Posts by Mark 3397 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Oct 2007
Two words for you:
Bird Flu
If your doc doesn't need to know about evolution, why would this be a problem for humans. They aren't birds.
MRSA.
Same again.
What about "finish your course of antibiotics"? Done so that you remove all your invading infection and don't leave some to **evolve** resistance to antibiotics. (see MRSA).
PS there's no full stop at the end of Bob, unless you're ending a sentence.
1. No, you don't understand it.
2. It's obvious you bulk out bullet points by repeating yourself
3. there is evidence in the fossil record, but he has no need to cite each and every proof to you
4. You invite ad hom because you're a freaking idiot. There's nothing to you apart from that idiocy. Certainly no arguments (as in reasons for your stance)
5. God is a magical sky fairy. In what way is he not
a) magical
b) "our father who art in heaven" (i.e. up in the sky)
c) invisible and able to grant wishes just like a fairy
6. Nope, the depth is the measure of age of the strata.
Go back to your pagan worship. Your sky fairy is a big grown up sky fairy now and can look after himself. If he doesn't like people, he can deal with it.
Well, define "Sci-Fi".
You can't.
Except by pointing to a book and saying "that's SciFi" and another "that's not SciFi".
But that doesn't mean we can't write SciFi books, nor that we can't tell what a SciFi book IS when we see one. One may argue about corner cases, but that's all.
You don't know.
You missed completely my query "how do you tell someone they are wrong without disrespecting their faith".
Because you're blinded by your NEED to make this barnpot a victim. Because you want creationism given consideration (i.e. time) to ensure it is promulgated far and wide. Why YOUR version of the creation myth gets this special treatment is unknown.
Nobody is baying for his blood.
Not one.
Some asking for his resignation.
Some demanding his reinstatement.
Not one baying for his blood.
Why is it OK when the Archbishop is called down when he says something like "we should allow abortions" but not when the head of the RS says that religion should be given time in science classes?
Because the latter gives you a chance to both knock the scientists and a chance for promotion of your specific creation myth (as opposed to the hundreds of other myths).
"What about talking about Chemistry in Physics?"
If you have a Physics class and a Chemistry class, why don't you talk about Chemistry in Chemistry? An inability to recognise this fairly obvious fact that you are in a class labelled "Physics" and not one called "Chemistry" indicates an inability to think.
Proof? You can't HANDLE the proof!
As evidenced by the copious evidence showing that our DNA is closer to that of the Chimp than the Gorilla. Closer to the Dingo than the Cabbage. How about Bird Flu? Or the searching in other animals genetic material evidence on how to improve the human biology?
What other explanation of the world than Darwin's theory of speciation through adaption is there, and where is the proof for that?
That you missed it all shows you can't handle the truth because you don't wish it to be true.
You seem somewhat bigoted yourself, AC. You do not believe in the Royal Societies requirements for senior members to remain senior members and instead of accepting this as the opinion of a group you will not be interacting with, you deride them with the perjorative "bigot".
Less bigotry please. THEN you can talk about bigotry in others.
But why should they waste time doing it when they can show things like "iron filings follow lines of magnetism".
Philosophy of science is a college course for sixth-form college/BTech/etc. Or for a half unit in a degree course.
Not for secondary schools.
There's neither the time nor the inclination.
About the only answer possible to give in the time available to "what about creationism" is "see your RE teacher".
"Music appreciation in Maths? If the RIAA sues 55 defendents for copyright infringement on 2 CDs of the latest, talentless, supermarket, pop drivel at £15 each, how much can the lawyers in each case hope to obtain a) for their clients, per infringement and b) the lawyers fees?"
the answer to this requires symbolic maths, not taught until university.
The answers you gave will not work. what outrage would there be if RE started addressing questions of satanism? What outrage if Jimmy comes home and says he learnt about boobies in geography class? Etc. Shit, there's a big enough outcry by letting Islam into schools!
If you think this is proof of "rabid atheists" quashing ideas, how many normal christians got pissed off at the archbishop saying that Islam is a really nice religion and we should allow it in the UK?
Or when he says that gays should be allowed in the ministry. Women too.
Oh boy, are the threats zinging about then!
"It is amazing how certain people here have skirted true evidence for a God and a Creation because it refutes belief."
