In My Memory

Different biology, different abilities - nothing more should be said, so I think the negative reactions to Mr. Summers comments are bit hysterical. The feminist movement is very admirable, but its really a shame the movement can be damaged so much by denying that there are actual biological differences between men and women.

Callipygous, Check back on the human race in about 5000 years Imperfect? Certainly you mean best adapted to our environment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling your question reveals an unspoken assumption that it is unethical to halt the evolution of our species. If this is true, then I'd be interested to hear how you defend such a view (outside of "is-implies-ought" morality, of course). Many animals are capable of regenerating limbs without medicine, have natural immunity to diseases that would kill us, and are unthreatened by eating food that has been pumped full of anti-biotics. Does that mean they have already overcome us? No, not at all. As soon as you figure out what qualities make one species "greater" than another, then I dont think your question, no matter how sincerely you may want an answer, is meaningful to ask.

You might be able to find something from ClickHereFree.com. Also try Webhosts4Free.com (includes reviews). And another webhost directory Free-Webhosts.com. If you attend a university, often your university will be happy to host your websites for free and without ads.

GreenDestiny, The author of that particular faq has a grossly naive idea of how ethical systems are developed in the first place' date=' nor does the individual seem to know the nature of "secular morality"). First, to explain why the author's misconception: a person is morally responsible for his or her actions when (1) the individual knows what he or she is doing and (2) the individuals thoughts and intentions play a part in the outcome of an action. Both of those criteria are achievable under both a purely materialistic universe, and a universe where individuals have freewill (however that may be defined). Second, I will answer your question, GreenDestiny, in two parts: 1) The author is not correct about claims of the soul necessitating freewill. The problem is that freewill isnt philosophically coherent, because it implies the ability to free ones self from the laws of cause and effect. Still, even if we had the hypothetical capacity to break the laws of cause and effect, that is actually harmful to the idea of moral responsibility. Because essentially, if our actions are not determined, then free action is nothing more than a series random and fortuous events - this view of human behavior is antithetical to moral responsiblity. Freewill exists in the most trivial sense that, for most of your life, the actions you perform are at your own volition, you are not being coerced or controlled by anything but your own interests. 2) Most neurologists reject the idea that we possess freewill. Many of them take a philosophical position called "compatibilism", which means that while our actions are wholly determined, they are determined in a useful way by our values, memories, desires, experiences, and environment. One of the implications of this form of compatibilism implies that human behavior can be reasonably predicted if certain "variables" (for lack of better words) are known - for the most part, human behavior is actually much more predictable than people realize. More interestingly, this kind of compatibilism implies that if I were to give you a choice between opening two doors, quite obviously you will choose either the left or the right; however, if it were hypothetically possible to recreate the [i']exact[/i] inner and outer circumstances before you made your choice, you would choose the same door each and every time; you have the hypothetical capacity to choose different if the situation were presented under a different set of inner and outer circumstances. I believe compatibilists would argue that a completely deterministic universe has the most definite implication that the future state of events can be deduced from present circumstances. Certainly moral behaviors can be deduced as well (i.e. you can predict throwing something sharp at another individuals is likely to cause physical harm - which is definitely immoral), and I believe compatibilists would consider that knowledge of those effects should affects the behavior an individual - that is where the compatibilist can determine moral responsibility. As far as scientific data is concerned, it has seemed to refute freewill. I found a very good .pdf file on the subject once before, but I cannot seem to find it now. However, the content of the file was a study of human beings being hooked up to an EEG (or fMRI or similar device) to study the decision making process, which indicates the actual choices people make occur for quite some time before they are even consciously aware they have made a choice - implying consciousness does not play a part in the decision making process at all. We arent actually consciously aware of the functions of our brain, so we never know of the gap between our actions and our actual decisions to perform these actions - but our brain obscures this fact to create the illusion of a continuous experience. Think of this as similar to the fact that our visual processing in the brain is full of gaps, holes, and quite erratic, but our experience of these processes is drastically different. Under this understanding, consciousness might be a peculiar artifact of the processes of our brain, and may not be at all involved in decision making (although certainly our present decisions will affect the outcome of future decisions). I am personally comfortable with the idea that I dont have freewill, just as I am comfortable with the idea that my visual experience is for the most part an illusion of continuous perception.

My irony meter has exploded! I suppose it was just too much that this thread could be reasonably titled "Lies and propaganda or the truth" followed by links to a prominent white nationalist website. I have too little patience with racists, so I will choose to humbly link to the Nizkor Holocaust Educational Resource, then be on my way.

