Hang on a second. The resistance does emerge or arise. It is the microbe population that evolves. No, it does not. It changes. It becomes more resistant to some antibiotic(s). But it does not "evolve". It may not become better; as a matter of fact, it may become worse. (An example are the Ebola-like killing viruses: if they were less fatal, they would be more effective -- because they would give more time for the carriers to spread them.)
Now, there are two problems here:
1. Religion guys loathe the "evolution" word because it reminds them of Darwin. 2. Real, hardcore, scientific guys will dislike the word because it implies that every changed population is somewhat better than the previous (unchanged) generations, which is absolutely not true.
The writer of TFA (no, I'm not new here, but yes, I've RTFA) is worried about problem #1, but (s)he is forgetting about problem #2: "evolve", "fitness", and even "adapt" are not real relevant terms, at least not all the time: they are used to describe (maybe) a final result (that the bacterial culture is, after all, evolved-more_fit-adapted WRT the specific in casu antimicrobial agent(s)) but not the process (survival rates + reproductive advantage)
Or do you want me to shell out US$ 2.5 to you? I will, if it's easy... but I must say it would be very cheap of you (especially considering that your answer will be googlable if you post it here, and you will save the next guy US$ 5).
mine are the kubuntu-edgy packages at kubuntu.org/packages... it might be a DPI/font-related problem (the smiley face is larger than the reference rendering and it has a red streak under the second line)
After one version of a browser passes ACID2, regressions can make it not pass again after a while (konqueror/kde3.5.6 does not pass ACID2 -- at least on my machine)
AFAICT, at least 1/4 of/.ers are like me -- 30-40yo, married, with kids. There are few women, it's true, but the male population is not _all_ pimple-faced college kids anymore.
is not a bad thing. If you are using a remote e-mail solution like Google's, you really DON'T want your e-mail passwords floating around the Net (you know, there are 20-30 hops between my machine and the nearest google server... lots of room for people to get my passwords, if they want to).
I don't know about you but I can say more in 30 seconds than I can write in 160 characters!! I somehow doubt that. But I'll try to sample it for you -- these are examples of voice calls/text messages I exchange every once in a while:
00:00 <wife> hello 00:02 <me> hi 00:04 <wife> everythink ok at the office? 00:08 <me> yeah, alright 00:10 <wife> would you please bring home some stuff from the market? I need two packages of diapers, two baguettes, ham, cheese, lettuce, and half a kilo of grinded meat. 00:22 <me> diapers, bread, ham, cheese, lettuce, meat; six things, ok... 00:32 <wife> thanks, love you 00:34 <me> mee to, bye 00:36 <wife> bye 00:37 END CALL
If no information can be exported from within the event horizon, is this a question of physics or philosophy? IANAPhysicist, but AFAIK quantum-entangled created on the vicinity of the event horizon separate, opening the possibility that non-local connections exist between a particle within the event horizon and its pair, outside the event horizon. Somebody told me other day that quantum-entangled pairs are not, in principle, capable of communicating with each other, but...
lots of moderators mod funny comments as insightful, because if the same comment is moderated as overrated, the poster's karma is decremented; +1 funny does not increment the poster's karma, but +1 insightful does...
We used to have a lot of topless beaches here in Brasil. I'm headed to Maceió today (my home is in a mountain city, far from the shore), and I'll tell you if there we have some when I come back....:-) But seriously, Namibian Himba people and South Ethiopian are specifically cited as having traditionally barechested woman in the wikipedia page about topless.
I tell my kid that he does not have authorization to get physical with other boys in school.
BUT, I also tell him that if anyone bullies him, he tells me and I will log a complaint with the school administration, and I will warn the school, the bully, the bully's parents that I have authorized my kid to get physical to defend himself. And that an assault will be police matter next time.
1. never do anything you think is embarassing. 2. never bully anyone because punishment at home will be harsh. 3. talk to me immediately if anyone bullies you. 3a. I will go with a formal complaint to the school administration; 3b. I will authorize you to use full force against the bully, and I will communicate both the school administration and the bully's parents that I have done so -- before you have to. 3c. By full force I mean hit him with a rock or in the nuts.
I was the smallest boy in class, and I have learned that every beggining of the school year it was enough for me to (a) locate the bully, (b) make him want to bully me and (c) give him a nice kick in the balls and (d, ???... profit!!!) no one else would look at me wrong again for the whole year. Bullies are, without exception, sissies that would kneel before you if you bully them.
And to firmly believe in the non-existence of any Deity without any evidence whatsoever that it's true is a faith statement, instead of simply a philosophical statement.