Yes, you and your ilk HAVE skirted any true evidence for God and a Creation because you don't want it and you don't need it. You have FAITH.
And with that faith, you ignore the real truths in front of you.
Have you ever considered that the Bible is not the truth, yet there may still be a God?
I do not believe in any god and I do not require belief in such a god because if I am right, then this life here is all I have. It is all anyone has. And therefore infinitely precious.
If any God requires belief in them despite the evidence of natural explanation and hurts you for your disbelief, I will show my contempt for that god through all eternity even though I suffer infinite pains in hell. A god like that deserves nothing but contempt and will receive an eternity of it.
Your god is a sham. Your faith a block to your own enlightenment. Without your faith getting in your way, instead of trying to get a good seat in the next life you may consider making this life worthwhile.
Elephants THEN turtle.
And even the Mayans 2000+BC (?) knew the earth was round. Ancient Greece knew it and the ancient Arabs knew it and had a figure.
The problem was that for orthodox christianity "four corners" meant like a map which is flat. And so the untutored "knew" the world was flat because "the bible said so". The knowledgeable educated class knew this but if they told the peasants they may have a problem with telling them the rest of the bible is still true.
And when Gallileo wrote his heliocentric paper the issue wasn't the paper but that instead of being in latin which only the educated classes knew, it was in italian which the ordinary peasant could understand. Such understanding weakening the peasants faith in the bible.
You buggers reading the words in your head, not the words on the site???
YOU CREATIONISTS say "prove that evolution exists". We ask back "prove God exists". Where some religious people say "I don't believe in evolution" we don't ask "prove God then".
If you're going to make shit up about the arguments being made, why not say so.
The only "belief" in science is that we can understand the universe as it presents itself to us,
That's all.
There's no religion. And a HUGE FRIGGING DIFFERENCE between science and religion is how "heretics" are dealt with:
Religion: you will live an eternity in hell being punished for your disbelief in BBG (Big Bearded Guy). You must never talk to us or our children in case your lies persuade like satan our children to stray from the path and be punished for eternity.
Science: That bloke with the idea has got it completely wrong? Well, he thinks you're a poopy-head and won't invite you for dinner.
Which one treats "non-believers" better?
Well, why should creationism be taught in science? Why not in RE class? Unlike the US, we do have religious education. And, being a religious rather than scientific viewpoint, that should be discussed in the right place: RE.
Not science.
After all, if your English classes discussed nihilism in the current socio-political culture as a reasoned response to disenfranchisement of the common people, would you be wondering why English classes weren't concentrating on spelling, grammar and so on?
Worse, this discussion is happening in first years. 11 yo kids being taught philosophy and political activism.
So what's the difference between the "truth" and "an explanation that will be used to accurately predict an outcome"?
If it is "truth" you can apply that knowledge to accurately predict the outcome: if I let go of this apple, it will fall on Isaac's head.
You can apply "the theory of gravity" to accurately predict the outcome: if I let go of this apple, it will fall on Isaac's head.
We are told the "truth" that the earth is round. But it isn't.
1) it's an oblate spheroid
2) hills and valleys must necessarily deviate from the spherical form
3) water dragged about by tidal forces change the shape
but what's the *difference*?
And when you're teaching kids, why should you NOT put it down as "truth" in the same way as we do EVERYTHING that is applicable to life for those children in the "lies to children" called "education".
You don't hear your sunday school teacher start it off with "this is all a mythology that only a few people on the planet believe in broad terms to be true, and very few think in detail is right", so they? But that is the TRUTH of *any* religion.
Why? Because you can hear about that when you're old enough to understand and not take it in a way that doesn't help you approach life.
Please tell me how in this day and age you can tell someone they are wrong without being told you aren't respecting their beliefs?
Answers on a postcard...
And why is it that science is going to have to get a "philosophy of science" in secondary or even junior school when that's a college level subject? Are kids going to have to study political history too? Will they be taught critical thought as per philosophy degree?
No, it wouldn't matter what they happened to want to to with private data, it wouldn't be *government* data.
If she's a blackmail candidate then she's a security risk and shouldn't be in the running.
If her children might get kidnapped, this will NOT have changed the chances.
PS if it were to defame, this would be a normal criminal matter and suitable for the police *not* the secret service to get into.