Essentially, Willowtree appears to be a heckler and conspiracy theorist. Willowtree shows up all over forums on the internet (usually science and skeptical messageboards) posting extremely lengthy "proofs" of God. If you do a search on Google, apparently Willowtree has posts on IIDB.org, Eblaforum.com, Infidelguy.com, some MSN groups, AtheistRadio.com, EvCForum.net, AboveTopSecret.com, and various USENET groups including Talk.origins. If you want to know what Willowtree is posting on all those boards, I recommend seeing a thread called alled Proof of God, in which he (she?) believed the slope of the pyramids was evidence of divine origin - on all the other boards, it appears that Willowtree rehashes the theories presented in that thread and posts them just about everywhere with a large enough audience. Specifically, on whether Willowtree's theories are of any merit, I wrote two replies to Willowtree's thread, here and here - based strictly on the facts Willowtree has accepted as axiomatically true, I believe my short replies have falsified his theories. In any case, his theories appear to have only the most tenuous logical continuity, but drastically contradict archaeology (and apologetics attempts seem to miff and cause conflict with other details in the bible). Willowtree does not believe this is actually a problem with the bible or his theories, instead he believes this is a problem with science and willful "ignorance" of atheists.

Glider, I had no idea how common that was Before I created this thread, I was sorting through very old things I'd kept from highschool, and I remembered all the different handwriting styles I had used - at least 4 or 5 distinct styles. I would fill up sheets of paper which read like: "This is what my handwriting looks like right now... Now I've added a sharp slant - do I like I like it like this or like this... Should I write my a's like this? Should I write everything in cursive?" And so on like that until I had perfected the style I liked. I'd even use different styles depending on who I was recieving my notes ( ).

Congratulations! Best wishes, soldier

Dihydrogen monoxide

(Hopefully, this thread on differences between male and female handwriting is in the right forum.) I admire beautiful handwriting, and I often think to myself things like "she has such elegant handwriting" (secretly I am incredibly envious!). Those kinds of thoughts make me wonder how we form gender preconceptions about authors handwriting, especially when papers are written anonymously or contains no gender-revealing personal detail at all. I find most people can correctly guess an authors gender based on handwriting with success rate greater than chance - so, my first question is, if gender can be guessed so easily from handwriting then which properties make handwriting masculine or feminine? Something which makes me very curious also is a small program online called the Gender Genie, which claims to correctly identify an authors gender based on various grammatical cues. The program doesnt seem to be terribly accurate, at least based on samples from various ScienceForums posters - in fact, there are many female posters with 5 - 10x as many masculine cues than feminine cues per post, and almost all of the women were incorrectly identified as men. Either that, or 95% of the allegedly female posters on SF are actually men incognito . Regardless, I find the idea behind the program to be quite interesting, but is it really sound? After all, most people have enough experience with the anonymity of the internet and gender-neutral usernames that sometimes the gender of even prolific posters is less than obvious. My second question is, which grammatical cues give away masculine or feminine writing? (Oh, and be sure not to confuse this thread topic with pseudoscientific endeavors like graphology.)

Hellbender, Oh, I hope it isnt too late to post a link to: How good are those young-earth arguments?

Hellbender Its a convoluted way of writing LOLROTFL (laughing out loud, rolling on the floor laughing). Its contrapositive is "roffle lollers". This message brought to you by In My Memory, and your friends at Geeky-NerdCo. Juslikecandi, You've missed the point entirely: Hovind's PhD comes from a non-accredited degree mill. No accredited university in the nation or anywhere would even recognize that he has even post-highschool scientific credentials. The fact he obtained his degree quickly is an ancilliary kick in his credibility. I dont know if you are familiar with exactly what degree mills are, but I've had experience with people claiming to be PhDs who really werent. For instance, I knew a woman who said she had a PhD, I remarked positively "oh, you are so young, what is your PhD in", and the woman replies to me "my PhD is in the study of human beings as transdimensional beings". I've also known people claiming to be PhDs in homeopathic medicine, shawmanism, and a whole host of new-agey things. What would convince you otherwise? What would convince Hovind otherwise? I have no idea what would qualify as "evidence", or even where to start. Yes I have. They are silly, and there is good reason why he is laughed out of academic circles - he's a crank, he isnt scientific, he has no credibility, thats it. His evidences are to biology what the book "The DaVinci Code" is to history - nothing that rouses any interests but conspiracy theorists and nutjobs. If it sounds like I'm being harsh, thats because I'm being honest. I do in fact have a book in my bookshelf called "Scientific Creationism", authored by Henry M. Morris, copywritten in 1974 and 1985. What makes you think I'm unfamiliar with Kent Hovind's arguments? Hey, did you know even creationists are ashamed of Hovind? Take a look at AnswersInGenesis.com - Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use (this is catergorized under "Definitely do not use these"): Seriously, Hovind's evidences are laughably awful even by Young Earth Creationist standards. Did you know there is actually a little joke about this particular argument, it has to do with "Noahs bunnies". Now, if you think humans, being able to reproduce safely at 15 years of age at a rate of 1 human per year is impressive, consider that rabbits need only reproduce at the age of 5 months at a rate of 6 or 8 at a time! We should be overwhelmed by rabbits! After 53 years, there are more than 1.6 x 10^24 rabbits!!! (See Noah's bunnies.) Or more considerably, do you have any idea how fast insects reproduce? Or how vastly insects outnumber human beings? If so, ask yourself how, by the logic you are probably referring to in your estimation of human population growth, it is possible that the earth is even older than 10 years without being up to the highest mountains in insects? Hopefully, it occurs to you that it does no good to use extrapolations of population growth over the past 100 years or so to make inferences, and hopefully you understand the environmental factors which keep outrageous exponential growth in check. Transitional fossils. An easy example is to trace back the ancestory of cats and dogs, they meet at a point around 55 million years ago to a creature called "miacis", and they make an excellent documented example of Family-level evolution.

