Unfortunately, the article is still vague on the key details. Certainly, that is a logical progression in architectural development, but the steps given are very high level. How did the receptor chemicals chemically develop? What prompted the cell to respond to the activated protein? How does differentiation lead to a cup? How do the other supporting chemicals (lensing, humour agents) chemically develop, and how did they become active only in the eye?
2/3rds true- "Evolution" consists of three main concepts:
* Natural selection- the organisms most fit to their environment are more likely to pass on their genes, and are thus better represented, possibly even displacing others. We see this all the time, as we should- it's a tautology. The most fit are by definition those most likely to survive.
* Mutation- small errors in the genome can change the observed behavior/build of an organism, possibly increasing its fitness. We see this too. Bacteria that lost protein channels that antibiotics exploited, or absorbed defensive proteins from other bacteria, were obviously more likely to survive antibiotic treatments. This is also the basis of the immune sytem- antibody-producing cells intentionally mutate their antibody-producing DNA during development in order to provide a greater pool of antibodies to respond to potential attacks.
* Innovative Mutation- this is where the scientifically-serious creationists (admittingly a minority) balk. We have not seen the creation of new cell structures, new protein systems, new differentiation patterns, etc.
Arguing the first two parts is pointless- they are not at all incompatable with creationism.
Evidence of mutation producing fundementally new structures would be much more convincing to me. (Or even a mutation-by-mutation roadmap of how it could hypothetically happen- all I've encountered is vague "Protein X appears" stuff- what did it develop from? How did it do so without interfering with the existing system?)
And then there is this garbage collector that professors swarm about. Does it handle circles?
public class Foo {
Foo other;
public void f(void) {
other = new Foo();
other.other = this;
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
Foo bar = new Foo(); /* what about the memory now - was the GC smart enough? */
}
} Firstly, the garbage collecter does handle that.
Secondly, that's not even an issue in the given code. The class specifies no constructor, so the "new Foo();" in main just creates a Foo object with a null "other" field.
If by "public void f(void)" you meant "public Foo()", then you've created a recursive constructor with no base case. I doubt the compiler would allow that, but even if so, that would leak memory like a funnel in any language.
If you mean for the purpose of advertising rate calculation, they can probably just geolocate the IP. Or just designate a larger block that covers mainland America's noons, as they are presumably the target audience.
IANAL, but a lot of this depends on how you define "private property". One could possibly argue that copyrights are protection granted by the government, and supported by taxpayers, making copyrights a form of public, not private, property. One could also argue that several decades worth of profits constitute "just compensation", though that would be harder to justify.
The article mentions that the system can be used as a de-icer, meaning it actually does work on the "moving [energy] to the places where it is needed" problem.
That said, using the roads as solar collectors isn't that bad an idea in general. Roads cover a significant amount of square footage, which is left mostly vacant most of the time (outside of cities). May as well use that space for something the rest of the time.
There's no reason to assume that technological progress = social progress. Especially since war is one of the stronger drives for technological advancement. (For us, anyway.)
But yeah, flying light years to another planet just to make war is rather impractical. Even with some sort of hyperdrive- do you want to risk any survivors of an attack, knowing such a device is possible, developing their own and striking back?
Don't count out ego, though- I wouldn't place aliens above empire-building for empire's sake.
There is such a thing as an "important fact". I tend to treat many of these facts each as an absolute, indisputable truth. Other facts are just interesting opinion, and if they are seen collectively by the Wikipedia community as unimportant, then they are trivial and out they go. If they are seen as important then the material is not trivia, and material stays.
Who is the Wikipedia community, though? I'm sure far more people read it than actually edit it; their opinions go unreported. And "important" is by nature relative; a list of Pokemon is unimportant in the context of astronomy, but very important in the context of casual RPGs. In the same way, articles on webcomics are unimportant to most outside the subculture, but important to those who see them as a legitimate artistic medium. (I'd also like to note that the typical personality profiles of the webcomic fan and wikipedia editor do not seem to overlap much.)
There's a freagin big difference between "it doesn't exist until you prove it does", and "it exists until you prove it doesn't".
One thing in common: both are wrong. Proving the [non]existance of something has no effect on its actual [non]existance.
Science is a method for arriving at truth. It is good for arriving at strongly convincing conclusion, but like all methods, it has weaknesses- it can only examine that which is open to experiment.
(Even proving something only really means it should be the case- one can't prove that the universe is ultimately logical.)
Orthodox Christain theology holds that the soul leaves the universe after death, and doesn't influence it afterwards.
Please don't confuse Christainity with urban mythology.
Though religious, I'll try to answer your question.
Pregnancy is the result of human intervention, without which a human wouldn't have developed. Thus, not getting pregnant is the absence of any intervention. Early-term abortion is human intervention killing a human organism that would have naturally tended to develop into a "full" human.
Is that the church going folk are tolerant of games an religion.
Sure, as long as its their own.
Most churches I've seen acknowledge the right of other religions to exist. Just because they think the others are deadly wrong doesn't mean they're intolerant.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, the article is still vague on the key details.
Certainly, that is a logical progression in architectural development, but the steps given are very high level.
How did the receptor chemicals chemically develop? What prompted the cell to respond to the activated protein? How does differentiation lead to a cup? How do the other supporting chemicals (lensing, humour agents) chemically develop, and how did they become active only in the eye?