However, the people in America now are not the same people. The people in charge are not the same people in charge then.
And the current incumbents have pissed away any goodwill with their arrogant nonsense.
And DEMANDING that we thank you eternally for your help (massively well paid for, by the way. doesn't that make you a mercenary army??) is not the way to make friends and influence people.
Matt, it IS illegal.
However, Shrub already tested the water and used non-government systems to conduct government business. Then "lost" the emails. Which weren't backed up properly because they weren't government controlled.
They are still trying to work out how to persue this without indictment of the president, which may well lead to a coup.
Assuming you meant tizzy, because MS have the power to move the market. Add $40Bn to a government granted monopoly and you have ample opportunity for abuse and plenty of reason to abuse the power.
And most of those complaining about MS's abuses also complain about Apple's abuses. Shit, think of the storm on El Reg when Apple was selling at 89p/99c, making a huge rip-off for the UK customer! Apple get shit when they deserve it. You can't see that because you concentrate on defending your precious microsoft.
AC #1. MS Office is crap. Worse, it is EXPENSIVE crap. Have you tried to do anything important in Word? Assembling a document from multiple contributors IS NOT POSSIBLE in Word. You have to re-draft and to some extent give up on getting Windows to put things together in a professional looking form.
OOo isn't any good at it either, but you don't see people trying to shoehorn it into a DTP package.
AC#2. How much retraining is needed for Office 2007? Lots. Graphs, stats and so on in Excel are exactly the same as they are in Calc. In secondary school, they should be taught how to do what they want not how to use an application. The latter goal is for college and on-the-job training. NOT SCHOOLS.
Technically illegal in the UK, that.
Until they upped the law to make "profiting from copyright infringement" no longer a point to damages for copyright infringement and then "forgot" to allow fair use, this was not a problem: you could be sued for the total damage of £0.00p because you didn't cost them a thing when copying for private use.
How about
Foot-Stamping. Either for Pythonesque humour or for Big Brother
Screw and Ball. For responding to idiots
Boss-eyed. For responding to confusion (aManfRomARs)
Red Circle with Child and red bar diagonal. So we DON'T think of the children.
Steaming brown pile. Obvious, isn't it. Either tagging or responding.
Don't use Firefox or its name.
Iceweasel does the same thing and no useless EULA. As to "what about the branding! We must have the iconic firefox" well why do you need an icon that looks like a self-fellating fox to say "internet browsing"?
So install by default Iceweasel or Epiphany or something else.
However, unlike real physical acts, a recording of child porn is not reduced by how many people watch it.
A thousand people watching it means that a thousand people *watched* it. If it increases to ten thousand, ten thousand *watched* it. It doesn't mean they had to make 10 times as many movies to match demand.
If this stuff was being *sold* then there would be 10x more money and 10x more incentive to increase available "works", but AFAIK, this stuff isn't for sale. There's no incentive to go to the danger, expense and trouble of making another movie *just* because many more people are watching it.
All the increased traffic is saying is that there is more traffic in that item.
Nothing else.
No, 16is where the line *is* drawn. But the severity of the punishment has gone up yet the validity of that age has not been reassessed.
KP laws are made up from the "your six year old daughter" angle, but applies to "your 15 year old girlfriend". One law HAS been written with the coda "only applies to children (of less than 14 years of age)". Good. Do that more.
And if you're 16 or 17 and take a picture of you in the nude, even though you and your G/F can have sex and see each other naked legally, passing this *picture* on is illegal.
See how stupid the law is? How is that law protecting the kid from molestation when the only person making the illegal porn is themselves?
You just proved yourself wrong.
Your E=mc2 is the RESULT of relativistic momentum. E=mc2 doesn't have anything to do with explaining why things can't go at the speed of light, and why? There's NOTHING about the speed of the particle in that equation. There IS in the other one you produced.
this would be because your assertion is wrong.
The closing speed of two particles traveling at nearly the speed of light is even nearer the speed of light. If you take as "closing speed" the speed of the other particle from the point of view of one of the colliding particles.
If you're talking about from the point of view of the rest frame of the experiment, one particle is moving at speed of light going one way and the other is moving at the speed of light the other way. I.e. they are going at nearly light speed toward each other.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