My death as a politician is probably the result of being desperately out of the mainstream. Here are a list of reasons why I could never be elected: Religious affiliation: * none / atheism. ... polls suggest electability from this point on is cut in half. Spiritual Quotient: * none / skeptical of pseudoscience and the paranormal. ... polls suggest I've just alienated 90% of my remaining voters. Sense of ethics: * I am very moralistic, and committed to being ethical ... unfortunately this means I cant compete the likes of Tom DeLay or force myself to create false smear campaigns about my opponents Political affiliation: * none / independent / politically confused ... I am now severely handicapped, and at best expect to see about 15% of the popular vote. I now lack the built-in voter population of the 25 million or so self-identified Democrats or Republicans. Fiscal issues: * Government is very wasteful, I would look for ways to cut wasteful spending rather than increase taxes. ... public approval increases by 10% * I find the military to be an incredible drain on money that could be better spent, so I'd like to start by reducing the size of the military. ... previous spike is gone, and now the 33% of remaining voters who are also active in the military now refuse to vote for me. Social issues: * Pro-choice ... public approval wanes yet another 75% * Pro-gay rights ... public approval plummets 60% more * Pro-France ... I've just lost Bill O'Reilly's vote if I hadnt lost it before * I'm fairly liberal, on the Political Compass test, I score a -6.00 social scale (more liberal than average) ... now I've alienated whatever conservatives might be left to vote for me * Pro-gun ownership ... hey, all of a sudden, I've recieved the approval of the NRA * Anti-hunting ... the NRA apologizes for supporting me in the first place Environment: * I call myself an environmentalist ... 25% of people automatically assume I am a lunatic who is afraid of SUVs and styrofoam wappers. I dont fit that kind of stereotype at all, but no one takes the time to ask me to clarify particular details, so I'm still left looking like a lunatic. * I am very fact-oriented, so I dont buy much of the "we are buldozing 10% of the rainforest every year" nonsense ... environmentalists suddenly think I'm no longer dedicated to the environmental cause, they withdraw support Health: * I'd like to do something about Social Security ... oops, there goes the voting base of the older Americans, but fortunately I've picked up support from some fiscal conservatives * Privatizing SS is not a solution, I'd recommend allowing people simply to opt out of the system ... the economic conservatives dont know what to think, so they withdraw support Foreign policy: * More US multilateralism ... Americans dont know what that word means, or why its antithesis unilaterialism is so bad, so they assume I am speaking about giving the US over to France. * I consider wars with countries who never attacked us to be very bad ... Micheal Moore voices his approval for my opposition to the war in Iraq, but unfortunately being associated with Michael Moore frightens all but the most fringe of the liberal weirdos. Voter appeal: * I speak in compound sentences ... voters are quickly bored by the complete absence of soundbyte catchphrases, and are confused by the use of conjunctive adjectives to append several ideas together at once * I speak clearly, concisely, with force, and rarely mince words ... voters are now bewildered that I dont sound like a politician at all, and they are upset that I try to base my policy decisions on reason and objectivity rather than towing the partisan line. * I would not stand up to say the pledge of allegiance ... my conservative voter platform has vanished in a puff of smoke * Most people probably know me for my veganism ... now people think I associate with PeTA, despite my pubic condemnation of the group. Even the liberal weirdos are beginning to reconsider at this point. * I have a redeeming quality of having movie-star good looks and dress professionally ... my appeal to the 18 - 25 year olds is in vain, because they dont vote. That leaves the only people left to vote for candidates on a basis of attractiveness to be old musty men in trenchcoats, and I dont want their vote. Overall, would you consider yourself an electable politician? At about this point, I want to reiterate the eternal words of Mokele: Oh hell no.