But that's just a strawman since practically nobody actually believes anything of the sort. How come? many atheist people in this thread said exactly that they firmly believe in the non-existence of any Deity. They also did not state any evidence that leads them logically to believe in the non-existence of some Deity. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It's also begging the question since you're assuming that there is a god, or at least that belief in one has merit which is what you're trying to demonstrate. No, if you paid attention you would see that I am assuming that believe that there is a Deity has as much merit (none, IMHO) as the believe that there is not any Deity.
Given that there is no evidence for a god, then not buying into it is just basic common ense nad the default position. So, given that there is no evidence of superstrings and branes, then not buying into it is just basic common sense and the default position, also?
They are in no way symmetrical positions. One is blind faith in an entirely unsupportable position, while the other is simply not buying into an entirely unsupportable position. Not really, because most atheists (in this whole thread, for instance) affirm categorically that Deities, and other "supernatural" fenomena do not exist. And many theists had experiences that they qualify as real and that make, for them, unreasonable and unsupportable that God does not exist.
I don't believe in Zeus either. Do you? Why or why not? If not, please explain exactly how you mananged to choose between two identically supported views. It certainly isn't reason though. Rationally every god ever invented is identically likely. I don't know anything about the existence or non-existence of Zeus. I think my position is based on pure logic. And so, logically, one should not believe on the existence or the non-existence of YHVH or $DEITY also.
Actually, for the time being, I am the "foot on the boot"; this makes easier for me to fight things that I think are wrong without ending with the face on the pavement... but no guarantees are made, nevertheless.:-)
Who gave the RIAA the right to say that I can't watch some movie that I legally acquired, in my computer, because I run Linux?
The Government of The United States of America. You gotta problem with that? - GWB Nope. Mostly because I don't live there. But if my government tried the same thing, I would fight against it.
Who gave the button-makers the right to stop people from making buttons out of fabric? Who gave the RIAA the right to say that I can't watch some movie that I legally acquired, in my computer, because I run Linux?
You might also say that the mandatory DRM in ipods hurts bands who want their music shared by keeping it from being shared by the uninitiated. s/mandatory DRM in ipods/mandatory DRM in iTMS/
Sorry, but this analogy does not hold up. The MPAA is not stopping anyone from making original movies. No, the analogy is perfect.
The *AA wants, for instance, to stop everyone from develop software that could be used to backup dvds. They are, for instance, stopping TiVo from developing new features to their set-top box. Those two are examples of the first item, "Requiring permission to innovate", and was illustrated in the history told by the guild requiring that anyone that wants to weave their fabrics differently should have the guild's permission.
They are requesting powers of police to watch what _I_ have in my HD, and what _I_ talk in my private net connections. This is a clear example of the second item, "Feeling entitled to search others' property".
More, they want powers to emprision or fine whoever they _think_ have their bits in the HD. This is an example of the third item; in the case on the FTA, the button-makers guild wanted to search everyone's homes, to find if they had any clothes with fabric-made buttons (that were not made by guilded members) and they wanted to imprision and fine whoever had those.
Every one of those items is telling the story of how the guilds wanted to protect their business model, regardless of the rights and protections that the citizens should have, including the right to the privacy of their own homes. The *AAs want to protect their business model, regardless of the rights and protections that the citizens should have, including the right to the privacy of their own homes and their private communications. So, as I told, the analogy is complete and perfect.
Don't just read the FTA, but the two linked-by pages too...
in the Berne convention, copyrighted works are those "novel creations of the mind". So, if I come with exactly the same expression as you, even if I didn't know your work, the first to come up with it is the copyright owner.
(I had to make a monthly visit to the local jailhouse while I worked in the DA's office, to make sure the inmates were being treated humanly) I will tell you that the only ethical way of dealing -- for instance -- with convicts is to choose to believe that every human being is basically good and decent. If you don't, you de-humanize them and you start treating them like animals. I have seen lots of people working for the recovery of convicts, and they all believe that convicts are good and decent people if you give them the opportunities, a strong guidance, and a clean and simple set of rules. Other people just beat them up and pile them in their cells.
First things first: (A) seems like an axiom to me; I would like you to demonstrate or elaborate that unconceivable entities cannot exist, if possible.
But, furthermore, even if A is a truism, A+B just would prove that if there is a Deity, it's not supernatural -- it's part of the Nature. IOW: A+B = (so-called Supernatural entities/events) is contained in (Natural entities/events). Now, substitute "Nature" for "Next-level Deity" and you have a theism again. Remember that some theisms consider that our Universe is contained in the Deity -- part of it.
You are right that "philosopy is not faith", but faith, OTOH, is a philosophical stance. And to firmly believe in the non-existence of any Deity without any evidence whatsoever that it's true is a faith statement, instead of simply a philosophical statement. Now, not believing in the existence of a Deity (nor believing its non-existence) is a simple philosophical statement, because the subject is not believing something despite the absence of evidence (which would be the definition of "faith").
