in 9 months and I was only 238 to begin with), I would say it's the high volume of carbs in packaged foods. One person said, "shop the edges of the supermarket" and they were right. The milk, cheese, meat and produce are at the edges (even the nuts are typically by the alcohol on one side). The ENTIRE center of the store is virtually nothing but empty carbs in various forms.
Looking online is already more accurate than many of the poor-quality doctors that I see these days. Good doctors are, of course, much better than reading yourself online. This technology in combination with a doctor would be very powerful. It would even be better as a means of rating doctors that disagree with the machine and are right or wrong in those instances.
So, you don't want your medical diagnosis machine tested by the FDA to ensure that it's as safe as can be? You don't want to be able to sue a large, wealthy organization for malpractice leading to your death?
The ribbon is good in that you can set things by example visually that actually tick multiple settings at once. After learning it, I actually prefer it and don't like using a word processor without it anymore.
If you have Vonage, you can do this for free with their Extensions app. I'm about to go on vacation in a foreign country, and while I'm there I'll just hop on Wifi and call international numbers in that country for free with their app (it bills against the Vonage World service at home and costs me nothing since the country I'm going to is free on Vonage World).
This is exactly why I disagree with Dave Ramsey's otherwise great financial advice. You simply don't want to use a Visa/MC debit card, especially for online purchases.
Having worked in the mortgage industry for several years, most people were able to easily remove mistakes from their credit and get a loan. At most, it took an extra 30 days. While nothing that 60 Minutes said was untrue, it was certainly cherry-picking. I had mortgage agents that would tell their customers to get a lawyer to send a sternly-worded letter in the stubborn cases. That usually took care of it.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Many people have been ridiculed by the "established" scientific community and have been found to be right later on (Einstein, Galileo, etc.)
By your definition, you would have included Einstein in the "not-science" category because he didn't agree with the obviously correct Newton. Students should be allowed and even encouraged to test and challenge any science they like, as long as they are taught the scientific method. What's going to happen? They end up proving the non-truth somehow with a repeatable experiment? Not gonna happen (or at least not for long, see "cold fusion").
Well most of the god-tards have moved on from disputing that things evolve.
Incorrect. According to Answers in Genesis, over 50% of science professors at Christian Universities do not believe in evolution.
Rather their new shit is intelligent design, which says that god works behind the scenes, controlling how things evolve and change.
Incorrect. That view has nothing to do with intelligent design. Intelligent design says that life is designed, not evolved. The only question is whether the designer was God or an alien race.
So they aren't disputing the fact that change happens, they are disputing the theory as to why.
Incorrect. They are disputing everything from the age of the earth (finding a lot of evidence for 6000 years as well as a lot that has upper limits of 100,000 years, 1 million years, etc., all of which disprove evolution in their minds), the genetic age of man (said by non-creationists to show a lack of mutations exactly 6000 years ago), that dinosaurs died off 65^h6 million years ago (there is evidence that dragons have been spotted throughout history into the 1600s as real creatures), that the fossil record shows evolution (even prominent atheists say it looks as though life "showed up" in all it's forms overnight, with little evidence of any intermediate forms), the Oort cloud (it's a fantasy to save evolution because comets otherwise show the solar system to be less than 100,000 years old), etc., etc., etc.
However their counter is not a theory, since there is no way to test it, and hence has no place in science class.
You could say the same about evolution. What testing was done to align the 66 million year old comet strike with the end of the dinosaurs? Do you really consider that science? Seems like 2 stories that happened to fit together. This science is very little like observational science. And yet people accept it readily with zero critical thinking and bash anyone who disagrees. Why? People who disagree with the truth will eventually be shown wrong. Science should never "choose sides". That's politics, not science.
In any event, if you really care about the science of creationism, you can study it yourself very easily here:
All the categories are there if you would like to see what they believe and the science they use to prove their theories. But I assure you, they follow the scientific method very carefully and many of their challenges are very good science and difficult to counter. There is a lot to learn by looking at both sides.
Even if it is right, it is not science as it is not something one can test. Any time you mention god, by definition outside of the universe and untestable, you aren't talking science.
That might be true if they were trying to scientifically prove the existence of God (they're not). Instead they are scientifically proving the following:
1. The earth is less than billions of years old. They have some compelling evidence that the earth is 6000 years old, mostly centered around radiohalos and helium deposits.
2. Man did not evolve from apes, sludge, etc. They have some compelling genetic evidence that man had a perfect genome free of mutations 6000 years ago.
