Same thing in many areas. I mention Halo and people know what I am talking about, but Crysis and half my friends have never heard of it. Clothing, software, hardware, food. It's all the same in that regard.
Another thing to do would be hiring a hacking group to test your servers. There are many groups who actually penetration test servers for a living.
[You]: "I hired a hacker ring to attempt to break into the servers to prove them secure" [Customer]: "What????" [You]: "Yeah, these guys to penetration and security testing for a living, so they're good." [Customer]: *dial tone*
You will obviously not be dissuaded. As i said in my earlier post, i will shut up now and let you believe what you want.
Evolution was all guesswork until people went out and found facts to support it (of which there are scant few)
That wasn't me posting. Sorry, I was posting from the library and i forgot to hit public terminal. Unfortunately, I cannot edit or remove that post.
Although the person who did post knew some, he was probably just repeating what he'd been told, and not thinking for himself.
Just because two animals have similar DNA doesn't make them related. Just because Firefox and Internet Explorer have similar code in certain areas doesn't mean that they have a common ancestor. They both have for loops, if loops, while loops, etc. but they are not descended from the same code base. Although, in a way, if you go back far enough they are. They are based on TCP/IP and telnet. So in an evolutionary sense, we are related to dung beetles because we all evolved from a single-celled organism. (To whoever posted before, this is an example of thinking for yourself. I am a staunch creationist, but that doesn't mean if you can prove me wrong with a scientifically repeatable method I will refuse to believe it)
Yes I know that Walruses are mammals, whether the poster did or not is subject to debate.
Evolution in theory adds complexity. You have made the assumption here that we evolved. This has not been proven, then again, neither has the theory of gravity.
When it comes down to it, science is really just a serious of guesses that lead to a logical conclusion. The more things we find that support those guesses, the more we believe them. And then when something challenges those guesses, we ignore the challenge. This is not restricted to evolutionary biologists. It happens with creationist biologists as well.
My problem with your orignal post, was this line:
So, unless you're still living in the 19th century (as creationists are), science has rather overtaken the "theory" label on this one, notwithstanding that for historical reasons it's still used, just as is Newton's "theory" of gravity.
Particularly the first phrase. It is completely unfounded and offensive.
I have changed my password and will go back to the library after i post this and make sure it is logged off of my account.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Now, to show you wrong. Give me a testable hypothesis that proves that we evolved. Come to think of it, give me a testable hypothesis that proves we were created. Can you give me either? Can anyone give me either?
Microevolution happens because of variability in the DNA. What you are talking about here:
while the other may increasingly take to the water and eventually develop an ability to deep dive like a walrus.
Is macroevolution. Mutations cause that, if you look in the DNA of a dog, you will not find the code for gills or lungs that can withstand the pressure of deepdiving. No mutations thus far have been recorded that add information. They always lose information (thus the daschund loses the information to grow legs, or anything but the stubs of what would've been legs). Before you say anything against that. Please provide a reference to a reputable science journal (preferably one that is available online).
Maybe we should say macroevolution is the loss of the ability to breed with the original species while retaining the ability to breed with the new species.
where we can trace modern species back to common ancestors via the fossil record then PROVE the shared heritage via DNA analysis!
There you are wrong. When you can extract DNA from a rock, let me know. Until then, you must have soft tissue to extract the DNA from, which throws itself in the face of millions of years...
Bacteria in a lab hasn't evolved. It still retains it's ability to breed with other bacteria of the same species. Unless you're speaking of DNA manipulation of bacteria, which still isn't evolution.
So, unless you're still living in the 19th century (as creationists are)
Hmm, so my new Core 2 Quad OC'd to 3GHz computer running XP, Win7, Ubuntu 9.04, Arch, Gentoo, and LFS is from the 19th century? Interesting...I bet i could get a good price for a working artifact like this!
science has rather overtaken the "theory" label on this one
Not quite. Science has indeed overtaken the theory of microevolution, but not the theory of macroevolution. Before Macroevolution can become a Law of Nature, we must observe one species changing into another. The best way to do this is stick two rabbits in a large environment with no other wild animals, and randomly change the conditions to force them to adapt (microevolution). When the neo-rabbits have adapted to the point that they can no longer breed with rabbits, then they have become a separate species (since a species is defined that way) and Macroevolution will be a proven fact.
