Actually to me it is very intuitive, for reasons other here have already pointed out.
Also, I would contest that common sense is "nothing more than widely held but unquestioned assumptions". I find it to be much more akin to what we currently call critical thinking. It is pathetic to me that its something we have to teach in schools, much less colleges, because so few people learn it naturally anymore.
There is an important word in there that can easily be missed, "another". The survey is of current Xbox owners asking about another purchase. The numbers could very well be 50% wont buy because they dont have the money, 46% wont buy because they dont want two of them, and 4% wont buy because they are worried about failures.
In order for an accurate number, they should have surveyed the public and only taken samples from those that were already thinking about buying a console.
But who are you talking about? Stifling debate is not a liberal characteristic.
Actually it is. Note how many of the responses to my first post are personal attacks on me and attacks on conservatism. It isnt debate when one side is calling the other an idiot over and over.
Discourse is not prohibited in science, in fact, it's encouraged.
And it's very much encouraged in liberalism.
See above
What about a conservative or neocon who does the same thing? Is that OK? You must never have heard of people like Bill O'Reilly.
I've never heard O'Reilly demand the other side be silenced, only his own right to be heard.
The sole right to be heard belongs to those who make sense.
Ahhh the irony. You just proved my point better than I could myself.
The evolution example, is just that. An example. I never called anyone liberal simply because they think evolution makes sense. However, it is generally accepted that the left is more inclined towards evolution than the right. Thus, the example is fitting.
The great thing about what the 1st ammendment used to be, is that it protected peoples right to be wrong. Now it just protects those that demand political correctness.
BTW, when was the last time you saw a conservative complaining something wasnt politically correct?
Republicans dont try to play the racist/sexist card. In fact, in most if not all debates it is the progressive-mindset that tries to silence opposition by declaring it illegal. Even going back to evolution vs intelligent design in schools, all the conservatives I have talked to would be fine with presentation of both. It is only the liberals that claim the sole right to be heard.
Like I was saying earlier in another thread, it has become unacceptable to actually punish offenders. It actually tends to be the victim of such incidents that gets in trouble. I've seen cases of delivery/servicemen getting attacked by a group of armed teenagers, and then get fired because they shot and killed (legally!) one of the thugs as it is against company policy to be armed on the job, even with a permit.
Around here, if a tech like that showed up, demanded to be let in, and then punched me, he would have eaten lead.
I hate seeing prosecutors dismissing cases like this. All we do is give slaps on the wrist anymore and say "dont do that again... or at least not soon."
Not just school systems. What ever happened to life without parole actually being life without parole? Bleeding heart progressives have made it politically incorrect to punish criminals, going so far as to many times punish the victims for defending themselves.
In the past few months I've seen several articles about pizza delivery men getting attacked, defending themselves with a legally concealed weapon, then facing either criminal charges or loss of employment for doing so. Then there was the bank teller who got fired for apprehending a bank robber.
No, the details are extremely relevant. Without them the website is nothing more than a way to say "Trust us, we would never lie to you". Do you really plan on trusting that the Kool-Aide from the Obama admin is clean?
Well said. I am also interested in how people are supposed to verify information from the supposed transparency. If the government is the one setting it up, it is childs play to manipulate the system to show what they want. I suppose that is what the redacted sections touched on.
I fail to see how this is applicable. I seem to recall some comment from Obama complaining about the push to buy American made goods as it was demeaning to our northern neighbors. This is much the same.
Agreed. I believe in natural selection completely. In evolution, not so much. I believe that The-Powers-That-Be created this Earth, not by snapping their 8 dimensional fingers and a cloud of smoke, but by the process of focused natural selection. It just makes the most sense to me, kind of best of both worlds scenario. To me evolution is saying everything was created out of random disorder in a few molecules bouncing around. That defies the laws of entropy. I see now what you mean by parallel, but not so much for subtler. With that, I'm going to bed. Good night.
Logical enough, except there is still the original problem, would that first mutated individual with the big nose and ears reproduce enough to have it spread through the population? You cant just kill off all of those without the particular mutation.We still have wild boars who would be the prodigies of those in the pack without the longer/bigger noses.
Rare for a particular part of the gene. Even one mutation in a million base pairs works out to some mutations per generation for any sizable genome. Animals have lots of DNA. I'm assuming you're talking about a mutation rate in terms of base pairs. If you're talking about encoding proteins and so forth, then obviously it's much lower and I apologize for pointing this out. Yes I meant mutation enough to have a difference in protein encoding and physiological change. Individual base pairs are a different matter
Evolution is entirely based on random chance. The base pairs of DNA only mutate randomly in evolution. They cannot consciously change in order to cause a specific physiological change. Its a matter of taking what you are given. An individual has no way of influencing what mutation they receive, and that is the essence of randomness. It's preservation in the species is influenced by how reproductively advantageous it is, but it still is based on the random chance of occurring in the first place.
As for occuring in subtler ways and parallel, I have no idea what you mean by that, unless you are inferring that evolution is the means by which a higher order being (I'm not saying God per se) influences life in our little realm of existence.
If the success of the individual isn't optimized, the genes dont get spread. In other words, when the first individual with the mutation gets eaten as a little fluffy baby, the zero point gain to the population of having that mutation occur is exactly zero. Evolution has everything to do about the individual, because that is where the mutation and reproduction is happening. Err... in pairs at least.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually to me it is very intuitive, for reasons other here have already pointed out.
Also, I would contest that common sense is "nothing more than widely held but unquestioned assumptions". I find it to be much more akin to what we currently call critical thinking. It is pathetic to me that its something we have to teach in schools, much less colleges, because so few people learn it naturally anymore.
That is the funniest thing I have ever seen in idle.
