Please reconsider this comment. Of course sites and topics are chosen on the ground. There are thousands of scientists on the ground, while only a very few people are in space.
You send eyeballs and hands. If you can imagine some kind of observation or critical judgment that could only be made by a highly trained scientist actually in space, then I will certainly reconsider my comment. If the observations could just as easily be made by a highly trained technician, then no, you do not blast people into space so they can choose whatever they want to study on the spot. You blast them into space so they can do what the scientists want them to do.
So, what you're essentially saying is that robots and computers are better explorers than men with brains?
If you think that brains are the reason to send people into space, then you have a basic misunderstanding of astronauts, robots, and our space program in general. Astronauts do not innovate or come up with new solutions to problems while in space. They train meticulously on the ground so that they know what to do in all cases. This is the easy thing for robots to do better than astronauts. Either procedure works, or someone on the ground figures it out.
Humans are better than robots at many things. The "figuring out novel solutions" thing can be done while staying in Houston. The "running across rough terrain and climbing" thing is really damn hard for robots. We are sometimes better at noticing something unexpected. We are way better at manipulating objects for general purposes. Those are the reasons we should send astronauts into space.
I hope they don't really mean the CEV will have a crew of 4-6. It should have a crew of 0-6. That way we could have unmanned missions to the ISS, which would return a certain amount of sanity to everything. Dunno what parts of the design require humans to operate, but those parts are dumb, I guarantee it. What if something impairs the people? Don't you want the vehicle to come back home anyway?
Given AOL/Netscape's prime role in Mozilla development, I'd suggest this might be a nice plan to slow down the opposition, too. Yes, the Moz Foundation is independent, but the last time I checked, many of the dedicated coders are still AOL employees.
That's probably more of a side benefit, but yeah. Fortunately Google has already hired at least two high profile coders that work on Moz Foundation projects. Maybe they and IBM can pick up the slack. They, unlike AOL and much of Microsoft, have productive and interesting development going on.
It might turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to Firefox, even if MSNBCAOL tries to send all the Moz coders to other projects. They'll just whisper to their former coworkers over at Google...
Some of the problems with the legal system are *solved* by lawsuits. If you disaprove of lawsuits in general, then you don't understand our legal system.
Parent is not insightful or interesting. Slashdot is full of this crap. Whenever we hear "Scumbag backstabs littleguy; littleguy sues for violation of contract", someone here says, "While I'm all for littleguy, suing is never the answer." It's exactly the fucking answer. Yes, I know that's a different misunderstanding than this one. Still.
Makes me weep for all those poor lawyers out there.
It's hard to take arbitrary code and decide which parts can be run on opposite ends of a network cable.
Sure, you could make a clustering application that would run arbitrary x86 code on separate machines, but it would be many orders of magnitude slower than just running the code on one big Xeon.
Hell, it's hard enough to take a single thread and spread work across multiple execution units in the CPU for out-of-order execution, and too hard to do it across multiple CPUs in a single box. Why would it be possible across a network cable? Have I completely misunderstood the question?
They use statistical analysis based on English words to match sounds to letters. Once they've done that, there are still keys that are indistinguishable by audio. So the awesome part is that they don't need a training text, but it's way more useful for bugging communications than for stealing passwords.
The FBI almost never has to bother brute-forcing encryption. They just bug your keyboard. Now they don't necessarily need to put a device physically inside your keyboard.
The consequence is that they could no longer do business with the 60 million people in France. Dunno if the EU has rules giving further teeth to that kind of regulation if they do business in Europe at large.
If they can't make money selling computers to those 60 million people (and employing some of them), then they should leave. Is that your whole point?
Whatever, dude. I don't see what that has to do with my point. No one is talking about a right to be heard. Free speech rights are being shrunk to fit.
or 2004 DNC (boston) where protestors were segregated to "free speech zones" locked behind a fence. under a freeway ramp. down the street from the convention center.
Ok, apparently that bore mentioning because quite a few people were uninformed. However, I hope you aren't using that as evidence that the limitations imposed by either the DNC or the RNC were acceptable.
Free speech has never meant that you have a right to be heard. The only people who would argue for that are telemarketers. Do you also think that coke employees should be able to muscle their way into paid pepsi ads?
