No, you don't need that belief. Science just tries to make assumptions about the future. Yes, even History as a science makes assumptions about the future - the historians are pretty able to predict which kind of documents or artifacts one can expect to find in the next future. For instance they rule out with some certainity that you will ever find official documents about the American Independence coded in khipus or records about the Late Roman Empire in the writings of the Hittite kingdom.
The single event can be totally random, but you can still formulate an expectation in what range the event will fall. And if your Science is sound, the event will be within that range.
Christians need at least three of them, four, if they are fundamentalist, and hundreds, if they are catholic. They just pretend that three of them are in fact one. Muslims need two and one sidekick. Jews get along with one, sometimes two, but only after they learned of Zoroastrism from their contact with the Persians. Zoroastrism needs two.
Most people engaged in the climate debate have never built their own model and won't ever do it. A very few have, they are called climate scientist by one group, liars and betrayers and swindlers of huge government grants by others. And those who enter the debate and start to build their own models find them confirming the ones the climate scientists have build (e.g. the BEST project). Sometimes the climate models differ, giving various results for future temperatures and sea levels, some of them are not building on a very realistic model of the atmosphere, the oceans or the reflective properties of the earth surface. But in general, all models show the same: increased temperature, and trends continuing this increase.
As far as I know there are no climate models yet which contradict a general global warming.
Moreso, the average chain length has nothing to do with the original 6-degrees-of-separation claim.
The original statement was that there aren't two people on Earth for which the shortest chain of people which connects both is longer than 5 other persons. You could construct a situation where the average degree of separation is slightly above 1, and still have at least two people with a longer chain than 10 other persons. Lets say you have 990 people who know each other, making the average degree of separation of this group exactly 1, and 10 people where one only knows a single person, this one knows the first one and then another one, and the tenth knows the ninth and one of the 990 others.
Then you would get an average degree of separation of about 1.035 and still the longest chain is 11.
... which actually saves much time and trouble, because in 99.5% of all cases the first two instances (first against virus, then against bacteria) solve the problem.
But the same is valid for the beta-lactames like penicilline too - penicilline attacs the cell walls and supresses the building of new ones. Thus bacteria can't multiply anymore, and the normal immune system can kill off the remaining ones.
Sorry to nitpick. but a virus does not react to antibiotics at all - those are for bacteria. For a virus you need completely other classes of substances like tetracyclines or interferone.
I had internet access in 1990. And the first Internet Relay Chat party here around was in 1987. I don't know why you didn't hear about the Internet until 10 years later.
The problem is that about any music publisher in Germany has standard contracts with a GEMA statement. So whenever you go to a publisher you are nearly automatically a GEMA member. Any court in Germany will take it as "Anscheinsbeweis" (prima facie), that if you are performing your own music in public, you are with high probability a GEMA member. Thus you are required to prove that you aren't.
The main problem with "your own creation" is the part, that is not your own creation. As all creations are cultural creations, e.g. only possible with a cultural and social background, and any (theoretical) creation that isn't founded in the social and cultural background, is non-understandable for any other than the creator and non-distingushable from random noise for everyone else, every creation is 95% background and 5% original creation. But it gets protected as if 100% of it was solely the accomplishment of its creator. A property has its welldefined limits, where it is easy to say where the property begins and what belongs to the environment around the property. Patents at least attempt with the claims system to point out the limits which distinguish between background and creation, but normal works of Arts don't. There is no claims list where the artist points out which of the work is reference, quote, copied from somewhere else, taken from nature etc.pp., and of which part the artist thinks to be actually his original creation. Persiflage and satirical usage can further muddy the water If you look into court cases of plagiarism, you'll notice how complicated the differentiation between "original" and "non-original" can get, and how it depends on the actual argument of lawyers and quoted precedences, which part of a work is "creation" and which is not.
The idea of "give the creator the right to his creation" is well intended, but often very naive and unworkable. Sadly though, I have no solution how to improve on the idea to make it workable.
A wise man undrstands and admits that statements whose truth proveably can not be determined are there only for our amusement and are generally useless for our understanding of the world, while the question why those statements can not be decided might be of some interest though;)
I wouldn't. The Toyota Corolla is a wellmade car for my purpose within a sweet spot between cost and value. The BMW M1 has not enough space on the back seats, not enough trunk space, is too expensive to insure, and costs too much taxes. It offers not even enough extra to remediate that at the same price level, let alone with the big price tag it comes with. The BMW M1 is for people who already have a car for their daily needs and who are looking for a toy to play with.
