Thank you for your inquiry.
The government believes that private industry, given its established expertise and experience in the field of electronic tax preparation, has a proven track record in providing the best technology and services available. In addition, the government believes a partnership with private industry will: provide taxpayers with higher quality services by using the existing expertise of the private sector; maximize consumer choice; promote competition within the marketplace; and meet objectives in the least costly manner to taxpayers.
We hope the above information will prove helpful to you.
Sincerely,
The IRS Website Support Team
translated from bureaucratic speak to plain english...
Thank you for your inquiry.
The government is paid off by private industry, given its established expertise and experience in the field of minting money from electronic tax preparation. It also has a proven track record in providing the most bang for the congress person buck in terms of campaign contributions, junkets and all sorts of other deals we don't want you to know about (see what happened to Cunningham). In addition, the government believes a partnership with private industry will provide congress persons with higher quality of donation by charging US citizens money to redirect back to us; maximize consumer choice from those companies who bribe us regularly; promote competition within the marketplace in order to ramp up our intake of cash; and meet objectives in the least costly manner to taxpayers given that congress persons need to get paid - and paid well. no freebie tax prep with no source of income to send our way will EVER be approved by the IRS, so go away or we'll tap your phones and send the RIAA and MPAA after you.
We hope the above information will prove helpful to you, it sure is helpful to us in terms of getting kickbacks - and that is why we do what we do.
Sincerely,
The IRS Website Support Team (hey, we don't make the rules, we just don't anger our masters, and the retirement is good)
PS - a million dollars in bri... errr, campaign donations will get what you want... otherwise, get lost.
i think the guy has a point as far as deleting the setup executable for his program.
deleting other files is just plain dumb, though, and may get him in big trouble if (when?) his program deletes important files unrelated to his program.
i'll bet his attorney suggested he take this approach...
Are you unable to think beyond your own tiny sense of self? Speed cameras aren't just put up as a revenue earner, or to piss you off. The pen pushers that make these choices do so do because, and you may find this surprising, they are thinking about preservation of not only your life, but the safety of millions of other people just like you. No fun to have someone you love killed because some retard wants to get home 2 seconds quicker.
Condoning violence is stupid. Being violent is equally as moronic. (Ex military, so I'd like to think I have a clue)
let me help with the clue part... did you know that accidents actually go up, on average, when they install those cameras?
so, how does taking actions that increase accidents yield a higher safety factor again?
oh, and prove it, don't just make up some kind of nonsense to prooftext prior nonsense.
Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.
bill is exactly right. NOBODY can exploit a vista box. not. ever.
bill, "no, you can't have the power chord, i NEVER said you could use the power chord."
most folks aren't prepared for marriage. i sure wasn't, and neither was my wife. looking at the dazed and confused looks of nearly everyone i know, neither were they. here are some notable facts you need to consider:
1. the vast majority of women consider sex a tool to use to get what they want. that's their excitement. for example, most women will be sexually available during dating, but will all of a suden get annoyed at sex once the marriage is over. in my case, 100% availability and sexy turned into 90% unavailability and sex was mostly annoying within months of marriage. we dated 5 years, so 5 years went one way, got married and everything changed almost immediately. 2. women tend to see absolutely nothign wrong with #1, above. they did what they had to had to do to get what they wanted - and what else is there? this is quite narcissistic, but, well... it is what it is... 3. women don't want to be "sex slaves" (what a freaking bad attitude!) to their husbands... but neither to do husbands want to be celibate slaves to their wife. you've never heard the latter b/c, well, that concept probably has never entered into the mind of a woman b/c they don't really think about anything other themselves when it comes to sexuality. 4. the average woman *really* wants a eunuch to 1. make her look good in front of her friends, 2. isnpire others to be jealous of her, 3. buy her lots of crap, 4. if you don't buy her crap, at least pay for the mortgage and all expenses so she can direct all her money to buy herself crap, oh, and did mention make others jalous of her? 5. the average woman is very emotional, but not very intimate, while the guy is very intimate, but not so emotional. 6. all that sexual energy she used to trick you to marry her - it now all goes into eating. well, not always, just 90% of the time.
now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman not too interested in sex (and 90% are not interested in sex beyond using it to get what they want - and when they get married, they already have what they want, monetary security (a mule to pull their cart, so to speak)).