"MacArthur fellow Carl Safina, an adjunct professor at Stony Brook University, has an interesting essay in the NYTimes that says that equating evolution with Charles Darwin opened the door for creationism by ignoring 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution â" Gregor Mendel's patterns of heredity, the discovery of DNA, developmental biology,
Ummm, when have we ignored those? I don't think you'll find a creationist who is ignorant of the existence of DNA. Also, these are not from evolution, these are from biology. Biology != Evolution.
studies documenting evolution in nature, and evolution's role in medicine and disease.
You mean microevolution right? We haven't actually observed one species changing into another. Only one species changing. Go to answersingenesis.com and they have many, many articles on that subject.
Darwinism implies an ideology adhering to one man's dictates, like Marxism, says Safina. He adds that nobody talks about Newtonism or Einsteinism, and that by making Darwin 'into a sacred fetish misses the essence of his teaching.' By turning Darwin into an 'ism,' scientists created the opening for creationism, with the 'isms' implying equivalence. 'By propounding "Darwinism," even scientists and science writers perpetuate an impression that evolution is about one man, one book, one theory,' writes Safina. '"Darwinism" implies that biological scientists "believe in" Darwin's "theory." It's as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.'"
You know why we call it Darwinism? Because some people actually do believe that! Most of them are not the brightest in the bunch, but some do. It's like a religion to them. On the other hand we don't have people like that for Newton or Einstein because Physics is not a required course for US High Schools, while Biology is.
Don't forgot hexboots like mine! Not kidding! XP, 7, Gentoo, Arch, openSUSE, and Ubuntu. Sometimes i set Firefox's useragent to IE/Windows Vista for compatability and forget to reset it too. And that carries across all 4 linux OSes with their shared/home directory (lets see MS do THAT!)
I suppose unpossible could be a word, un- being the prefix for opposite, but i think you meant impossible. Now I've had my grammar-naziing for the day. I'm good. The other 211 spelling errors on this page can go unnoticed by me.
Same with the PS3. I can even rip blurays in Linux on there! But the XBox 360, when i modded the fan to keep it from RRODing again, wouldn't let me play online. So I changed it back. Now I can play online at the risk of RRODing. Im thinkin maybe it check the voltage/amperage of the fan in use....
But can you hook up four keyboards and four mice to a PC? No. It isn't designed for that.
FYI 4 player split screen isn't multitasking. It's still one task. It's like having 4 tabs in firefox: 4 tabs, 1 task.
And I can play Armagetron Advanced on my PC with 4 people. We hook up two keyboards (which both input as the same one) and put two people on a keyboard. We could probably get 8 or more if we really wanted to. My monitor is plenty big.
On the PS3 and XB360 they improved the graphics and made it HD. On the Wii they improved the graphics a little and made it compatible with the Wii hardware. It IS emulated. The emulator is wrapped in the game file itself, so is not separate.
Heh. I've had the opposite experience here. The PS3 system updates are for the f*cking DRM on Bluray that they keep changing. Home is an MMOG (not RPG); It is NOT a simple game.
Downloading the SAME GAME for both the PS3 and Xbox 360 resulted in very similar speeds actually. The PS3 felt faster, but you never know, maybe it was because I was playing on it while it downloaded.
Slashdot Mirror
+1
I totally agree. I do both JS and python programming.
python for server side, JS for client side, and python errors are much more human-readable/understandable IMHO.
And the interactive interpreter is a godsend for fiddling with a messed up class function (ie temporarily redefine it)
Brand recognition, like Starbucks.
Same thing in many areas. I mention Halo and people know what I am talking about, but Crysis and half my friends have never heard of it. Clothing, software, hardware, food. It's all the same in that regard.
[![REBUKE]!]
You forgot the formatting.
Good point though....it's like Microsoft coming out and saying that businesses hate Linux...it's totally partial.
