Question Mark

I'm about to buy a car. I am willing and comfortably able to pay cash for the car. But I also want to refinance my mortgage in the near future, and it suddenly occurred to me that maybe that should come before the car purchase. The problem is, I need a car very soon. So...

If I buy the car with cash, will it mess up my future refinance in terms of not getting the lowest rate? Or... if I start the refinance process right away, and buy the car with cash while the lender is doing what they need to do, will *that* affect the refi process?

My credit score is excellent.

I've never done it before, so I don't know what's involved. For all I know it could take hours or weeks! Also, what can slow down the process, and is there anything I can do to minimize delays? Thank you.

I understand that *I* can benefit from refinancing my mortgage to a lower rate. What I don't understand is why my current mortgage company is evidently so motivated to make that happen -- or at least they were for a few months recently.

Not to sound cynical, but I don't think their motivation in sending expensive express notices and calling me three or four times in the last few months is just to help *me*. They are a business, after all, and the only way they gain in the end is to make more money. How will they benefit by giving me a lower rate?

I understand also that they may collect closing fees, but I hardly think those can be larger than the money they could get from allowing my current higher-interest loan to drag out to its full term.

I'm hoping to get a new car (new to me, whether new or used) in the next few weeks. I need one badly and it can't wait much longer; my current car is over 20 years old, I'm already wasting money every week on a bad oil leak, and may face major repairs soon just so it will pass inspection.

But it occurred to me that if I need a car loan for that, then when I go to refinance my mortgage I will look like a bigger risk and have trouble getting the best rate. But I guess this could be a problem no matter which one I do first.

My current mortgage rate is 5.5% and I have probably at least ten more years before I can pay it off, paying as rapidly as I can with extra toward principal every month.

I could actually buy the car with cash, but that may not be wise since I'm guessing I could get a loan at 0% for some period of time.

My credit rating is excellent from all indications. At least one score is above 800.

Is that enough information to go on? Any advice is appreciated.

I already have a USB flash stick with Mint 16 (which I've been using live), so I know how to get to the Linux desktop and click the install icon. Where I get lost is with all the partition options because I know very little about partitioning. I do know *some* Linux terminology, but go easy on me :-).

My hope/goal: To be able to boot into either Mint or Windows 7 at my choice, and to be able to access my documents, e-mails, photos and any other personal files from either operating system but have them all stored in just one place. (Is that even possible for e-mails?)

Note that my computer currently has a bad copy of Windows that will not boot (I get only BSODs), and I'm not sure whether I should reinstall that first (and maybe set up partitions with the Windows install disk?) or use the Mint installer first. I know they use two different file systems.

My computer has a standard BIOS, not the newer UEFI.

Thanks so much!

I've been exploring Linux in the last couple months, but still have a great deal to learn, including some real basics. For example, in both Linux Mint, and Pinguy OS, the two distros I've used, I can't seem to figure out how to save user files to the flash drive on which Linux resides. (I created a live bootable flash drive with both distros on it.)

I created a folder for this purpose (named simply "Created By Me") on the flash drive. But whenever I try to save something to it I get an error message saying something like I don't have permission to change that folder, or the folder is non-writeable and I have to change that first. And a file containing notes to myself, also in that folder, is un-editable in Linux. I can open and view it, but not change it.

After seeing this "permissions" or "read-only" message the first time, I connected the flash drive to a Windows machine, right-clicked on that folder and saw that it was indeed marked as read-only. I changed that (I thought), but am still getting this error message in Linux.

One other thing I've noticed is that I *am* able to save pictures from websites, but I'm not really sure where they go. Evidently to the hard drive of the computer, not to the flash drive.

I have a PC running Windows 7 Professional. Something has gone wrong and I'm no longer able to boot without getting an immediate blue screen (for nearly a year now, so I've been on a different computer). I know there are various things I could try, and I've already explored some of them in that time.

I've scanned for malware and for disk errors. I've tried System Restore. I've scanned for memory problems. I've looked up that exact "stop error" - a little. I've begun making a bootable flash drive with various rescue utilities.