You sending me a message after your death is unlikely to occur. The case is actually worse: if actually I send you a message after my death, will you believe that it happened? Most atheists would not believe it (seeking another, albeit wrong, explanation for the event). Those who would not believe nor refuse to believe it (pending other, more conclusive evidence) are not atheists by definition (they are actually Agnostics).
And, redundantly, most atheists -- or better, most or all of the vocal and active atheists -- are really involved emotionally with atheism just as theists are involved in their respective theisms. I know quite a dozen agnostic people (and my anedoctal sample may very well be statistically irrelevant), and they are not really vocal nor active -- they say they have no position to be vocal about. They have no emotional involvement with their position, that for them is just a position of logic: "I don't have any evidence, so I don't know". They don't try to impose their position to atheist nor to theist people (after all, one of those oughta be right).
Slashdot Mirror
The resistance does emerge or arise.
It is the microbe population that evolves. No, it does not.
It changes.
It becomes more resistant to some antibiotic(s).
But it does not "evolve". It may not become better; as a matter of fact, it may become worse. (An example are the Ebola-like killing viruses: if they were less fatal, they would be more effective -- because they would give more time for the carriers to spread them.)
Now, there are two problems here:
1. Religion guys loathe the "evolution" word because it reminds them of Darwin.
2. Real, hardcore, scientific guys will dislike the word because it implies that every changed population is somewhat better than the previous (unchanged) generations, which is absolutely not true.
The writer of TFA (no, I'm not new here, but yes, I've RTFA) is worried about problem #1, but (s)he is forgetting about problem #2: "evolve", "fitness", and even "adapt" are not real relevant terms, at least not all the time: they are used to describe (maybe) a final result (that the bacterial culture is, after all, evolved-more_fit-adapted WRT the specific in casu antimicrobial agent(s)) but not the process (survival rates + reproductive advantage)
my R$ 0,02 -- HTH
Wikipedia link /. the first was "in California you can always find a party; in Soviet Russia, the Party can always find YOU!"
AFAICT, in
Or do you want me to shell out US$ 2.5 to you? I will, if it's easy... but I must say it would be very cheap of you (especially considering that your answer will be googlable if you post it here, and you will save the next guy US$ 5).
mine are the kubuntu-edgy packages at kubuntu.org/packages ... it might be a DPI/font-related problem (the smiley face is larger than the reference rendering and it has a red streak under the second line)
After one version of a browser passes ACID2, regressions can make it not pass again after a while (konqueror/kde3.5.6 does not pass ACID2 -- at least on my machine)
AFAICT, at least 1/4 of /.ers are like me -- 30-40yo, married, with kids. There are few women, it's true, but the male population is not _all_ pimple-faced college kids anymore.
is not a bad thing. If you are using a remote e-mail solution like Google's, you really DON'T want your e-mail passwords floating around the Net (you know, there are 20-30 hops between my machine and the nearest google server... lots of room for people to get my passwords, if they want to).
lots of moderators mod funny comments as insightful, because if the same comment is moderated as overrated, the poster's karma is decremented; +1 funny does not increment the poster's karma, but +1 insightful does...
We used to have a lot of topless beaches here in Brasil. I'm headed to Maceió today (my home is in a mountain city, far from the shore), and I'll tell you if there we have some when I come back.... :-)
But seriously, Namibian Himba people and South Ethiopian are specifically cited as having traditionally barechested woman in the wikipedia page about topless.
I tell my kid that he does not have authorization to get physical with other boys in school.
BUT, I also tell him that if anyone bullies him, he tells me and I will log a complaint with the school administration, and I will warn the school, the bully, the bully's parents that I have authorized my kid to get physical to defend himself. And that an assault will be police matter next time.
(about bullying)
1. never do anything you think is embarassing.
2. never bully anyone because punishment at home will be harsh.
3. talk to me immediately if anyone bullies you.
3a. I will go with a formal complaint to the school administration;
3b. I will authorize you to use full force against the bully, and I will communicate both the school administration and the bully's parents that I have done so -- before you have to.
3c. By full force I mean hit him with a rock or in the nuts.
I was the smallest boy in class, and I have learned that every beggining of the school year it was enough for me to (a) locate the bully, (b) make him want to bully me and (c) give him a nice kick in the balls and (d, ??? ... profit!!!) no one else would look at me wrong again for the whole year. Bullies are, without exception, sissies that would kneel before you if you bully them.
But that's just a strawman since practically nobody actually believes anything of the sort. How come? many atheist people in this thread said exactly that they firmly believe in the non-existence of any Deity. They also did not state any evidence that leads them logically to believe in the non-existence of some Deity. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's also begging the question since you're assuming that there is a god, or at least that belief in one has merit which is what you're trying to demonstrate. No, if you paid attention you would see that I am assuming that believe that there is a Deity has as much merit (none, IMHO) as the believe that there is not any Deity. Given that there is no evidence for a god, then not buying into it is just basic common ense nad the default position. So, given that there is no evidence of superstrings and branes, then not buying into it is just basic common sense and the default position, also? They are in no way symmetrical positions.