but there is something *really* immoral, wrong, dishonest and downright EVIL about pretending to be some kind of sexy when one is really the ice queen. make no mistake, 90% will freeze out their husbands and shed no tears about the all but celibate life they trick their provider to enter.
so, do i sound a bit cynical? want to know something scary? i married a pretty good woman and she pulled this crap on me too. i don't think it is b/c she's evil, rather, i think it is b/c the wiring is different. just like guys can't help their sexual desire, neither do women have to think about manipulating guys with sex and then freezing them out FOR LIFE.
most guys would much prefer to be in bed with their sexy, hot wife who is into them... but that person only existed PRIOR TO MARRIAGE. she's long gone, now.
anyway, i recommend that every single guy read the "proper care and feeding of marriage" and make sure their fiance reads it. then toss in the "proper care and feeding of husbands." if she can't make a commitment - assume at you own peril, b/c there is a 90%+ chance you end up devastated FOR LIFE - to the precepts in that book, run away as fast as you can.
i also recommend listening to her radio show. hearing women call up and complain about their husbands wanting sex and men complain about their woan throwing them under the bus will give you some perspective beyond the LIE that is a woman dating.
fortunately, my the message of how CRUEL my wife has slowly sunk into her and now she makes more of an effort to not just suck me dry (in every way but the way i want, right) and she is beginning to realize that marriage wasn't just a "free security (money, protection, guidance, etc...)" kind of deal, rather, she had some responsibilities, too. it wasn't just get, get, get, but she has to give some back.
my guess is not more than 10% of the women who deceive their boyfri
i'm wondering if your post was modded "interesting" due to your confusion.
msft didn't try and make friends with linux, they claimed ownership.
let me draw an analogy...
big jim makes friends with your girlfriend. no problem. this ISN'T what msft did.
big jim declares OWNERSHIP over your girlfriend and says you must contact him and pay him in order to talk to her. this *IS*
what msft did.
okay, i've lost 3/4 of slashdot b/c i mentioned "girlfriend," but the other 1/4 get the idea.
msft has claimed ownership over parts of linux such that, if their claim is true, YOU WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE TO PAY MICROSOFT FOR EVERY LINUX INSTALL IN THE WORLD.
excuse me, but i think the proper response to this claim isn't "can't we all get along?"
rather, i think it is time to build up the linux fortress, gentleman, linux is under a full scale assault. yes, the time frame is extended due to the nature of the battle, but msft wants 1. linux F*ING KILLED or they want to get paid for EVERY SINGLE LINUX INSTALLATION IN THE ENTIRE WORLD! nothing else is acceptabel to these people.
think about it.
6. What do you think about the Microsoft/Novell deal? I think it is a good thing especially for the users. If you think some years back, Linux was not taken seriously. Now even Microsoft acknowledges that it exists and will not go away.
they didn't say this. i think this is what this naive or "incentivized" person wishes he had heard. even if they said that (they didn't), their vision of "linux not going away" has microsoft effectively owning and monetizing linux, if not controlling it outright, and requiring everyone who uses it to pay them money. this is just the first step to wreak their evil plan on linux... msft HATES linux. msft wants to F*ING KILL linux. you can bet your life on it. the *only* way they will not make all out war on linux is if they plan on monetizing it - reaching into everyone's pocket and extracting more cash. by force, if necessary.
clearly, msft wants to...
1. gain control over linux to monetize it and / or damage it so windows gains an advantage.
2. set it up to "f*ing kill it," to paraphrase a monkey.
linux going mainstream isn't the goal. keeping linux free is the goal. who cares if linux is ubiquitous if msft charges $400 for it or the right to use it without being sued into oblivion?
how is this good? remember, the rest of us observers aren't getting thousands of stock options to buy our point of view.
I understand that many people don't like it as Novell is collaborating with the "evil empire". But I don't like this way of thinking; we are not working against somebody, but we are working FOR Linux.
either this gentleman was paid really well or he is a naive idealist. it doesn't so much matter that one's intent was to merely pet the great white shark - the shark will shred every fiber in your body anyway. in the same way, there is no reasonable doubt that msft wants only BAD THINGS FOR LINUX unless it means VERY GOOD THINGS FOR THEIR POCKETBOOK, so it doesn't matter if novell says they want only good things. msft is bigger, badder, smarter, more selfish and more evil than anything novell can muster on the good side.
oh, and i have little faith that novell is even good. i think they are out for self above all else - effectively the same as msft, but not nearly as lucky and/or good.
