Like many others, I had missed that bit about the newspaper reading. The problem is that your post too closely resembled the sort of expression that others have made on here, people who were serious.
Sorry, you obviously are a product of the modern educational system. The Founding Fathers actually thought this through, that is why the Constitution is written the way it is, with the various provisions and the Bill of Rights. Or as Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ways that have been tried."
It isn't? I certainly wouldn't advise breathing it in any great concentration. You are absolutely right, when CO2 concentrations get to 50,000 it causes serious health effects. Of course, by that same standard salt is a poison. Actually, the gap between necessary levels of salt and poisonous levels of salt are significantly narrower than the gap between the necessary level of CO2 (needed for plants to do photosynthesis, without sufficient CO2 we would all starve) and the poisonous level.
Considering that I first heard the term "failure cascade" at least as early 1995, it seems unlikely that the term was first coined by someone playing a game that was introduced in 2003. I am pretty sure the term is older than that. The term is based on cascade failures of electrical systems which is a concept that goes back to at least 1965. I would guess that the term was first applied to organizations in the 1970's by one of the many management consultants or motivational speakers who made a name for themselves then.
In the US, a court decision is explicitly not a law. Laws may only be created by Congress. However,in the example you give, in order for Best Buy would have to show in court what law you were breaking in order to get the court to order you to stop. Since such a law would violate the First Amendment, the outcome would be the same as what you theorized.
So to summarize as relates to this thread: in order for Best Buy to get you to shut up, it must show in court that you have violated the law. The court does not just say, "We think that what you are doing/saying is wrong, so stop it." The court must say, "what you are doing/saying violates this particular law, so stop it."
Actually, I wasn't aware that similarly qualified teachers worked in private schools since many do not use accredited teachers and some don't require a college degree at all.
Nevertheless, your statement, true or not, does not dispute mine... that public school teachers are underpaid.
Where do you live that accredited private schools have teachers without college degrees? If the school is not accredited by the state, the children attending are considered to be truants.
More importantly, you are aware that the average starting salary for teachers in the US was in 2002-2003 was $29,564. Which when pro-rated to a whole year is $39,418. That's a pretty nice salary for a BS degree right out of college, considering that the median income of everybody in the US in 2003 was $45,016. What I can't tell is if that median starting salary for teachers includes private school teachers or not. I would say that, at least starting out, salaries for public school teachers are about right.
Reading your description, basically you seem to have defined evolution to mean that things change.
Do you have any experience with experimental biology? Do you have any idea how hard it is to "mathematically" predict biological systems? If your sample isn't large enough, it is impossible for even the simplest of predictions. I will repeat, just because the math says it works that way doesn't mean the biology works that way, unless all you mean is that things change.
Assuming the underpaid, overworked public school teacher bothered to take such an opportunity. I know this is off topic, but you do realize that the teachers at the majority of private schools are paid significantly less than similarly qualified public school teachers, don't you?
I will repeat. All I said was that software evolution does not prove biological evolution. I was not arguing whether or not evolution takes place, or whether or not evolution could be/had been proven. I was merely pointing out that a computer simulation cannot prove evolution any more than it can prove that a drug is safe for human use.
Supporters for Ogg/Theora are voting for a Ross Perot, assuring that we'll really get a George Bush. What we really need is an Al Gore: centrist, workable, functional, capable, and proven to work.
If that analogy lost you: pushing Ogg/Theora might make you proud to have voted, but it will only distract from the industry's coalition to unitedly back H.264 from mobile devices to HD. The reason that analogy lost me is that Ross Perot was the deciding factor in getting us Bill Clinton instead of a second term of George H.W. Bush, not the deciding factor in getting us George W. Bush instead of Al Gore.
I like NewEgg. The only thing that makes me laugh is that you have to pay extra to "expedite" the processing, not shipping, of your order. Shouldn't they be doing that already??? I have seen that too and have always wondered exactly what I would be getting for that extra money. I already get my orders two days after I order them (I generally place my orders in the late afternoon).
I don't know how much you know about biology, but biology is not math. Math is a completely different subject.
To recap this discussion: The original poster said that evolution (as in the development of new species from previously existing species)in biology has not been experimentally proven. To which someone replied "Yes, it has. I ran this software which reproduced and changed and evolved." I said that proving that something works in a software system does not prove that it happened in a biological system.
