JUGGERNAUT

If you just hand the world of to us technocrats we can end the debate. We are the best qualified to run all matters of the world with machine-like efficiency. There really is no need for liberal-speak in the world. You should just go about & live your life to the level of decadence you desire in the PRIVACY of your own home.

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/ds.../pro/071sd6.htm Piazza:$2M/1yr Mut opt $8M/07 w 750K buyout. With the buyout it's close to what a healthy Thomas will make. Hennepin County District Judge Charles Porter ruled that the Twins lease expired in 2003. Coco Crisp signed a $2.75M/1yr deal with BoSox. They also signed FA A Gonzalez to a $3M/1yr deal. Toronto signed Molina to a $5M/1yr w a $7.5M/07 opt & a 500K buyout.

Follow-ups in the Chicago papers: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...tesox-headlines http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/ds.../pro/071sd6.htm http://www.suntimes.com/output/slezak/cst-spt-carol07.html The great & powerful Oz: "But I swear to God, you can put me in Harvard, you can put me in any college in the United States, and you ask me a question and I will answer. But you put Bill Gates in Caracas, Venezuela, and he will [bleep] his pants. He don't know what to do, he don't know what to say and he'll say, 'Get me out of here.'''

What do the Angels have in return to trade for Lee? I agree they are the most likely candidate because the A's will be pressuring them all season long. But I don't see what the Angels have that the Brew wants so maybe a 3rd team will get involved. I do think Lee will have a buyers market in FA & that will prevent him from coming back to the White Sox.

Hey if your ignorant to what cyborg technology is than I'm not surprised you would attempt to make fun of any reference to it. But that doesn't change the fact it will become a normal part of society in most of our lifetimes. But you need a Phd or at least an MS in CS/CE plus a job in the field of robotics to understand that.

Just pointing out the obvious. Didn't put anything back on any one.

You don't realize it but you just did far worse damage than I did. You just associated "nut job" to all of the "left-wing". I didn't. I specifically denoted the "left-wing nut-job" as being separate from the "left-wing" in general. But if you're speaking from a position of authority on the issue who am I to disagree?

Quote: Humans are but one spoke – and a very, very short spoke at that. Give it up already. We're the whole F'g wheel now. All the other spokes? They will be completely under our control & dominion in time. We're less that 50 yrs away from making use of nanomachines as cops to patrol our own bodies (think AV updates) & to control those populations of insects & animals we don't desire. We will be able to hunt whatever we want because we'll have the power to prevent extinction of what we want. To say we have been wildly successful is a joke! We are on the path towards Godhood & our best attempt at immortality. That isn't just wildly successful. That's damn well dominating nature. Thirty years ago we took our first steps towards AI. Now we have robots that look lifelike, can speak in human voices, & dance! That's on the basis of just 4 generations of leaps in architecture. We are expected to see no less than 8 such leaps over the next 30 yrs. Terrabytes will be a thing of the past. Now I realize that doesn't mean much for most people but to a computer scientist it's a major change. Hardware has already out-paced software & that gap is going to widen significantly. In other words resources won't be a limiting factor to software designers. That's going to result in explosive growth of robotics & cyborg technology.

I have been there many times & I have complete internet access when I do. SOXTALK is well within reach. That won't help you. As to your quip about the current administration this reply might be the easiest I've had to come up with: We are loosing our capacity to produce technology today, it will only be that much worse 20 yrs from now so this technology will obviously originate outside of the US & yes Japan is most likely to mass-produce it first.

Here we go again. Read the sentence. It's a general reference to left-wing nut-job. Any coincidence to actual persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Any association to actual persons living is at the discretion of the reader for which the term may or may not fit. Now if there is a rule at SOXTALK explicitly stating that no one can use the term "left-wing nut-job" in any context whatsoever then I will be more than happy to edit the post.

It's good to know you are a skeptic as to believing we will enter the cyborg age before the 22nd century & the synthetic life age before the 23rd century. You are clearly in for a rude awakening as we are beginning to take our first steps into the cyborg age in the 21st century. Just 20 yrs from now the well-to-do will have augmented minds. You can bet on it.

I beleive the person to which you are referring to is Bruce Lahn. His claims to fame our: - Humas are a 'privileged" evolutionary lineage - Human brain evolution was a "special" event Again it's a question of the context in which you frame ENS. If your frame it in a "random" context than words such as "privileged" & "special" weaken that context. As for the work itself he essentially demonstrated characteristics of "strong" selection on magnitudes millions of times greater than other mammals. If it comforts you into believing that was a random hapistance resulting from man's history of survival then so be it. For a mathematican it's not comforting. Because the probability of such events happening in conjunction with a random generating function are astronomical. In discussions about the context of ENS that's why true ID science is 1 part math, 1 part physics (including QP), & 1 part genetics with a bunch of metaphysics used to bind the 3 parts. It is apparent to me that context is everything in this debate. FSJ actually believes that we are simply at the top of the evolutionary chain now & that say a million years from now something else most likely will take our place. I don't believe that for a second. Why? Because computer science has changed everything. If we do not kill ourselves or fall victim to a LEE we will create viable & intelligent synthetic life. There is no question of this path. And if we can create such life to mirror a human being than we can do so for all lesser lifeforms. We are living in the computer age. Next comes the cyborg age. Then after that comes the synthetic life age. Selection isn't at work there. We are.