Fundamentalism always leads to pain.
this is a total red herring. it diverts from the real issue - and i have to ask why this gentleman prefers diversion above in depth discussion.
What's important is that Linux is free and will remain to be free.
why, b/c this guy says so? even if he was a supreme court justice, he'd still only have one vote! if linux remains free, it won't be b/c of people who made the novell / msft deal, it will be b/c of those who speak out against it and deals like it.
how free is something if i have to pay for some unspecified, alledged infringement? "well, sir, that depends on how you define free," argued the company that received $350 million to support the infringement concept.
no thank you. i want honesty and integrity, not doublespeak and parsing of each and every word.
The source code is open to everybody, this is what counts for me.
but his business partner says that the right to use said open source code is restricted and requires a payment to his business partner. iow, everyone using this source code has an UNFUNDED MONETARY OBLIGATION to his partner in crime. yes, sir, crime - and he is a spirit of the gpl criminal and he's just trying to justify it for his own selfish reasons.
you claim to be fine with this central issue, yet you never bother to discuss it? how easy that is!
Some people seem to be torn in an interesting way: On one hand they want "world domination", at the same time they don't like the feeling that Linux has grown up and needs to deal with the real business world out there.
i was using pgsql 8.x back in 2005 - so it existed. they just cherry picked versions to get the result they wanted.
postgresql.org linked to a new study where both current versions (at the time, and it was recent - pgsql is 8.2 now) of mysql and postgresql were put throught the paces...
http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.691
But locking out w2k users with software that will run fine if not for an explicit OS version check is just unfair.
*exactly* what ever gave you the impression that msft factored in "fair" when they made a decision about their software? *all* they care about is getting your money and they will do anything underhanded they can to extract every last turnip dollar you can give them.
asking msft to consider "fair" is like asking a hungry bear to consider the parents of that salmon they are about to eat.
hasn't msft made this patently obvious for, say 15 years or so?
If the software is capable of running on an OS, I expect it to run on that OS. I don't think that is asking too much.
you have three choices. shut up and PAY msft, keep complaining and pay msft (primarily to figure out new ways to force you to pay them more) or find an alternative.
make no mistake, with a little work and alternative exists.
a computer without an OS is very useful for those who want to install linux or another OS (kinda like me right now!). it isn't like the OS must be installed by HP. come on - this is about LOCKING PEOPLE INTO MSFT STUFF. HP gets a cut of the OS, too, so they are paid whores for the while process.
how can i take this guy seriously when he steals ideas and tries to beat the little guy into submission?
charity starts with your personal day to day actions - a lesson still not learned by some folks.
and billy g wonders why folks are so cynical of him wanting to portray himself as a decent, giving person.
hey, i give him credit for giving - and getting others to give to his foundation so he can give OPM, too. but i also hae to shout out when he's stealing and beating down honest business people, too.
"Gansus is the oldest example of the nearly modern birds that branched off of the trunk of the family tree that began with the famous proto-bird Archaeopteryx," said Peter Dodson of the University of Pennsylvania, a co-author of the paper along with Lamanna, You and others.
the problem here is that Archaeopteryx may not be their ancestor...
http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr97/bird.html
of course, any EVIDENCE that contradicts their view is shuffled off to the side and never discussed in public.
sicence at its best, no?
joke all you want, but i noticed what you *DIDN'T* do...
you DIDN'T post a single, undisputed within the scientific community, transitionary fossil.
you have to find a C before joking about D and E, no?
unlike you, i'll post information to support my view...
Archaeopteryx is often trotted out as C, so clowns like you can make jokes about D and E.
the problem is that it quite likely not even be a C!
http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr97/bird.html
yes, i cited a staunch macroevolutionary biologist to make MY POINT.
btw, i'm not saying macroevolution is a false theory, either. what i'm saying is be true to the information that is available before jumping up and down on the ad hominem button.
i guess it works, though, mr insightful.;-)
funny, just a few weeks ago, there wasn't evena missing link.;-)
let's get a few things straight.
1. ID will never "prove" anything beyond a reasonable doubt. it can't and it won't.
2. many people are emotionally attached to killing off god as others are two grasping for god (usually created in their own image with their exact same enemies and friends, etc... but that's a whole other topic).
