ableton

First your right about the 10k years thing. I misspoke, estimates are on the order of millions of years. But my point still stands at 10 million vs 1 billion. Anyways, all these dates are complete conjecture. Nobody really knows how old anything is, or what the effect of ice ages, meteors, etc. would be.

As for the rest of the interview, this guy is lying through his teeth when he says "Lucy had a brain just a bit larger than a chimp's" There is no possible way to get this from the bones. Here is a picture of what they found of "Lucy":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reconstruction_of_the_fos...

These guys just make stuff up, probably to get more fame and funding. I just found another link, turns out they found a baboon bone in the skeleton! The reason that the hip is so important is because it's the only thing that's really fully formed enough to say it looks human (note that lucy is about 3.5 feet tall, the size of a chimp).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-fou...

As for Epidexipteryx, first, sure I will grant that it has something close to feathers, but it's still a weak argument, because they are in the wrong place! There must be a birdlike animal that has partially formed feathers on it's wings. Unfortunately, fossils are rarely preserved well, and it is difficult to tell what is actually happening. Combine that with scientists' desire for fame, and you get sketchy results like lucy

Great question about translation. I read "Youngs literal translation" which is much more accurate. And I frequently use the Blue Letter Bible website which has an amazing resource to help you understand the Greek/Hebrew meaning of any word!

Science doesn't "chip away at the Bible". Bad science does though. Anecdotally I think what happens is that people want to have sex outside of marriage so they accept bad science to validate their choices. Sex hormones make people do really irrational things.

1. As for facts, I am referring to things like the Cambrian explosiom, and the lack of transitional fossils. For example how about Lucy? Lucy was clearly a chimp. You can go read the actual PBS interview with the guys who reconstructed it. They said when they reconstructed it at first, the hip looked just like a chimpanzee hip. Since there wasn't much anything else to make it transitional, they decided there must be something wrong. So they broke the hip up and put in together again in the "right way". This is another fact that people just ignore. I think actually Google had a "Lucy day" when Lucy is clearly a hoax.

>The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html

2. This has not been thoroughly debunked at all. In fact over and over again the "missing link" turns out to be a fake. Or how about archaeopteryx? It has fully formed wings and feathers. Where is the creature with half wings and partial feathers? Surely feathers couldn't have developed overnight! Yet it simply doesn't exist.

3. It's convincing for "most people". Well it's not convincing for a lot of others. So should the opposing position be censored? I don't think so.

4. Speed of evolution. Observing the mutation rate of Malaria is instructive. It is a eukaryotes, not a prokaryote, so is much more similar to our cell structure. Up to 1 trillion malaria organisms can infect the host. 250 million get malaria per year. That's up to 250 million trillion organisms per year. Which is millions of times the number of generations between monkeys and people. Yet it takes years for malaria to develop a resistance to a single anti malarial drug. There is no way the far more complex transition from monkeys to humans occurred in 1/1millionth of the number of generations. The rate of evolution is simply too slow.

To your edit: the Bible is meant to be allegorical in some parts. But as for creation, trying to somehow rectify the Bible + evolution is no good. The Bible says God created them so they would reproduce according to their "kind" https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=e...

This is exactly what we see in the fossils. When something shows up in the record, it stays the same.

Thanks for engaging, not downvoting! Your a cool guy (or girl)

This isn't about grown ups, it's about children in school.

No I read somewhere reputable, I think in his biography that he though this.

This is not historically accurate. For example, Newton was both an insanely awesome scientist and devoted theologian. Similarly Galileo said "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word". There is a large movement called "apologetics" in the Christian world which sees faith and reason and science as mutually compatible. Ravi Zacharias is one of the great Christian thinkers of today who explains this well.

I think the real thing is that most people just don't really care about science, Christian or no. Many atheists take the word of scientists with as much blind faith as christians take the word of their pastor.

Your comment is so ironic. You complain about conservatives wanting to "shut up" the media. And yet here you are advocating shutting up conservative ideas about creation in school. How hypocritical.

As for science, macro evolutionary theory isn't even science. The scientific method requires testing and 200 years isn't long enough to verify something that takes tens of thousands of years to occur.