And I've successfully booted with Linux, from which I can see many (maybe all) of my files, which tells me the hardware is probably fine.

There's probably more that I'm forgetting I tried. One of those things may even be the solution. But for lack of time or skill, and growing impatience, I've become interested in another idea.

Can I buy a new hard drive and reinstall Windows 7 on it (using my official Microsoft install disk), while leaving the existing drive in place that already has a compromised copy of Windows on it? Can I expect any problems booting from the new drive? I realize I may have to change my BIOS settings. I want to keep the existing drive because it contains a ton of data. And yeah, I know I could offload that data using Linux - my original plan - but this "new hard drive, new Windows" idea interests me more because I'm tired of learning and don't have much free time for troubleshooting, plus I'm not sure I can *find* all my data using Linux.

One other point: my existing hard drive is a RAID array. I doubt that will be a problem - after all, Linux could read from it right away and I could see all my data - but I wanted to mention it in case that's a factor.

Will this work? Thanks

No, not celebrities; those lights in the night sky so frequently and quaintly cited in scripture. (You needn't remind me that cosmology was a primitive study in those days. If the Bible is the word of God, it is *His* knowledge or lack thereof which is revealed by scripture, right?)

The following passages are from the King James version.

Psalm 147:4 "He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names."

Where does he tell this number? So how many are there -- according to scripture? And did he really come up with names for them all?! (Interestingly the New Internation Version says, "He *determines* the number of the stars..." which I dare say is a safer statement; one which doesn't have to be defended against current scientific knowledge.)

Revelation 1:16 "And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword..."

How big are stars? Are they small things? Alternatively, how big was the Almighty when he held these stars? By my estimation he would have to be a good fraction of the size of our galaxy (in which case that would have been some sword)! Yeah, I understand the metaphor concept, but what is that a metaphor of? Besides...

Revelation 12:1 "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:"

More metaphors? What do they mean? I can play apologist and honestly imagine a fairly reasonable (though strangely "artsy") explanation: this is how the woman *appeared* from the perspective of earth, wherein stars would appear tiny and she could appear just above the moon... but then it just falls apart when I try to add "clothed with the sun" and say she's behind or blinded by the sun... but... there are... stars visible, and.... aaaagggh!

How many times can we fall back on the metaphor explanation?

Again, in Revelation 6:13 we see stars as small objects: "And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind."

Come on. How inventive, patient and tireless does one have to be to support such credibility-straining stories?

If scripture is the word of God, I find it remarkable that He would be so ignorant of his own creation. Much more reasonable to me is that it's further evidence that scripture came from human brains, nothing more.

What is that?? Is that some inside joke I'm missing out on? If so, someone please enlighten me!

I've seen about twenty of them in the last couple months, and wouldn't doubt if there've been ten times that.

I get tired of hearing confident believers talking about a recent event and saying, "The Bible predicted that." They usually don't even bother to cite the chapter and verse, but when they do, there's some vague relevance at best to what's happened... certainly no compelling reason to conclude a connection. (This happens with the so-called prophecies of Nostradamus, too.)

I'm not the least bit impressed with hindsight prophecy. It's far too easy to make things fit (to find slightly relevant-sounding scripture) when you already know what happened. Though the fit is vague, it is that vagueness which allows people to connect the two.

So I'll ask here what I always ask them: Can you tell me *now* what's going to happen and when? It can be about global politics, natural disasters, war... all the stuff I usually hear about... or anything else. But I want to know *what* is predicted and *when*. Time is as important as the event because without it, a prophecy is meaningless. After all, given enough time almost *anything* is possible, at which point believers will say, "See, I told ya!"

Let's have some prophecy now to prove me wrong. Or, just bring on the expected excuses.

I think many/most believers would say yes; some good things happen which God didn't initiate. He let me find my keys on my own, maybe, or I got the lawn mowed before it rained, my mom/child liked her birthday present... whatever.

Many faithful recognize that one can feel comforted, guarded, provided for, or just lucky, without attributing those feelings to God, Allah, or another deity.

