Most reporters also don't know a lot about flying. Most times when my wife and I go up, we do not file a flight plan. If we are leaving from Reno (where we live) and flying into the Bay or Sacramento, or something, we might file a flight plan, as that gets us in contact with the appropriate towers a bit faster (they are expecting us). However, if we are just going up to tool around, or go on a little pleasure flight (as it seems that Fossett was doing), we generally do not file a flight plan.
I'm not particularly picking on you, but you are the third or fourth person in this topic to make a comment about his lack of flight plan. It seems pretty clear to me that you are not a pilot (or, if you are, you fly large jets, and have never flown GA). Most GA pilots do not file flight plans for every flight that they make, or even a majority of their flights. Generally, people only file flight plans if they have to talk to multiple towers along the way, are flying IFR (for which it is required), are in a situation where they think they might be in some minor danger (i.e. flying into an unfamiliar airport, or if they are new pilots), or if they are flying into or out of a major airport. Fossett was not in any of those categories, so there is no reason to expect that he would have filed a flight plan.
You do realize that something like a Cesna could hardly carry enough explosives to bring down a building, right? Do you remember the World Trade Center bombing in the 90s? That was a truck loaded with explosives, and it didn't bring down the building. A Cesna couldn't carry a fraction of the explosives in that truck, and doesn't run on jet fuel. The risk of a Cesna taking out a building, or even causing substantial damage, is somewhere between zero and nil.
You clearly have an agenda, and are so convinced that your straw man is a real depiction of how science works that it is clear that I can say nothing that will dissuade you. Evolution is one of the most well supported and best working theories that scientists have to work with. It is nearly as useful for making predictions as Newton's theory of gravity, or Ohm's Law. Because of this, the claim that evolution is false is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In order to cast doubt on the theory of evolution, you would need something like extinct species popping back up into existence. That is what I suggested in the biodome experiment above. Clearly, this is not good enough for you, however I am sure it would be good enough for any real scientist working in the field.
Other things that would almost certainly disprove evolution would be true chimeras (i.e. species with traits from several different genera), human fossils found in pre-Cambrian sediments, or the voice of G-d telling every person on Earth that evolution is false. These things are incredibly unlikely, and would almost certainly never happen. But if they did, that would be about it for evolution. The fact is that the only opposition that evolution has is not from other scientists, but from people who are ill-educated and ignorant about the evidence that supports evolution.
I have tried to engage in honest conversation with you, but you have continued to treat me like a child, attack straw men, and behave childishly yourself (hint: ALL CAPS does not make an argument stronger). I thank you for providing yet another, if unoriginal, example of muddied thinking regarding evolution, and wish you well. I will have nothing further to do with you.
I already gave you an example. It is in the last post that I made. If you would stop treating me like an uneducated four year old for a moment, and actually read what I wrote, you might have picked up on that.
No, your experiment is poorly designed. It relies on scientists treating the biodome like a black box. A bunch of critters are put into the black box at the beginning of the experiment, then, after x number of years have passed, a bunch of critters are taken out of the black box. There is no way to know what went on in the intervening time. A better experiment would be to take a census every year, or day, or hour, or whatever. Keeping the entire thing monitored with video cameras would be a good start. Then, if a species went extinct, then magically appeared on the last day, you would have some pretty convincing evidence of a process other than evolution occurring. Your experiment, though, is flawed. It cannot produce good results because it is so very flawed.
The central insight of evolution is not that "the strong survive," that "the weak die off," or that "the best adapted have more offspring." These are fairly basic truisms that people have known, at an intuitive level, for thousands of years. Where do you think cows, sheep, wheat, corn, tomatoes, potatoes, and pigs come from? Domestic plants and animals are the result of thousands of generations of artificial selection. Farmers wanted larger kernels, so they bred corn plants with larger kernels to other corn plants with larger kernels, resulting in offspring with even larger kernels. Herders wanted more passive animals, so the animals with the best personalities were bred more often. That certain traits could be bred for has been known for a very long time.
The great insight that Darwin had was that nature could provide as much of a selective force upon a population as human selection. Thus, your argument is nonsensical. Evolution is not about the "survival of the fittest." It is about changes in populations over time, as driven by process that include variation and natural selection.
And if you asked the same question of 500 photographers, novelists, poets, and composers? Do you think that, perhaps, the answer might be different? Which people are to be protected by the law?
Congress' approval rating is a meaningless metric. The approval rating of congress is almost always bad. It is rarely (if ever) higher than the president's. However, if you ask people about their particular senators and representatives, their ratings are generally much better. Remember, it is not my representative that is the problem -- just everyone else's.