Thanks for responding, anyway.
2/3rds true-
"Evolution" consists of three main concepts:
* Natural selection- the organisms most fit to their environment are more likely to pass on their genes, and are thus better represented, possibly even displacing others. We see this all the time, as we should- it's a tautology. The most fit are by definition those most likely to survive.
* Mutation- small errors in the genome can change the observed behavior/build of an organism, possibly increasing its fitness. We see this too. Bacteria that lost protein channels that antibiotics exploited, or absorbed defensive proteins from other bacteria, were obviously more likely to survive antibiotic treatments. This is also the basis of the immune sytem- antibody-producing cells intentionally mutate their antibody-producing DNA during development in order to provide a greater pool of antibodies to respond to potential attacks.
* Innovative Mutation- this is where the scientifically-serious creationists (admittingly a minority) balk. We have not seen the creation of new cell structures, new protein systems, new differentiation patterns, etc.
Arguing the first two parts is pointless- they are not at all incompatable with creationism.
Evidence of mutation producing fundementally new structures would be much more convincing to me.
(Or even a mutation-by-mutation roadmap of how it could hypothetically happen- all I've encountered is vague "Protein X appears" stuff- what did it develop from? How did it do so without interfering with the existing system?)
...make a maze out of the stuff. More seriously, imagine a screen of LEDs laid over this. Think of the contrast you could get...
public class Foo {
Foo other;
public void f(void) {
other = new Foo();
other.other = this;
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
Foo bar = new Foo();
}
}
Firstly, the garbage collecter does handle that.
Secondly, that's not even an issue in the given code. The class specifies no constructor, so the "new Foo();" in main just creates a Foo object with a null "other" field.
If by "public void f(void)" you meant "public Foo()", then you've created a recursive constructor with no base case. I doubt the compiler would allow that, but even if so, that would leak memory like a funnel in any language.
If you mean for the purpose of advertising rate calculation, they can probably just geolocate the IP. Or just designate a larger block that covers mainland America's noons, as they are presumably the target audience.
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2007/04/13/wii-browser-out-but-why-flash-7-and-not-8-or-9
IANAL, but a lot of this depends on how you define "private property". One could possibly argue that copyrights are protection granted by the government, and supported by taxpayers, making copyrights a form of public, not private, property. One could also argue that several decades worth of profits constitute "just compensation", though that would be harder to justify.
The article mentions that the system can be used as a de-icer, meaning it actually does work on the "moving [energy] to the places where it is needed" problem.
That said, using the roads as solar collectors isn't that bad an idea in general. Roads cover a significant amount of square footage, which is left mostly vacant most of the time (outside of cities). May as well use that space for something the rest of the time.
Do any web browsers do that yet? I heard Gecko (via Cairo) uses hardware acceleration when available, but does that mean OpenGL?
7. Clip is a lower-quality, higher-bandwidth rip of a Homestar Runner cartoon.
Aleph One is a GPL'd descendent of Halo's precursor, Marathon. Close enough?
- To demonstrate just how powerful He is.
- To provide space for other creation.
The reasons aren't exclusive by any means. Simply encountering extraterrestrial intelligence would hardly shake my faith.(Now, swapping theological notes with aliens would be interesting...)
It's in the summary- "Still Alive". I have yet to play the game (looks good though), but I love that song.
Opera has "block content". Not that I've used it. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm not offended by ads.
These panels will block my view of Mars!
and lower my property values!
Just think of what the microwave beams would do to migratory birds!
There's no reason to assume that technological progress = social progress. Especially since war is one of the stronger drives for technological advancement. (For us, anyway.)
But yeah, flying light years to another planet just to make war is rather impractical. Even with some sort of hyperdrive- do you want to risk any survivors of an attack, knowing such a device is possible, developing their own and striking back?
Don't count out ego, though- I wouldn't place aliens above empire-building for empire's sake.
Is sugar good enough?
Who is the Wikipedia community, though? I'm sure far more people read it than actually edit it; their opinions go unreported. And "important" is by nature relative; a list of Pokemon is unimportant in the context of astronomy, but very important in the context of casual RPGs. In the same way, articles on webcomics are unimportant to most outside the subculture, but important to those who see them as a legitimate artistic medium. (I'd also like to note that the typical personality profiles of the webcomic fan and wikipedia editor do not seem to overlap much.)
Even so, that doesn't mean one automatically believes so.
Science is a method for arriving at truth. It is good for arriving at strongly convincing conclusion, but like all methods, it has weaknesses- it can only examine that which is open to experiment.
(Even proving something only really means it should be the case- one can't prove that the universe is ultimately logical.)
Orthodox Christain theology holds that the soul leaves the universe after death, and doesn't influence it afterwards. Please don't confuse Christainity with urban mythology.
That's the equivalent of saying that proving Nessie's existence means one should believe in Bigfoot as well.
Though religious, I'll try to answer your question. Pregnancy is the result of human intervention, without which a human wouldn't have developed. Thus, not getting pregnant is the absence of any intervention. Early-term abortion is human intervention killing a human organism that would have naturally tended to develop into a "full" human.
Not me; it didn't teach me a thing about Unix...