News for nerds, stuff that matters
Sections
About
Slashdot Log In
calebb (685461)
calebb
slashdotNO@SPAMbenefiel.net
http://www.chem.wsu.edu/
Education:
AAS, 1995, Everett C.C. [ctc.edu]
BA, 1998, Chemistry, U. Washington [washington.edu]
MS, 2001, O. Chem., Washington St. U. [wsu.edu]
Occupation:
Information Systems Coordinator
Washington State University [wsu.edu]
slashdotNO@SPAMbenefiel.net
http://www.chem.wsu.edu/
Education:
AAS, 1995, Everett C.C. [ctc.edu]
BA, 1998, Chemistry, U. Washington [washington.edu]
MS, 2001, O. Chem., Washington St. U. [wsu.edu]
Occupation:
Information Systems Coordinator
Washington State University [wsu.edu]
In Corporate America, the Internet Serfs You
Friday September 15 2006, @02:48PM
Molecular Turbine?
Friday July 30 2004, @10:50AM
I just posted a comment regarding evolution in a thread on Living Life Without a Pulse...
This sentence caught my eye: The reason why we have a pulse is because it's hard for evolution to result in turbines or continuously spinning things.
So I decided to make an intelligent reply - assuming that it would quickly get modded down due to the pro-evolution crowd that moderates on slashdot. To my surprise, it was modded up to +5 within a couple minutes.
What're you waiting for? Check it out!
This sentence caught my eye: The reason why we have a pulse is because it's hard for evolution to result in turbines or continuously spinning things.
So I decided to make an intelligent reply - assuming that it would quickly get modded down due to the pro-evolution crowd that moderates on slashdot. To my surprise, it was modded up to +5 within a couple minutes.
What're you waiting for? Check it out!
Modbombing?
Friday June 25 2004, @06:55PM
Hmm...
Out of the last 4 comments I've posted to a story, all 4 were modded up to +5 within a few minutes. And 3 of them received -2 points each, anywhere from 4 - 24 hours later. In most cases, the infamous 'overrated' descriptor was used. Looks like I made someone mad! (doh!)
Comment 1
60% informative, 40% overrated
Comment 2
60% informative, 20% flamebait (??), 20% overrated
Comment 3 (the worse case!)
70% funny, 20% overrated, 10% redundant.
This one is the worse because, although the comment is corny, a lot of people do find it funny - so the modbombers keep modding it down, and the other slashdot readers keep modding it back up.
(FYI, funny does not increase your karma but overrated and redundant does decrease your karma)
But, last time I checked CmdrTaco's page, he was talking about his plans for revamping the moderation system.
Out of the last 4 comments I've posted to a story, all 4 were modded up to +5 within a few minutes. And 3 of them received -2 points each, anywhere from 4 - 24 hours later. In most cases, the infamous 'overrated' descriptor was used. Looks like I made someone mad! (doh!)
Comment 1
60% informative, 40% overrated
Comment 2
60% informative, 20% flamebait (??), 20% overrated
Comment 3 (the worse case!)
70% funny, 20% overrated, 10% redundant.
This one is the worse because, although the comment is corny, a lot of people do find it funny - so the modbombers keep modding it down, and the other slashdot readers keep modding it back up.
(FYI, funny does not increase your karma but overrated and redundant does decrease your karma)
But, last time I checked CmdrTaco's page, he was talking about his plans for revamping the moderation system.
The Hypocrisy of Evolution Knows No Bounds
Thursday March 25 2004, @12:38PM
Here's some 'cutting edge' research for you:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8271890.htm
This is the first time I've ever seen something as temporally 'instantaneous' (muscle strength) tied to something so slow that it has never actually been observed (macroevolution). It's really amazing to realize that these researchers are implying that as these chimpanzees were 'evolving,' the ones with a bigger brain were at an environmental disadvantage due to their brain being cramped by tight jaw muscles.
Science has reached a new low.
Why is it so popular to conclude that, despite overwhelming mathematical evidence to the contrary, creatures that have similarities must have evolved from each other rather than concluding that the same intelligent being created them?
