Could be, my goal is to resolve my belief that Genesis is likely accurate if properly read and that scientific observations should also match up without convoluted reasoning. I do my best to try to resolve the two and it sometimes comes up with interesting conclusions that I don't know a whole lot of other people who hold, but thus far I have not found anything in way of scientific evidence that can not be incorporated to match a particular understanding of the description given in Genesis. The main area I still have issue resolving is the flood. My most likely explanation would be that for the flood to occur, it would have had to occur immediately prior to plate collisions driving up our current mountain ranges (when land mass would have been relatively flat and therefore there would have been enough water to actually cover the land), however the time scale we observe for the formation of mountains doesn't seem to gel nicely. Prior to that, there are a number of easy time-gaps that can be introduced (for example, man's days are not numbered prior to Genesis 3, so an alternate possibility would be some very very old people as society was developing).

Yeah, I'll speak up as a very scientifically minded OEC who thinks the mechanisms of OEC were very likely the big bang and evolution. The order of events matches up closely and it's worth pointing out that the Bible doesn't say humanity was created separately, just Adam and Eve. In fact, it actually lends support to the theory that humanity existed either before or shortly after their creation and of independent lineage. (For those who aren't verst in Genesis, after Cain killed Able (Adam and Eve's sons), he was sent out of the region, but it directly mentions there being other people there and at that time, there were no other descendants mentioned of Adam and Eve.)

You are probably correct that there are very few YECs on Slashdot though as it is a completely unsupportable position (both religiously and scientifically) that is only held to by people that don't know how to do any kind of research or critical reasoning. Just simply looking at the actual language of Genesis indicates that the term for each "day" of creation is the same as the term for age, and until a good part of the way through creation, there would be no actual 24 hour day to begin with. Also, the Bible is beyond clear that time in God's eyes is vastly longer than our eyes.

Except that the Bible says that God is revealed through his creation as well. This would seem to indicate that God wouldn't make things appear to be a way they are not. (I say this as a Christian who does not believe that young Earth makes any sense. I could possibly see an argument being made that human's have only been around 6000 or so years (I don't personally believe this is necessary or accurate either, but I could at least see grounds for the argument (using the Bible, not science)).) Ultimately, those who claim the Bible says the Earth is only 6000 years old fail at both their own religion and science. The term translated as "day" more closely means age or period. Clearly, without a planet yet, you can't have a 24 hour day, so it doesn't even make sense to assume that the "days" referenced were literal.

Honestly, I don't even understand the privacy concerns. I realize that some people hold complete control over every action and breath they take to be sacred, but at the end of the day, we have always been advertised to and we have always had our behavior in public observed to a greater or lesser extent. Traditionally, we have gotten many pointless ads wasting our time and gotten very little if anything in return for observations of our behavior. I don't see how Google's attempt to alter that balance to give people a meaningful return of value in exchange for information about their activities, while also guarding that information and using it to provide better, more targeted advertising that is more likely to be useful to me, is evil.

You can go on and on about privacy and it's supposed sacredness, but at the end of the day, everything Google knows about me is information I freely gave them using services they provided to me for no financial cost. And what do they do with this information? They collate it to both better serve me and also to better generate revenue through advertising that is more meaningful to me than the advertisements I would have otherwise gotten. I am not saying they are some savior of humanity, but this is how corporate business SHOULD be done. Leveraging the size and power to try to improve the lives of customers while making a profit without getting in the way of your customers. It isn't like Google is trying to steal your information from you or even isn't clear about what they intend to do.

Honestly, I don't see the problem with this as long as they are only looking at it as persons of interest and not taking action without further indicators. Intelligence gathering is about looking for lots of little cues. If I look for information on timers, it might not be bad. If I look for information on RF controls, it might not be bad either. If I look for where to buy fertilizer, that might not be bad either. If I look for used conversion vans, that might not be bad either. If I start googling for population density and structural integrity of buildings, that might not be bad either. But if I do all of those things, I'd hope that someone would have noticed all the little things and maybe come pay me a visit to see what I'm up to. Unless you take note of one of them, and look for more, you'll never be able to correlate them.

The key isn't the observation being made in the public space, it is when actions start being taken specifically because of innocent behavior, not simply noting that they might want to look more closely. Similarly, people with access to classified information are treated with more suspicion than the average joe. Why, because it could be good or could be bad what they would do with it, and if you don't actually look for intelligence, then you'll never see anything. How exactly do you expect things to be detected. I can tell you that scanning people at the airport isn't going to do it. The active intelligence work, such as looking through the public space for patterns, is the only actual effective means of security.

