That said, there is a fringe of the scientific community that bears some of the blame for making this issue into the hot-potato that it is in my opinion. It is unfortunate, but there have always (well, at least since the 18th century if not sooner) been those on the fringe in science who embrace science as the antithesis of religion and go beyond what can be scientifically proven themselves in their efforts to vilify the religious sentiments of their peers. It's not surprising that some with strong religious sentiments would be alienated by such behavior, and might turn against scientific reasoning if they feel this abuse is representative of the scientific community as a whole.
We did not evolve from modern "monkeys and apes" but from a common ancestor, although perhaps monkeys and apes have more in common with those ancestors than we do. Is it so hard to believe that different branches of the evolutionary tree might have evolved at different rates?
Re:Cut and Paste?
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
1. position cursor on the first line you want to cut/copy 2. mx (create mark "x") 3. position cursor on the last line you want to cut/copy 4. y'x (yank from mark "x" to current)
or 4. d'x (delete from mark "x" to current)
Design Patterns are not mean to be "ccokie-cutter" solutions. They will not make a bad programmer produce good code.
A Flyweight class used to represent individual characters in a document (as suggested in GoF book) will look very different from one used to represent individual frames in a video clip (as implemented by me after reading GoF book.)
Design Patterns provide a framework for thinking and communicating about the design space for a particular problem but they are no substitute for rigorous thought, problem-solving skills, and good design principles. These you must bring to the table yourself.
More to the point, don't use inheritance when you mean composition. Inheritance models the relationship "IS A". Period.
If the sentence "A Foo is a Bar" doesn't make sense or isn't true, you should never write the code:
class Foo : Bar {... }
But this has nothing to do with Design Patterns; this is just OOP 101. Any C++/Java/C# developer who doesn't understand and practise this has fundamentally misunderstood the OO paradigm. Reading a book about GoF patterns at this point is probably just going to make matters worse.
I'm a release engineeer (one of several hats I wear) at a small software/managed services company and I have been finding RSS a great mechanism for sharing information internally within the organization. For example, each developer can subscribe to a personalized RSS feed containing his or her open bugs for a particular release. Or the last ten posts to the internal discussion forum. Or whatever. I haven't set up an internal RSS aggregator yet but, since just about everyone uses firefox, they can be easily accessed using firefox live bookmarks.
Thanks to a simple perl DB-to-XML framework and a few lines of XSLT, if I can write a SQL query that returns the columns 'title' and 'link', I get an RSS feed basically for free. Being able to expose database information as an RSS feed so easily really opens up a lot of possibilities.
You may be trying hard to suppress your innate knowledge that God exists, you'll meet him soon enough. Sorry you have to meet him in judgement rather than in welcoming you to eternal bliss.
You see how, when logic and reason fail, the judgement day rhetoric comes out?
I'm not trying hard at all. Darwinism is so simple, so elegant, and so obviously explains everything that believing it takes no effort at all.
Believing a creation myth invented thousands of years ago by primitives who didn't know any better? That requires a little more work.
Enojy your short, now pointless life.
You know what? I like to do this crazy little thing called "thinking for myself" and I seem to have been able to find purpose in my life without having it spoon-fed to me by an invisible man in the sky.
How is macroevolution any easier to believe? You've merely tranposed your faith of an eternality onto matter rather than onto a God.
It is easier for me to believe because of the weight of scientific evidence behind it. If I have "faith" in anything, it is that there is nothing in this universe that can't be explained by science, though much of it may still be beyond our current understanding. This "faith" in science, if you want to call it that, comes from my own experience. Nothing I have ever experienced or observed leads me to believe anything else.
What moral or ethical core can you point to for defining right and wrong if we're just animals?
I live by my own moral and ethical core, and, if asked, I would point you to yours. I don't believe in the notion of an absolute code of morality. Who would presume to define it?
Why can't I go rape any girl I want, kill people I don't like, steal stuff because I want it?
No reason you can't, but let's see how fast you get removed from the gene pool if you do. Do you really need to believe in some higher power in order to not do that? I feel sorry for you if that is the case.
Your belief doesn't give you any backing for your insistence on laws, government, justice.
Just for the record, I didn't insist on anything, although I do think those things are probably a good idea. We have them because we choose to as a society, and because "opting in" to such institutions gives you a better chance of survival than if you choose to try to live outside of them. Pure Darwinism at work.
So, if we really are animals, let's start acting like them, and eliminate all those fancy laws, customs, and practices we've been operating under for generations uncountable.
Why eliminate them when they help us survive as a species? We are no different fundamentally from the animals, except that we have evolved, for the most part, to live in civilized societies, to believe in law and order, and to be basically decent to one another. We have each evolved to have our own sense of right and wrong. Some of us have even evolved the need or ability to believe in a higher power.. how ironic, that some of us have evolved to not believe in evolution.
