Comment Re:Absolutely zero emissions (Score 1) 239
You forgot to mention zero-reasoning editors.
You forgot to mention zero-reasoning editors.
Yeah, I'm mostly with you - though this has been bubbling on
Wayland is an alternative display system that could maybe someday replace X.
Looks like for microsoft to preserve profitability it may have to continue to branch out of its core competency, windows...
Core
Sorry. Could not resist - having just installed 8.1.
The last thing the dude said to me as I walked out of Best Buy: "yeah, good luck installing *that*."
Lets say i relocate cross country.
I can fill up at any gasoline station.
I am completely shit out of luck with a Tesla.
No doubt.
http://www.teslamotors.com/cus...
And believe it or not, people still do relocate. Or go on a road trip, or vacation or visit families.
So unless there are countless charging stations nationwide or a program to swap out batteries when they're almost out of charge, it's not going to replace a gasoline engine anytime soon.
From the article:
This was an amazing 15,000 mile Road Trip, we caught up with friends and family, met some intriguing people and saw a bit of America along with some really spectacular roadside kitsch, ticking loads of stuff off our bucket list. All the while, we drove the Model S without compromise, never running out of battery, we always found a place to charge, even in rural America. Now I completely disregard range anxiety as an unnecessary fear.
Or maybe not.
Yeah, this is basically an ad. But clearly, relocating is possible and road trips can be done. If you're worried, use a rental for the trip. Hell, maybe you want something bigger for camping/relocating, anyway. Cars can be shipped.
Instead of asking folks who have gone to the effort of putting in an adblocker to turn it off, maybe ask them for as much as the ad folks pay per eyeball?
Unless Google WONT be using the temperature I set it at for marketing purposes. I get enough robo-calls about solar, heating, etc as it is.
Really? I added myself to the do not call registry and no longer get any.
In addition, I mostly use google voice - which means that a lot of political calls go straight to spam instead of connecting to me, too. Thank you, google, for plugging the political loophole on the registry...
Kurt
Write "Joe owes me $1" on a piece of paper and use it instead of $1.
Done.
Nobody will accept it. Nobody knows who joe is. Nobody knows where the paper has been or why.
Just like all the e-currencies. Just a little more anonymous and transparent.
Physical and spiritual death (not cell death which the ancients wouldn't even know about) is the result of sin. There was no sin prior to the fall. In the genesis account God sees that what he created was good on each day.
OK - we're getting pretty deep, here. But let's roll with it.
Evolution through natural selection involves competition and killing. You can't have evolution without something dying.
There are two parts to the equation. The first part is reproducing. The second part is dying. It certainly seems possible to have mutation and variation in reproduction without supposing death. Death just adds the second part, and you're off to the races.
Really, though, there is no mention of reproduction before the fall - seems entirely possible for god to add both at the same time.
I really don't see an issue.
Die out? No. But, whence comes the current genetic diversity of humans, if not Adam and Eve?
Mutation happens. See also evolution.
Well, yes, actually, they would die out, but not from inherent genetic flaw, so much as the first disease that came along and took advantage of the monoculture.
I guess there are a couple of reasons this doesn't happen (see also every disease that one culture introduced to another):
* The strong survive
* If a disease wiped out an entire species, it doesn't bode well for the disease
Just for argument's sake -
... If evolutionary theory is true, there were no physical Adam and Eve...
that doesn't follow. If there were an Adam and Eve, there's no reason for evolution to be invalid. It's always seemed obvious to me:
* Suppose there was an Adam and Eve.
* Suppose that evolution is a real thing.
There ya go.
So who were Adam and Eves' parents?
In any creation myth I know, Man1 and Woman1 were created by god[s]. The mechanism varies.
What does that have to do with whether or not evolution is a real thing, today? Don't argue creation, you can not win, and it really does not matter. You *can not* prove that god *does not* exist. Take a deep breath and repeat after me (from the first paragraph on Wikipedia - the second paragraph is crap that religious folks may or may not disagree with, but which *does not matter* - the rest of the article is good science):
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
That's it. Done. Basic science. There are plenty of young world issues - the answer to which is always "because that's how god made it." Freakin cope with it, already - either you believe that or you don't.
The question before us is:
Why does shit happen?
The answer is:
Because science.
The question NOT before us is:
Why does science happen?
Because the answer to that could be
* Because god.
or
* Because.
It's a fine argument to have, but it has shit-all to do with evolution.
he'd have to explain why he didn't create immortality for his pet project
A couple of counters, either of which should do, and none of which has anything to do with evolution:
* He did create it - just not on this earth. That's kind of the point.
* I can think of no reason why the existence of god would require living immortality. What's wrong with evolution?
Adam and Eve = insignificant genetic diversity. Unless, of course, 'God did it.'
Which, of course, is the case.
And besides, do you really think that a species would die out even if the 'original two' were identical except for a single chromosome? I mean - I guess it could happen if they both had tremendously detrimental genes, but let's give the almighty the benefit of the doubt and suppose that he started with a strong breeding pair.
The other question is, 'The Bible lays out a fairly clear timeline of where humanity was. Explain Chinese people. And Australians. And Africans. And, well, everybody else outside of the Middle East.'
No.
And that's all there is to it. Done.
But if we want to be pedantic (and that's why we're here, right?), practically none of any of this has anything to do with whether or not evolution is a real thing. So... done.
Trying to change someone's mind about a belief (this is how things happened - look, evidence vs. this is how things happened - look, religious belief) is nonsense.
Trying to change someone's mind about something observable and predictable is worthwhile.
Just for argument's sake -
... If evolutionary theory is true, there were no physical Adam and Eve...
that doesn't follow. If there were an Adam and Eve, there's no reason for evolution to be invalid. It's always seemed obvious to me:
* Suppose there was an Adam and Eve.
* Suppose that evolution is a real thing.
There ya go. All done.
All the arguing about evolution vs. creationism is not a real argument. Once you get past the notion of existence, either the universe happened at some point a long time ago by accident, or on purpose, or more recently on purpose. That's the real argument. You're never going to prove it one way or the other - 'because god.'
But whether it was on purpose or by accident and how long ago isn't real important. What's important (if you lean that way) is science.
What happens happens "because science." Done.
And if you're religious, then science happens "because god[*]."
Move along. Nothing to see, here.
Yes, they are. The metaphorical interpretation of the creation story still is incompatible with evolution. You have to explain why God would say death, which is necessary for evolution, is "good."
Why would you have to explain that?
Yeah. Obvious logic fail.
Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!
