> How does that mean anything either postive or negative re: evolution?
Does every comment need to be positive or negative? But to answer your question since you didn't get it the first time, it's negative regarding evolution. I am pointing out that the theory of evolution has many holes. But that's fine since it's just a theory and I am sure it will be refined over time.
> I don't know of any other scientific theories that should be included in a scientific textbook, so therefore it HAS to be dealt with alone.
That is perfectly fine, however, many textbooks whether intended or not have left out the fact that evolution is still a theory and instead taught it as if it were the truth. (This probably applies to many other scientific topics that only have a sole theory explaining it.) Ask any seven year old and they would probably say humans came from apes - which is NOT proven. Maybe biasing children this way can explain why it's still the only scientific theory. Expose them to one idea and you lose the originality.
I know your comment is more of a joke and less a serious comment. But just want to point out something I've read before. Beauty is actually average... that is, people with average measurements - distance between the eyes, facial features, etc., etc. are perceived to be more beautiful than those with un-average features. Perhaps being average also means you are the most healthy and there are exceptions of course. Because of this, it's possible that ugly + ugly = beautiful, especially if the two ugly's are on opposite ends from average.
I agree with you. Where the "staged" lifecycle came from is a gigantic question mark that evolution has not explained.
From TFA (2nd paragraph): Now, researchers studying a family of butterflies think they have witnessed a subtle process, which could be forcing a wedge between newly formed species.
Can't this be rewritten as 'Scientists finally witnessed (micro)evolution at work'? And doesn't it imply that all those scientists who zealously treat evolution as a 'fact' or 'law' - before the observations described in this article were even observed - are actually being unscientific?
At this stage, I still see evolution as a hypothesis and the evidences and data collected still is very inconclusive to show that that's how the organisms on this planet became diverse.
What's the difference between what's observed in butterflies and in humans? Caucasians predominantly produce children with other Caucasians, African with Africans, Asians with Asians and so on, and for thousands of years... sure, they look very different, but even today and after thousands of years of existence (maybe more), someone from any continent can produce children from anyone of the opposite sex from another continent (and that's with thousands of years, if not more of Geographical isolation). Okay, so maybe we reproduce too slow... so how about cell-level organisms? They reproduce extremely fast... have we observed a single cell become a multi-cell organism? Nope.
Anyway, the theory of evolution is inconclusive and is likely not the sole mechanism for speciation, and thus it should not be treated as the only mechanism in many text books and by those who claim they are scientific.
1. GPS built-in to laptops. So you can use mapping software more easily on the go.
Yet another feature for employers and others to use to track you and invade your privacy further. I can see uses for this (LoJack for laptops?), but I can see it being abused right out of the gate. "Sorry, in order for you to connect to the corporate LAN, your GPS needs to be enabled."
Sorry, but that's not how GPS work. The GPS device can locate itself based on the signals from the satellite. It does not allow others to track you unless you send them your location.
If you're the only firmware/software engineer, then you should consider asking for a raise, because hiring someone else, with that pay rate, that knows what you already know, is not an easy task.
In this case the state decided that they could make more money buy having a private business on property on which citizens now reside.
The government have no business in making more money. Their job is to protect its citizens, not to rape them for more money or to side with private entities that has its own agenda in which the government can benefit from as a side effect.
Moreover, religious fundamentalists often argue for radical change to our current way of life
Since when does religious fundamentalists (more specifically, Christian fundamentalists) often argue for radical change to our current way of life? I can hardly think of any examples that support your statement.
How is preserving marriage and preserving life a change to our current way of life? Maybe I misunderstood what you meant... or give me a few good examples.
... every single religious conservative that Bush nominates. So help me, Buddha.
Why would Buddha help you? Buddhism can be considered a conservative religion as well. Please read up on it before invoking it. You make yourself sound very uneducated.
I think you probably mean "...every single Christian conservative...".
This is simply the laws of economics. Businesses will charge the highest price they can get away with, and consumers will pay the lowest prices they can find within reasonable means. Whether online or offline.
Exactly, the audience is different. A Walmart in a rich neighborhood can probably get away with charging higher prices than a Walmart in a poor neighborhood can. If the consumer will take the time to drive to the poor neighborhood Walmart, then the lower prices is well deserved. (But perhaps it's not worth the risk of driving an extra 30 minutes through a high crime neighborhood?)
Oftentimes, the websites of stores like Walmart, Target, Circuit City, etc., will ask for your zip code. I am going to try and give it different zip codes within the same metropolitan area and see what price differences there are.
Maybe a decade or two ago it will allow you to write more efficient code... but these days, it may allow you to write better compilers, that's all... unless your code is in assembly...
Slashdot Mirror
Would love to meet this Mr. Martin...
maybe you meant photographic memory...
you forgot:
~100 miles to the South - it would have crushed the Yucantan Peninsula, killed a lot of Mexicans and rich Americans on vacation.
Let's divert the hurricanes to the north pole, melt the ice caps and make the arctic a better place to live ;)
I rather buy things that comes with fully functional battle stations!
> How does that mean anything either postive or negative re: evolution?
Does every comment need to be positive or negative? But to answer your question since you didn't get it the first time, it's negative regarding evolution. I am pointing out that the theory of evolution has many holes. But that's fine since it's just a theory and I am sure it will be refined over time.
> I don't know of any other scientific theories that should be included in a scientific textbook, so therefore it HAS to be dealt with alone.
That is perfectly fine, however, many textbooks whether intended or not have left out the fact that evolution is still a theory and instead taught it as if it were the truth. (This probably applies to many other scientific topics that only have a sole theory explaining it.) Ask any seven year old and they would probably say humans came from apes - which is NOT proven. Maybe biasing children this way can explain why it's still the only scientific theory. Expose them to one idea and you lose the originality.
