The problem with that argument is that the 97% that were wrong didn't do studies and publish papers to support their view, because clearly if they'd done the actual science relating to the issue they would have discovered they were wrong. They just pooh-poohed the claims of the 3%, disparaged them in correspondence, and argued that their studies were flawed without providing any kind of evidence to prove it.

In other words, they acted just like all the anti-AGW people are acting right now.

There were scientists who believed the continents were static, but there were not thousands of papers "proving" that was true. There were scientists who didn't believe in microorganisms, but there were not thousands of papers "proving" they don't exist. There were scientists who believed in the aether, but there were not thousands of papers "proving" it existed.

In every case of this nature the anti-AGW try to cite, a large number of scientists assumed that something was true when it was not. Then some rebel got up and said "i think it works in some different manner!" and caught a lot of flak for it, which is unfortunate but part of the human condition. However despite the arguments and entrenched positions and pride and stubbornness, when actual science started being done the truth came out. In all the cases once papers started being published the vast majority of them supported the viewpoint that we have not generally come to conclude is the correct one. Microorganisms exist, the continents do move, and there is no aether.

The anti-AGW people seem to be arguing that this is the sole case in history where as more and more science has been done, more and more scientists have apparently faked their results in order to support mistaken beliefs. In some cases they argue that it's because they're being funded by "pro-AGW" bodies, in particular governments, when the corporations who are firmly anti-AGW have far deeper pockets and have actually been caught funding scientists to promote certain views.

In short, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. When new ideas come out it doesn't hurt to question them, but the anti-AGW people long since passed the point of reasonable doubts being aired and moved into denialism and conspiracy theories.

Personally i prefer blue Red Dwarf. (That way i don't need to change the bulb.)

I've only gotten "infected" once, when i went to see an article on.. 1UP i think, though it might have been IGN, and got hit by an infected ad server. My antivirus immediately informed me of an attempted trojan and supposedly handled it, but i went through about two or three rounds of cleaning after that to be sure. And after that was done i gave up on the quaint idea of supporting the webpages i like through viewing their ads and installed an ad blocker.

"I can see the screen with some twiddling. Glass can end up tipping to the side, and I need to prop it up with my fingers, since the nose piece isn't seated on my nose any longer."

So google has created an incredibly geeky device that only nerds are likely to feel comfortable with at first... and it doesn't work well for people who wear glasses. I'm sure this will turn out great.

By all your battery breakthroughs combined... I am Captain Perpetual Motion!!!

Spy/Spying: 2. a person who keeps close and secret watch on the actions and words of another or others.

Look, i'm as concerned with privacy as the next person, but saying that people in public wearing Google Glasses are spying on you is about the same as saying that pirating software is the same as stealing. It's kind of in the same ballpark, and you could argue that both are bad, but they're not exactly the same thing. (Note that if the person is in fact secretly keeping a close watch on you when you're not in public then they are spying, but at that point it doesn't make a practical difference whether they're doing it with Google Glasses or not.)

Before Google Glass if someone saw you do something in public that you didn't want spread around there was nothing stopping them from telling other people about it. The only difference is that now they can show a video or picture instead of writing an article or blog post or making a verbal report.

If it comes up in a legal case it's now gone from "i said/they said" to "i said/they have a video tape", but why were you doing something illegal in public anyways?

If it's just something embarrassing, well, yes it's a lot more likely to go viral if it's on video rather than a written account, and you'll be a lot more identifiable, so that _does_ suck. But it's still not spying.

The one case where it _would_ be spying is if the government hacked (or was given backdoor access to) the system so that they could secretly make copies of all recordings made for future reference. That would be bad, and we should do our best to make sure that the government doesn't do that and gets punished when it gets caught breaking the rules. But that's not the intended use case for Google Glass.

I guess you haven't heard of Toxoplasma Gondii then?

Which i said right in my first post. Apparently we both have trouble catching things on the first read, i just took the time to correct my mistake before posting about it. Otherwise i would have complained about it not being in the summary and looked like a real fool when someone pointed it out to me.

Yeah, i figured it was "Request For" something right away, but my brain had just skimmed over the lower case "request for proposal" a line or two before they started using "RFP". I spent a bit trying to figure out what the "P" would be on my own before thinking to go back and reread the first part slowly and more carefully.

Funny, i work for a government contractor and i had no idea what it means. Of course i'm just a programmer, people in other departments actually talk to the government agencies and deal with the bidding.

They actually used "request for proposal" in the blurb before they started throwing "RFP" all over the place, but because of the lack of capitalization it still took me a minute or two to figure out =P

Yes, that's another valid argument. I could have told him to go read the Hebrew version and get back to me. However he made a claim based on the wording of the English translation which doesn't even hold up just when compared to the rest of the English translation.

That only works if you ignore the literary style of the whole rest of the chapter. The past tense isn't specifically used in 2:18, it's used through tout the whole chapter. "Now the lord god had" is used repeatedly, and the two interpretations are "It's a literary way of saying 'now god is doing this'," or "the ordering of this story is a confused mess."

In 2:18 God says he's going to make a helper for man. Then in 2:19 it talks about making the animals. Then in 2:20 it says that no suitable helper was found among the animals.

Is your argument that God was talking about creating woman in 2:18 but got totally sidetracked in 2:19 and decided to try the animals first instead of creating something new like he had _just_ said he was going to do in the previous sentence?

If you think those are the same account of events, then you're failing at both reading comprehension and history.

As others have already elaborated, it's well established that the two accounts are from two different traditions. But even your own links describe a clearly different order of events, even ignoring whether Adam and Eve were created at the same time.

Version 1

Version 2

In the first version it was animals first and then mankind, in the second version it was man first, then animals. (And then woman.)

If you want you can accept them as two stories from two different traditions, one of which is literally true and one of which is metaphor, or you can accept them both as metaphor. But they can't both be literally true.

So just going from past history...

JMS = doesn't really start to hit his stride until the second season.

Wachowskis = each part of an episodic thing they work on is worse than the one that came before

So either the strengths of one will compensate for the weaknesses of the other, or it's going to start out as on okay show with some promise but a lot of problems to overcome and then go downhill from there.