Right, but what businesses look at is are people using it or not. Not are they buying it or not. The company would change if nobody used the product. The gut reaction if you think you are wronged is to try and prevent the wrong from happening, not try to fix the reason for being wronged in the first place, cause that is an unknown factor. It could be that people are cheap, it could be that people are immoral, it could be that people want things to be cheaper, it could be they don't want DRM. If people simply didn't get the game at all, then they would have no choice but to change their model. As it is, they are given an easy (and natural) out from having to change how they do business.

Or he doesn't care enough about that topic to research it. Why should it matter that he be a science expert? Why should he be forced to research it? When asked he answers what his views are, but does he actively fight evolution or is he simply indifferent to it? Do I lack the ability to stop and research something because I'm not familiar with the finer points of crochet? Unless he is vocally speaking on a topic, his view doesn't matter. You can't personally research everything. I don't follow him that closely, so yeah, if he is a vocal opponent of evolution, then I could see some justification to your complaint, but that would seem to be against his general philosophy if he was campaigning against evolution.

While I get the fact that the cost of living is higher, consider the fact that the average income on the planet is $7000. Our poorest working people make over twice that if working a full time job. Those of us that are middle class professionals make more in two months than most people in the world make in a year. America is objectively wealthy, not just a few people, but everyone in the country is comparatively wealthy to many on the planet.

But what difference does it make if he believes in evolution? He believes in shaking up the government. I agree that he doesn't seem to be all that bright, and I agree that he holds an overly simplistic view of the roll of government, but it is still 100 times closer to where it should be than the direction we are currently headed. We need an about face and he's the only person with any kind of popularity that is also screaming for an about face instead of running headlong in the same direction we are currently moving. Ron Paul as President would possibly (maybe even probably) be a disaster, but it would (hopefully) force the rest of the political field to recenter and reverse course, and that is better than the direction we are going. We're headed towards being just as dead, just in a much longer, more painful, unfortunately probably more violent way.

I get what you are saying, but I'm explaining it the way a business sees it. If I don't like the way a game is being offered, then I don't buy it and I don't play it. Simply not liking the product being offered does not give me a right to take the product as I see fit. People JUSTIFY taking it because they don't like the terms of the deal, but it's a false justification. They are capable of taking it so they do. Perhaps they wouldn't be willing to spend the full cost, but they are not giving anything for the game that they attribute some amount of value to since they are taking a copy to play without paying for it.

If DRM is the issue, I have absolutely no problem with people who buy a game and then use the cracked version to avoid problems associated with the DRM. I have done this (legally even) before to bypass outdated DRM systems that are no longer functional or maintained. I also believe the law should be altered to permit the removal of DRM for any otherwise authorized use.

Maybe in part, though I think that is more because of the SAAS direction of the tech industry as a whole. The notion of purchasing copies of software is becoming unpopular with software vendors who would rather have a subscription service that gives continuous income. This is a very scary trend as it threatens to make computing a controlled and limited experience. I'm not saying SAAS is bad, however having it replace software as a tangible product seems dangerous at best to the freedom that technology has brought us. I also agree that rampant piracy contributes (though is not the only factor) to this trend.

More at Eleven...

I would hazard that as long as you either a) stop playing it after deciding not to purchase or b) buy the game after deciding to purchase, then the above poster likely would have no issue with your justification. I think it is more just a rant against the prevalence of individuals who take a "holier than thou" attitude to piracy for piracy's sake to "stick it to the man" without actually abstaining from the content (which would be the truly praise worthy behavior). For people like me, who do at least occasionally actually refrain from buying content because of the company that makes it or because we feel the price is unreasonable, it is very frustrating to see someone be the jackass that is used to keep the companies in denial and harm the very cause they claim to support.

It's easy for a company to not change their behavior when they see people are still consuming their product and simply not paying for it. Clearly this shows people want what they are making, but they are simply taking it because they can. The (apparent) solution to this is to simply make it more difficult to do so, which hurts everyone. When nobody consumes it at all, it shows that something is wrong with the model all together and demonstrates that something needs to fundamentally change for the company to be successful. The problem is, my choice to suffer through not consuming something is rendered useless by some selfish, deluded individual who lacks the self control to not consume and the default assumption becomes that all "lost sales" are a result of piracy, not an active purchasing decision.

Ah, the video must be blocked at work. I don't see any video when I look at it.

Did we really just have an article posted where the only link points to another Slashdot article?