3. there is some evidence that the whole enchilada (sp?) of evolution could be true...
3A. simple forms appear before more complex forms. not killer evidence, but it is definitely consistent with the idea - and consistency is what you'd expect, right?
3B. some fossils that could be intermediary. to my knowledge, not a single one has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, though.
archaeopteryx is a prime example. it is often the first intermediary brought up as evidence, but it clearly isn't a slam dunk intermediary. some pro-evolutionists (my favorite kind of sources since they have every reason to be biased against their position) claim it is silly to think this bird is intermediary and outline why...
4. there are some holes in the macroevolutionary theory (i have no issue with microevolution since it has been clearly observed and its basis is entirely logical).
4A. not a single solid transitional fossil. we talked about archaeopteryx already, it is often considere done of the most solid examples. as shown above, it might be transitionary, it might not be. if this is the best there is, there isn't much at all - and definitely not definitive indications the theory is correct.
4B. macro-evolution infers gradual continuity. the world in which we live is discrete. did you ever wonder why we can't point to a living creature TODAY that is transitionary? shouldn't transitionary entities still exist today? why is there, apparently, a law that says all transitionary anmials have to go extinct? different levels of adaptibility exist today - so why not different levels of adaptibility within the same macroevolutionary line? it is a totally unexpected result to live in a world where ALL TRACES of prior evolutionary development have been wiped out AND the fossil record is so weak (not a single transitional fossil that is, unequivicably agreed to be transitionary - even within the macroevolutionary theory community).
4C. many staunch macroevolutionists are clear that the fossil record is 1. entirely lacking of undisputable transitional elements. these guys often get quoted by those with an agenda to support a diety based world. the repsonse is - "you quoted them out of context." while this may be true in some cases, it is often just a maneuver to avoid admitting the 100% truth - the fossil record ISN'T what was predicted! "there is no definitive transitionary fossil" isn't undone in "context." sure, they may say the EXPECT to find one eventually, but that doesn't undo the truth of the qutation... but people have been using ad hominem to avoid the TRUTH for a long time.
4D. there are no land / water transitional ear fossils. in addition, there doesn't appear to be any logic behind such a change. after all, a hybrid land/water ear is deficient on both land and in water - compared to a wholly land ear and wholly water ear. according to macroevolutionary theory, such a change should lead to reduced adaptibility over the tens of thousands/millions of years required to make the change - and that leads to extinction.
4E. when viewing the macroevolutionary requirements, they often don't make sense. for example, why would an asexual reproductive system turn to the more complex sexual method? how would a centimeter stub of a limb on one creature be beneficial so as to give it time to end up as an arm with fingers? the whole idea appears quite bizarre. how does life come from death? how can an environem
at least they changed the margins. -lol-
that is bad, though. they didn't even change the color of the main body of the page.
there is no shame to their game.
i dare say that you just don't understand all practical uses for xml. i'm currently working on a front end for a hardware configuration file... let's see, i'm probably storing up to a maximum of 100 pieces of information.
would you recommend oracle to store that data? okay, how about postgresql (my fav, anyway)?
i'd argue, xml is perfect to *store* and describe this information, which is why we chose to use it.
postgresql would just be flat out overkill.
if you know some cool php5 / DOM / XML / XPath / XQuery / XSLT scripts, be sure to visit and share for all the newbs.
i have set up a few example scripts to get you started. others are more knowledgeable than i and can answer more specific question, too.
i've found learning the DOM to be a royal pita. php4 is very very different than php5. different versions of php5 behave very differently. my recommendation - get the latest and greatest php5 version. examples in the php online manual often don't work. there are undocumented capabilites.
as a trick, you will likely find more information about xml when googling "javascript xml tutorial" or "jaascript DOM tutorial" - and then you can convert the code to php5 class style. it will often work.
it is pretty cool, but it is a pita if you are swinging in the dark. too much missing or bad information. not very many examples that actually work - or examples that work with php4 or eralier versions of php5 but won't work with php5. or examples that just plain don't work!