The extent to which you are close-minded to metaphysics & any aspects of spirtual existence is obvious. All any one has to do is add up the number of posts where you have actually argued in favor or presented a pro position for any topic in this realm. My guess is they add up to either zero or very close to it.

To answer your question here's a good site: http://www.sciencedaily.com/ Given your supposed credentials you should be able to find a source or a link to a source that will either confirm or reject any position. If you are open-minded then you should be capable of finding information serving as pro's on both sides of the issue.

Thomas: ''But he's a big left-handed presence; maybe that's what they wanted, just a big left-handed hitter. It wasn't a better hitter, I'm gonna tell you that right now.'' I know it's hard for some to see it but that is a concession statement by Thomas. If you look at the AB/HR ratio of LH bats at the cell over recent years it's a decisive advantage. Frank is clearly away of the simplicity of the argument: it's more difficult for a RH bat to blast one out of the cell than a LH bat. Bottomline: Chance favors the LH power bat at the cell.

His line of think as I see it is that we have an unknown in the OF playing CF. We are all hoping that person can hit reasonably well but we really don't know. No one slated for that spot has any experience when it comes to enduring a slump in the MLs. Rowand himself had to be sent down more than once to get it right. So if that hole in the OF can't be plugged then the quickest fix might be to move Pods to CF & trade for Lee. July is mostly about quick fixes for a ball club. As for signing Lee to a multi-year that's going to depend on: 1) How does Dye hold up in RF this year 2) How our CF option does 3) Other players besides Lee that can play the OF 4) How much can we afford to spend As Sox fans we are hoping 1) & 2) eliminate the need for Lee or any player like him.

The big bang theory is more than an opinion. It is the prevailing theory amongst those sciences rooted in mathematics as to how the universe began. It is strongly supported by evidence of calculations derived from observations of both planetary & inter-steller telescopes & other scientific tools. While I agree we have too much creationist thinking in the current ID society that does not change the fact that the base question of ID asks a simple question: Which is more probable? A random generator function at the heart of ENS or an intelligent optimizer complete with garbage collection? Prior to DNA testing & genetic science in general the bulk of the geological evidence supported the random generator function. Now it's not completely random because it does have survival instincts serving as part of it's domain, but it's still a random function to produce it's range of mutation. Well at least that's the theory. But recent geological evidence when put under the scrutiny of DNA testing & genetic science in general is weakening that idea. Whether or not this level of understanding can be taught to high school students is open for debate. It's usually not until senior year of computer science degrees that you focus on modeling & simulation which is of the utmost importance when trying to understand a system or process. It's heavily rooted in math including calculus. There's no way you can expect high school students to understand that & then apply that knowledge to biological systems & processes in nature. The nice thing about the current neo-Darwinian context of ENS is that it is simple to understand. The same will never be said of ID because the course of study involved in turning biological systems into Petri-nets & other state based modeling systems is anything but simple. It's like designing a system that will generate a compiler based on samples of code. So what's a reasonable compromise? Well you can't teach quantum physics without entertaining a discussion of metaphysics when it pertains to explaining observed events. So that seems like a reasonable compromise. Teach an Intro to QP alongside with Biology. Leave out the hard core math, stick to the most general topics, & help the students become more familiar with the general aspects of modeling & simulation of processes & systems.

That post is so non-sensical & illogical to the train of thought of which it replied to that there isn't much more for me to say about it. Either this person has choosen to ignore completely the economic influence on culture or he's just being an arse at a weak attempt in a personal attack. Well I guess a left-wing nut-job might attempt to do both. I suppose I should fix the obvious typo though. I shouldn't assume that people here have enough grammar knowledge to understand an obvious mistake & correct it themselves. On the surface you would think that EXCEPT for THREE things: 1) China's investment rate in Latin America 2) Economic power has a greater impact on culture than mere population 3) China's investment rate in America While America will be predominantly Hispanic the empire controlling the purse strings of most of the America's will be Chinese.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html He doesn't a fine job in explaining how ENS can lead to complexity in nature but he does a poor job in refuting ID. It seems his basis is rooted in the believe that ID commands that "the program" must be infailiable from the start. This defies the evolution of programming in computer science. What he has basically explained is that natural selection is driven by a highly intelligent optimization function that acts like a garbage collector. In fact his explanation of the human eye suggests that this function acts like a derivative in calculus. Based on his explanation natural selection carries forth the most minute change because any change represents use. Anything else is eventually phased out. That is very similar to how modern day garbage collection works in programming. It essentially allows for programmers to be lazy in their work. If they don't specifically release that which they no longer use the environment will do it for them. At the core of any good garbage collector or optimizer is detailed knowledge of the syntax & grammar of a language, the OS it runs on, & the architecture it interfaces with. Now I understand why Miller took the approach he did. He's refuting the multitude of ID arguments that are closely aligned with creationists that are more interested in refuting natural selection then they are making a general argument of intelligent design in nature. But if you narrow the argument down to focusing not on the merits of natural selection but rather it's random behavior his arguments against ID do not hold. Again we are getting back to the context in which ENS should be taught. On the one side we have the neo-Darwinists who essentially want us to take it on faith that there is a random generator function built into nature with survival interests serving as it's domain bringing forth a range of mutation & inheritance. On the other side we have true-IDsts that believe the random generator function should not because considered Gospel truth because it's geological evidence is weak & it's DNA evidence is even weaker. As to the benefit of ID it's obvious. The less you depend on random events the more you can control that system. This applies to computer science as much as it does to any science.