Let's try an analogy, OP says that they don't believe that the Windows version of Software X has functionality Y. Second Poster says "Yes it does, I just ran Software Z on my Macintosh and it had functionality Y." All Second Poster has demonstrated is that functionality Y is available on a Macintosh, not that it is available for a computer running Windows.
I read the wikipedia article you linked to. The recent Russian election was a one sided rigging by the party in power. According to the wikipedia article on the US presidential election of 1876, there were many improprieties by both parties. In the end it appears that some politicians who would otherwise have favored the Democrat candidate threw there weight behind the Republican candidate in exchange for concessions.
The American people, through their representatives (Congress), take out a loan which the American people are going to have to pay through their taxes. How is that me taking out a loan that you are going to have to pay? And BTW the loan is not from the Federal Reserve, but from the people who buy government bonds.
The Federal debt is conceptually no different than the debt of a corporation. In corporate debt, the stockholders, through their representatives (the Board of Directors), take out a loan that the stockholders are going to have to pay through the assets/profits of the company.
Sorry, I don't buy that a designed system working in a particular way proves that a nondesigned system works in that particular way.
I will repeat what I said more clearly. Using software evolution as proof of biological evolution is a circular proof. You design the software to work the way that you think the biological system works. You then watch how the software works and say that because it works the way that you thought that the biological system worked it proves that the biological system works that way. All your software proves is that evolution is possible, not that it actually happened in biological systems.
The Federal Reserve Bank is a Branch of the Federal Government. It was created by an act of Congress. Its rules are interpretations of laws passed by Congress. It is governed by a Board appointed by the President and Confirmed by the Senate. The Federal Reserve is no less a part of the Federal Government than the IRS. I read at least one of the websites that claims to lay out how the Federal Reserve is not part of the Government, it was no more credible than the people who claim that Income Tax is purely voluntary and you don't really have to pay if you don't want to.
No, what you are doing is like saying, "I played Civilization on my computer and the Egyptians developed cannons, so the real Egyptians must have developed atomic bombs." What makes you think that the rules you used in your computer simulation of evolution have any relation to the rules followed by biological systems? More importantly, what evidence have you presented so that I should believe that your computer simulation bears any resemblance to biological systems? Just because I can design a computer system to model something doesn't mean that that something is possible in the real world.
You took a computer simulation designed to behave the way you think life behaves, then when it behaved that way, you say "See, that proves that life behaves that way." All you have proven is that you have designed a system to behave the way that you think life behaves. You haven't actually proven that life behaves that way.
Biology involves chemicals and reactions. Computer programs involve 1's and 0's. Biological systems are much more complex than computer programs. Just because something works in a computer simulation, doesn't mean it works in the real world.
So, you have proved that an intelligent designer can design a system where evolution occurs. Now, how does that relate to demonstrating that evolution occurs in a system without a designer?
It would seem to me that to the extent that the township has any right to this information (the township claims to believe that the blogger is the defendant, in which case it is possible that there are comments on the blog that will have bearing on the defendant's testimony), there are two possible reasonable answers. First, and preferable, Google is compelled to answer whether the blogger is indeed the defendant. If the answer is no, end of story. Second, and only acceptable if there is reason to believe that Google does not definitively know who the blogger really is, have Google present the information it has about the identity of the blogger to a neutral third party (the judge in the case, an appellate judge, a federal judge, other options could be suggested). Again if the third party concludes that the blogger is not the defendant, end of story.
However, I suspect that EFF is correct, and the township is trying to find out who the blogger is in order to penalize the blogger at some later date.
I think there is a place for some of these extensions to robots.txt. However, the first reference I ran across for this group was just after one of the major news organizations got major egg on its face for a news article that had blatantly false and biased information in it. When someone publicized this glaring bias/falsehood, the original news organization quickly changed their web site and denied that the article ever said that. The problem was that the original web article was already cached by Google and the whistle blower went there and got a screen capture of the way the story was originally posted.
I don't remember the details exactly, so it may not have been Google, but another third party organization that creates a cache of sight visited by their "clients"(for some definition of client). I, also, have a vague recollection that the original site was not intended for the general public (although it was not restricted), the general public was never to supposed to be aware at the blatant attempt at misinformation. When they were caught they thought that they could change it and no one would never be able to prove what it originally said. Within a week of that episode, I came across an article from this organization pushing the idea that there needed to be some way to change the way search engines index and summarize web sites.