So is an Eee PC, but that doesn't mean you'd want to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2GQxwkUHo0
http://netbooks.modaco.com/content/asus/261965/installing-vista-on-the-eee-701-ive-done-it-and-it-works/
So is an Eee, but that doesn't mean it runs /usably/.
You're a civil engineer, aren't you?
But yes, you're right. All we ever hear about (at least in the USA) is the conquerors.
Yeah, there's a big difference in the security of Ubuntu vs Paranoid Linux (or whatever they call it now).
Another thing to do would be hiring a hacking group to test your servers. There are many groups who actually penetration test servers for a living.
[You]: "I hired a hacker ring to attempt to break into the servers to prove them secure"
[Customer]: "What????"
[You]: "Yeah, these guys to penetration and security testing for a living, so they're good."
[Customer]: *dial tone*
You will obviously not be dissuaded. As i said in my earlier post, i will shut up now and let you believe what you want. Evolution was all guesswork until people went out and found facts to support it (of which there are scant few)
Although the person who did post knew some, he was probably just repeating what he'd been told, and not thinking for himself.
Just because two animals have similar DNA doesn't make them related. Just because Firefox and Internet Explorer have similar code in certain areas doesn't mean that they have a common ancestor. They both have for loops, if loops, while loops, etc. but they are not descended from the same code base. Although, in a way, if you go back far enough they are. They are based on TCP/IP and telnet. So in an evolutionary sense, we are related to dung beetles because we all evolved from a single-celled organism. (To whoever posted before, this is an example of thinking for yourself. I am a staunch creationist, but that doesn't mean if you can prove me wrong with a scientifically repeatable method I will refuse to believe it)
Yes I know that Walruses are mammals, whether the poster did or not is subject to debate.
Evolution in theory adds complexity. You have made the assumption here that we evolved. This has not been proven, then again, neither has the theory of gravity.
When it comes down to it, science is really just a serious of guesses that lead to a logical conclusion. The more things we find that support those guesses, the more we believe them. And then when something challenges those guesses, we ignore the challenge. This is not restricted to evolutionary biologists. It happens with creationist biologists as well.
My problem with your orignal post, was this line:
So, unless you're still living in the 19th century (as creationists are), science has rather overtaken the "theory" label on this one, notwithstanding that for historical reasons it's still used, just as is Newton's "theory" of gravity.
Particularly the first phrase. It is completely unfounded and offensive.
I have changed my password and will go back to the library after i post this and make sure it is logged off of my account.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Now, to show you wrong. Give me a testable hypothesis that proves that we evolved. Come to think of it, give me a testable hypothesis that proves we were created. Can you give me either? Can anyone give me either?
I'll shut up now and let people believe what they wish. As long as others (I'm looking at you SpinyNorman) will do the same.
while the other may increasingly take to the water and eventually develop an ability to deep dive like a walrus.
Is macroevolution. Mutations cause that, if you look in the DNA of a dog, you will not find the code for gills or lungs that can withstand the pressure of deepdiving. No mutations thus far have been recorded that add information. They always lose information (thus the daschund loses the information to grow legs, or anything but the stubs of what would've been legs). Before you say anything against that. Please provide a reference to a reputable science journal (preferably one that is available online).
Maybe we should say macroevolution is the loss of the ability to breed with the original species while retaining the ability to breed with the new species.
where we can trace modern species back to common ancestors via the fossil record then PROVE the shared heritage via DNA analysis!
There you are wrong. When you can extract DNA from a rock, let me know. Until then, you must have soft tissue to extract the DNA from, which throws itself in the face of millions of years...
Bacteria in a lab hasn't evolved. It still retains it's ability to breed with other bacteria of the same species. Unless you're speaking of DNA manipulation of bacteria, which still isn't evolution.