This could be a fun thread: how would you rate yourself as a politician if you ever decided to run for an important office? (That is, of course, if you havent run for office already ) Lets assume that you have the money, the time, and the will to run: Do you have good policy ideas? Fiscal? Social? Education, Environment, Foreign policy? Are you a talented public speaker? Do you scare children? ( ) Could you woo the voters? Do you cater to partisan interests? Would you run a smear campaign against a competitor? Overall, would you consider yourself an electable politician? If so, what party would you associate with, what would you do once elected, and how would you ensure another term when election time rolls around again? What happens behind the publics eye, and should they know about it? Would tabloid newspapers discover any scandals, could you expect to be on the cover of TIME? Consider these questions and much more that comes with being a career politican.

Oldtobor, If you dont plan to be in the US for too long, and dont expect to have much specialized care, your most convenient insurance option to find a good pre-paid health plan through a good HMO. It gives you a broad range of health coverage, and if your HMO is cooperative it allows you and your employer to pay a set amount each year in return for health care and hospital coverage. Some information about HMOs and a few other types of coverage can be found here. I dont know much about the costs of HMO premiums as they tend to vary from state to state, but I have read they have an average cost of about US$300 a month (give or take). Typically with contribution between government and your employer, you should expect to pay at least US$20 a month out of your own pocket. (Those figures come from my own estimation from this NJ federal employees health benefits page.)

Kylonicus, This kind of idea really becomes scary when you consider two questions: * What are the most desirable genetic traits? * And what to do with all the undesirable genetic traits floating about? I would recommend if you are looking for ways to improve humanity, start with the resources already available. Start small, like building better schools, encouraging people to build homes for the poor, donating to charity, etc. A lot of good things can come from genuine effort to improve the world, and I will bet you can get all the benefits you desire without having to consider frightening ideas such as genetic engineering.

David Joseph, Those are your usertitles, they dont really mean much. As you accumulate posts, your user title will "evolve" from the smallest of particles to something larger. From quark, all the way up to primate (and I'm sure there is a special title available for whoever reaches 10000 posts). The mods and admins apparently have the ability to customize their usertitle.

David Joseph, Its Revelation, not Revelations (no "s"). And it's still April.

Checking email makes you dumber. (Just kidding!)

Yes. And keep in mind, not all forms of propaganda are necessarily bad in the Naziesque, 1984ish kind of way. With exception to some of the anti-communist nationalism of the McCarthy era, 99% of all the nationalist propaganda you'll ever come across is going to be fairly safe - we've been able to get along just fine for years enduring the mindless repitition of "support our troops", "God Bless America", saying the pledge, and Bill O'Reilly's anti-France nonsense.

Here is something I dont understand: the Supreme Court's rationale behind two recent rulings, Roper v. Simmons (execution of minors unconstitutional) and Small v. United States (people convicted in any court are prevented from obtaining guns for one year). In Roper, Supreme Court liberal justice Ginsburg was criticized for ruling in part on the basis of relying on international opinion: Now, recently, the Small v. US is almost paradoxial. The case asks whether the statute forbidding a person to obtain guns after being "convicted in any court" includes convictions in foreign courts, after a Japanese man convicted for 5 years was charged for illegally obtaining a gun in the US. If you are like me, your intuitions probably tell you that whatever the decision is, it will be relevant in some way to the second amendment, that the liberals would vote to maintain the restiction to obtain guns, and the conservatives would vote against the restriction. But, no, our intutions fail twofold: 1. You would think this would be a Second Amendment case, but for some reason the Second Amendment doesnt come up at all. 2. The "conservatives" on the court chose to observe the application the word "any court" to include foreign convictions and reject the defendants right to obtain a gun, and likewise the "liberals" believed foreign convictions do not apply to US law and grant the right for the defendent to obtain a gun. Scalia and Thomas give the dissenting opinions: In light some of the Scathing critiques of Ginsburg for her comments on the Roper v Simmons ruling, I am no longer sure exactly how or when it is appropriate for the Supreme Court to defer to foreign laws. And if a clear and meaningful rationale isnt defined, I would like to see a few pundits cross-apply their comments equally upon Scalia and Thomas, or perhaps withdraw their comments about Ginsburg altogether. Until then, I invite everyone to sit back, eat popcorn, and watch as TV pundits inenvitably fight to rationalize and trivialize the two cases for demonstrating a conflict in predicted behaviors of partisan judges.

How does communism nullify human greed in way that capitalism could not? And how does communism suddenly nullify feelings of laziness in a way that capitalism could not? I think the reason why capitalist countries thrive is because the greed of business owners is constantly kept in check by the greed of competitor business owners. On the other hand, communist countries dont fair so well because it tends to end in cases where one persons greed is unchecked by competitive forces, lending very easily to totalitarianism. So, in a philosophical sense, you are correct. Pragmatically, you are utterly wrong.