When iron sword meets bronze in battle, bronze wins. But iron swords are much cheaper, because iron is much more abundant and easily available. The win for iron was that armies with bronze equipment had just some leaders and knights in full armament, while the iron armies had the whole army clad in iron and with iron weapons for everyone. The change from the bronze age to the iron age was one of economics, not one of sharper swords.
That's what I was trying to explain to you. Why do you think for instance that Syria is in any way sharia-observing? Bashar al-Assad, the dictator of Syria is not even muslim. And at least 3500 people have died in the last months for not respecting his non-muslim ideas how to govern a state. I know, that this somehow collides with the easy world view, where arab = muslim = terrorist. Reality probably owes you an apology, but that's the way it is.
Yes, this is Eugenics, pure and simple. But keeping the number of the population in general in check is not Eugenics. And that's what we try to explain to you.
It does, because the goal of the Nazis was not to decrease the population, it was to actually increase it. They even had lots of projects going on to promote childbirth like the Mother cross and the Lebensborn. Their zeal was to have as many as possible healthy (from a racist point of view) and fertile children, and they wanted to reduce all the unproductive and sick (again from a racist point of view) offspring to make room for the alleged super race. So you got your history completely wrong. Eugenics in the Third Reich was never about decreasing the population, it was about increasing the population and overrun and stamp out everyone else.
The leaders of the neighboring countries are providing lip service to the Palestinians, because they want at first the refugee problem solved - e.g. the palestinians out of their respective countries. Syria for instance is propping up Hezbollah, which is a shiite organisation, while most Palestinians are sunnite. Jordan had one civil war because of the Palestinians in the early 1970, which ended in a massacre in the Palestinian refugee camps and Yassir Arafat fleeing from Jordan to Libya, Lebanon had several civil wars already, with the Palestinians either being one of the active parties or the scape goat when the other groups were fighting each other. But one have all of the neighboring countries in common: Their proposed solution for the israelian-palestinian conflict has "return of the refugees to Westbank and Transjordan" as a central part, and their support for the "palestinian cause" always includes "the right of the Palestinians to live in Palestina". So would you like to live in a country, where you are either living in a refugee camp or in a slum in the suburb, because the central building block of your country's policy towards you is to get you out of the country as soon as possible?
Slashdot Mirror
Enough. About 6500 ft.
Mexico City is an artificial island (in the Lake Texcoco).
No, you don't need that belief. Science just tries to make assumptions about the future. Yes, even History as a science makes assumptions about the future - the historians are pretty able to predict which kind of documents or artifacts one can expect to find in the next future. For instance they rule out with some certainity that you will ever find official documents about the American Independence coded in khipus or records about the Late Roman Empire in the writings of the Hittite kingdom.
The single event can be totally random, but you can still formulate an expectation in what range the event will fall. And if your Science is sound, the event will be within that range.
I wouldn't inscribe into a science curriculum, which requires Creationism 101. So the question is wrong.
Christians need at least three of them, four, if they are fundamentalist, and hundreds, if they are catholic. They just pretend that three of them are in fact one. Muslims need two and one sidekick. Jews get along with one, sometimes two, but only after they learned of Zoroastrism from their contact with the Persians. Zoroastrism needs two.
Most people engaged in the climate debate have never built their own model and won't ever do it. A very few have, they are called climate scientist by one group, liars and betrayers and swindlers of huge government grants by others. And those who enter the debate and start to build their own models find them confirming the ones the climate scientists have build (e.g. the BEST project). Sometimes the climate models differ, giving various results for future temperatures and sea levels, some of them are not building on a very realistic model of the atmosphere, the oceans or the reflective properties of the earth surface. But in general, all models show the same: increased temperature, and trends continuing this increase.
As far as I know there are no climate models yet which contradict a general global warming.
Moreso, the average chain length has nothing to do with the original 6-degrees-of-separation claim.
The original statement was that there aren't two people on Earth for which the shortest chain of people which connects both is longer than 5 other persons. You could construct a situation where the average degree of separation is slightly above 1, and still have at least two people with a longer chain than 10 other persons. Lets say you have 990 people who know each other, making the average degree of separation of this group exactly 1, and 10 people where one only knows a single person, this one knows the first one and then another one, and the tenth knows the ninth and one of the 990 others.
Then you would get an average degree of separation of about 1.035 and still the longest chain is 11.
Both can cost you an arm and a leg.
There are those farmers who do. The name Anders Behring Breivik ringing any bell?
... which actually saves much time and trouble, because in 99.5% of all cases the first two instances (first against virus, then against bacteria) solve the problem.
But the same is valid for the beta-lactames like penicilline too - penicilline attacs the cell walls and supresses the building of new ones. Thus bacteria can't multiply anymore, and the normal immune system can kill off the remaining ones.