No, because you admitted that viewpoint depends on HOW you interpret those passages. It does not literally contradict the prevailing understanding that the Earth orbits the Sun. The problem you are having in defending your point is that you are adherring to just ONE of the many meanings for the hebrew words that define those passages. The truth is the hebrew words work like overloaded operators. They have multiple meanings depending on the context. Firmament is only one misunderstanding of the usage. Both firmament & fowl are bad choices for translations because they do not represent the more general usage of the original hebrew words. You can easily search on this to learn more but in general the hebrew word that fowl was translated from simply meant winged things. That can easily be interpreted as insects as much as birds. Likewise the hebrew word mapping to firmament fits more with expanse. In fact the time reference itself doesn't even have to be compromised because the hebrew word used in the original text for "day" actually maps to an indefinite length of time. Perhaps the biggest issue is perspective. But then if you understand logically the purpose for Genesis even that is not hard to understand. Genesis shifts from a perspective of looking at the Earth from the Heavens above to looking from the Earth to the Heaven's above. With that understanding it's not hard to see that the placing of the Sun & the moon in the sky is nothing more than making such things clear to see from the perspective of the standing on the Earth. If you wish to learn more I can post a link that has explained the hebrew origins & such in much greater detail.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/skeptics/...tseq.shtml?main

Resorting to personal attacks again? Why am I not surprised? So long as it stays in the realm of biology you remain civil & a reasonable debate can occur. But as soon as you step out of it you become testy & disrespectful. Sounds like a left-winger to me. Just because you can't understand something is hardly reason to call in gibberish. But I suspect that happens a lot in your life. I don't know if I would call it gibberish but it certainly is lame for an atheist like yourself to take the Bible literally in an effort to refute an explanation that does the opposite.

What is the best way to fight terrorism or the threat of terrorism? A cancer analogy fits well here. If you attempt to take the most non-intrusive path to riding the body of cancer then the process takes longer but collateral damage is minimized. If you are looking for the quickest most expedient way then chemotherapy will take less time but increase the collateral damage significantly. Old ways of treating cancer were analagous to killing the body to kill the cancer. With respect to terrorism: New method: US military - protection of civs > killing the enemy Old method: mercs - killing the enemy > protection of civs Mercs will risk their lives to infilitrate the enemy & kill them so they can reap their rich reward. That's politically incorrect to ask of a US serviceman. This is where war favors the aggressor. Always has. The aggressor is never afraid of using mercs because they could give a rat's arse what the world thinks of them. Whatever means gets the job done at the lowest cost is what works best. If you think the terrorists are simply volunteers think again. They are heavily financed & trained mercs. Unless you can cut the supply of money you can't stop the terrorists from replenishing their ranks with mercs. Again getting back to the cancer analogy it's like fighting the cancer with lazers while it fights us with chemo bombs. We have to spend painstaking efforts to find it & zap it out of existence while it attacks us indiscriminately. How can you ever hope to defeat it that way? I blame the left-wing for the pussification of the US military.

I disagree with most of the first post. This is not the 1970's. Israel won't say Boo without US authorization. There are three ways this will go down: 1) The UN Sec Council backs the US on a pre-emptive strike if Iran does not submit to inspections. 2) The US doesn't get backing from the UN SC but does get significant backing from nations in the EU, & G8 to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran. 3) The top intelligence agencies of the G8 join forces in making use of the technocrat population in Iran to stage a coup. My guess is 3 is in the works because *cough* *cough* it's worked so well before. No, not really, but it does seem a course of action that always is attempted first.

On the surface you would think that EXCEPT for THREE things: 1) China's investment rate in Latin America 2) Economic power has a greater impact on culture than mere population 3) China's investment rate in America While America will be predominantly Hispanic the empire controlling the purse strings of most of the America's will be Chinese.