And yet, the FOSS community seems to think that everyone should be using FOSS. You can't have it both ways -- either FOSS is only for geeks and large corporations, in which case it will never catch on with the consumer; or it is for everyone, in which case the geeks advocating FOSS need to make sure it can work for everyone. Otherwise, comments about how everyone ought to be using FOSS are hypocritical.
It seems to be a combination of Oedipus Rex, the Greek tragedy about a man who kills his father and marries his mother; and Shaft, where the line is "That cat Shaft is one bad mother--" "Shut your mouth!" &c. I would suggest that the word that is cut off after "mother" is "fucker," thus Oedipus is one bad mother fucker, which is funny, as he married his mother.
I don't understand the point of the anecdote -- if she doesn't have a car, why should she be expected to understand how it works? When the double As in my flashlight die, I replace them -- why wouldn't it be the same with a car? I expect that anyone with a drivers license would know better, in the same way that I would expect them to know how to pump gas or change a flat. But if you don't drive, why should you be expected to know how a car works?
You seem not to entirely understand what he is saying. Science is not taught at a primary level anywhere in the public school system, because NCLB requires that reading and math be taught in a certain way, for a certain amount of time each day. There is simply not time to add science to the already full schedule mandated by NCLB.
If more Macs are bought, the likelihood of Apple going under decreases. Also, further updates are more likely. There are more compatible machines to deal with, and the cost of hardware and software has a chance of going down. Any one of those things might happen.
May I point out that the 11% approval rating for "congress" is, perhaps, taken a bit out of context? If you ask, instead, what the constituents of a particular representative or senator think of that person, things tend to be much more positive. For instance, Harry Reid, my own senator, generally has an approval rating between 40% and 50% in the state of Nevada (i.e., the state that he represents). So, in most people's eyes, the problem is not their own representation, but the representation of other people in the country. In fact, congress has had, historically speaking, fairly low approval ratings from day 1. So, comparing the approval rating of any elected individual to a body of elected people is apples to oranges. The 11% approval rating for congress is far less interesting than, say, the approval rating that Bush has, or the approval ratings of the various congressmen and women in their home constituencies.
Slashdot Mirror
Most reporters also don't know a lot about flying. Most times when my wife and I go up, we do not file a flight plan. If we are leaving from Reno (where we live) and flying into the Bay or Sacramento, or something, we might file a flight plan, as that gets us in contact with the appropriate towers a bit faster (they are expecting us). However, if we are just going up to tool around, or go on a little pleasure flight (as it seems that Fossett was doing), we generally do not file a flight plan.
I'm not particularly picking on you, but you are the third or fourth person in this topic to make a comment about his lack of flight plan. It seems pretty clear to me that you are not a pilot (or, if you are, you fly large jets, and have never flown GA). Most GA pilots do not file flight plans for every flight that they make, or even a majority of their flights. Generally, people only file flight plans if they have to talk to multiple towers along the way, are flying IFR (for which it is required), are in a situation where they think they might be in some minor danger (i.e. flying into an unfamiliar airport, or if they are new pilots), or if they are flying into or out of a major airport. Fossett was not in any of those categories, so there is no reason to expect that he would have filed a flight plan.
Interesting to note that the joke is now about Hussein, rather than the Chinese.
You do realize that something like a Cesna could hardly carry enough explosives to bring down a building, right? Do you remember the World Trade Center bombing in the 90s? That was a truck loaded with explosives, and it didn't bring down the building. A Cesna couldn't carry a fraction of the explosives in that truck, and doesn't run on jet fuel. The risk of a Cesna taking out a building, or even causing substantial damage, is somewhere between zero and nil.
You clearly have an agenda, and are so convinced that your straw man is a real depiction of how science works that it is clear that I can say nothing that will dissuade you. Evolution is one of the most well supported and best working theories that scientists have to work with. It is nearly as useful for making predictions as Newton's theory of gravity, or Ohm's Law. Because of this, the claim that evolution is false is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In order to cast doubt on the theory of evolution, you would need something like extinct species popping back up into existence. That is what I suggested in the biodome experiment above. Clearly, this is not good enough for you, however I am sure it would be good enough for any real scientist working in the field.
Other things that would almost certainly disprove evolution would be true chimeras (i.e. species with traits from several different genera), human fossils found in pre-Cambrian sediments, or the voice of G-d telling every person on Earth that evolution is false. These things are incredibly unlikely, and would almost certainly never happen. But if they did, that would be about it for evolution. The fact is that the only opposition that evolution has is not from other scientists, but from people who are ill-educated and ignorant about the evidence that supports evolution.
I have tried to engage in honest conversation with you, but you have continued to treat me like a child, attack straw men, and behave childishly yourself (hint: ALL CAPS does not make an argument stronger). I thank you for providing yet another, if unoriginal, example of muddied thinking regarding evolution, and wish you well. I will have nothing further to do with you.
