You apparently assume carbon-14 dating is reliable and accurate. What would you do if you found out it was multiple orders of magnitude inaccurate? We assume that carbon breaks down at a consistent rate to be reliable enough for measuring the passing of time. But what proof do we have that it *did* break down at a consistent rate?

A tree older than the world? That must be the one Eve picked the fruit from!

Your sarcasm and our dating methods assume without a shadow of a doubt that carbon-14 dating can be 100% accurate and 100% reliable. When your measuring stick is not accurate, how do you know in order to attempt fixing it?

Yes, that's why we call it science. If it were never wrong, it would be religion.

Except that when attempts or actual proof of being incorrect is exposed concerning issues that could render science incorrect while proving religion correct scientists are silenced by death threats or career assassination threats. And due to these threats, some potential evidence that could have been discovered that proved certain aspects of Christianity as true never even get attempted in the first place for fear of retribution from the scientific community. And yet I thought that science enjoyed furthering their knowledge, they just don't like it when their knowledge ends up being wrong and religion ends up being right otherwise, as long as they can continue making science the de facto source of facts, they are perfectly fine with it. I mean, science has brought us this supposed theory of evolution that now allows people to equate humans to mere animals, when the 2 are not the same despite the DNA showing that we are 90%+ the same.

Case in point, humans can distinguish right from wrong and animals *only* act on instinct. Why wouldn't scientists, with the media assisting, want to keep perpetuating the idea that evolution rules us and silence any attempt at researching opposing views? Because they feel they have an obligation to ensure people get fed secular propaganda at the expense of any potential to learn opposing theories because all the opposing ideas are based on religion and thus, conveniently, have no basis in scientific discussions. It's quite brilliant how the supporters of evolution and surrounding theories have rationalized that in their own heads. They fear being proven wrong in this subject area otherwise they should say 'have at it' just to appease their opponents and enjoy watching them make themselves look like fools. If the scientific community was so confident about a theory like evolution we'd be seeing more opposing ideas being researched and published just to give equal time to them and rule them out using peer reviews. That is what the scientific process is about right? Oh, I'm sorry, that is only acceptable when the opposing ideas aren't based on religion. When they are based on religion they are simply silenced as being crazy fairy tales, which is strange considering scientists have to have faith in some of their very own theories.

Raid cards that were $750 new can be found for $35

That's because the ones costing $35 are software-based RAID controllers. True hardware-based RAID controllers are still over $100, if not $200. Obviously still quite a discount from 20 years ago but still not as cheap as you might think (still have to leave room for the software-based cards to be priced in).

What if I wasn't trying to connect to localhost? Why then would I would to have LAMP installed on my machine? Installing software is not a sane default. It's a security risk because it's being installed without testing.

'comprehensive and coherent scientific theory'

Every article I read about a new finding in nature has a scientists or researcher quoted as saying "it must have developed this way" or "it probably worked this way" or whatever. In fact, they really have no idea what really happened but they say something to help add to the web of lies that has been developed over the years to try fitting everything that is found into a incoherent theory which can't predict anything. Facts aren't evidence people. There is nothing that directly proves that any given organism on earth evolved from any other living or non-living organism. The sheer fact there is shared DNA doesn't prove anything; it just shows we have shared DNA. And if one organism did evolve from another then maybe this new curriculum will actually shed more light on how that actually occurred because I've yet to see any details regarding every single step of the evolutionary process that every organism experienced, which I'd expect to find by now if this theory is so "coherent and comprehensive". Tell me again why there is only one or two examples of homoerectus and other such supposed precursors to homosapien? Where is the army of skeletons? Surely we weren't preceded by a mere handful of pre-human organisms but that's all that's been found. Seems a little fishy to me.

This is nonsense to believe any of this is worth teaching yet to the extent that they believe it is worth. Just another method of trying to convince kids that God doesn't exist and He had no hand in anything therefore we are just animals like all other animals with no souls and our lives aren't anything sacred to uphold, which means abortion is perfect fine and so is killing based on arbitrary definitions of quality of life (just like farm animals). And that means you can do anything you want, legal or not, moral or not, because when you die, you won't have anything bad happen to you because if God doesn't exist then there isn't any Heaven or Hell or Satan so everyone is on equal footing at that point. See how all that works out great for the atheists and progressives who hate religion? Start with the reasoning that a "scientific theory" is fact and must be taught in schools to make kids think that there is no other alternative. All downhill from there.