Naw, dog. No one said that. The limitations being imposed here and at the DNC and RNC conventions were all excessive. There is no practical reason that the National Guard should have prevented journalists from viewing the bodies at the NOLA convention center. There was no reason to detain the guy who cursed out Dick Cheney. None of this is a huge deal, but it's not good either. If Mubarak were as organized as our politicians, he wouldn't *need* to bust heads. Doesn't that concern you?
They were speaking a different language I didn't recognize at ALL.
Anyone who's been to the area care to elaborate? (they knew english well, too)
Uh, that would validate their story entirely. Some people from Louisiana speak French creole. It sounds like... sortof hillbilly French. French spoken with zero French accent. Dunno where you might find recordings. And no, I've never been to the area. Just saw that one James Bond movie...
I had a debate about this once from a professional photographer (a horse photographer, in fact), and she went on and on about how prints are the only way she makes any money, cameras are expensive, etc, etc. Boo freakin' hoo. The rights still shouldn't belong to her if it's MY money paying the tab.
This is just about money, and not screwed up legality. If she needs the money that she makes on prints but you want copyrights and originals, then we have two options:
Keep the current legal system, and you pay an extra $large for her to give you the copyrights
Change the legal system so that you own contracted work, and she'll only show up if you promise an extra $large.
There's no way for your tab to stay the same size and still employ your favorite horse photographer without letter her keep copyright. I don't see why either one is particularly unjust.
I was just trying to restate Behe's argument. Given the functionality of an eyeball or blood clotting, it's clear that there must have been intermediate steps that provided some advantage. I will grant him that. It is too unlikely that the huge numbers of mutations that created the first 40 proteins involved in blood clotting survived without cause, and the 41st protein was the result of the first mutation to provide any advantage.
The only requiremnt is that the coinciding pieces must exist long engough for them to coincide to have their combined properties fully realized and passed on, advantagously.
Yeah. Exactly. Everyone agrees that that is too unlikely in the cases that Behe looks at. There must have been beneficial intermediate states in order for evolution to make any sense at all. Same thing for the Iris and the bee. Old, old argument.
Before we move on, I hope you now agree that Darwinian evolution is falsifiable.
From the link you provided: "the application of a test that could demonstrate that an idea is false." That is what I said falsifiable means.
Right. That is sufficient to show that something is falsifiable, but it's simpler than that. From your wiki link:
For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible in principle to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation has not been made.
Anyway. I think we're on the same page about falsifiability.
You don't mean that. Anyone can show that you can produce a mousetrap, for example, from simpler parts.
Yes I do mean that. Who has stated that a mouse trap is irreducibly complex?
Michael Behe invented the term "Irreducible complexity" and his primary example of irreducible complexity is the mousetrap. No one (except maybe you) has ever made the point that it is impossible to construct something that is irreducibly complex from smaller parts.
"A good example of such a system is a mechanical mousetrap.... The mousetrap depends critically on the presence of all five it its components; if there were no spring, the mouse would not be pinned to the base; if there were no platform, the other pieces would fall apart; and so on. The function of the mousetrap requires all the pieces: you cannot catch a few mice with just a platform, add a spring and catch a few more mice, add a holding bar and catch a few more, All of the components have to be in place before any mice are caught. Thus the mousetrap is irreducibly complex." [MJ Behe, 1998, "Intelligent Design Theory as a Tool for Analyzing Biochemical Systems," in Mere Creation, p. 178]
The idea of irreducible complexity is that there are some components of life that could not have evolved from simpler components. This theory is clearly falsifiable. Simply demonstrate the contrary.
There you go. That's the point. That irreducibly complex things can't be evolved from simpler components in singled steps, because no single step constitutes an improvement. Depending on how you think the theory works, it is either already falsified, or somewhat unfalsifiable: We can show how a similarly "irreducibly complex" system can be constructed in single steps where each step constitutes an improvement. Early improvements become crucial to the function of the system as more improvements are added. If you feel that this invalidates the idea that irreducibly complex systems cannot be evolved, then the idea is invalid.