So, unless you're still living in the 19th century (as creationists are)
Hmm, so my new Core 2 Quad OC'd to 3GHz computer running XP, Win7, Ubuntu 9.04, Arch, Gentoo, and LFS is from the 19th century? Interesting...I bet i could get a good price for a working artifact like this! science has rather overtaken the "theory" label on this one
Not quite. Science has indeed overtaken the theory of microevolution, but not the theory of macroevolution. Before Macroevolution can become a Law of Nature, we must observe one species changing into another. The best way to do this is stick two rabbits in a large environment with no other wild animals, and randomly change the conditions to force them to adapt (microevolution). When the neo-rabbits have adapted to the point that they can no longer breed with rabbits, then they have become a separate species (since a species is defined that way) and Macroevolution will be a proven fact.
"MacArthur fellow Carl Safina, an adjunct professor at Stony Brook University, has an interesting essay in the NYTimes that says that equating evolution with Charles Darwin opened the door for creationism by ignoring 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution â" Gregor Mendel's patterns of heredity, the discovery of DNA, developmental biology,
Ummm, when have we ignored those? I don't think you'll find a creationist who is ignorant of the existence of DNA. Also, these are not from evolution, these are from biology. Biology != Evolution.
studies documenting evolution in nature, and evolution's role in medicine and disease.
You mean microevolution right? We haven't actually observed one species changing into another. Only one species changing. Go to answersingenesis.com and they have many, many articles on that subject.
Darwinism implies an ideology adhering to one man's dictates, like Marxism, says Safina. He adds that nobody talks about Newtonism or Einsteinism, and that by making Darwin 'into a sacred fetish misses the essence of his teaching.' By turning Darwin into an 'ism,' scientists created the opening for creationism, with the 'isms' implying equivalence. 'By propounding "Darwinism," even scientists and science writers perpetuate an impression that evolution is about one man, one book, one theory,' writes Safina. '"Darwinism" implies that biological scientists "believe in" Darwin's "theory." It's as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.'"
You know why we call it Darwinism? Because some people actually do believe that! Most of them are not the brightest in the bunch, but some do. It's like a religion to them. On the other hand we don't have people like that for Newton or Einstein because Physics is not a required course for US High Schools, while Biology is.
ignorant of pop culture So true, so true....I was never much of a Simpsons fan.
Don't forgot hexboots like mine! Not kidding! XP, 7, Gentoo, Arch, openSUSE, and Ubuntu. Sometimes i set Firefox's useragent to IE/Windows Vista for compatability and forget to reset it too. And that carries across all 4 linux OSes with their shared /home directory (lets see MS do THAT!)
...it's entirely unpossible...
I suppose unpossible could be a word, un- being the prefix for opposite, but i think you meant impossible. Now I've had my grammar-naziing for the day. I'm good. The other 211 spelling errors on this page can go unnoticed by me.
Same with the PS3. I can even rip blurays in Linux on there! But the XBox 360, when i modded the fan to keep it from RRODing again, wouldn't let me play online. So I changed it back. Now I can play online at the risk of RRODing. Im thinkin maybe it check the voltage/amperage of the fan in use....
But can you hook up four keyboards and four mice to a PC? No. It isn't designed for that.
FYI 4 player split screen isn't multitasking. It's still one task. It's like having 4 tabs in firefox: 4 tabs, 1 task.
And I can play Armagetron Advanced on my PC with 4 people. We hook up two keyboards (which both input as the same one) and put two people on a keyboard. We could probably get 8 or more if we really wanted to. My monitor is plenty big.
On the PS3 and XB360 they improved the graphics and made it HD. On the Wii they improved the graphics a little and made it compatible with the Wii hardware. It IS emulated. The emulator is wrapped in the game file itself, so is not separate.
Agreed. They should find some other large (750MB+) demo (is Burnout Paradise on the Wiistore?) and do that.
Heh. I've had the opposite experience here. The PS3 system updates are for the f*cking DRM on Bluray that they keep changing. Home is an MMOG (not RPG); It is NOT a simple game. Downloading the SAME GAME for both the PS3 and Xbox 360 resulted in very similar speeds actually. The PS3 felt faster, but you never know, maybe it was because I was playing on it while it downloaded.
Good point about the Wii. Sony doesn't release titles on the PS3 store on any given day. They just come up whenever they're ready.
I'd like to run Crysis on there...but it's PPC, and i don't feel like QEMUing it on 1GB RAM (I upgraded it)