3. The earth's current state was caused by a global flood. The Grand Canyon could happen very quickly (proven by the formation of extremely similar canyons near Mt. St. Helens after the 1980 eruption). That a single ice age would necessarily be the result of a global flood. That fish fossils in Kansas, for example, are the result of a global flood. That almost all the fossil record is cataclysmic in nature and caused by the flood (fossils giving birth or eating show a very quick burial). That the mountains caused by tectonic plate movement require rapid move
I really don't see why people are so against critical thinking. If evolution is so rock solid, won't it stand up to any scrutiny no matter what? I don't see people getting worked up that the creationists will disprove gravity or electricity but for some reason people seem to make it a life mission to eradicate creation while at the same time believing it has zero merit.
Interestingly, this is a point that the creationists make all the time. According to them, origins science has very little actual observational science going on, and has much to do with the biases of the observer (both ways, they don't claim to be free of the bias of starting with the Bible).
English is used just because while French has to be legislated.
I remember one time hearing that all TSN and CBC hockey broadcasts had to have a French SAP audio channel, but the RDS broadcasts didn't have to have an English one. I asked a Canadian about this and he said, "Because we don't care about French TV."
Actually, this isn't exactly true. If everyone jumps on and watches video in the evenings, then the local shared pipe will get saturated and everyone's experience will suffer. Running more lines could solve the problem. So, in essence, bandwidth could "be full". But that's not what's happening, except in rare instances.
Seriously. What's with this new generation that has to force their way or the highway on the world? Every new piece of software that comes out forces you to do things you don't want. Now they're trying to turn Linux into Windows 8.
Or how about the article Slashdot is currently mocking about the dinosaurs 66 million years ago? An entire article of hopeful maybes that 2 years from now will be the gospel according to evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up. This is very Informative.
Firefox is copying Chrome, because the marketers don't want them to get too far behind. It's just like "this one is better, it goes to 11, it's one louder".
My dad bought a Renault Alliance because it was Motor Trend Car of the Year in 1983. What a mistake. That is still the worst car I have ever driven by a long way.
Brought to you by Chrysler...
But he then separated the seed, and planted only the GMO seed and then used Roundup on it, showing intent to defraud. Monsanto claims they wouldn't go after a farmer that used their seed unwittingly and didn't use Roundup on it (not that I believe them because they are pure evil in my mind).
I live in California and I can tell you that the food I grow is pretty expensive compared to the market. I constantly have to fertilize the soil with Miracle Grow or something to grow anything, and then rabbits, snails, coyotes, birds, rats, etc. eat it before I do. Whatever little is left, I might as well just buy the produce compared to those prices ($20 Miracle Grow + fences, etc. for 10 tomatoes, 5 strawberries and 10 yellow squash--pretty expensive compared to the 99 Cents store or Costco, who both have excellent produce, much better than the supermarkets).
Given the way my weight dropped when I quit eating carbs (70 pounds in 9 months and I was only 238 to begin with), I would say it's the high volume of carbs in packaged foods. One person said, "shop the edges of the supermarket" and they were right. The milk, cheese, meat and produce are at the edges (even the nuts are typically by the alcohol on one side). The ENTIRE center of the store is virtually nothing but empty carbs in various forms.
It doesn't matter. They're using the same system so the second opinion is very similar to the first. Eerily similar. Deja vu, in fact.
Looking online is already more accurate than many of the poor-quality doctors that I see these days. Good doctors are, of course, much better than reading yourself online. This technology in combination with a doctor would be very powerful. It would even be better as a means of rating doctors that disagree with the machine and are right or wrong in those instances.
So, you don't want your medical diagnosis machine tested by the FDA to ensure that it's as safe as can be? You don't want to be able to sue a large, wealthy organization for malpractice leading to your death?
The ribbon is good in that you can set things by example visually that actually tick multiple settings at once. After learning it, I actually prefer it and don't like using a word processor without it anymore.
In fact, my Vonage calls are actually higher quality than cell calls by far. So I would think that the perceived quality would improve, actually.
I've had Vonage for a decade and there's no jitter whatsoever. What makes you think there would be?
If you have Vonage, you can do this for free with their Extensions app. I'm about to go on vacation in a foreign country, and while I'm there I'll just hop on Wifi and call international numbers in that country for free with their app (it bills against the Vonage World service at home and costs me nothing since the country I'm going to is free on Vonage World).
This is exactly why I disagree with Dave Ramsey's otherwise great financial advice. You simply don't want to use a Visa/MC debit card, especially for online purchases.
Having worked in the mortgage industry for several years, most people were able to easily remove mistakes from their credit and get a loan. At most, it took an extra 30 days. While nothing that 60 Minutes said was untrue, it was certainly cherry-picking. I had mortgage agents that would tell their customers to get a lawyer to send a sternly-worded letter in the stubborn cases. That usually took care of it.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Many people have been ridiculed by the "established" scientific community and have been found to be right later on (Einstein, Galileo, etc.)