Slashdot Mirror
i think the guy has a point as far as deleting the setup executable for his program. deleting other files is just plain dumb, though, and may get him in big trouble if (when?) his program deletes important files unrelated to his program. i'll bet his attorney suggested he take this approach...
most folks aren't prepared for marriage. i sure wasn't, and neither was my wife. looking at the dazed and confused looks of nearly everyone i know, neither were they. here are some notable facts you need to consider:
1. the vast majority of women consider sex a tool to use to get what they want. that's their excitement. for example, most women will be sexually available during dating, but will all of a suden get annoyed at sex once the marriage is over. in my case, 100% availability and sexy turned into 90% unavailability and sex was mostly annoying within months of marriage. we dated 5 years, so 5 years went one way, got married and everything changed almost immediately.
2. women tend to see absolutely nothign wrong with #1, above. they did what they had to had to do to get what they wanted - and what else is there? this is quite narcissistic, but, well... it is what it is...
3. women don't want to be "sex slaves" (what a freaking bad attitude!) to their husbands... but neither to do husbands want to be celibate slaves to their wife. you've never heard the latter b/c, well, that concept probably has never entered into the mind of a woman b/c they don't really think about anything other themselves when it comes to sexuality.
4. the average woman *really* wants a eunuch to 1. make her look good in front of her friends, 2. isnpire others to be jealous of her, 3. buy her lots of crap, 4. if you don't buy her crap, at least pay for the mortgage and all expenses so she can direct all her money to buy herself crap, oh, and did mention make others jalous of her?
5. the average woman is very emotional, but not very intimate, while the guy is very intimate, but not so emotional.
6. all that sexual energy she used to trick you to marry her - it now all goes into eating. well, not always, just 90% of the time.
now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman not too interested in sex (and 90% are not interested in sex beyond using it to get what they want - and when they get married, they already have what they want, monetary security (a mule to pull their cart, so to speak)).
but there is something *really* immoral, wrong, dishonest and downright EVIL about pretending to be some kind of sexy when one is really the ice queen. make no mistake, 90% will freeze out their husbands and shed no tears about the all but celibate life they trick their provider to enter.
so, do i sound a bit cynical? want to know something scary? i married a pretty good woman and she pulled this crap on me too. i don't think it is b/c she's evil, rather, i think it is b/c the wiring is different. just like guys can't help their sexual desire, neither do women have to think about manipulating guys with sex and then freezing them out FOR LIFE.
most guys would much prefer to be in bed with their sexy, hot wife who is into them... but that person only existed PRIOR TO MARRIAGE. she's long gone, now.
anyway, i recommend that every single guy read the "proper care and feeding of marriage" and make sure their fiance reads it. then toss in the "proper care and feeding of husbands." if she can't make a commitment - assume at you own peril, b/c there is a 90%+ chance you end up devastated FOR LIFE - to the precepts in that book, run away as fast as you can.
i also recommend listening to her radio show. hearing women call up and complain about their husbands wanting sex and men complain about their woan throwing them under the bus will give you some perspective beyond the LIE that is a woman dating.
fortunately, my the message of how CRUEL my wife has slowly sunk into her and now she makes more of an effort to not just suck me dry (in every way but the way i want, right) and she is beginning to realize that marriage wasn't just a "free security (money, protection, guidance, etc...)" kind of deal, rather, she had some responsibilities, too. it wasn't just get, get, get, but she has to give some back.
my guess is not more than 10% of the women who deceive their boyfri
...girlfriend.
i'm wondering if your post was modded "interesting" due to your confusion. msft didn't try and make friends with linux, they claimed ownership. let me draw an analogy... big jim makes friends with your girlfriend. no problem. this ISN'T what msft did. big jim declares OWNERSHIP over your girlfriend and says you must contact him and pay him in order to talk to her. this *IS* what msft did. okay, i've lost 3/4 of slashdot b/c i mentioned "girlfriend," but the other 1/4 get the idea. msft has claimed ownership over parts of linux such that, if their claim is true, YOU WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE TO PAY MICROSOFT FOR EVERY LINUX INSTALL IN THE WORLD. excuse me, but i think the proper response to this claim isn't "can't we all get along?" rather, i think it is time to build up the linux fortress, gentleman, linux is under a full scale assault. yes, the time frame is extended due to the nature of the battle, but msft wants 1. linux F*ING KILLED or they want to get paid for EVERY SINGLE LINUX INSTALLATION IN THE ENTIRE WORLD! nothing else is acceptabel to these people. think about it.