If that isn't good enough, and you believe that in order to be falsified we must show the evolution of every biomechanical system in a laboratory, then sure, it is, in theory, falsifiable. But humanly impossible. Not falsifiable in any meaningful way. This is, more or less, what the intelligent design crowd has done. As flagella and blood clotting have been explained, they insist that other systems are the ones that must have been produced by an intelligent designer. That game can be played forever. If you insist that we must show these improvements via actually reenacting evolution, then it could take billions of years. There are easier ways to disprove evolution.
...falsifiable, meaning, can you design an experiment that could prove the theory false.
No, that is not what falsifiable means. Not by anyone's definition. Perhaps you should read the link that you provided.
All you have to do is show once through an experiment that you can produce something that is supposedly of "irreducible complexity" from simpler parts.
You don't mean that. Anyone can show that you can produce a mousetrap, for example, from simpler parts. Please, at least learn your own bullshit.
How can you design an experiment to falsify the theory of Evolution?
This question has been asked and answered a million times. By bringing it up, you only show that you have no idea what you are talking about. Google precambrian rabbit and see what you get. This is a good example.
It is a theory, but it is taught in the classroom as law. Look at the recent judicial ruling forcing Georgia to remove stickers from text books that said, "This book contains... evolution... just a theory.".
That is not evidence in support of your hypothesis that evolution is taught as a law.
I believe there is more than enough information to suggest that we move on and find some other scientific explanations.
And at some point, evolution could be as quaint a theory as phlogiston. Show us the other way. Behe and Dembski have plainly failed. So long as you have no alternate theory that explains evidence not covered by evolution, your objections will sound idiotic.
How sad that most of the next 300 replies are likely to be attacks on his personal faith.
I don't think anyone is going to be upset that he's a Christian. We'll be upset by him insulting our intelligence. He says he's educated himself about these things, but if that's true than he would have known better than to spew simplistic crap that's been refuted over and over again.
I find it very ironic to be flamed by anyone who thinks I'm an idiot for not believing in a theory that's never been proven by scientific process.
He just doesn't have a better theory. That's why we'd think he's an idiot.
It's recently become a "religious act" to question science in any capacity, but isn't questioning science the only way we can tell the good science from the bad science?
Yeah. That's typically what scientists do. If he thinks scientists don't debate evolution, he obviously doesn't know the first thing about it. He's either trolling or ignorant.
And there is a lot of great science out there - even in public schools. But there's no longer a way for students to evaluate the credibility of what they're being taught. That seems to be degrading the quality of the subject. Science should be a quest for the truth, with no presuppositions, and appropriate understanding between hypotheses vs. theories vs. laws. When a theory is presented in the classroom as law and it's not held accountable to method, it's degenerated into mere conditioning.
That was pretty well covered in seventh grade for me. They called it the theory of evolution and the law of gravity. The theory of evolution has a bunch of good evidence for it and nothing much against it. So here it stays. Dunno what they said in anyone else's school.
I've spent a considerable amount of time studying topics such as the age of the earth and the theory of evolution, and I could probably argue it quite well if so inclined to engage in a discussion. That's important if you're going to believe anything really - including whatever the mainstreamed secular agenda happens to be.
Just because microevolution is feasable, that doesn't mean I'm going to sweep macroevolution under the rug and not test it - the two are actually worlds apart, just cleverly bundled.
Cleverly? What alternate theory would demand that they be unbundled? It's simpler with them together. If anyone suggests another theory that has evidence behind it and explains something Darwin can't, it usually gains scientific acceptance. Behe and Dembski have not provided acceptable evidence for their theories of intelligent design.
I strongly feel that you should have some factual foundation to support whatever it is, and if you don't, then be man enough to admit you only have a theory put together.
No matter what side of the camp you are on, your beliefs require a certain amount of faith, as neither side is at present proven scientifically.
Egregious bullshit. We don't have a better theory. It explains a lot of evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it. Show us a fossil rabbit in the precambrian, and give us a new explanation.
I don't have all the answers, but I don't think science in its present state does either.
And neither does any scientist.
At the end of the day, you can't prove the existence of God factually, and so whatever you believe is still based on faith. But at least the Christians can admit that - I just wish the evolutionists would too.
