Their goal wasn't to stop referrals; the assumption is that their goal was to harass a website that was posting undesirable (but public) information about one of partners of the law firm.
To properly address your point then, I offer you some examples where average scientifically-minded people think of evolution as a Darwin-centric idea, or where Darwin is a synonym for natural selection:
Various articles published in respected science journals like Nature, such as Kevin Padian's Darwin's Enduring Legacy, stating that "perhaps no individual has had such a sweeping influence on so many facets of social and intellectual life as Charles Darwin."
The annual "international recognition of science and humanity," called Darwin Day Celebration
These are just a few examples of how Darwin is used to encapsulate the entire field of evolutionary biology. Sure, professional biology scientists may not use Darwin's name so casually, but is there any wonder why average people who support the theory of evolution also appear to idolize Darwin?
That the NYT thinks this is really the case is shocking.
You must not have read the article at all, huh? You have entirely misunderstood and mis-characterized the NYT article into the complete opposite of what it actually says. Allow me to paraphrase TFA for you.
NYT says that while Darwin's theory of natural selection was a "step beyond common knowledge," it also:
was heavily inspired by man-made selection, such as animal husbandry;
was nearly preempted by Alfred Russel Wallace, which shows that the theory of natural selection was ripe on its own, with or without Darwin;
was incomplete because the concepts of genetics, dna, and inheritance had not been developed, so the theory of natural selection could not address the most fundamental questions regarding mechanics;
and has been drastically altered in the 150 years of research since Darwin.
The NYT article is effectively supporting the same argument you are - that characterizing evolution as Darwin theory does a disservice to Science and allows creationism to flourish.
The article doesn't suggest purging Darwin's name, just not applying it as a shorthand for evolution. You don't refer to Mendel's genetics when you discuss modern genetics, do you?
And while most biological scientists don't toss around the term "Darwinism", your average evolution-accepting person does. The bumper sticker/plate of the "Darwin" fish with the feet is just one of many examples.
Exactly. Just because the two points, point A in the present and point B thirty years in the past can be considered to be in two different locations in some universal frame of reference, it does not mean that the intervening vacuum of space (with its accompanying dust, rocks, comets, and planets) must have been physically crossed.
Even assuming the DeLorean had to move a physical distance in order to reappear at the same geographical location on earth, the medium through which the timeship traveled might not have been standard physical space, but rather something like subspace, which might not require the usually trappings of a spaceship to navigate. Propulsion (other than the 88 miles an hour to engage the flux capacitor) might not even be necessary, depending on how the fictional time-traveling mechanism "works."
Besides, who's to say that in terms of time traveling, each point in the universe is fundamentally mapped to its other "locations" in every other time-frame. Kind of like how H.G. Wells's Time Machine stays in the same geographical location because it exists as if were always anchored to that piece of land, throughout time.
I would recommend against that last step. Everyone knows that when objects pass into antimatter wormhole, they are reconstituted into the antimatter universe in reverse order, thereby undoing all the painstaking steps you've already completed.
Then all the Bizarro people will be able to see your porn collection.
It's perfectly valid to ask what the point of a product is. Not only does it invite answers that may describe a perspective not imagined by the inquirer, but it also raises the point that the product might not be worth the trouble to make if there is no interest in it.
Sure, the OP doesn't have to buy it if he or she doesn't like it. But that doesn't mean the product has any value to anyone else either. If you decide to make ice cream that tastes like shit, and you can't answer the question of "what's the point?", then what will you have after you've spent $400,000 in research, design, production, packaging, and marketing just so you could sell your product to one *somebody*? Nothing but a big pile of (cold) shit.
So the question remains, who needs a 4 grand laptop that weighs 11 pounds, and are there enough of these people for the product to turn a profit?
There is a big difference, integrity-wise, between altering contract/color balance and cutting out/pasting in content. However, I would consider "cosmetic" photoshopped liposuction to be cutting out content.
Grabbing people off the streets is a whole different situation. People off the streets do not, in their present condition, have the ability to direct an airplane into a building. You'd have to be in an airplane to do that.
Do people who work at the local McDonalds get paid for preparing the restaurant to open at the beginning of each business day and for closing up shop at the end? I sure hope so.
This is the exact same situation. If the employers don't like it, they can pay someone to set up a script to automatically boot the computer half an hour before the start of the business day. I'm sure they can justify the cost once the cost is actually there.