By your definition, you would have included Einstein in the "not-science" category because he didn't agree with the obviously correct Newton. Students should be allowed and even encouraged to test and challenge any science they like, as long as they are taught the scientific method. What's going to happen? They end up proving the non-truth somehow with a repeatable experiment? Not gonna happen (or at least not for long, see "cold fusion").
Well most of the god-tards have moved on from disputing that things evolve.
Incorrect. According to Answers in Genesis, over 50% of science professors at Christian Universities do not believe in evolution.
Rather their new shit is intelligent design, which says that god works behind the scenes, controlling how things evolve and change.
Incorrect. That view has nothing to do with intelligent design. Intelligent design says that life is designed, not evolved. The only question is whether the designer was God or an alien race.
So they aren't disputing the fact that change happens, they are disputing the theory as to why.
Incorrect. They are disputing everything from the age of the earth (finding a lot of evidence for 6000 years as well as a lot that has upper limits of 100,000 years, 1 million years, etc., all of which disprove evolution in their minds), the genetic age of man (said by non-creationists to show a lack of mutations exactly 6000 years ago), that dinosaurs died off 65^h6 million years ago (there is evidence that dragons have been spotted throughout history into the 1600s as real creatures), that the fossil record shows evolution (even prominent atheists say it looks as though life "showed up" in all it's forms overnight, with little evidence of any intermediate forms), the Oort cloud (it's a fantasy to save evolution because comets otherwise show the solar system to be less than 100,000 years old), etc., etc., etc.
However their counter is not a theory, since there is no way to test it, and hence has no place in science class.
You could say the same about evolution. What testing was done to align the 66 million year old comet strike with the end of the dinosaurs? Do you really consider that science? Seems like 2 stories that happened to fit together. This science is very little like observational science. And yet people accept it readily with zero critical thinking and bash anyone who disagrees. Why? People who disagree with the truth will eventually be shown wrong. Science should never "choose sides". That's politics, not science.
In any event, if you really care about the science of creationism, you can study it yourself very easily here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers
All the categories are there if you would like to see what they believe and the science they use to prove their theories. But I assure you, they follow the scientific method very carefully and many of their challenges are very good science and difficult to counter. There is a lot to learn by looking at both sides.
Even if it is right, it is not science as it is not something one can test. Any time you mention god, by definition outside of the universe and untestable, you aren't talking science.
That might be true if they were trying to scientifically prove the existence of God (they're not). Instead they are scientifically proving the following:
1. The earth is less than billions of years old. They have some compelling evidence that the earth is 6000 years old, mostly centered around radiohalos and helium deposits.
2. Man did not evolve from apes, sludge, etc. They have some compelling genetic evidence that man had a perfect genome free of mutations 6000 years ago.
3. The earth's current state was caused by a global flood. The Grand Canyon could happen very quickly (proven by the formation of extremely similar canyons near Mt. St. Helens after the 1980 eruption). That a single ice age would necessarily be the result of a global flood. That fish fossils in Kansas, for example, are the result of a global flood. That almost all the fossil record is cataclysmic in nature and caused by the flood (fossils giving birth or eating show a very quick burial). That the mountains caused by tectonic plate movement require rapid move
And who really cares whether gravity IS an "open and shut case"? Students should be taught to think critically anyway.
Einstein changed "open and shut case" Newtonian physics.
Copernicus and Galileo changed the "open and shut case" of a flat earth.
Even the "open and shut case" of what causes ulcers (stress) was later found to be bacterial.
A large part of science is all about critical review of "open and shut cases".
I really don't see why people are so against critical thinking. If evolution is so rock solid, won't it stand up to any scrutiny no matter what? I don't see people getting worked up that the creationists will disprove gravity or electricity but for some reason people seem to make it a life mission to eradicate creation while at the same time believing it has zero merit.
Wouldn't patience accomplish the same goal?
Interestingly, this is a point that the creationists make all the time. According to them, origins science has very little actual observational science going on, and has much to do with the biases of the observer (both ways, they don't claim to be free of the bias of starting with the Bible).
English is used just because while French has to be legislated.
I remember one time hearing that all TSN and CBC hockey broadcasts had to have a French SAP audio channel, but the RDS broadcasts didn't have to have an English one. I asked a Canadian about this and he said, "Because we don't care about French TV."
Actually, this isn't exactly true. If everyone jumps on and watches video in the evenings, then the local shared pipe will get saturated and everyone's experience will suffer. Running more lines could solve the problem. So, in essence, bandwidth could "be full". But that's not what's happening, except in rare instances.
Seriously. What's with this new generation that has to force their way or the highway on the world? Every new piece of software that comes out forces you to do things you don't want. Now they're trying to turn Linux into Windows 8.
Or how about the article Slashdot is currently mocking about the dinosaurs 66 million years ago? An entire article of hopeful maybes that 2 years from now will be the gospel according to evolution.