Traits are still selected. They're just different traits than the ones that would have been selected if humanity were still living in caves.

Really? They are different based on what mechanism that would recognize the change in the environment from cave, farmland, city, etc.? How does the environment have any direct influence on the traits that are selected? Tell me exactly how A imparts a force on B. There is no proof that the selection changes based on any criteria, or that a selection occurs in the first place because all we can observe are the current results and we just assume that there were previous samples (e.g. fossils) that lead to the current results (i.e. the animals we observe living today). We don't ever consider that what we see today are the beginning *and* end results and that no selections occurred because no changes ever occurred, i.e. evolution doesn't exist. Note that I'm not denying small mutations don't exist (there *is* proof of that) but that doesn't mean, and there is no proof of such, that given enough of them we end up with a new species. We have lots of species on this Earth today and for some reason some of us believe that they are all related but had to develop into how what they were/are from potentially other organisms that are also alive (e.g. humans and apes) but again, no direct evidence. Shared DNA doesn't prove evolution. Facts, in general, aren't necessarily evidence.

Many universities already replace them with computers by making the test consist of filling in bubbles on the scantron answer sheets so that they can grade 200 exams in 2 minutes or whatever. I encountered this in freshmen chemistry at WVU. 20 questions were on the test so you miss 3 and you get a B. I'd usually get the long questions right and the short, easy questions wrong. But it was easy to have marked incorrect the entire 6 part chemistry equations (I forget what the actual type of problem was but I believe it entailed balancing out equations) by messing up the last step and getting an answer that was listed as a possible answer (multiple choice test) and fill that in on the scantron sheet. If the professor would ever view it though he would have seen that you got the first 5 parts right and just did a stupid mistake so he could have given some credit where credit is due, but not with the stupid scantron answer sheets.

With airplay and whatnot, the need to transmit analog audio and video is rapidly disappearing, which is probably why the new plug has nine pins in stead of the previous billion. It's been months since I used my cable for anything besides charging, and I really can't see what I'd want from it that USB + wifi + bluetooth can't already offer.

Apple has only within the last year provided sync'ing capability and software updates over wifi. Previous to that users had to use their charging cord to transmit data as well.

Let's face it: it's a money-making ploy and nothing more. It is of course entirely within their rights to use proprietary designs that way, but harassing people trying to adapt to it is not (or shouldn't be), and it is entirely within my rights to dispise and chastise them for it in any case.

It may have been a money-making ploy in the beginning but they have been gradually providing features to minimize the need for using the charging cord. And since they have allowed 3rd parties to develop docks one rarely has to use the charging cord for actual charging while at home/work. Because of wifi and bluetooth being utilized more and more by Apple, it's probably what has made it possible for Apple to reduce the pin count on the connector because it performs fewer functions. Whether they include an adapter for free in the iPhone 5 packaging remains to be seen. They might and if they do that will reduce the amount of money they can make. They can still sell them separately though for people who lose their adapters or who need extra ones. But Apple isn't the only company, they weren't the first, and they won't be the last to try increasing profits by making proprietary technologies. But like with any company who uses that mechanism for increasing profits, they have to be careful they don't go overboard like Sony has in the past with their Memory Sticks because that just alienates consumers. So far, it seems Apple based on their stock price that they found the right amount of proprietaryness to inflict on us.

By the way, people may complain about Apple charging more for accessories like charging cords but the cheap knockoffs that sell for $5-$10 compared to Apple's costing $20+ end up breaking soon after you buy them, thus necessitating buying another cheap accessory. So you get what you pay for when you buy the more expensive Apple branded products because they are designed a certain way and have higher manufacturing standards to make them last longer than the cheap knockoffs.

