You've proven my point:

You start with a strawman

You claim evolution has happened (nope, hasn't happened, evolution requires life to spontaneously come into existence from inert substances and complex, multipart structures to appear instantly) - mutation has happened, evolution has not.

You claim theory is fact.

Darwin most certainly DID mention flaws in this theory, including the eye.

The point of my comment about 150 years is that research has shown the PROBABILITY of evolution to be increasingly lessening. Specific shape of the universe, relatively small variability of environment, etc. all combine to lessen chance of random occurrence.

You claim lack of knowledge of a lifeform is proof of evolution.

You're twisting science into realm in which it is inapplicable and misusing the concepts. Too bad for you.

The end of my statement was illustrating the limits of science. The statement was paradox, that's all it was. You didn't recognize that.

OP is quasi-correct.

Science, by definition, is an analytical tool which is based on constant questioning and testing with the goal of disproving proposals (too lazy to reserach the plural of hypothesis...) As with any tool, it has a limited scope of applicability.

It is impossible to ultimately prove or disprove anything without complete, ultimate knowledge of all that was, is, and will ever be. Given that is impossible, science is properly viewed as a constantly fluctuating qualifier component of probability.

The word "science" is frequently misused as a dogmatic bludgeon, most obvious lately by the political left's AGW dogma; "settled science." Science is outside the realm of personal opinion.

It is impossible to definitively prove the existence or non-existence of the ultimate diety unless situations change (return of Christ, for example.) As science developed, many physical relationships of matter were codified, true. As scientific knowledge advances, the perceive probability of life on Earth spontaneously occurring has diminished greatly

The real issue is the human propensity for dogma. People who demand Darwinist macro evolution theory is fact and religious cults are similar. They both selectively choose which "facts" they will accept and which they will disregard. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. Just a Piltdown Man was a fraud, so are many of the claims used to promote evolution. In this case, I mean MACRO evolution. Charles Darwin was very clear about this weakness of his theory and gave examples which disqualified the theory. The dogmatic way in which proponents of macro evolution demand this old theory is ultimate truth betray themselves as acting with complete disregard for science. Scientific discovery did not stop 150 years ago. What seemed plausible then, is now rendered nearly impossible with current knowledge.

As an example from the Christian realm, the Bible includes what appear to be mutually exclusive direct instructions from God to both test all things and not to doubt God.

If there is a God, you'll know at some point...or you won't.
If there is not a God, you'll never know.

An iSpy plugin for license plate reading has been around for many years: http://www.ispyconnect.com/plu...

OK, I found the video. Yup, pretty hard to see it as anything other than a racist rant.

Googling the lyrics brings up a bunch of stories about it but nothing matched them from more than a day or so ago. I was wondering if there might be more to the chant but didn't find anything.

I did find very blatant lyrics about killing blacks, whites, Asians, pretty much any group there is. Hate is a universal human emotion, unfortunately.

SigEp is Sigma Phi Epsilon.

The accused Fraternity here is Sigma Alpha Epsilon.

(9 seconds of video? That's not enough to know the full context. What if the words just before were, "We'll never accept people who say," or something like that. This screams of Dowdification.)

Fraternities are just like any other group of self-chosen associates, they bond over commonalities. Some are all white, some are all black, some are all Engineers, some are all Jocks, whatever.

Prejudice and ignorance are fairly universal, as you've demonstrated.

This is a no-brainer. It is impossible to determine from a radio wave if the transmitter is in a private space or a public space. An office in an office building may or may not be legally private space. A vehicle is private space (as far as voice communication is concerned.)

This is the real key to killing this government spying. Holder's Federal Bureau of Stasi will lose this one real quick.

Doubtful. Solar power and other "renewables" are not consistent. I suppose the exceptions are some thermal and water motion systems but those sources are so rare as to be inconsequential.

Electricity cannot be stored efficiently. Thus, power plants need to generate more than the expected peak energy required at any given time. In the case of solar panels, that utility-generated power must be available for use as the solar panel output varies.