Secondly, the fossil record shows all kinds of stuff that just doesn't jive with evolution. Darwin said if he was right the ground would be full of innumerable transitional fossils. But what we find is that as soon as something appears in the fossil record, it stays very similar. The Cambrian explosion is another thing that just doesn't make sense evolutionary speaking.

And all this is made worse by the fact that somehow evolution spent billions of years unable to move past unicellular organisms, and yet was able to jump from a monkey to a human in 10k years? Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old. The difference is astonishing and yet supposedly happened in an exceedingly short period of time, when life couldn't get out of the bacteria stage for a billion years?

There are a lot of holes in evolutionary theory. What is unscientific, and all to common among liberals is ignoring those who point out inconvenient facts

I agree. There are a lot of very smart people on both sides of the issue. It is better to be exposed to both sides.

Also, I think it is good that they are trying to limit nudity in textbooks. Even Steve jobs, who was by no means traditional, prohibited nudity from the App Store because he thought it was bad for young people.

Netflix shows all kinds of stuff about how food and big business can be bad. Since they subsist on fees alone, and not on advertising, I guess they can be more free to show what people want. The good news is that with the internet, you are free to access whatever news source you want. I personally don't even have a TV subscription, because I can find what I want without annoying ads online anyways.

Interestingly a private company is tying to build a high speed train from Dallas to Houston tx. The great thing is that it would be privately owned so if it's a flop taxpayers arent on the hook.

If a gang member tells you he will severely hurt you unless you give him your money, and you give it to him without any fight, did he take it forcefully?

If the government tells you "give me your money or we will lock you up in a cage for years with people who will likely rape you", and you give it without any fight, did the government take it forcefully?

I would argue that even though force was not used, the threat of force is enough to say it was taken forcefully.

Why do you keep talking about other countries? I wasn't comparing the west to any other country.

Men and women are different. Women have decided that they don't want to be women any more. The results have been disastrous. Families are falling apart today. 60% of people in prison come from home without dad. We have more money than ever, and less happiness. People are so silly. They confuse money and power with happiness. Incidentally all the divorce that comes thanks to women actually leads to more poverty. (2/3 of divorces among college educated come from women)

Most people have been thoroughly brainwashed. There are only a rare few like Neo who the programming just doesn't quite work for.

I think .co is too similar to .com. I would just go with the +app version. Or, a lot of startups are using .io these days. That's what I did and I'm happy with it.

I purposely chose to build on angular 1 instead of angular 2 when I started a project about a year ago. I'm actually glad I did, because every question you have has an answer already on the internet. I think it's actually good to stay behind the times in a lot of ways, let everybody else work out the bugs, then jump on board once it's all working well. Of course if I started now I would go with Vue, which I think is what angular 2 should have been - faster and simpler.

An eye for an eye and the whole world will go blind

-Gandhi

Lol, look up google's project Loon. They are trying to give everybody internet with balooons that stay in the air a long time. They steer by going up or down into different wind currents at different altitudes

This is a great article. I remember when that lady recently accused Tesla of gender discrimination and tesla basically said that they had already given her special treatment because she was a lady.

Women and men are very different. Diversity means accepting the good that those differences bring, not trying to eliminate it by making men and women the same.

The CFAA is a really, really nasty law. According to some interpretations, you are breaking it any time you violate the tiny terms of use at the bottom of a website. So basically anybody could get convicted if the prosecution really wants to. Somebody got convicted for pretending to be a fictional person on myspace, but it was overturned (granted, the person was cyberbullying that resulted in a suicide, but still) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier

I like the idea of getting free money every month, but it just wouldn't feel right to live on money that was forcefully taken from someone else, even if they do have a lot of it. Maybe somebody will invent some sort of sustainable voluntary UBI. That would be the best.

I heard that the guy who invented TV thought it was going to be this amazing thing that would transit knowledge and learning like never before. After he saw all the junk they put on it, he regretted ever inventing it. The same could be said for the internet. A genius that invention that allows so much good in the world, yet the amount of mind-destroying, family-killing pornography on it makes one wonder how much better the world is with it.