I believe that that is all there is.. that we are all just animals scraping out an existence on the surface of this planet. I try to take care of my family, to be decent to others, and to leave the world a little better than I found it, if I can, because I think that is the right way to live, not because some religion says I am supposed to. And I seem to have evolved the ability to sleep just fine with that.
But there's no recorded point where a species jumped from itself into another, new one.
There's no recorded point where an omnipotent supernatural being was observed creating anything but that apparently hasn't been an impediment to your believing that it happened.
Reasonable people, when confronted with the unknown, tend to gravitate toward the simplest explanation. For example, if I can't find my keys, i don't immediately assume that an invisible tortoise named Lester took them, I just figure I put them down somewhere.
Somehow macro-evolution seems a whole lot simpler and easier to believe in than an invisible being who can create the universe as we know it in six days.
I'll explain flagella could have evolved (I'll even spell it correctly) if you'll explain how an intelligent designer could have come up with the French.
Interesting how your "research" consists almost exclusively of links to one website.
It is amusing how these creationist wackos totally misunderstand the scientific method. They point to unanswered questions as evidence that the theory of evolution is flawed. They don't get that science is not about knowing all the answers, it is about building a model (aka theory) approximating reality and successively refining it by proving or disproving hypotheses experimentally. Proven hypotheses are incorporated into the model, disproven ones are thrown out, and the model improves.
The "theory" of evolution is built upon thousands of proven hypotheses, with none proven that discredit it. How many hypotheses behind Creation Science have been experimentally verified? We may never know *all* the answers, but no competing theory even approaches the credibility that the theory of evolution has.
Guys, chill out, will ya? Civilization will survive the use of a metaphor in a headline.
I'm a language purist and the first one to have a conniption when I see sloppy, imprecise, or redundant use of English: could care less, platform-agnostic, comprised of, one year anniversary.
The use of usurp in this context, while technically incorrect as several people have pointed out, just doesn't offend me in the same way as some of the more egregious offenses noted above. I think we can allow a little creative latitude for non-literal or metaphorical interpretation here. There are many other words in a similar vein that could just as easily have been used -- oust, supplant, unseat, dethrone -- and I don't think anyone would have blinked.
Besides, usurp, in its literal sense, isn't a word that comes up a whole lot in polite conversation these days. Its use in this instance, whether you think it is correct or not, sparked a debate and got a whole bunch of people to look it up in the dictionary. That, in my opinion, is not a bad thing.
My native tongue is English, and you should learn to read a dictionary before shooting your mouth off.
m-w.com gives "to take possession of without legal claim" as the translation of the Latin verb usurpare, not as the definition of the English verb usurp, which it defines as:
1 a : to seize and hold in possession by force or without right
b : to take or make use of without right 2 : to take the place of by or as if by force : SUPPLANT
Usurp is used perhaps semi-metaphorically but perfectly correctly in this case. Ever hear of "crushing the competition"? That doesn't mean literally crushing it.
If the Republicans and the Religious Right have their way, this is the only kind of research that scientists will be allowed to pursue. Forget about stem cells, AIDS research, evolution, alternative fuels, the environment; those will be all be off limits. The only science that will be allowed is the kind that helps giant corporations sell shite products to consumers.
HDV does not use a different standard.. nothing in the standard says you have to preserve every pixel when you record it. Even Sony HDCAM, the most common format used for professional 1080i HD production, only writes 1440 samples per line to the tape and then upsamples back to 1920 on playback.
I agree totally. If Enterprise hadn't already jumped the shark by then, that episode jumped a whole tankful. It was a barely disguised parable about AIDS. These guys wouldn't know an original idea if it smacked them in the face.
Then again, the only Star Trek series that I consider remotely watchable any more is TOS. OK, TNG had its moments too but everything after that has been hopelessly derivative. Let the franchise die with some dignity, please! It's been on life support too long already.
Slashdot Mirror
You can take classes in web development and then you'll know how to do web development.
Or you can finish your Computer Science degree and then you'll know how to think like a Computer Scientist.
You pick.
.. without escaping the HTML.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs101/syllabus.html
That's what I said.
Sigh. I wish people would stop saying that. It's "20th Anniversary." Anniversary MEANS YEARS.
That said, there is a fringe of the scientific community that bears some of the blame for making this issue into the hot-potato that it is in my opinion. It is unfortunate, but there have always (well, at least since the 18th century if not sooner) been those on the fringe in science who embrace science as the antithesis of religion and go beyond what can be scientifically proven themselves in their efforts to vilify the religious sentiments of their peers. It's not surprising that some with strong religious sentiments would be alienated by such behavior, and might turn against scientific reasoning if they feel this abuse is representative of the scientific community as a whole.