But then how do you know which is which? How do you decide which positive outcomes to prayer or simply to life are worth mentally filing under 'evidence for God'?

One of the stranger criticisms of evolution is that teaching it leads people to abandon their morals (as if that would be reason to doubt its factuality, or pretend it away, even if true). The spread of this 'evil' is asserted by numerous evolution-deniers to be the cause of the country's (presumably obvious) moral decay in 'recent years' or some unspecified period.

Moral giants like Tom DeLay and Ted Haggard, to name just two, have equated acceptance of evolution to calling us 'animals' (gasp) or "glorified apes" ...and we all know how *evil* and selfish these creatures are [Sarcasm Alert]. These guys claim--unfettered by evidence or reason--that learning this fact of nature leads to social decay, moral bankruptcy and Athlete's Foot. (Alright, I added the last one.) DeLay even cited it as the cause of the tragic 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado.

He and Haggard should talk. Strange how such pious guardians of ethics and morals so often reveal an inner scumminess which is at least the equal of their targets'. But perhaps their own indiscretions can be traced to an accidental childhood exposure to a quote from The Origin of Species.

So... how long do *I* have? When will my own knowledge and acceptance of evolution lead me to ethically objectionable acts? Does it take a certain number of years to fester... to metastasize?

I don't really know how to measure moral decline, but... so far this evolution stuff hasn't dried up my charitable giving nor caused me to shoplift. I fill out my tax return honestly, though often at the last minute -- [gasp], is it starting? No, I've always procrastinated. I still hug my loved ones and give them gifts at Christmas. In store checkout lines, I often let people with less items in front of me. I try to be a good friend and a good listener to those in need. I still feel guilty if I've inadvertently hurt someone's feelings, and still apologize. I'm far more likely to tell the truth than to lie. And I try not to even waste time on the job, as that constitutes stealing, to me. I could go on, but don't want to sound like a braggart.

In general, I've always done unto others as I would have others do unto me. And being informed about common descent, speciation, and my relation to apes, reptiles, fish and trees coexists well with that attitude. Indeed, I would not be surprised to learn that the Golden Rule is a product of human evolution.

The Discovery Institute and other "fair minded," "moral" evangelical voices (including our former president) have for years sought to "teach the controversy" about evolution in school science classes. Among relevant scientists there *is* no controversy in the sense the deniers want us to believe; the overwhelming majority of biologists consider evolution as factual as just about anything in science... but for the sake of this question I won't let that discrepancy trouble me any more than it troubles the Bible thumpers.

They want, at the very least, to force science teachers to say that evolution is "only a theory" which in the vernacular of students would imply it's no better than a guess... an egregious and often purposeful misrepresentation of science. (Hmph... I thought lying was a sin.) Science teachers are, understandably, staunchly opposed to watering down students' education, and to mixing religion into public education. The creationist efforts are repeatedly shot down in courts across the country.

Of course there *is* controversy among the uneducated populace regarding evolution, a situation the Discovery Institute use to back their clever phrase. If science isn't certain, what could be more reasonable and balanced, people agree, than teaching the controversy?

Well I want to be equally reasonable and balanced. So should we take all this fair-mindedness to the next level, and drag the message of science into churches the way the evangelists want to drag religion into science classes? Should preachers be forced to mention abiogenesis and evolution as an alternative to creation? Should they also "teach the controversy?" Let's be fair.

They'll cite individual scientists who refute evolution... and who, it later turns out, are physicists, chemists, or work in some other unrelated field... or not scientists at all.

They'll cite entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, The Big Bang, macro/micro-evolution, speciation and abiogenesis... I suppose because unfamiliar big words sound authoritative to them, or because they know that many people *do* respect science.

They'll say there are no transitional fossils, that mutations can only be harmful... and the best of all [drumroll]: They'll say it's "only a theory."

One thing that's usually curiously lacking: They won't cite reputable BIOLOGICAL SCIENTISTS (you know, the ones who would know; the experts).

I'll give them one thing: they've gone to great effort to construct this elaborate Dr.Seuss-like fantasy world where they can take tentative comfort in "reality."