I'm sure that jumping on the Windows NT bandwagon looked like a good bet to Tandem, DEC, and SGI.
-jcr No, it was their only bet. It was obvious by then that all of their other choices were losers. The Windows NT bandwagon was the only chance they had left, it didn't work either.
Slashdot Mirror
Like many others, I had missed that bit about the newspaper reading. The problem is that your post too closely resembled the sort of expression that others have made on here, people who were serious.
Yeah, several your "founding fathers" where slave owners...
There is only one nation that has ANY basis for condemning the US over slavery and that is England. Even there, they don't have much room.Sorry, you obviously are a product of the modern educational system. The Founding Fathers actually thought this through, that is why the Constitution is written the way it is, with the various provisions and the Bill of Rights. Or as Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ways that have been tried."
Considering that I first heard the term "failure cascade" at least as early 1995, it seems unlikely that the term was first coined by someone playing a game that was introduced in 2003. I am pretty sure the term is older than that. The term is based on cascade failures of electrical systems which is a concept that goes back to at least 1965. I would guess that the term was first applied to organizations in the 1970's by one of the many management consultants or motivational speakers who made a name for themselves then.
In the US, a court decision is explicitly not a law. Laws may only be created by Congress. However,in the example you give, in order for Best Buy would have to show in court what law you were breaking in order to get the court to order you to stop. Since such a law would violate the First Amendment, the outcome would be the same as what you theorized.
So to summarize as relates to this thread: in order for Best Buy to get you to shut up, it must show in court that you have violated the law. The court does not just say, "We think that what you are doing/saying is wrong, so stop it." The court must say, "what you are doing/saying violates this particular law, so stop it."
Actually, I wasn't aware that similarly qualified teachers worked in private schools since many do not use accredited teachers and some don't require a college degree at all.
Nevertheless, your statement, true or not, does not dispute mine... that public school teachers are underpaid.
Where do you live that accredited private schools have teachers without college degrees? If the school is not accredited by the state, the children attending are considered to be truants.More importantly, you are aware that the average starting salary for teachers in the US was in 2002-2003 was $29,564. Which when pro-rated to a whole year is $39,418. That's a pretty nice salary for a BS degree right out of college, considering that the median income of everybody in the US in 2003 was $45,016. What I can't tell is if that median starting salary for teachers includes private school teachers or not. I would say that, at least starting out, salaries for public school teachers are about right.
Reading your description, basically you seem to have defined evolution to mean that things change.
Do you have any experience with experimental biology? Do you have any idea how hard it is to "mathematically" predict biological systems? If your sample isn't large enough, it is impossible for even the simplest of predictions. I will repeat, just because the math says it works that way doesn't mean the biology works that way, unless all you mean is that things change.
I will repeat. All I said was that software evolution does not prove biological evolution. I was not arguing whether or not evolution takes place, or whether or not evolution could be/had been proven. I was merely pointing out that a computer simulation cannot prove evolution any more than it can prove that a drug is safe for human use.
If that analogy lost you: pushing Ogg/Theora might make you proud to have voted, but it will only distract from the industry's coalition to unitedly back H.264 from mobile devices to HD. The reason that analogy lost me is that Ross Perot was the deciding factor in getting us Bill Clinton instead of a second term of George H.W. Bush, not the deciding factor in getting us George W. Bush instead of Al Gore.
I don't know how much you know about biology, but biology is not math. Math is a completely different subject.
To recap this discussion: The original poster said that evolution (as in the development of new species from previously existing species)in biology has not been experimentally proven. To which someone replied "Yes, it has. I ran this software which reproduced and changed and evolved." I said that proving that something works in a software system does not prove that it happened in a biological system.
Let's try an analogy, OP says that they don't believe that the Windows version of Software X has functionality Y. Second Poster says "Yes it does, I just ran Software Z on my Macintosh and it had functionality Y." All Second Poster has demonstrated is that functionality Y is available on a Macintosh, not that it is available for a computer running Windows.
I read the wikipedia article you linked to. The recent Russian election was a one sided rigging by the party in power. According to the wikipedia article on the US presidential election of 1876, there were many improprieties by both parties. In the end it appears that some politicians who would otherwise have favored the Democrat candidate threw there weight behind the Republican candidate in exchange for concessions.
