And BTW, the intelligent design only defends that randomness was not a factor in the beginning of universe and life on Earth.
No, ID says "life was designed in it's current form". It makes no allowance for anything except what they call "micro-evolution". If you don't understand that, then you haven't actually read any ID "literature".
Ahhhh! No, ID does not say "life was designed in it's [sic] current form". It says "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." In other words, the current state of biological complexity could not have about without some direction from an outside force beyond randomness and evolutionary pressure. Some IDers combine this with creationism, others do not. Creationism says "life was designed in its current form", not ID.
However, that said, ID is not science, as it is not falsifiable. Science says "there is evolution, and this is the path taken". ID says, "this is why the current state can exist". Taken farther, one can say, "sequences of variations cause macro evolution", and then say "there was a designer causing that sequence of variations" without a contradiction, because the two statements do not occupy the same intellectual space. As someone said above, ID is philosophy (specifically, religion), while evolution is biology.
If you do manage to cool something down to 0 K, would you say that it's infinitely colder than space?
Yes and no. It would be true, but I generally don't actually say such things, since it sounds rather strange to the ear (score: 0-1, his score is infinitely smaller than hers). Besides, it's academic, since it is impossible anyhow.
When I say "absolute scale" I mean one where zero is pinned to the absence of whatever you are measuring. What you say is true for all linear scales, but not all linear scales are absolute, and not all absolute scales are linear. (Kelvin, however, is both. Bels (think decibel) are neither.) Basically, a scale is a coordinate system on a half line or ray, and is only an absolute scale if the origin of the coordinate system is on the origin of the ray. I would not think of a size scale where I am zero feet tall and my wife -1 feet tall as an absolute scale.
I would actually go farther than "doesn't hurt", and say there should be a clear value, both to help the technically minded and to inform the masses about temperature. But that was not my point above, and so didn't bring it up.
You were modded funny, but some have proposed decimal time quite seriously. Personally, I think it makes as much sense as the move of every other measurement to decimal.
End Standard Time, or as I like to call it, "pretend it's some unknown amount of time later or earlier than it really is". Seriously, solar time for a long time was considered true time, and there was resistance to going to standard time. All our time conventions are for convenience and other such benefits anyhow -- if DST increases benefits, use it, otherwise don't. It's all arbitrary anyway.
(Actually my only anti-virus protection is not using IE, and not running things that shouldn't be run. I've had no problems.)
How do you know, if you aren't running Super Anti-Virus And Anti-Spyware Checker Plus With Extended Internet Security And Super Detection Capabilities For Home And Business Environments Power Edition (TM)?
and i really cringed when i read the 100 times colder crap. Seriously, if it's at 0.03 K why not just say that?
It does not work well. 100x colder than 1 C is not 0.01 C, it is -270.27 C. And the reason people don't say 0.03 K is because the average person does not know what K is, but they know space is very cold.
100 times colder than 0 K? So, that's what, 0 K? Why not make it 1000 times colder?
100 times colder than 3 K. So, that's what, 0.03 K?
(Yes I know space is slightly warmer than absolute zero, but it's still a really weird claim to make - we are only talking about a couple of degrees here)
If you knew that it was above 0 K, you shouldn't say 0 K. And it is not weird -- these are normal operating temperatures of some really cool physics work. And the reason we talk about 100x vs. 1000x is that the difference between 100x and 1000x is a good chunk of change.
According to wikipedia, intergalactic space is 2.71 Kelvin. I would assume that they mean "100th the temperature of intergalactic space", not "100 times colder than intergalactic space", as the latter is nonsensical and implies that it exists at 100 times colder than intergalactic space is colder than room temperature, meaning -28834 Kelvin (293 - 100 * (293 - 2.73) where we assume that room temperature is 20 degrees centigrade). This is nonsense.
I don't see a problem with "100 times colder than intergalactic space". Temperature is an absolute scale, like size. It's like saying that item X is "100 times smaller than a coin". You don't then compare the size of the coin (say, 0.01m) to the room (say 3m) and then complain that item X is not of size -296 (3 - 100 * (3 - 0.01)).
TFA doesn't state any specific temperature, but I find the analogy to how "cold" space is rather troubling. Space is really "warm", as it contains energy left from the Big Bang (although no one with a common sense would describe it that way in daily talk), and saying that something is so many times colder than space really just doesn't make sense.
You can always compare sizes, but as heat is a positive size, because you can't have negative energy, you can just say "this is a hundred times hotter than that" or "my freezer is two times as cold as my refrigerator compared to my living room".