I won't even get into the non-science arguments, such as that it takes away morals, speaks of creation, requires its own faith, or is even a religion!

Those of us who study the subject have heard most of the arguments hundreds of times. Each of these, and others I've left out, show a clear lack of understanding of, and respect for science. Yet they keep on quoting those scientific phrases and concepts. Maybe some part of them does respect science and longs for it to be "on their side", or maybe they're just desperate to convince people who do respect it. Thoughts?

It's well known that for centuries the pious have ridiculed scientists, who announced evidence that the earth wasn't at the center of the universe, that illness (physical or mental) wasn't caused by evil spirits or the devil, that the earth is far older than 6,000 years, that dinosaurs and man co-existed only on The Flintstones, that humans and other animals evolved from simpler life forms, that eclipses and comets are not harbingers of bad fortune, indeed that life on earth may have arrived on a comet or begun by natural forces. There are many other examples of things we've learned. Each time, though scripture naturally hadn't changed, religious dogma -- ever-more-loosely based on scripture -- was forced to, so that (eventually) few believers opposed these ideas, and most even incorporated them into their interpretations of scripture, with the current exceptions of evolution and abiogenesis -- many still reject one or both.

I won't even get into the question of why modern society chooses to ignore God's many violent and bloody edicts for wayward children, spouses, slaves, and non-believers. I'll stick to science-influenced changes in doctrine.

You can see many believers here confidently citing the Bible in light of modern knowledge, suggesting for example that it *always* said the earth is nearly 5 billion years old, apparently oblivious to what their ancestors (and current fundamentalists) have interpreted. Some go so far as to claim the Bible talks about science knowledge we are only now acquiring, or they fall back simply on "He caused [this newly-learned process] to happen." Anything to make new evidence fit with old beliefs.

Does this evolving doctrine show an admirable respect for evidence or a desperate search for excuses? In light of new evidence, science would *rightly* be ridiculed if it tried to rescue a hypothesis by calling it a metaphor, like a day in Genesis really means hundreds of millions of years. (Even many believers consider this absurd.) Science would simply abandon the idea. And it never would have considered ancient writings evidence worthy of anything so grand as a "theory" called Creationism! There is another critical difference: scripture, unlike scientific theories, is considered sacred, unquestionable, the word of God. But it's sure not treated that way. If it really is God's word, then what business do mere humans have making periodic changes to what He meant?

In a universe which is far more immense than most humans can conceive, there is no evidence of intelligent beings on other worlds, though there is certainly reason to think them likely. And it would be astonishing to imagine such vastness created by a sane god for only us. Moreover, those who are willing to accept on faith the words in a single book must surely grant me my faith -- a reason-based faith -- in extraterrestrial intelligence, at least for the sake of this question.

So if they exist (and Christians would have to conclude that God created them) did God give them a chance to save themselves as Christians say he did us? Did he send his son to them, to every planet on which he placed intelligent life, as he did here? Did he assume their form, as ours? Was he perhaps even "born" and did he die among each of those inhabitants, so that they, too would be saved from damnation? Did he mingle with the natives as here? Did he commission local versions of a Bible for each of them, too, with the stories of his visit recorded in that version of scripture, as it was here? Since (we're told) we are created in his image, do all alien species look like us?

Where did he draw the line in deciding where "intelligent" life resided? Were other intelligent life forms here on Earth... the dolphins and whales, the great apes... given some kind of message, too, in a language they could understand?

Or remarkably, in the mind-numbing vastness of his creation, among perhaps uncountable other beings, does he care only about us...*our* sins, *our* activities, *our* afterlife. Is it literally "to hell" with the rest of them?

Many questions, I realize, but they all go hand in hand, and must therefore be considered together. Incidentally, I'm really asking this question of believers of any faith, not just Christians.

... laughing, getting goosebumps, and crying some more -- often all at the same time? Or maybe I'm just a big crybaby -- haha!

Months ago I'd seen one on the news, and just now decided to see if I could find many more online... I sure could. A search on YouTube of 'surprise' and 'Iraq' took me to one, which led (as hoped) to many others.