The reality is that IF economical storage of electricity ever exists, it will come to the utilities FIRST, industrial use SECOND and individual use far later. Economies of scale apply. Every electrical utility would love to have such tech available. Currently, they must generate at or above the historical/expected peak need at any time. The higher the peak demand, the higher the cost to customers.

Better technologies for individual users to reduce electrical draws would be displays that use primarily reflective light. That would also be much better for human eyesight. Passive heat dissipation and concentration would be really helpful. Imagine how much energy is used for displays and cooling of electronics. I have no idea your age but before home computers and cell phones existed, home use of electrical power was much lower. Things as simple as electric irons and ovens use a huge amount of power because they're huge resistors. Lower-power processors in smartphones would be great. The primary reason they have been getting larger is to have larger internal batteries. Larger screens on them are secondary reasons. Marketing promotes the large screens as a benefit because that's more attractive to people than a thicker device. Of course, the new ones are more like small clipboards, not a radio you can put in a pockets...but I digress.

This comment wasn't "insightful."

Profit IS a requirement because profit is needed to pay for upgrades/maintenance and other contingencies. The alternative is taxing citizens repeatedly at varying rates to match needs.

It's also not as simple as setting a percentage or total profit allowable. Suppose there's a major unexpected accident. The money to repair must come from somewhere. Suppose the population grows quickly or the electrical demands grow quickly such as when people started buying large screen TVs. Investment money must come from somewhere and it must be available when needed.

Pfff.

There is no appreciable atmospheric effect from co2 created by human activity. there is no appreciable heat effect from human co2 production. you are coupling where there is no such statement. human bodies handle excessive heat better than excessive cold. cold is more deadly than heat. there will be no 100ft sea rise. co2 levels rise and fall over time.The earth is far more resilient and self-correcting a system than you assume. People are nowhere near capable of destroying it.

CO2 is used by plants the way you use oxygen. First, the complaint was the predicted "population bomb" where there would be too many people for the Earth's resources. Then came "global warming" where human life overheats the planet. The solution? Lower CO2 so life dies. Brilliant. Here's another idea: More CO2 means more plants means more food means warmer earth means fewer human deaths from weather with less ability for a few people to control the food supply. So...more CO2 means more freedom for everyone on earth. The earth is a self-regulating enivronment. Outlawing food is a death cult.

Yup, a non-event. I was a missileer at a different base in the 1990s. We had something similar which was caused by an inspector crew who mistakenly screwed up their network credentials (for lack of a better term). The article describes the launch crews trying to "muscle up" their control over the noise then restarting the net, similar to removing power from a computer and givng the capacitors a little time to discharge. There are multiple redundant control and monitoring systems. Control was't lot, it just took a different form for a while as the crews restarted their network. The overwhelming majority of the time missile crew duty is as dull as you can possibly imagine while being conscious, punctuated by periods of extreme panic. The reality is that almost nothing happens, sort of like the Maytag repair man. Something like this gives 10 missileers text they can use on their yearly evaluations to document they accomplished something. Think about it, billions and billions of dollars were spent to create multiple layers of redundancy and security so that...nothing...will happen. The biggest challege a missileer has is not being bored. The systems really are that safe.

Hmmm...well...that's more interesting than I first thought. One way to view this is the FTC is trying to prevent selling of assets because there was a privacy clause? I guess they'd pursue this as fraud?

That's irrelevant. The information is an asset and they aren't free to dispose of the assets.

Addresses are not private property, even if the road and all surrounding land are private property. Addresses are a function of license to use the road which comes from the government.

It's similar to the way a font can be copyrihted but IP ownership of letters, themselves, is impossible.

Another day, another Kosian post on Slashdot.

You can't sell what isn't yours to sell. Period.

No story here. Oh, it's about gays or computers or ...

This is the year 2010. The novelty of being gay or involving computers is so Carter administration.

"...can be taken advantage of."

should be something like,

"can be exploited."