The one who thought of this analogy could be talking about degrees on Celsius or Fahrenheit, but then those numbers must be way below absolute zero, or 0 Kelvin, as space is just 2.7 Kelvin, or -270.7 C ( http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ht.html ) and taking for granted he is comparing the temperature of space to 0 ÂC, that means that those crystals are actually -27070 C.
And _that_ would be some real frontpage material...
You seem confused. He speaks of "a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space". Intergalactic space has a temperature of about 3K. It does not make sense to talk of degrees C, since C is not an absolute scale. 100 times colder than 3K is 0.03K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
Intersteller space has a density of a million atoms per cubic meter. Intergalactic space has densities closer to one atom per cubic meter. Perfect vacuum is theoretically impossible due to quantum mechanics (I can not explain why, but that makes sense).
Wikipedia's content is generated by pseudo-anonymous individuals who incorrectly assert the public Internet is a reliable source of information. The public Internet is not a reliable source of information, therefore wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Actually, these individuals only assert that some sources are reliable, and that even so, are not 100% reliable -- some sources make mistakes. Here is what they say:
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers.
Oh, and they talked about how Europe, china (?) and especially japan needed the oil from the middle east region much more than USA but didn't helped to keep it political stable and keep the oil flowing.
This is the part that amuses me the most. We get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Keeping the Middle East stable is less for our benefit and more for the benefit of the countries that you mentioned. Funny how people never that.
There is a single world market for oil. If the Middle East does not produce oil, then the countries mentioned will buy their oil elsewhere, which makes it harder for us to get our oil, as prices rise. It's like cars on bridges -- I don't use the San Mateo bridge, but rather the the Dumbarton; however, if the San Mateo bridge goes down, there will be a hell of a lot more cars on the Dumbarton, so really, I do benefit from the San Mateo bridge.
Slashdot Mirror
$ grep "" /dev/null
$ echo $?
1
$
I am not sure if that is the right answer or not.
Google Cache
The press release is not in the cache. :-(
No, ID says "life was designed in it's current form". It makes no allowance for anything except what they call "micro-evolution". If you don't understand that, then you haven't actually read any ID "literature".
Ahhhh! No, ID does not say "life was designed in it's [sic] current form". It says "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." In other words, the current state of biological complexity could not have about without some direction from an outside force beyond randomness and evolutionary pressure. Some IDers combine this with creationism, others do not. Creationism says "life was designed in its current form", not ID.
However, that said, ID is not science, as it is not falsifiable. Science says "there is evolution, and this is the path taken". ID says, "this is why the current state can exist". Taken farther, one can say, "sequences of variations cause macro evolution", and then say "there was a designer causing that sequence of variations" without a contradiction, because the two statements do not occupy the same intellectual space. As someone said above, ID is philosophy (specifically, religion), while evolution is biology.
I love the end of the article:
"It's really reliable," she said. "There really is no need to upgrade it."
I wish more people understood that.
If you do manage to cool something down to 0 K, would you say that it's infinitely colder than space?
Yes and no. It would be true, but I generally don't actually say such things, since it sounds rather strange to the ear (score: 0-1, his score is infinitely smaller than hers). Besides, it's academic, since it is impossible anyhow.
When I say "absolute scale" I mean one where zero is pinned to the absence of whatever you are measuring. What you say is true for all linear scales, but not all linear scales are absolute, and not all absolute scales are linear. (Kelvin, however, is both. Bels (think decibel) are neither.) Basically, a scale is a coordinate system on a half line or ray, and is only an absolute scale if the origin of the coordinate system is on the origin of the ray. I would not think of a size scale where I am zero feet tall and my wife -1 feet tall as an absolute scale.
I would actually go farther than "doesn't hurt", and say there should be a clear value, both to help the technically minded and to inform the masses about temperature. But that was not my point above, and so didn't bring it up.
You were modded funny, but some have proposed decimal time quite seriously. Personally, I think it makes as much sense as the move of every other measurement to decimal.
End Standard Time, or as I like to call it, "pretend it's some unknown amount of time later or earlier than it really is". Seriously, solar time for a long time was considered true time, and there was resistance to going to standard time. All our time conventions are for convenience and other such benefits anyhow -- if DST increases benefits, use it, otherwise don't. It's all arbitrary anyway.
Unless you are in the southern hemisphere.
Nay, but Mars is higher in the gravity well of the Sun than Earth is.
(Actually my only anti-virus protection is not using IE, and not running things that shouldn't be run. I've had no problems.)