they didn't say this. i think this is what this naive or "incentivized" person wishes he had heard. even if they said that (they didn't), their vision of "linux not going away" has microsoft effectively owning and monetizing linux, if not controlling it outright, and requiring everyone who uses it to pay them money. this is just the first step to wreak their evil plan on linux... msft HATES linux. msft wants to F*ING KILL linux. you can bet your life on it. the *only* way they will not make all out war on linux is if they plan on monetizing it - reaching into everyone's pocket and extracting more cash. by force, if necessary. clearly, msft wants to... 1. gain control over linux to monetize it and / or damage it so windows gains an advantage. 2. set it up to "f*ing kill it," to paraphrase a monkey. linux going mainstream isn't the goal. keeping linux free is the goal. who cares if linux is ubiquitous if msft charges $400 for it or the right to use it without being sued into oblivion? how is this good? remember, the rest of us observers aren't getting thousands of stock options to buy our point of view.
either this gentleman was paid really well or he is a naive idealist. it doesn't so much matter that one's intent was to merely pet the great white shark - the shark will shred every fiber in your body anyway. in the same way, there is no reasonable doubt that msft wants only BAD THINGS FOR LINUX unless it means VERY GOOD THINGS FOR THEIR POCKETBOOK, so it doesn't matter if novell says they want only good things. msft is bigger, badder, smarter, more selfish and more evil than anything novell can muster on the good side. oh, and i have little faith that novell is even good. i think they are out for self above all else - effectively the same as msft, but not nearly as lucky and/or good.
this is a total red herring. it diverts from the real issue - and i have to ask why this gentleman prefers diversion above in depth discussion.
why, b/c this guy says so? even if he was a supreme court justice, he'd still only have one vote! if linux remains free, it won't be b/c of people who made the novell / msft deal, it will be b/c of those who speak out against it and deals like it. how free is something if i have to pay for some unspecified, alledged infringement? "well, sir, that depends on how you define free," argued the company that received $350 million to support the infringement concept. no thank you. i want honesty and integrity, not doublespeak and parsing of each and every word.
but his business partner says that the right to use said open source code is restricted and requires a payment to his business partner. iow, everyone using this source code has an UNFUNDED MONETARY OBLIGATION to his partner in crime. yes, sir, crime - and he is a spirit of the gpl criminal and he's just trying to justify it for his own selfish reasons. you claim to be fine with this central issue, yet you never bother to discuss it? how easy that is!
either this gentleman ha
i was using pgsql 8.x back in 2005 - so it existed. they just cherry picked versions to get the result they wanted. postgresql.org linked to a new study where both current versions (at the time, and it was recent - pgsql is 8.2 now) of mysql and postgresql were put throught the paces... http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.691
a computer without an OS is very useful for those who want to install linux or another OS (kinda like me right now!). it isn't like the OS must be installed by HP. come on - this is about LOCKING PEOPLE INTO MSFT STUFF. HP gets a cut of the OS, too, so they are paid whores for the while process.
how can i take this guy seriously when he steals ideas and tries to beat the little guy into submission? charity starts with your personal day to day actions - a lesson still not learned by some folks. and billy g wonders why folks are so cynical of him wanting to portray himself as a decent, giving person. hey, i give him credit for giving - and getting others to give to his foundation so he can give OPM, too. but i also hae to shout out when he's stealing and beating down honest business people, too.
"Gansus is the oldest example of the nearly modern birds that branched off of the trunk of the family tree that began with the famous proto-bird Archaeopteryx," said Peter Dodson of the University of Pennsylvania, a co-author of the paper along with Lamanna, You and others. the problem here is that Archaeopteryx may not be their ancestor... http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr97/bird.html of course, any EVIDENCE that contradicts their view is shuffled off to the side and never discussed in public. sicence at its best, no?
joke all you want, but i noticed what you *DIDN'T* do... you DIDN'T post a single, undisputed within the scientific community, transitionary fossil. you have to find a C before joking about D and E, no? unlike you, i'll post information to support my view... Archaeopteryx is often trotted out as C, so clowns like you can make jokes about D and E. the problem is that it quite likely not even be a C! http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr97/bird.html yes, i cited a staunch macroevolutionary biologist to make MY POINT. btw, i'm not saying macroevolution is a false theory, either. what i'm saying is be true to the information that is available before jumping up and down on the ad hominem button. i guess it works, though, mr insightful. ;-)
funny, just a few weeks ago, there wasn't evena missing link. ;-)
let's get a few things straight.