I call it a humanistic worldview... God created us all with two built-in witnesses that He is real: The perfect creation & our conscience. (Book of Romans). People who choose to reject God must view their world such that there are no massive conflicts in their conscience. I believe that this action - intelligent people accepting ludicrous theories in place of more scientifically reasonable ones - is the strongest evidence for an intelligent Creator.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8271890.htm
This is the first time I've ever seen something as temporally 'instantaneous' (muscle strength) tied to something so slow that it has never actually been observed (macroevolution). It's really amazing to realize that these researchers are implying that as these chimpanzees were 'evolving,' the ones with a bigger brain were at an environmental disadvantage due to their brain being cramped by tight jaw muscles.
Science has reached a new low.
Why is it so popular to conclude that, despite overwhelming mathematical evidence to the contrary, creatures that have similarities must have evolved from each other rather than concluding that the same intelligent being created them?
I call it a humanistic worldview... God created us all with two built-in witnesses that He is real: The perfect creation & our conscience. (Book of Romans). People who choose to reject God must view their world such that there are no massive conflicts in their conscience. I believe that this action - intelligent people accepting ludicrous theories in place of more scientifically reasonable ones - is the strongest evidence for an intelligent Creator.
re: Gibson's Blood Libel
Friday March 05 2004, @02:59AM
I decided to write a letter to the editor @ Washington Post this evening.
Here's the article...
I read your article titled "Gibson's Blood Libel" this evening and it left me with two questions.
1. You state that other peoples' opinions of "The Passion of Christ" are important because the story involves other people. Now, if you believe in the infallability of the Bible, you will believe the story is truthful and accurate. (In that case, you likely wouldn't have a problem with this movie.) However, if you don't believe the Bible is 100% accurate, then you should find similar problems with "Schindler's List" inciting anti-Germanism (http://www.germanic.org/antipg00.htm) or "Braveheart" inciting anti-Britishism. Except you would actually have a much more resonable problem in criticising the previous two movies; In "The Passion of Christ," it is a Jewish man that was brutally executed - and there were many Jewish people that were against his death!
2. Omission is NOT the same as denial. The gospel of Luke omitting Jesus' scourging neither infers nor implies that it did not happen! Why do you suggest that Gibson should leave this section out? The book of Isaiah (Which was written several hundred years before Jesus' birth and deemed 100% accurate after finding a nearly complete copy in the dead sea scrolls during the early 20th century) says that Jesus was "wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities; The chastisment for our peace was upon Him & by His stripes, we are healed." Why would Gibson leave out the part of the story that shows how our iniquity (i.e., that sinful 'nature' of man that causes a two year old to know the word "mine" without teaching him/her) was atoned for or how we can be certain that Jesus has in fact healed us?
Here's the article...
I read your article titled "Gibson's Blood Libel" this evening and it left me with two questions.
1. You state that other peoples' opinions of "The Passion of Christ" are important because the story involves other people. Now, if you believe in the infallability of the Bible, you will believe the story is truthful and accurate. (In that case, you likely wouldn't have a problem with this movie.) However, if you don't believe the Bible is 100% accurate, then you should find similar problems with "Schindler's List" inciting anti-Germanism (http://www.germanic.org/antipg00.htm) or "Braveheart" inciting anti-Britishism. Except you would actually have a much more resonable problem in criticising the previous two movies; In "The Passion of Christ," it is a Jewish man that was brutally executed - and there were many Jewish people that were against his death!
2. Omission is NOT the same as denial. The gospel of Luke omitting Jesus' scourging neither infers nor implies that it did not happen! Why do you suggest that Gibson should leave this section out? The book of Isaiah (Which was written several hundred years before Jesus' birth and deemed 100% accurate after finding a nearly complete copy in the dead sea scrolls during the early 20th century) says that Jesus was "wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities; The chastisment for our peace was upon Him & by His stripes, we are healed." Why would Gibson leave out the part of the story that shows how our iniquity (i.e., that sinful 'nature' of man that causes a two year old to know the word "mine" without teaching him/her) was atoned for or how we can be certain that Jesus has in fact healed us?