How do you know, if you aren't running Super Anti-Virus And Anti-Spyware Checker Plus With Extended Internet Security And Super Detection Capabilities For Home And Business Environments Power Edition (TM)?
but it still works quite well, since 1C == 1K
and i really cringed when i read the 100 times colder crap. Seriously, if it's at 0.03 K why not just say that?
It does not work well. 100x colder than 1 C is not 0.01 C, it is -270.27 C. And the reason people don't say 0.03 K is because the average person does not know what K is, but they know space is very cold.
100 times colder than 0 K? So, that's what, 0 K? Why not make it 1000 times colder?
100 times colder than 3 K. So, that's what, 0.03 K?
(Yes I know space is slightly warmer than absolute zero, but it's still a really weird claim to make - we are only talking about a couple of degrees here)
If you knew that it was above 0 K, you shouldn't say 0 K. And it is not weird -- these are normal operating temperatures of some really cool physics work. And the reason we talk about 100x vs. 1000x is that the difference between 100x and 1000x is a good chunk of change.
According to wikipedia, intergalactic space is 2.71 Kelvin. I would assume that they mean "100th the temperature of intergalactic space", not "100 times colder than intergalactic space", as the latter is nonsensical and implies that it exists at 100 times colder than intergalactic space is colder than room temperature, meaning -28834 Kelvin (293 - 100 * (293 - 2.73) where we assume that room temperature is 20 degrees centigrade). This is nonsense.
I don't see a problem with "100 times colder than intergalactic space". Temperature is an absolute scale, like size. It's like saying that item X is "100 times smaller than a coin". You don't then compare the size of the coin (say, 0.01m) to the room (say 3m) and then complain that item X is not of size -296 (3 - 100 * (3 - 0.01)).
TFA doesn't state any specific temperature, but I find the analogy to how "cold" space is rather troubling. Space is really "warm", as it contains energy left from the Big Bang (although no one with a common sense would describe it that way in daily talk), and saying that something is so many times colder than space really just doesn't make sense. You can always compare sizes, but as heat is a positive size, because you can't have negative energy, you can just say "this is a hundred times hotter than that" or "my freezer is two times as cold as my refrigerator compared to my living room". The one who thought of this analogy could be talking about degrees on Celsius or Fahrenheit, but then those numbers must be way below absolute zero, or 0 Kelvin, as space is just 2.7 Kelvin, or -270.7 C ( http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ht.html ) and taking for granted he is comparing the temperature of space to 0 ÂC, that means that those crystals are actually -27070 C. And _that_ would be some real frontpage material...
You seem confused. He speaks of "a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space". Intergalactic space has a temperature of about 3K. It does not make sense to talk of degrees C, since C is not an absolute scale. 100 times colder than 3K is 0.03K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
Intersteller space has a density of a million atoms per cubic meter. Intergalactic space has densities closer to one atom per cubic meter. Perfect vacuum is theoretically impossible due to quantum mechanics (I can not explain why, but that makes sense).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081021185213.htm
Wikipedia's content is generated by pseudo-anonymous individuals who incorrectly assert the public Internet is a reliable source of information. The public Internet is not a reliable source of information, therefore wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Actually, these individuals only assert that some sources are reliable, and that even so, are not 100% reliable -- some sources make mistakes. Here is what they say:
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability for details.
Sacha Baron Cohen Wikipedia Entry Creates Circular References
They both are. Google for "spoof ani". Apparently the easiest way to do it is with a VoIP account.
Oh, and they talked about how Europe, china (?) and especially japan needed the oil from the middle east region much more than USA but didn't helped to keep it political stable and keep the oil flowing.
This is the part that amuses me the most. We get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Keeping the Middle East stable is less for our benefit and more for the benefit of the countries that you mentioned. Funny how people never that.
There is a single world market for oil. If the Middle East does not produce oil, then the countries mentioned will buy their oil elsewhere, which makes it harder for us to get our oil, as prices rise. It's like cars on bridges -- I don't use the San Mateo bridge, but rather the the Dumbarton; however, if the San Mateo bridge goes down, there will be a hell of a lot more cars on the Dumbarton, so really, I do benefit from the San Mateo bridge.
Right now it is 50/50 interesting/insightful. Now all we need to do is make an observation next week....
My guess is he was referring to the American Revolution.
The US doesn't, not really. I thought that there was protection for mail entering the US, but then I found that they are allowed to search basically any "Mail Believed to Contain Dutiable or Prohibited Articles", for example, personal letters. At least domestic first class mail is still safe.