Homo Depot, Target, JCPenney and others actively give thousands of dollars each year in support of gay pride marches and indoctrination of kids and employees to accept the gay lifestyle. Gets boycotted. Chik-Fil-A (you spelled it wrong) CEO (not the founder, as you said) expouses his *personal* belief and the company he runs has an attempted boycott against it (but it fails) with numerous people coming forth to express their support for the CEO's personal opinion. Apparently people are no longer allowed to have opinions, or at least those that are in disagreemnt with the homosexual agenda. HOW DARE HE STAND IN THE WAY! At least he isn't actively giving thousands of dollars away to support his belief, unlike the companies I mentioned above. Thos companies AREN'T staying neutral and yet Cathy has been accused of not being neutral just by having a dissenting opinion. I'm not sure how one can only have an opinion and still not be considered neutral but that's the double standard traditional family believers have to contend with.

I'm continually amazed that people think that their viewpoint is the be all and end all viewpoint, especially when the viewpoint is being a proponent of homosexuality and gay marriage. Any attempt to dissent from being a proponent makes people start acting like the people on here: haters. They call the people homophobes, racist (?), intolerant, etc. but never stop to think that they are being intolerant just as much for not realizing that their opinion is just that, nothing more. I'm not sure if it is in inherent demand and assumption of the homoesxual community that 100% of the heterosexual population of this planet must agree with their lifestyle or if the homosexuals and their supporters just enjoy being outright angry and hateful towards anyone who peacefully objects to them, no matter the reasoning. And I think a lot of people who are offended at the homosexual lifestyle would not even be heard if it weren't for the fact that the homosexuals feel the need to thrust themselves into the spotlight and into the public view (they even identify themselves by sexuality first, rather than by race or gender, which is messed up), like they are the chosen people or something AND then get annoyed that someone decided to join them in the limelight by disagreeing with them like "how dare you choose to not accept my decision to be gay". Newsflash: you aren't special, you don't need a TLD, and not everyone is going to bow down to you so just get over it. If you go back into the shadows then so will everyone else. Don't try forcing people to accept you and then get angry when you encounter dissent; just live your life like all the heterosexuals do.

why not fuckyou.gays? The Saudis have every right to object to this just as the gays would have every right to object to a hypothetically proposed .gayssuckass TLD, and for the same reason. Will the Saudis win? Hard to say, but don't be silencing their objections and calling them names just because YOU disagree with them. That's intolerant to not accept that everyone views things the same way you do and no one ever said YOU are the authority.

For one thing, sites wouldn't be forced to use the new TLD so they would still need to worry about blocking individual .com sites. Secondly, giving an entire TLD to gays is validating/recognizing something that all religions consider a sin so that's why they object. And they have every right to object for their own reasons despite some people on here claiming that they don't. Remember, just because they object doesn't mean they will win. I'm unsure why people feel the need to give such special treatment to the gays to the extent of creating an entire TLD dedicated to them. Come on people. Why not also have .best (bestiality), .les, .trans (transgender), .whatevercombinationthey'llthinkofnext or are those considered to be arbitrarily bad and gay is considered arbitrarily good? When is this special treatment going to stop? And it *is* special treatment because they aren't proposing one called .hetero are they? Creating TLDs for the other topics mentioned is also stupid.

Seriously, you've not pointed out whats _wrong_ with your spreadsheets to help us make _any_ real suggestion.

There may not be anything actually wrong with their system; they just may want to make it better. People have been quite capable of making suggestions without needing to know what's wrong with their current system of spreadsheets.

Firstly your gunning to change a system which apparently works. This is asking for failure.

The fact the person posted on Ask Slashdot could be viewed 2 different ways, but either way makes you wrong. 1) They could be posting simply because their current system does *not* work and they want an alternative. There is no reason why one should think that wanting to fix what is broken is asking for failure. That's ludicrous. To them, the broken system is what has failed. The other scenario is that everything really does work just fine but they want to *improve* their system to make it more efficient or add functionality that just isn't possible or easily added with spreadsheets. There is no reason to think that this is asking for failure either just because they want to make it better. If that were the case then no one would want to improve anything because they would dramatically increase the risk of failure. Failure only occurs by not trying.

Where was the incompetence and greed? Explain your version of events to me. I want to hear if you are using an accurate representation of history to fuel your anger.