The unashamed outpouring of genuine emotions--usually in very public places--from children, a sister, parents, and girlfriends or wives (I didn't happen across any with female soldiers) is very uplifting, sweet, and sometimes laugh-out-loud funny. Grab a box of tissues and check a few out if you want to lift your spirits.

The daughter in her little schoolgirl uniform in this first one may be the most touching to me, though the boy is of course very cute, too. (I freely admit an unfair preference for the little girls.) The little cutie gets obscured by the giant flag, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPPfWiHayso&feature...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtmUXG8Zkpk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jqKyXZB7Sk&feature... (funny and sweet reaction from sis, who's incidentally pretty cute in a whole different way)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TegH7P6ql1k&feature... (surprised mom)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGlKCEHitJc&feature...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFU5qu0G84M&feature... (Santa's here, all the way from Afghanistan.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpohfny7jWg&NR=1 (I especially love the first little boy, and the two girls at the end, one of whom wipes her tears and then her dad's eyes... {sigh}... to laugh or to cry?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgibVZ9pcbg&NR=1 (Is there a more beautiful love than a teenage daughter for her dad?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUwBLrtqNMw&feature... (A soldier coming home kinda breaks the emotional boundaries and troubles of a typical parent/teen/peers relationship, doesn't it? Nothing here but love and respect all around.)

In each case I can imagine how it feels from both the soldier's and surprisee's point of view, and I can't decide which would be better. :-)

I hope I pasted the right URL with each comment. Note also that I'm doing all this without sound! (due to computer troubles). I can only imagine how much better it would be to hear the people, and I can appreciate how deaf viewers would see all this... it's still great.

Upfront, this isn't intended to sound snide; it's a genuine question. (I have great respect for science, but I am not a science historian.)

I ask particularly in light of evolution. Evolution is both a fact and a theory, as elegantly explained by the late American biologist Stephen Jay Gould: "Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

About eight years earlier, the influential geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."

Finally, American scientist Neil A. Campbell (M.A. in zoology, Ph.D. in Plant Biology), whose textbook, "Biology" has been used by half a million high school and college students a year since 1987, wrote, "Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain *how* life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution."

Despite the clear acceptance among biologists of evolution as fact -- it is a process that really happened and happens, still -- a large percentage of Americans do not "believe" in it. For various reasons, including confusion over the colloquial meaning of the word 'theory', misinformation campaigns by religious factions, ineffective classroom teaching, and simple incredulity, one of the most well-supported principles in science is accepted by just over half of Americans (a 2005 Gallup poll revealed that only 55% thought it was "definitely" or "probably" true).

Those who argue that it isn't true are certainly not debating the merits of one *theory* of evolution versus another; they are saying it's not a fact -- even that it's a lie or a fabrication! (Very little else in science is so disputed by the public, demonstrating the profound effect on learning by religion.)

This got me wondering... how often has scientific FACT been found wrong, while a large segment of the public got it right? Honestly, I can't think of a single time. I can think of plenty of cases where the *public* or the church was wrong, disputing a scientific finding, perhaps for centuries, until the science was finally accepted. And science is a self-correcting process which has generated countless *hypotheses* which turned out to be wrong. But can anyone cite a case where a principle so well-accepted by science as to be considered FACT was later shown -- by science -- to be wrong... and a good portion of the public knew better?

When browsing questions and answers, I come across Best Answers with two different kinds of thumb ratings. The first kind (which is older, I think) gives you a chance to rate the answer with a thumb up or down, and counts the number of times each was chosen -- makes sense. The second kind baffles me. It asks, "Is this what you are searching for?" What is the purpose of that question?... is it an ongoing test of Y!A's search effectiveness? Is it a poorly-worded way of inviting a rating, as before? I never select either one because it's dumb -- if it wasn't what I was looking for I wouldn't have clicked to view it! I want to be able to rate the answer, not answer *this* dumb question. What determines which of these two kinds of thumb-ratings appears? I can't seem to find a pattern. What does Y!A want from me?? [walks away mumbling and scratching head]