That analogy is not a solid comparison. "Preparing the restaurant to open" obviously indicates work. If employees come in to work, flip a power button, and then relax or read the newspaper for ten minutes, they aren't putting in work.
If they are working on other things during that time (e.g., setting up shop) then they should be paid and a non-computer time card should be used. If they ware not working, then that time ought to be treated the same as taking a break during the work day. Whether breaks are covered may differ from the pay arrangement.
A more interesting analogy would be comparing booting up a computer to the time spent driving in to work.
If there is a higher intelligence that is the source of human capacity for thought, then you cannot simply assume that we humans also have the power to create that capacity.
However, I do like your perspective that intelligence that arises out of natural phenomenon must mean that computers could also be that intelligent.
I hate how all those elementary questions had an implicit "only pick the practical answers." That period is not the time to stymie children's creativity.
Who wouldn't want someone in office who knew about how law works
Because lawyers are not leaders and the law is the property of the people, not the specialists that manage it. If anything lawyers should be like secretaries to the government, organizers of the law, but that the law is something requires specialists to deal with speaks to a self-perpetuating class of government than it does a real democracy.
To be fair, parent was talking about wanting a leader to be familiar with the law that he will be making decisions upon.
Even if you could make the legal system as accessible as a computer system, there would always be people who haven't learned how to use it. Just like you wouldn't want someone to head a software development company that had no clue how software worked, you don't want someone to lead a country if they don't understand how the laws work.
Your notion has the right basis in equality, but your thought process is skewed. If a project involves centralized production and distribution, then allocating shipments to people who already live comfortably (and probably already have a similarly-capable substitute product) deprives the poorer groups from receiving as many shipments. In the case of the OLPC project, the poor get the computer first because for them, it allows them first time access to a software platform and the internet. For you, on the other hand, an OLPC laptop would just sit in your bathroom and display pr0n.
It's related to the reason why donating to the rich just doesn't carry the same karma as donating to the poor.
Slashdot Mirror
Their goal wasn't to stop referrals; the assumption is that their goal was to harass a website that was posting undesirable (but public) information about one of partners of the law firm.
At some point, they'll come up with a good system that uses PV cells to collect light and use the excess thermal energy to drive a turbine.
I suppose I did read your
this
broadly.
To properly address your point then, I offer you some examples where average scientifically-minded people think of evolution as a Darwin-centric idea, or where Darwin is a synonym for natural selection:
These are just a few examples of how Darwin is used to encapsulate the entire field of evolutionary biology. Sure, professional biology scientists may not use Darwin's name so casually, but is there any wonder why average people who support the theory of evolution also appear to idolize Darwin?
That the NYT thinks this is really the case is shocking.
You must not have read the article at all, huh? You have entirely misunderstood and mis-characterized the NYT article into the complete opposite of what it actually says. Allow me to paraphrase TFA for you.
NYT says that while Darwin's theory of natural selection was a "step beyond common knowledge," it also:
The NYT article is effectively supporting the same argument you are - that characterizing evolution as Darwin theory does a disservice to Science and allows creationism to flourish.
The article doesn't suggest purging Darwin's name, just not applying it as a shorthand for evolution. You don't refer to Mendel's genetics when you discuss modern genetics, do you?
And while most biological scientists don't toss around the term "Darwinism", your average evolution-accepting person does. The bumper sticker/plate of the "Darwin" fish with the feet is just one of many examples.
It's not $700 for a game. It's $700 for a fantasy life.
Exactly. Just because the two points, point A in the present and point B thirty years in the past can be considered to be in two different locations in some universal frame of reference, it does not mean that the intervening vacuum of space (with its accompanying dust, rocks, comets, and planets) must have been physically crossed.
Even assuming the DeLorean had to move a physical distance in order to reappear at the same geographical location on earth, the medium through which the timeship traveled might not have been standard physical space, but rather something like subspace, which might not require the usually trappings of a spaceship to navigate. Propulsion (other than the 88 miles an hour to engage the flux capacitor) might not even be necessary, depending on how the fictional time-traveling mechanism "works."
Besides, who's to say that in terms of time traveling, each point in the universe is fundamentally mapped to its other "locations" in every other time-frame. Kind of like how H.G. Wells's Time Machine stays in the same geographical location because it exists as if were always anchored to that piece of land, throughout time.