No doubt you can cite examples of this...?
We did not evolve from modern "monkeys and apes" but from a common ancestor, although perhaps monkeys and apes have more in common with those ancestors than we do. Is it so hard to believe that different branches of the evolutionary tree might have evolved at different rates?
1. position cursor on the first line you want to cut/copy
2. mx (create mark "x")
3. position cursor on the last line you want to cut/copy
4. y'x (yank from mark "x" to current)
or
4. d'x (delete from mark "x" to current)
x can be any letter from a to z
Believe it or not, you can be passionate, committed, yes, even workaholic about writing code without having an Adam's apple the size of Bulgaria.
Normal social and sexual relationships and writing good software are not mutually exclusive.
Design Patterns are not mean to be "ccokie-cutter" solutions. They will not make a bad programmer produce good code.
A Flyweight class used to represent individual characters in a document (as suggested in GoF book) will look very different from one used to represent individual frames in a video clip (as implemented by me after reading GoF book.)
Design Patterns provide a framework for thinking and communicating about the design space for a particular problem but they are no substitute for rigorous thought, problem-solving skills, and good design principles. These you must bring to the table yourself.
"Prefer composition to inheritance."
... }
More to the point, don't use inheritance when you mean composition. Inheritance models the relationship "IS A". Period.
If the sentence "A Foo is a Bar" doesn't make sense or isn't true, you should never write the code:
class Foo : Bar {
But this has nothing to do with Design Patterns; this is just OOP 101. Any C++/Java/C# developer who doesn't understand and practise this has fundamentally misunderstood the OO paradigm. Reading a book about GoF patterns at this point is probably just going to make matters worse.
I'm a release engineeer (one of several hats I wear) at a small software/managed services company and I have been finding RSS a great mechanism for sharing information internally within the organization. For example, each developer can subscribe to a personalized RSS feed containing his or her open bugs for a particular release. Or the last ten posts to the internal discussion forum. Or whatever. I haven't set up an internal RSS aggregator yet but, since just about everyone uses firefox, they can be easily accessed using firefox live bookmarks.
Thanks to a simple perl DB-to-XML framework and a few lines of XSLT, if I can write a SQL query that returns the columns 'title' and 'link', I get an RSS feed basically for free. Being able to expose database information as an RSS feed so easily really opens up a lot of possibilities.
Many try to counter that freedom of speech only applies to speaking about the government.
D =111986&SecID=2 1 3699&c=86
Whereas in the US, free speech no longer applies when you are speaking about the government -- unless you happen to agree with Bush...
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArI
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=
You may be trying hard to suppress your innate knowledge that God exists, you'll meet him soon enough. Sorry you have to meet him in judgement rather than in welcoming you to eternal bliss.
You see how, when logic and reason fail, the judgement day rhetoric comes out?
I'm not trying hard at all. Darwinism is so simple, so elegant, and so obviously explains everything that believing it takes no effort at all.
Believing a creation myth invented thousands of years ago by primitives who didn't know any better? That requires a little more work.
Enojy your short, now pointless life.
You know what? I like to do this crazy little thing called "thinking for myself" and I seem to have been able to find purpose in my life without having it spoon-fed to me by an invisible man in the sky.
How is macroevolution any easier to believe? You've merely tranposed your faith of an eternality onto matter rather than onto a God.
.. how ironic, that some of us have evolved to not believe in evolution.
.. that we are all just animals scraping out an existence on the surface of this planet. I try to take care of my family, to be decent to others, and to leave the world a little better than I found it, if I can, because I think that is the right way to live, not because some religion says I am supposed to. And I seem to have evolved the ability to sleep just fine with that.
It is easier for me to believe because of the weight of scientific evidence behind it. If I have "faith" in anything, it is that there is nothing in this universe that can't be explained by science, though much of it may still be beyond our current understanding. This "faith" in science, if you want to call it that, comes from my own experience. Nothing I have ever experienced or observed leads me to believe anything else.
What moral or ethical core can you point to for defining right and wrong if we're just animals?
I live by my own moral and ethical core, and, if asked, I would point you to yours. I don't believe in the notion of an absolute code of morality. Who would presume to define it?
Why can't I go rape any girl I want, kill people I don't like, steal stuff because I want it?
No reason you can't, but let's see how fast you get removed from the gene pool if you do. Do you really need to believe in some higher power in order to not do that? I feel sorry for you if that is the case.
Your belief doesn't give you any backing for your insistence on laws, government, justice.
Just for the record, I didn't insist on anything, although I do think those things are probably a good idea. We have them because we choose to as a society, and because "opting in" to such institutions gives you a better chance of survival than if you choose to try to live outside of them. Pure Darwinism at work.