I already gave you an example. It is in the last post that I made. If you would stop treating me like an uneducated four year old for a moment, and actually read what I wrote, you might have picked up on that.
No, your experiment is poorly designed. It relies on scientists treating the biodome like a black box. A bunch of critters are put into the black box at the beginning of the experiment, then, after x number of years have passed, a bunch of critters are taken out of the black box. There is no way to know what went on in the intervening time. A better experiment would be to take a census every year, or day, or hour, or whatever. Keeping the entire thing monitored with video cameras would be a good start. Then, if a species went extinct, then magically appeared on the last day, you would have some pretty convincing evidence of a process other than evolution occurring. Your experiment, though, is flawed. It cannot produce good results because it is so very flawed.
As I said above, you are attacking a straw man.
Your biodome experiment is poorly designed. You are attacking a straw man. How am I to defend an experiment that has nothing to do with science?
The central insight of evolution is not that "the strong survive," that "the weak die off," or that "the best adapted have more offspring." These are fairly basic truisms that people have known, at an intuitive level, for thousands of years. Where do you think cows, sheep, wheat, corn, tomatoes, potatoes, and pigs come from? Domestic plants and animals are the result of thousands of generations of artificial selection. Farmers wanted larger kernels, so they bred corn plants with larger kernels to other corn plants with larger kernels, resulting in offspring with even larger kernels. Herders wanted more passive animals, so the animals with the best personalities were bred more often. That certain traits could be bred for has been known for a very long time.
The great insight that Darwin had was that nature could provide as much of a selective force upon a population as human selection. Thus, your argument is nonsensical. Evolution is not about the "survival of the fittest." It is about changes in populations over time, as driven by process that include variation and natural selection.
And here I always thought that MSDN stood for "Microsoft Death Ninjas." I guess you learn something new every day. ;)
That's odd -- I tried the same thing with my computer, and it answered "42." Go figure.
Damn you! Getting to the Gods Must be Crazy reference before me! Curses!
Yes, the writers wrote the words, but do you think that he would get up and say them if he didn't believe in them?
And if you asked the same question of 500 photographers, novelists, poets, and composers? Do you think that, perhaps, the answer might be different? Which people are to be protected by the law?
The uncanny divide of game design, no?
Congress' approval rating is a meaningless metric. The approval rating of congress is almost always bad. It is rarely (if ever) higher than the president's. However, if you ask people about their particular senators and representatives, their ratings are generally much better. Remember, it is not my representative that is the problem -- just everyone else's.
And yet, the FOSS community seems to think that everyone should be using FOSS. You can't have it both ways -- either FOSS is only for geeks and large corporations, in which case it will never catch on with the consumer; or it is for everyone, in which case the geeks advocating FOSS need to make sure it can work for everyone. Otherwise, comments about how everyone ought to be using FOSS are hypocritical.
They are from the lyrics of the theme song.
It seems to be a combination of Oedipus Rex, the Greek tragedy about a man who kills his father and marries his mother; and Shaft, where the line is "That cat Shaft is one bad mother--" "Shut your mouth!" &c. I would suggest that the word that is cut off after "mother" is "fucker," thus Oedipus is one bad mother fucker, which is funny, as he married his mother.
I don't understand the point of the anecdote -- if she doesn't have a car, why should she be expected to understand how it works? When the double As in my flashlight die, I replace them -- why wouldn't it be the same with a car? I expect that anyone with a drivers license would know better, in the same way that I would expect them to know how to pump gas or change a flat. But if you don't drive, why should you be expected to know how a car works?
You seem not to entirely understand what he is saying. Science is not taught at a primary level anywhere in the public school system, because NCLB requires that reading and math be taught in a certain way, for a certain amount of time each day. There is simply not time to add science to the already full schedule mandated by NCLB.
If more Macs are bought, the likelihood of Apple going under decreases. Also, further updates are more likely. There are more compatible machines to deal with, and the cost of hardware and software has a chance of going down. Any one of those things might happen.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2004785759717366066&q=at%26t+colbert&total=18&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
May I point out that the 11% approval rating for "congress" is, perhaps, taken a bit out of context? If you ask, instead, what the constituents of a particular representative or senator think of that person, things tend to be much more positive. For instance, Harry Reid, my own senator, generally has an approval rating between 40% and 50% in the state of Nevada (i.e., the state that he represents). So, in most people's eyes, the problem is not their own representation, but the representation of other people in the country. In fact, congress has had, historically speaking, fairly low approval ratings from day 1. So, comparing the approval rating of any elected individual to a body of elected people is apples to oranges. The 11% approval rating for congress is far less interesting than, say, the approval rating that Bush has, or the approval ratings of the various congressmen and women in their home constituencies.