Sorry to nitpick. but a virus does not react to antibiotics at all - those are for bacteria. For a virus you need completely other classes of substances like tetracyclines or interferone.
And reclaim the Statue of Liberty too? :)
I had internet access in 1990. And the first Internet Relay Chat party here around was in 1987. I don't know why you didn't hear about the Internet until 10 years later.
The problem is that about any music publisher in Germany has standard contracts with a GEMA statement. So whenever you go to a publisher you are nearly automatically a GEMA member. Any court in Germany will take it as "Anscheinsbeweis" (prima facie), that if you are performing your own music in public, you are with high probability a GEMA member. Thus you are required to prove that you aren't.
The main problem with "your own creation" is the part, that is not your own creation. As all creations are cultural creations, e.g. only possible with a cultural and social background, and any (theoretical) creation that isn't founded in the social and cultural background, is non-understandable for any other than the creator and non-distingushable from random noise for everyone else, every creation is 95% background and 5% original creation. But it gets protected as if 100% of it was solely the accomplishment of its creator. A property has its welldefined limits, where it is easy to say where the property begins and what belongs to the environment around the property. Patents at least attempt with the claims system to point out the limits which distinguish between background and creation, but normal works of Arts don't. There is no claims list where the artist points out which of the work is reference, quote, copied from somewhere else, taken from nature etc.pp., and of which part the artist thinks to be actually his original creation. Persiflage and satirical usage can further muddy the water
If you look into court cases of plagiarism, you'll notice how complicated the differentiation between "original" and "non-original" can get, and how it depends on the actual argument of lawyers and quoted precedences, which part of a work is "creation" and which is not.
The idea of "give the creator the right to his creation" is well intended, but often very naive and unworkable. Sadly though, I have no solution how to improve on the idea to make it workable.
A wise man undrstands and admits that statements whose truth proveably can not be determined are there only for our amusement and are generally useless for our understanding of the world, while the question why those statements can not be decided might be of some interest though ;)
Things I had to do with Windows I never had to do with Linux:
Give up.
I wouldn't. The Toyota Corolla is a wellmade car for my purpose within a sweet spot between cost and value. The BMW M1 has not enough space on the back seats, not enough trunk space, is too expensive to insure, and costs too much taxes. It offers not even enough extra to remediate that at the same price level, let alone with the big price tag it comes with. The BMW M1 is for people who already have a car for their daily needs and who are looking for a toy to play with.
When iron sword meets bronze in battle, bronze wins. But iron swords are much cheaper, because iron is much more abundant and easily available. The win for iron was that armies with bronze equipment had just some leaders and knights in full armament, while the iron armies had the whole army clad in iron and with iron weapons for everyone. The change from the bronze age to the iron age was one of economics, not one of sharper swords.
That's what I was trying to explain to you. Why do you think for instance that Syria is in any way sharia-observing? Bashar al-Assad, the dictator of Syria is not even muslim. And at least 3500 people have died in the last months for not respecting his non-muslim ideas how to govern a state. I know, that this somehow collides with the easy world view, where arab = muslim = terrorist. Reality probably owes you an apology, but that's the way it is.
Yes, this is Eugenics, pure and simple. But keeping the number of the population in general in check is not Eugenics. And that's what we try to explain to you.
It does, because the goal of the Nazis was not to decrease the population, it was to actually increase it. They even had lots of projects going on to promote childbirth like the Mother cross and the Lebensborn. Their zeal was to have as many as possible healthy (from a racist point of view) and fertile children, and they wanted to reduce all the unproductive and sick (again from a racist point of view) offspring to make room for the alleged super race. So you got your history completely wrong. Eugenics in the Third Reich was never about decreasing the population, it was about increasing the population and overrun and stamp out everyone else.
The leaders of the neighboring countries are providing lip service to the Palestinians, because they want at first the refugee problem solved - e.g. the palestinians out of their respective countries. Syria for instance is propping up Hezbollah, which is a shiite organisation, while most Palestinians are sunnite. Jordan had one civil war because of the Palestinians in the early 1970, which ended in a massacre in the Palestinian refugee camps and Yassir Arafat fleeing from Jordan to Libya, Lebanon had several civil wars already, with the Palestinians either being one of the active parties or the scape goat when the other groups were fighting each other.
But one have all of the neighboring countries in common: Their proposed solution for the israelian-palestinian conflict has "return of the refugees to Westbank and Transjordan" as a central part, and their support for the "palestinian cause" always includes "the right of the Palestinians to live in Palestina". So would you like to live in a country, where you are either living in a refugee camp or in a slum in the suburb, because the central building block of your country's policy towards you is to get you out of the country as soon as possible?
ad 5)
You are talking as if LTCM never happened.