The American people, through their representatives (Congress), take out a loan which the American people are going to have to pay through their taxes. How is that me taking out a loan that you are going to have to pay? And BTW the loan is not from the Federal Reserve, but from the people who buy government bonds.
The Federal debt is conceptually no different than the debt of a corporation. In corporate debt, the stockholders, through their representatives (the Board of Directors), take out a loan that the stockholders are going to have to pay through the assets/profits of the company.
Sorry, I don't buy that a designed system working in a particular way proves that a nondesigned system works in that particular way. I will repeat what I said more clearly. Using software evolution as proof of biological evolution is a circular proof. You design the software to work the way that you think the biological system works. You then watch how the software works and say that because it works the way that you thought that the biological system worked it proves that the biological system works that way. All your software proves is that evolution is possible, not that it actually happened in biological systems.
The Federal Reserve Bank is a Branch of the Federal Government. It was created by an act of Congress. Its rules are interpretations of laws passed by Congress. It is governed by a Board appointed by the President and Confirmed by the Senate. The Federal Reserve is no less a part of the Federal Government than the IRS. I read at least one of the websites that claims to lay out how the Federal Reserve is not part of the Government, it was no more credible than the people who claim that Income Tax is purely voluntary and you don't really have to pay if you don't want to.
No, what you are doing is like saying, "I played Civilization on my computer and the Egyptians developed cannons, so the real Egyptians must have developed atomic bombs." What makes you think that the rules you used in your computer simulation of evolution have any relation to the rules followed by biological systems? More importantly, what evidence have you presented so that I should believe that your computer simulation bears any resemblance to biological systems? Just because I can design a computer system to model something doesn't mean that that something is possible in the real world.
You took a computer simulation designed to behave the way you think life behaves, then when it behaved that way, you say "See, that proves that life behaves that way." All you have proven is that you have designed a system to behave the way that you think life behaves. You haven't actually proven that life behaves that way.
I don't understand what your comment has to do with whether a computer program that evolves proves that a biological system can evolve.
Biology involves chemicals and reactions. Computer programs involve 1's and 0's. Biological systems are much more complex than computer programs. Just because something works in a computer simulation, doesn't mean it works in the real world.
I am sorry, but I do not think that computer program evolution counts as proof that biological evolution occurs.
So, you have proved that an intelligent designer can design a system where evolution occurs. Now, how does that relate to demonstrating that evolution occurs in a system without a designer?
It would seem to me that to the extent that the township has any right to this information (the township claims to believe that the blogger is the defendant, in which case it is possible that there are comments on the blog that will have bearing on the defendant's testimony), there are two possible reasonable answers. First, and preferable, Google is compelled to answer whether the blogger is indeed the defendant. If the answer is no, end of story. Second, and only acceptable if there is reason to believe that Google does not definitively know who the blogger really is, have Google present the information it has about the identity of the blogger to a neutral third party (the judge in the case, an appellate judge, a federal judge, other options could be suggested). Again if the third party concludes that the blogger is not the defendant, end of story.
However, I suspect that EFF is correct, and the township is trying to find out who the blogger is in order to penalize the blogger at some later date.
I think there is a place for some of these extensions to robots.txt. However, the first reference I ran across for this group was just after one of the major news organizations got major egg on its face for a news article that had blatantly false and biased information in it. When someone publicized this glaring bias/falsehood, the original news organization quickly changed their web site and denied that the article ever said that. The problem was that the original web article was already cached by Google and the whistle blower went there and got a screen capture of the way the story was originally posted.
I don't remember the details exactly, so it may not have been Google, but another third party organization that creates a cache of sight visited by their "clients"(for some definition of client). I, also, have a vague recollection that the original site was not intended for the general public (although it was not restricted), the general public was never to supposed to be aware at the blatant attempt at misinformation. When they were caught they thought that they could change it and no one would never be able to prove what it originally said. Within a week of that episode, I came across an article from this organization pushing the idea that there needed to be some way to change the way search engines index and summarize web sites.
I'm sure that jumping on the Windows NT bandwagon looked like a good bet to Tandem, DEC, and SGI.
-jcr No, it was their only bet. It was obvious by then that all of their other choices were losers. The Windows NT bandwagon was the only chance they had left, it didn't work either.