I would recommend against that last step. Everyone knows that when objects pass into antimatter wormhole, they are reconstituted into the antimatter universe in reverse order, thereby undoing all the painstaking steps you've already completed.
Then all the Bizarro people will be able to see your porn collection.
They're not using telephone operators, they're using the intertubes.
http://ocw.mit.edu/
It's perfectly valid to ask what the point of a product is. Not only does it invite answers that may describe a perspective not imagined by the inquirer, but it also raises the point that the product might not be worth the trouble to make if there is no interest in it.
Sure, the OP doesn't have to buy it if he or she doesn't like it. But that doesn't mean the product has any value to anyone else either. If you decide to make ice cream that tastes like shit, and you can't answer the question of "what's the point?", then what will you have after you've spent $400,000 in research, design, production, packaging, and marketing just so you could sell your product to one *somebody*? Nothing but a big pile of (cold) shit. So the question remains, who needs a 4 grand laptop that weighs 11 pounds, and are there enough of these people for the product to turn a profit?
Name a one thing british ever made right.
Railways. Television. Electric motor. Flushing toilet. Steam engine & locomotive. Computer. Seed drill. Tank. Custard. Cat flap. Jet engine. World wide web. Penicillin.
Many of these are a surprise to me. I would be interested in hearing more about those contributions.
one point twenty one
No DeLorean for you!
There is a big difference, integrity-wise, between altering contract/color balance and cutting out/pasting in content. However, I would consider "cosmetic" photoshopped liposuction to be cutting out content.
Grabbing people off the streets is a whole different situation. People off the streets do not, in their present condition, have the ability to direct an airplane into a building. You'd have to be in an airplane to do that.
Do people who work at the local McDonalds get paid for preparing the restaurant to open at the beginning of each business day and for closing up shop at the end? I sure hope so.
This is the exact same situation. If the employers don't like it, they can pay someone to set up a script to automatically boot the computer half an hour before the start of the business day. I'm sure they can justify the cost once the cost is actually there.
That analogy is not a solid comparison. "Preparing the restaurant to open" obviously indicates work. If employees come in to work, flip a power button, and then relax or read the newspaper for ten minutes, they aren't putting in work.
If they are working on other things during that time (e.g., setting up shop) then they should be paid and a non-computer time card should be used. If they ware not working, then that time ought to be treated the same as taking a break during the work day. Whether breaks are covered may differ from the pay arrangement.
A more interesting analogy would be comparing booting up a computer to the time spent driving in to work.
Personal gain, or just simple enjoyment.
Bullies may enjoy seeing others in pain
If there is a higher intelligence that is the source of human capacity for thought, then you cannot simply assume that we humans also have the power to create that capacity.
However, I do like your perspective that intelligence that arises out of natural phenomenon must mean that computers could also be that intelligent.
I hate how all those elementary questions had an implicit "only pick the practical answers." That period is not the time to stymie children's creativity.
Getting 'lactating' from 'levitating' would fall under the "hearing what you want to hear" department, not dyslexia.
It would be smart of Blizzard to allow gamers to play in a letterbox mode if they only have a 4:3 monitor.
Why is this rated Insightful? It's a question that is explained within TFS/A.
Or is it just that any inquiry posed has an inherent element of insightfulness?
Who wouldn't want someone in office who knew about how law works Because lawyers are not leaders and the law is the property of the people, not the specialists that manage it. If anything lawyers should be like secretaries to the government, organizers of the law, but that the law is something requires specialists to deal with speaks to a self-perpetuating class of government than it does a real democracy.
To be fair, parent was talking about wanting a leader to be familiar with the law that he will be making decisions upon.
Even if you could make the legal system as accessible as a computer system, there would always be people who haven't learned how to use it. Just like you wouldn't want someone to head a software development company that had no clue how software worked, you don't want someone to lead a country if they don't understand how the laws work.
Well said.
Your notion has the right basis in equality, but your thought process is skewed. If a project involves centralized production and distribution, then allocating shipments to people who already live comfortably (and probably already have a similarly-capable substitute product) deprives the poorer groups from receiving as many shipments. In the case of the OLPC project, the poor get the computer first because for them, it allows them first time access to a software platform and the internet. For you, on the other hand, an OLPC laptop would just sit in your bathroom and display pr0n.
It's related to the reason why donating to the rich just doesn't carry the same karma as donating to the poor.
Yes.
And if it was made in America, it would need to have a hatchet, a horse, and look like Mel Gibson.