One is blind faith in an entirely unsupportable position, while the other is simply not buying into an entirely unsupportable position. Not really, because most atheists (in this whole thread, for instance) affirm categorically that Deities, and other "supernatural" fenomena do not exist. And many theists had experiences that they qualify as real and that make, for them, unreasonable and unsupportable that God does not exist. I don't believe in Zeus either. Do you? Why or why not?
If not, please explain exactly how you mananged to choose between two identically supported views.
It certainly isn't reason though. Rationally every god ever invented is identically likely. I don't know anything about the existence or non-existence of Zeus. I think my position is based on pure logic. And so, logically, one should not believe on the existence or the non-existence of YHVH or $DEITY also.
Actually, for the time being, I am the "foot on the boot"; this makes easier for me to fight things that I think are wrong without ending with the face on the pavement... but no guarantees are made, nevertheless. :-)
The Government of The United States of America. You gotta problem with that? - GWB Nope. Mostly because I don't live there. But if my government tried the same thing, I would fight against it.
Who gave the button-makers the right to stop people from making buttons out of fabric?
Who gave the RIAA the right to say that I can't watch some movie that I legally acquired, in my computer, because I run Linux?
the DRM is not mandatory in iPods.
The *AA wants, for instance, to stop everyone from develop software that could be used to backup dvds. They are, for instance, stopping TiVo from developing new features to their set-top box. Those two are examples of the first item, "Requiring permission to innovate", and was illustrated in the history told by the guild requiring that anyone that wants to weave their fabrics differently should have the guild's permission.
They are requesting powers of police to watch what _I_ have in my HD, and what _I_ talk in my private net connections. This is a clear example of the second item, "Feeling entitled to search others' property".
More, they want powers to emprision or fine whoever they _think_ have their bits in the HD. This is an example of the third item; in the case on the FTA, the button-makers guild wanted to search everyone's homes, to find if they had any clothes with fabric-made buttons (that were not made by guilded members) and they wanted to imprision and fine whoever had those.
Every one of those items is telling the story of how the guilds wanted to protect their business model, regardless of the rights and protections that the citizens should have, including the right to the privacy of their own homes. The *AAs want to protect their business model, regardless of the rights and protections that the citizens should have, including the right to the privacy of their own homes and their private communications. So, as I told, the analogy is complete and perfect.
Don't just read the FTA, but the two linked-by pages too...
in the Berne convention, copyrighted works are those "novel creations of the mind". So, if I come with exactly the same expression as you, even if I didn't know your work, the first to come up with it is the copyright owner.
(I had to make a monthly visit to the local jailhouse while I worked in the DA's office, to make sure the inmates were being treated humanly) I will tell you that the only ethical way of dealing -- for instance -- with convicts is to choose to believe that every human being is basically good and decent. If you don't, you de-humanize them and you start treating them like animals. I have seen lots of people working for the recovery of convicts, and they all believe that convicts are good and decent people if you give them the opportunities, a strong guidance, and a clean and simple set of rules. Other people just beat them up and pile them in their cells.
First things first: (A) seems like an axiom to me; I would like you to demonstrate or elaborate that unconceivable entities cannot exist, if possible.
But, furthermore, even if A is a truism, A+B just would prove that if there is a Deity, it's not supernatural -- it's part of the Nature. IOW: A+B = (so-called Supernatural entities/events) is contained in (Natural entities/events). Now, substitute "Nature" for "Next-level Deity" and you have a theism again. Remember that some theisms consider that our Universe is contained in the Deity -- part of it.
You are right that "philosopy is not faith", but faith, OTOH, is a philosophical stance. And to firmly believe in the non-existence of any Deity without any evidence whatsoever that it's true is a faith statement, instead of simply a philosophical statement. Now, not believing in the existence of a Deity (nor believing its non-existence) is a simple philosophical statement, because the subject is not believing something despite the absence of evidence (which would be the definition of "faith").
Most atheists would not believe it (seeking another, albeit wrong, explanation for the event).
Those who would not believe nor refuse to believe it (pending other, more conclusive evidence) are not atheists by definition (they are actually Agnostics).
And, redundantly, most atheists -- or better, most or all of the vocal and active atheists -- are really involved emotionally with atheism just as theists are involved in their respective theisms. I know quite a dozen agnostic people (and my anedoctal sample may very well be statistically irrelevant), and they are not really vocal nor active -- they say they have no position to be vocal about. They have no emotional involvement with their position, that for them is just a position of logic: "I don't have any evidence, so I don't know". They don't try to impose their position to atheist nor to theist people (after all, one of those oughta be right).