I know your comment is more of a joke and less a serious comment. But just want to point out something I've read before. Beauty is actually average... that is, people with average measurements - distance between the eyes, facial features, etc., etc. are perceived to be more beautiful than those with un-average features. Perhaps being average also means you are the most healthy and there are exceptions of course. Because of this, it's possible that ugly + ugly = beautiful, especially if the two ugly's are on opposite ends from average.
> Evolution reinforced a "staged" lifecycle.
I agree with you. Where the "staged" lifecycle came from is a gigantic question mark that evolution has not explained.
From TFA (2nd paragraph):
Now, researchers studying a family of butterflies think they have witnessed a subtle process, which could be forcing a wedge between newly formed species.
Can't this be rewritten as 'Scientists finally witnessed (micro)evolution at work'? And doesn't it imply that all those scientists who zealously treat evolution as a 'fact' or 'law' - before the observations described in this article were even observed - are actually being unscientific?
At this stage, I still see evolution as a hypothesis and the evidences and data collected still is very inconclusive to show that that's how the organisms on this planet became diverse.
What's the difference between what's observed in butterflies and in humans? Caucasians predominantly produce children with other Caucasians, African with Africans, Asians with Asians and so on, and for thousands of years... sure, they look very different, but even today and after thousands of years of existence (maybe more), someone from any continent can produce children from anyone of the opposite sex from another continent (and that's with thousands of years, if not more of Geographical isolation). Okay, so maybe we reproduce too slow... so how about cell-level organisms? They reproduce extremely fast... have we observed a single cell become a multi-cell organism? Nope.
Anyway, the theory of evolution is inconclusive and is likely not the sole mechanism for speciation, and thus it should not be treated as the only mechanism in many text books and by those who claim they are scientific.
1. GPS built-in to laptops. So you can use mapping software more easily on the go.
Yet another feature for employers and others to use to track you and invade your privacy further. I can see uses for this (LoJack for laptops?), but I can see it being abused right out of the gate. "Sorry, in order for you to connect to the corporate LAN, your GPS needs to be enabled."
Sorry, but that's not how GPS work. The GPS device can locate itself based on the signals from the satellite. It does not allow others to track you unless you send them your location.
I thought you said 'those Krafty Cheeese' ;D
I read it as McDonuts MMMMMM....
If you're the only firmware/software engineer, then you should consider asking for a raise, because hiring someone else, with that pay rate, that knows what you already know, is not an easy task.
In this case the state decided that they could make more money buy having a private business on property on which citizens now reside.
The government have no business in making more money. Their job is to protect its citizens, not to rape them for more money or to side with private entities that has its own agenda in which the government can benefit from as a side effect.
Moreover, religious fundamentalists often argue for radical change to our current way of life
Since when does religious fundamentalists (more specifically, Christian fundamentalists) often argue for radical change to our current way of life? I can hardly think of any examples that support your statement.
How is preserving marriage and preserving life a change to our current way of life? Maybe I misunderstood what you meant... or give me a few good examples.
... every single religious conservative that Bush nominates. So help me, Buddha.
Why would Buddha help you? Buddhism can be considered a conservative religion as well. Please read up on it before invoking it. You make yourself sound very uneducated.
I think you probably mean "...every single Christian conservative...".
tap water wont cut it unless you happen to get fed from a pipe running through a glacier
;)
Check out this previous story: Water Now More Awesome Than Previously Though
Pump cold water from bottom of the ocean, voila, this idea becomes a great idea
Mark A, then erase it, then mark C. Make lots of erase marks and corrections. It'll show you did a lot of work :P
This is simply the laws of economics. Businesses will charge the highest price they can get away with, and consumers will pay the lowest prices they can find within reasonable means. Whether online or offline.
Exactly, the audience is different. A Walmart in a rich neighborhood can probably get away with charging higher prices than a Walmart in a poor neighborhood can. If the consumer will take the time to drive to the poor neighborhood Walmart, then the lower prices is well deserved. (But perhaps it's not worth the risk of driving an extra 30 minutes through a high crime neighborhood?)
Oftentimes, the websites of stores like Walmart, Target, Circuit City, etc., will ask for your zip code. I am going to try and give it different zip codes within the same metropolitan area and see what price differences there are.
Just want to point out that there's a solution (from the business's point of view) for users who don't use cookies... charge them the higher price!
This, of course, is not a good thing, but just one of the things businesses can do.
But we have to hear the droids talk, which is just as annoying. >:(
All the geeks out there should have realized this and applied to be a theater employee weeks before this movie was released ;)
Too bad, because there's no more new star war movies...
Do both like I did...
:)
1. Hardware and Software
2. ???
3. Profit!!
4. Get Married/Girlfriend
Maybe a decade or two ago it will allow you to write more efficient code... but these days, it may allow you to write better compilers, that's all... unless your code is in assembly...
Is the guy in tights on the homepage opera man?
Here's another calculation...
Check out this page about 'ghost acres'. It calculated that roughly 9.1 acres is needed to sustain one person.
1 acre is 42560 sqft... so each person needs 396396 sqft. Round it to 0.4 million sqft / person.
With 6,515,511,450 people, you will need roughly 2.6 billion million sqft for the world's population!!! A less confusing number: 2,600,000 billion.
The earth has roughly 57,500,000 sq miles of land surface... with 27,878,400 sq feet per sq miles, we have:
1,603,008,000,000,000 sqft of surface area on earth.... which is 1,603,008 billion.
Guess what? We don't have enough space to sustain everyone if everyone want to have the type of lifestyle as we have in the U.S.
Better watch out! Their experiments might stop the Earth's spin and we'll lose our magnetic fields!!!