1. ID will never "prove" anything beyond a reasonable doubt. it can't and it won't.
2. many people are emotionally attached to killing off god as others are two grasping for god (usually created in their own image with their exact same enemies and friends, etc... but that's a whole other topic).
3. there is some evidence that the whole enchilada (sp?) of evolution could be true...
3A. simple forms appear before more complex forms. not killer evidence, but it is definitely consistent with the idea - and consistency is what you'd expect, right?
3B. some fossils that could be intermediary. to my knowledge, not a single one has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, though.
archaeopteryx is a prime example. it is often the first intermediary brought up as evidence, but it clearly isn't a slam dunk intermediary. some pro-evolutionists (my favorite kind of sources since they have every reason to be biased against their position) claim it is silly to think this bird is intermediary and outline why...
http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr97/bird.html
4. there are some holes in the macroevolutionary theory (i have no issue with microevolution since it has been clearly observed and its basis is entirely logical).
4A. not a single solid transitional fossil. we talked about archaeopteryx already, it is often considere done of the most solid examples. as shown above, it might be transitionary, it might not be. if this is the best there is, there isn't much at all - and definitely not definitive indications the theory is correct.
4B. macro-evolution infers gradual continuity. the world in which we live is discrete. did you ever wonder why we can't point to a living creature TODAY that is transitionary? shouldn't transitionary entities still exist today? why is there, apparently, a law that says all transitionary anmials have to go extinct? different levels of adaptibility exist today - so why not different levels of adaptibility within the same macroevolutionary line? it is a totally unexpected result to live in a world where ALL TRACES of prior evolutionary development have been wiped out AND the fossil record is so weak (not a single transitional fossil that is, unequivicably agreed to be transitionary - even within the macroevolutionary theory community).
4C. many staunch macroevolutionists are clear that the fossil record is 1. entirely lacking of undisputable transitional elements. these guys often get quoted by those with an agenda to support a diety based world. the repsonse is - "you quoted them out of context." while this may be true in some cases, it is often just a maneuver to avoid admitting the 100% truth - the fossil record ISN'T what was predicted! "there is no definitive transitionary fossil" isn't undone in "context." sure, they may say the EXPECT to find one eventually, but that doesn't undo the truth of the qutation... but people have been using ad hominem to avoid the TRUTH for a long time.
4D. there are no land / water transitional ear fossils. in addition, there doesn't appear to be any logic behind such a change. after all, a hybrid land/water ear is deficient on both land and in water - compared to a wholly land ear and wholly water ear. according to macroevolutionary theory, such a change should lead to reduced adaptibility over the tens of thousands/millions of years required to make the change - and that leads to extinction.
4E. when viewing the macroevolutionary requirements, they often don't make sense. for example, why would an asexual reproductive system turn to the more complex sexual method? how would a centimeter stub of a limb on one creature be beneficial so as to give it time to end up as an arm with fingers? the whole idea appears quite bizarre. how does life come from death? how can an environem
at least they changed the margins. -lol- that is bad, though. they didn't even change the color of the main body of the page. there is no shame to their game.
i dare say that you just don't understand all practical uses for xml. i'm currently working on a front end for a hardware configuration file... let's see, i'm probably storing up to a maximum of 100 pieces of information. would you recommend oracle to store that data? okay, how about postgresql (my fav, anyway)? i'd argue, xml is perfect to *store* and describe this information, which is why we chose to use it. postgresql would just be flat out overkill.
please visit here...
3 54632
http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=
if you know some cool php5 / DOM / XML / XPath / XQuery / XSLT scripts, be sure to visit and share for all the newbs.
i have set up a few example scripts to get you started. others are more knowledgeable than i and can answer more specific question, too.
i've found learning the DOM to be a royal pita. php4 is very very different than php5. different versions of php5 behave very differently. my recommendation - get the latest and greatest php5 version. examples in the php online manual often don't work. there are undocumented capabilites.
as a trick, you will likely find more information about xml when googling "javascript xml tutorial" or "jaascript DOM tutorial" - and then you can convert the code to php5 class style. it will often work.
it is pretty cool, but it is a pita if you are swinging in the dark. too much missing or bad information. not very many examples that actually work - or examples that work with php4 or eralier versions of php5 but won't work with php5. or examples that just plain don't work!
good luck!