But it's not faith. It's just one of our best theories.
Slashdot Mirror
Please reconsider this comment. Of course sites and topics are chosen on the ground. There are thousands of scientists on the ground, while only a very few people are in space.
You send eyeballs and hands. If you can imagine some kind of observation or critical judgment that could only be made by a highly trained scientist actually in space, then I will certainly reconsider my comment. If the observations could just as easily be made by a highly trained technician, then no, you do not blast people into space so they can choose whatever they want to study on the spot. You blast them into space so they can do what the scientists want them to do.
Humans are better than robots at many things. The "figuring out novel solutions" thing can be done while staying in Houston. The "running across rough terrain and climbing" thing is really damn hard for robots. We are sometimes better at noticing something unexpected. We are way better at manipulating objects for general purposes. Those are the reasons we should send astronauts into space.
I hope they don't really mean the CEV will have a crew of 4-6. It should have a crew of 0-6. That way we could have unmanned missions to the ISS, which would return a certain amount of sanity to everything. Dunno what parts of the design require humans to operate, but those parts are dumb, I guarantee it. What if something impairs the people? Don't you want the vehicle to come back home anyway?
It might turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to Firefox, even if MSNBCAOL tries to send all the Moz coders to other projects. They'll just whisper to their former coworkers over at Google...
Because that's how you overturn the law.
Some of the problems with the legal system are *solved* by lawsuits. If you disaprove of lawsuits in general, then you don't understand our legal system.
Parent is not insightful or interesting. Slashdot is full of this crap. Whenever we hear "Scumbag backstabs littleguy; littleguy sues for violation of contract", someone here says, "While I'm all for littleguy, suing is never the answer." It's exactly the fucking answer. Yes, I know that's a different misunderstanding than this one. Still.
Makes me weep for all those poor lawyers out there.
Just kidding.
It's hard to take arbitrary code and decide which parts can be run on opposite ends of a network cable.
Sure, you could make a clustering application that would run arbitrary x86 code on separate machines, but it would be many orders of magnitude slower than just running the code on one big Xeon.
Hell, it's hard enough to take a single thread and spread work across multiple execution units in the CPU for out-of-order execution, and too hard to do it across multiple CPUs in a single box. Why would it be possible across a network cable? Have I completely misunderstood the question?
They use statistical analysis based on English words to match sounds to letters. Once they've done that, there are still keys that are indistinguishable by audio. So the awesome part is that they don't need a training text, but it's way more useful for bugging communications than for stealing passwords.
The FBI almost never has to bother brute-forcing encryption. They just bug your keyboard. Now they don't necessarily need to put a device physically inside your keyboard.
The consequence is that they could no longer do business with the 60 million people in France. Dunno if the EU has rules giving further teeth to that kind of regulation if they do business in Europe at large.
If they can't make money selling computers to those 60 million people (and employing some of them), then they should leave. Is that your whole point?
"phallacy"? Is that like when you say it's 7 inches but you know damn well it's 5?
According to this guy, the layed off employees care. French law gives him the ability to demand giant severance packages if HP doesn't negotiate.
You're wrong.
Whatever, dude. I don't see what that has to do with my point. No one is talking about a right to be heard. Free speech rights are being shrunk to fit.
Did it double buffer its windows?
- Keep the current legal system, and you pay an extra $large for her to give you the copyrights
- Change the legal system so that you own contracted work, and she'll only show up if you promise an extra $large.
There's no way for your tab to stay the same size and still employ your favorite horse photographer without letter her keep copyright. I don't see why either one is particularly unjust.If that isn't good enough, and you believe that in order to be falsified we must show the evolution of every biomechanical system in a laboratory, then sure, it is, in theory, falsifiable. But humanly impossible. Not falsifiable in any meaningful way. This is, more or less, what the intelligent design crowd has done. As flagella and blood clotting have been explained, they insist that other systems are the ones that must have been produced by an intelligent designer. That game can be played forever. If you insist that we must show these improvements via actually reenacting evolution, then it could take billions of years. There are easier ways to disprove evolution.
Whatever.
Falsible? I get 90 hits on Google.
Patents take a long time to be granted. This patent could be based on Eternal Darkness, and only now granted.