There is an important word in there that can easily be missed, "another". The survey is of current Xbox owners asking about another purchase. The numbers could very well be 50% wont buy because they dont have the money, 46% wont buy because they dont want two of them, and 4% wont buy because they are worried about failures.
In order for an accurate number, they should have surveyed the public and only taken samples from those that were already thinking about buying a console.
But who are you talking about? Stifling debate is not a liberal characteristic.
Actually it is. Note how many of the responses to my first post are personal attacks on me and attacks on conservatism. It isnt debate when one side is calling the other an idiot over and over.
Discourse is not prohibited in science, in fact, it's encouraged.
And it's very much encouraged in liberalism.
See above
What about a conservative or neocon who does the same thing? Is that OK? You must never have heard of people like Bill O'Reilly.
I've never heard O'Reilly demand the other side be silenced, only his own right to be heard.
The sole right to be heard belongs to those who make sense.
Ahhh the irony. You just proved my point better than I could myself.
The evolution example, is just that. An example. I never called anyone liberal simply because they think evolution makes sense. However, it is generally accepted that the left is more inclined towards evolution than the right. Thus, the example is fitting.
The great thing about what the 1st ammendment used to be, is that it protected peoples right to be wrong. Now it just protects those that demand political correctness.
BTW, when was the last time you saw a conservative complaining something wasnt politically correct?
Republicans dont try to play the racist/sexist card. In fact, in most if not all debates it is the progressive-mindset that tries to silence opposition by declaring it illegal. Even going back to evolution vs intelligent design in schools, all the conservatives I have talked to would be fine with presentation of both. It is only the liberals that claim the sole right to be heard.
Luckily, we use integers to count people and offenses!
but as rock?
That surprised me to see. Britney spears as classic rock? What was he smoking?
Gotta love zero tolerance policies. They work so well dont they.
Like I was saying earlier in another thread, it has become unacceptable to actually punish offenders. It actually tends to be the victim of such incidents that gets in trouble. I've seen cases of delivery/servicemen getting attacked by a group of armed teenagers, and then get fired because they shot and killed (legally!) one of the thugs as it is against company policy to be armed on the job, even with a permit.
Around here, if a tech like that showed up, demanded to be let in, and then punched me, he would have eaten lead.
I hate seeing prosecutors dismissing cases like this. All we do is give slaps on the wrist anymore and say "dont do that again... or at least not soon."
Reminds me of idiots trying to "ban illegal guns". If it was illegal, it would already be banned!
Not just school systems. What ever happened to life without parole actually being life without parole? Bleeding heart progressives have made it politically incorrect to punish criminals, going so far as to many times punish the victims for defending themselves.
/rantover
In the past few months I've seen several articles about pizza delivery men getting attacked, defending themselves with a legally concealed weapon, then facing either criminal charges or loss of employment for doing so. Then there was the bank teller who got fired for apprehending a bank robber.
Ya I know. Offtopic.
if you're willing to enforce the rule
Hey! This is America! We don't do things like that anymore!
Real posers use Emacs.
There fixed it for you. vim 4 life
Um, why not just turn it off at night?
Because the webdevelopers are the same ones investigating no-bid contracts amiright?
No, the details are extremely relevant.
Without them the website is nothing more than a way to say "Trust us, we would never lie to you". Do you really plan on trusting that the Kool-Aide from the Obama admin is clean?
Well said.
I am also interested in how people are supposed to verify information from the supposed transparency. If the government is the one setting it up, it is childs play to manipulate the system to show what they want. I suppose that is what the redacted sections touched on.
I fail to see how this is applicable. I seem to recall some comment from Obama complaining about the push to buy American made goods as it was demeaning to our northern neighbors. This is much the same.
So its no longer just an infrared sensor, now its an actual camera?
No I didnt RTFA
Agreed. I believe in natural selection completely. In evolution, not so much. I believe that The-Powers-That-Be created this Earth, not by snapping their 8 dimensional fingers and a cloud of smoke, but by the process of focused natural selection. It just makes the most sense to me, kind of best of both worlds scenario.
To me evolution is saying everything was created out of random disorder in a few molecules bouncing around. That defies the laws of entropy.
I see now what you mean by parallel, but not so much for subtler.
With that, I'm going to bed. Good night.
Logical enough, except there is still the original problem, would that first mutated individual with the big nose and ears reproduce enough to have it spread through the population? You cant just kill off all of those without the particular mutation.We still have wild boars who would be the prodigies of those in the pack without the longer/bigger noses.
Rare for a particular part of the gene. Even one mutation in a million base pairs works out to some mutations per generation for any sizable genome. Animals have lots of DNA. I'm assuming you're talking about a mutation rate in terms of base pairs. If you're talking about encoding proteins and so forth, then obviously it's much lower and I apologize for pointing this out.
Yes I meant mutation enough to have a difference in protein encoding and physiological change. Individual base pairs are a different matter
Evolution is entirely based on random chance. The base pairs of DNA only mutate randomly in evolution. They cannot consciously change in order to cause a specific physiological change. Its a matter of taking what you are given. An individual has no way of influencing what mutation they receive, and that is the essence of randomness. It's preservation in the species is influenced by how reproductively advantageous it is, but it still is based on the random chance of occurring in the first place.
As for occuring in subtler ways and parallel, I have no idea what you mean by that, unless you are inferring that evolution is the means by which a higher order being (I'm not saying God per se) influences life in our little realm of existence.
If the success of the individual isn't optimized, the genes dont get spread. In other words, when the first individual with the mutation gets eaten as a little fluffy baby, the zero point gain to the population of having that mutation occur is exactly zero.
Evolution has everything to do about the individual, because that is where the mutation and reproduction is happening. Err... in pairs at least.