I've been kind of expecting/hoping for this for some time. Not me. I was hoping it would go on for another 20 years at least.

You're completely missing the comedy aspect. Just for example, think of all the things we could have accomplished in that time to add to the list of things done while DNF was in dev. There's already great stuff on it, like we built the International space station, and Britney Spear's entire career. We might have added a human trip to Mars, or cheap fusion power to the list if it could have gone on for a few more decades.

No, it's a sad day for nerd jokes. Now I have to move on to some other vaporware, and I've never heard of HURD, so I don't have a real stake in making fun of it.

Wow, wish I had mod points right now. Nicely done.

Artificial intelligence is highly applicable to many areas, including finance, and it's very math-intensive. Plus you won't be tying yourself down to one career path.

I live in Austin, and I moved recently, and after the tech guy went up in my attic, I ended up with the cable modem being set up in a bedroom.

After he left, a lady purporting to be from TW called. She said it was very important that I not move my cable modem. She repeated herself 3 times but wouldn't tell me why.

I sort of didn't believe it, and so I moved it soon after to use with my XBox360, because that pig is wired.

Works fine. I was wondering if maybe they installed a usage meter on just one outlet or something. That seemed pretty tinfoil-ish, but now that I see this story, and it relates to Austin specifically, I wonder.

Masochistic programmer seeks sadistic administrator for dirty debugging sessions.

Me: hate PERL and shell scripting and really don't wanna mess around with the kernel

You: Linux admin/enterprise system architect (both a +)

Us: Debugging 40 year old bank software in Detroit. Changing linux to show us where things install to without having to search a goddamn database or hit google or whatever. Writing ATI display drivers for X11.

You could read the articles. I tried that a few times.

NOBODY CAN!

Damn, and I was really looking forward to the 1939 edition of "Cooking with possums."

Hey, what's that thing up there....

WHOOSH!

No severance then?

Behe may be a biologist, but he's not much of a statistician if he believes statistics can prove something didn't happen for which we don't even fully understand the mechanism yet. Which he does.

I've looked into it a lot, and there is no evidence. There is a probability argument that fails miserably for reasons I explained upthread. Briefly, probability doesn't measure the likelihood of events that have already occurred. By the same logic as the ID advocates, I can place the probability of your existence at somewhere around 10^-18.

Your actual probability of existence is near one, since you posted on slashdot, but there is a very small chance you have died in the interim. The whole point of science is that we look at things that already exist and say, how could this have come about? It turns out evolution is a useful and accurate model to explain this. Evolutionary theory makes some predictions.

Predictions (brief aside, I know that "lower layers" is a messy generalization but it gets the point across and it's a fair synopsis):
- The further down you dig down into sedimentary layers, the older they will be shown to have formed (also predicted by geology, shown later to be correct by nuclear theory, i.e.-uranium dating)
- As you dig into lower and lower layers of sedimentary rock, you will find less and less complex fossils.
- Below a certain point, you will find no fossils of complex organisms (no counter example has ever been found)
- Animals that have very similar bone shapes will usually be found to have a common ancestor (dramatically shown a century later with DNA mitochondrial evidence, some would say proven)

All of these predictions have been tested in millions of ways, successfully. Indeed, a tremendous amount of evidence has been found to support all of those hypotheses. I'd be happy to educate you about all of them if you'd like.

The whole reason scientists say ID is not science is because it makes no useful predictions and is not testable. Give me a testable hypothesis, and it's a scientific one, give me something that can never be tested, and it's firmly in the realm of philosophy.

And 76% of statistics are made up on the spot. You put the phrase "believe in evolution" in quotes, as though it's something a scientist (or /.er) would say. It's not. Science isn't about belief, and I no more believe in evolution than I believe in my computer, or believe in rocket ships. We say evolution is the best theory because it makes predictions, and so far, those predictions have been amazingly accurate. To note this requires no sort of belief, any more than I need to believe that my computer works in order to program it.

Have you ever looked in a mirror? That statement is completely egotistical and arrogant.

No. However, we know that Intelligent Design is not science, because it doesn't make testable predictions, it expresses no falsifiable theory, and it merely pushes the problem into the unknown. What created the creator? Intelligent design is not useful in any way. Intelligent Design science has not produced any antibiotics, or gene therapies, and the fact is that it cannot, because it is not a useful theory to study the natural world.

Intelligent design has no math, so if you're advocating for that, your math is not wrong, just non-existent.

The only math I've seen associated with ID 'science' is math explaining how improbable our existence is, which is terrible reasoning. Using the same logic, I could say that you are impossible.

Your dad had to meet your mother, and have sex with her. Let's say they grew up in a small town, be generous, and set the probability of that at about 1000:1. Next, your father released 500,000,000 sperm into your mom's vagina, only one of which became you, odds against, 500,000,000:1. Your mom starts with about 2 million eggs in her ovaries, only one of them became you, so the odds of that are 2,000,000:1.

Therefore, you are too improbable to exist, because the odds against you are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000:1.

Nonsense. I can easily prove that creationists want no such thing.

For example, what if I proposed a bible study class, where kids learned about all of the contradictions in the bible, and all of the ways it is contradicted by history, as well. Would that be fair game? Don't we want free speech and to teach the controversy?

Should we also allow equal time for:

1. Flat earth theory vs round earth theory?
2. The loch ness monster and bigfoot?
3. Astrology and UFO research?

Try explaining why not without being a hypocrite.

We have rights guaranteed by the constitution that are in direct conflict with the law, though. Perhaps if copyright terms were reasonable, like 20 years, people would come to appreciate the commons, and pay for newer content. Telling me I have to pay 15-20 bucks for an album released in 1963 is outrageous, and I think most people intuitively see it as outrageous, even if they've never heard of Lawrence Lessig.

The way I see it, our rights have been repeatedly violated by Disney and congress. There's no reasonable argument that 75 years plus the life of the author is a "limited time." It's longer than the average lifespan of the people who wrote the constitution.

Actually, no, you want to use regular, slow-cook grits, from my experience, but I've never tried the instant kind.

Couple tablespoons and the ants are dead the next day. WAAAAY cheaper than amdro.