Speaking as a (somewhat fundamentalist) Christian, your statement makes me sad, but I can't disagree with it. (and being in the north doesn't decrease it's accuracy much, unfortunately.) I think that my religion offers beauty and hope to the world, but I don't see how any significant good can possibly come from a subculture that willfully dismisses objectivity. A scary situation indeed.
Perhaps I totally misunderstood in biology class, but I was led to believe that standard, non-mutating genetic replication is not rearranging of the four bases, it's rearranging of strings of bases, aka genes. Genes are the "information". These foxes cannot evolve into a cow without mutations, because it does not have the appropriate genes in it's gene pool. If I am mistaken, and it is possible to rearrange DNA in arbitrarily sized pieces through breeding, then my whole previous post is pointless. (except for the part about wanting a pet fox.)
This may be evolution, but it is a type of evolution that even intelligent design people would agree occurs. The idea that comes into my head when I hear the word "evolution" is a process by which life as we know it developed from very, very simple organisms.
The process mentioned in the article is not this. No new genetic information has been added to the gene pool. All that has occurred is that existing genes have been rearranged. You cannot continue the same process and get a cow or an elephant. The way mutations are worked into the gene pool seems, to me, to be the main interesting thing about evolution, and this article has nothing to do that.
No, that seems reasonable. I just have a hard time believing that this artificial meat is going to get to the point where it tastes better than a good vegetarian meal. I'm not a vegetarian, but it does seem to me that meat is frequently added to meals by habit, even though it often has little to bring to the flavors and nutrients of the rest of the meal. This artificial meat seems like it would only worsen that problem.
I'm not sure why this product is even necessary. Is a vegetarian diet really that awful that we need to market meat that doesn't come from animals to supplement it? If eating the flesh of previously living creatures is disgusting to you, why is fake meat any more appetizing? It's easy to say that it's takes less resources to produce than real meat, but how does it compare to the vegetable foods that we already have, and that are already quite delicious? Furthermore, from a culinary standpoint, it doesn't seem likely that it will ever match meat from a real animal.
By that logic, negative numbers and fractions are cop-outs. Fractions came about because people defined away the limitations on division, even though it doesn't make sense in some cases (1 1/4 cows doesn't make sense.) Negative numbers came about because we have defined away the limitations on subtraction (-3 cows makes even less sense than 1 1/4 cows.)
I don't know what would make it ok to define away those limitations, but not ok to define away the limitations on roots. Just like negative numbers and fractions, complex numbers are full of meaning in some situations, and completely meaningless in others.
Actually, these newly released manuscripts shed no new light on the subject. I don't think it has ever been disputed that the contents of the New Testament were canonized "by committee." Furthermore, it is generally assumed that "fallible men" were not only involved in the canonization, but also the actual writing. These things have never been contradictory to orthodox Christian belief.
I think of Wikipedia more as a textbook supplement than a textbook replacement. Even in topics that I study outside of a classroom, I may go to Wikipedia first, but then I invariably go to the library or the bookstore in order to continue learning.
I'd like to think that someday I could start at Wikipedia, and then continue my study by downloading a book from Connexions.
I'm not sure that this has failed yet. Wikipedia doesn't really claim to be a textbook replacement. Projects like Connexions seem to be the place where open source textbooks will succeed or fail.
That's all great, and EVE seems like the sort of game I could really enjoy. But the point of the linked blog was that the redeeming factor of the travelling in EVE, is that it is supposed to be enjoyable. Not merely a time-for-gold trade (like my experience with SWG.) Making in-game profit is only fun if the game makes the process engaging.
That's a good blog entry, but the only reason to keep the travel time is if the traveling actually contributes to the enjoyment of the game.
I would think a well designed game should have a large number of other activities to make you a profit, were it determined that instant travel would improve the average gamers experience.