I think at the end of the day, it comes down to the fact that with every new tool comes the opportunity to use it for good or evil. So I wouldn't blame the tool, but rather the person who uses it for good purposes or for ill.

If you live in America you can do what you want. You can study hard and get a scholarship to college even if you are really poor as a kid. I know a poor Mexican immigrant who's kids all got college degrees for free. It doesn't really matter if you grow up poor (in America). There are many people who are very rich precisely because being poor as kids drove them to work hard. What does matter is if you grew up in a stable family. If you don't have that you get really whacked out paychologically, and it can affect people for their whole lives. People look to the government to tax and spend to solve social problems. However, oftentimes the government is the cause of such problems in the first place. For example, we see a huge number of people in prison today. Well studies show that 60% of people in prison grew up without a father in the home. The government today actively promotes divorce and children out of wedlock through paying single mothers. The "compassion" has raised a generation of young people who are lost. America has more money than ever but our families are falling apart, torn up by divorce and pornography, and our young people are paying the price. The government should focus on supporting strong families, and you would watch and see so many major social problems evaporate. I know that I am where I am today because of my dads positive influence on me. Without his support I would be nowhere right now. Every kid needs a loving family. It's time the government starts trying to promote that.

Of course in Quatar they have serious human rights issues that need to be resolved. I'm just talking about in America.

A lot of people are getting fired due to increased minimum wage. The employers will take their money and pay it to you and me to build automated solutions that do what the now-too-expensive people once did. That's what McDonalds is finally doing with self-order kiosks.

You guys could keep it proprietary then try to get bought out by one of the big guys who would open source it.

The main reason for this is government regulation artificially limiting supply. For example, being a lawyer isn't that hard. You could intern with a lawyer and read books on law yourself and get just as good an education. That's what our founding fathers did. However the lawyers want as few people as possible to enter their profession so they make incredibly stupid requirements for becoming a lawyer, such as having to have an undergrad degree.(which can be for literally anything) Policies like this are horrible because they drive up the cost of both lawyers and school. It also lowers the quality of education because educators are now in a position of unfair power over prospective lawyers since they can say who can and can't practice law.

Agreed. Some of the worst white collar criminals are actually DAs who knowingly prosecute people who shouldn't be prosecuted. They have the power to punish anyone even the innocent with potential prison time even if innocent, and also insane legal fees. If the government loses, they should pay for putting an innocent through so much hardship

Agreed. Universal for healthcare is one thing, because it's about people's lives. However college in my opinion is mostly a waste of money. You can learn the same thing on YouTube for free. It would be a terrible misallocation of resources to make college free for everyone. I hope college degrees go out of fashion, not that everybody gets one.

I agree. I am building a big angular 1 project right now and for every new component I make a new folder with three files - html template, sass, and javascript controller. It works the best in my opinion. Otherwise the files would just be way too big.

I'm glad to see they are using gulp. I know webpack is the hot new technology, but in my limited experience with webpack, gulp is easier to use and is more intuitive. Webpack has a lot of loaders, but I feel like gulp gives more flexibility out of the box. When I want to do something with gulp that I don't know how to do, I feel like it is easier to implement with gulp, because gulp seems to be a bit lower level. I noticed that they updated the docs for webpack since I last visited, so maybe I will try again.

I think that boys just plain will prefer the cars over the doll if you give them the choice, regardless of culture. The story of David Reimer is instructive. The boy at 22 months had a botched circumcision. So the doctors just chopped off his balls and made a vagina for him. He had a horrible time becoming a "girl" and as soon as he was told he was a boy as a teen immediately reverted and lived the rest of his life as a boy as much as he could. The reason his parents told him anyways was because he threatened to take his own life, hating to see the therapist who was trying to make him act like a girl.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

I have thought about this a lot, and yet when you observe little kids, little boys want to play with trucks and cars, and little girls like playing with dolls. Nobody has to tell boys to play with cars or toy guns. They just like them. Obviously everybody's an individual. But by and large I think there are trends at such a young age it's apparent that the gender differences in occupational choices aren't just due to culture.