So, if we really are animals, let's start acting like them, and eliminate all those fancy laws, customs, and practices we've been operating under for generations uncountable.
Why eliminate them when they help us survive as a species? We are no different fundamentally from the animals, except that we have evolved, for the most part, to live in civilized societies, to believe in law and order, and to be basically decent to one another. We have each evolved to have our own sense of right and wrong. Some of us have even evolved the need or ability to believe in a higher power
I believe that that is all there is
But there's no recorded point where a species jumped from itself into another, new one.
There's no recorded point where an omnipotent supernatural being was observed creating anything but that apparently hasn't been an impediment to your believing that it happened.
Reasonable people, when confronted with the unknown, tend to gravitate toward the simplest explanation. For example, if I can't find my keys, i don't immediately assume that an invisible tortoise named Lester took them, I just figure I put them down somewhere.
Somehow macro-evolution seems a whole lot simpler and easier to believe in than an invisible being who can create the universe as we know it in six days.
I'll explain flagella could have evolved (I'll even spell it correctly) if you'll explain how an intelligent designer could have come up with the French.
The defense rests.
Interesting how your "research" consists almost exclusively of links to one website.
It is amusing how these creationist wackos totally misunderstand the scientific method. They point to unanswered questions as evidence that the theory of evolution is flawed. They don't get that science is not about knowing all the answers, it is about building a model (aka theory) approximating reality and successively refining it by proving or disproving hypotheses experimentally. Proven hypotheses are incorporated into the model, disproven ones are thrown out, and the model improves.
The "theory" of evolution is built upon thousands of proven hypotheses, with none proven that discredit it. How many hypotheses behind Creation Science have been experimentally verified? We may never know *all* the answers, but no competing theory even approaches the credibility that the theory of evolution has.
Exactly. For any given field of 1080i, you only have 540 lines of information representing that particular instant in time.
Up-sampling those 540 lines to 720 is exactly the right thing to do!
Guys, chill out, will ya? Civilization will survive the use of a metaphor in a headline.
I'm a language purist and the first one to have a conniption when I see sloppy, imprecise, or redundant use of English: could care less, platform-agnostic, comprised of, one year anniversary.
The use of usurp in this context, while technically incorrect as several people have pointed out, just doesn't offend me in the same way as some of the more egregious offenses noted above. I think we can allow a little creative latitude for non-literal or metaphorical interpretation here. There are many other words in a similar vein that could just as easily have been used -- oust, supplant, unseat, dethrone -- and I don't think anyone would have blinked.
Besides, usurp, in its literal sense, isn't a word that comes up a whole lot in polite conversation these days. Its use in this instance, whether you think it is correct or not, sparked a debate and got a whole bunch of people to look it up in the dictionary. That, in my opinion, is not a bad thing.
My native tongue is English, and you should learn to read a dictionary before shooting your mouth off.
m-w.com gives "to take possession of without legal claim" as the translation of the Latin verb usurpare, not as the definition of the English verb usurp, which it defines as:
1 a : to seize and hold in possession by force or without right
b : to take or make use of without right
2 : to take the place of by or as if by force : SUPPLANT
Usurp is used perhaps semi-metaphorically but perfectly correctly in this case. Ever hear of "crushing the competition"? That doesn't mean literally crushing it.
Learn MY language!
If the Republicans and the Religious Right have their way, this is the only kind of research that scientists will be allowed to pursue. Forget about stem cells, AIDS research, evolution, alternative fuels, the environment; those will be all be off limits. The only science that will be allowed is the kind that helps giant corporations sell shite products to consumers.
HDV does not use a different standard .. nothing in the standard says you have to preserve every pixel when you record it. Even Sony HDCAM, the most common format used for professional 1080i HD production, only writes 1440 samples per line to the tape and then upsamples back to 1920 on playback.
FYI, 704xsomething is not HD. HD means 1280x720 or 1920x1080. The other Table 3 formats are considered standard def (SD), not HD.
I agree totally. If Enterprise hadn't already jumped the shark by then, that episode jumped a whole tankful. It was a barely disguised parable about AIDS. These guys wouldn't know an original idea if it smacked them in the face.
Then again, the only Star Trek series that I consider remotely watchable any more is TOS. OK, TNG had its moments too but everything after that has been hopelessly derivative. Let the franchise die with some dignity, please! It's been on life support too long already.
2. Montana or alaska being worth almost twice a california vote? I'm going to leave that alone.
Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and think for 5 seconds.
244935 Alaskans went to the polls to determine the fate of 3 electoral votes (81645 popular votes/electoral vote).
9944625 Californians went to the polls to determine the fate of 55 electoral votes (180811 popular votes/electoral vote).
Now what is it you don't understand about Alaskan votes being worth twice as much as Californian votes?