Exactly. I RTFA and I am still not seeing a huge overlap between the two services, even with the growth they are planning. There's just doesn't appear to be much conflict here.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking as a (somewhat fundamentalist) Christian, your statement makes me sad, but I can't disagree with it. (and being in the north doesn't decrease it's accuracy much, unfortunately.) I think that my religion offers beauty and hope to the world, but I don't see how any significant good can possibly come from a subculture that willfully dismisses objectivity. A scary situation indeed.
Perhaps I totally misunderstood in biology class, but I was led to believe that standard, non-mutating genetic replication is not rearranging of the four bases, it's rearranging of strings of bases, aka genes. Genes are the "information". These foxes cannot evolve into a cow without mutations, because it does not have the appropriate genes in it's gene pool. If I am mistaken, and it is possible to rearrange DNA in arbitrarily sized pieces through breeding, then my whole previous post is pointless. (except for the part about wanting a pet fox.)
This may be evolution, but it is a type of evolution that even intelligent design people would agree occurs. The idea that comes into my head when I hear the word "evolution" is a process by which life as we know it developed from very, very simple organisms.
The process mentioned in the article is not this. No new genetic information has been added to the gene pool. All that has occurred is that existing genes have been rearranged. You cannot continue the same process and get a cow or an elephant. The way mutations are worked into the gene pool seems, to me, to be the main interesting thing about evolution, and this article has nothing to do that.
Also, now I really want a pet fox.
No, that seems reasonable. I just have a hard time believing that this artificial meat is going to get to the point where it tastes better than a good vegetarian meal. I'm not a vegetarian, but it does seem to me that meat is frequently added to meals by habit, even though it often has little to bring to the flavors and nutrients of the rest of the meal. This artificial meat seems like it would only worsen that problem.
I'm not sure why this product is even necessary. Is a vegetarian diet really that awful that we need to market meat that doesn't come from animals to supplement it? If eating the flesh of previously living creatures is disgusting to you, why is fake meat any more appetizing? It's easy to say that it's takes less resources to produce than real meat, but how does it compare to the vegetable foods that we already have, and that are already quite delicious? Furthermore, from a culinary standpoint, it doesn't seem likely that it will ever match meat from a real animal.
By that logic, negative numbers and fractions are cop-outs. Fractions came about because people defined away the limitations on division, even though it doesn't make sense in some cases (1 1/4 cows doesn't make sense.) Negative numbers came about because we have defined away the limitations on subtraction (-3 cows makes even less sense than 1 1/4 cows.)
I don't know what would make it ok to define away those limitations, but not ok to define away the limitations on roots. Just like negative numbers and fractions, complex numbers are full of meaning in some situations, and completely meaningless in others.
Actually, these newly released manuscripts shed no new light on the subject. I don't think it has ever been disputed that the contents of the New Testament were canonized "by committee." Furthermore, it is generally assumed that "fallible men" were not only involved in the canonization, but also the actual writing. These things have never been contradictory to orthodox Christian belief.
I think of Wikipedia more as a textbook supplement than a textbook replacement. Even in topics that I study outside of a classroom, I may go to Wikipedia first, but then I invariably go to the library or the bookstore in order to continue learning.
I'd like to think that someday I could start at Wikipedia, and then continue my study by downloading a book from Connexions.
I'm not sure that this has failed yet. Wikipedia doesn't really claim to be a textbook replacement. Projects like Connexions seem to be the place where open source textbooks will succeed or fail.
That's all great, and EVE seems like the sort of game I could really enjoy. But the point of the linked blog was that the redeeming factor of the travelling in EVE, is that it is supposed to be enjoyable. Not merely a time-for-gold trade (like my experience with SWG.) Making in-game profit is only fun if the game makes the process engaging.
That's a good blog entry, but the only reason to keep the travel time is if the traveling actually contributes to the enjoyment of the game. I would think a well designed game should have a large number of other activities to make you a profit, were it determined that instant travel would improve the average gamers experience.
Exactly. I RTFA and I am still not seeing a huge overlap between the two services, even with the growth they are planning. There's just doesn't appear to be much conflict here.