Exactly. I'm not on Facebook but I know folks who are. That puts me an average 5.5 degrees of separation from anyone else who is not on Facebook but knows somebody who is. 3.5 degrees of separation between Facebook users doesn't refute 6 degrees of separation, it actually -confirms- it.
How is bitcoin a failed experiment? It was a pyramid scheme. It made a bunch of money for the folks who were in early and got out before it started to collapse. Everybody else gets screwed. Pyramid schemes have been done to death. They're far past the experimental stage.
1. Less javascript in the stories list and the story pages. Preferably none. We don't need or want a spiffied up interface.
2. The current meta-moderation system is completely ineffective. Years ago Slashdot hat a workable meta-moderation system which kept moderators more or less honest by denying moderation points to users who mismoderated posts. With the current system, nobody blinks at down-moderating folks simply because they disagree. Bring back the old meta-moderation mechanism.
You're mistaken on that as well. Laws mean what they say. That's the nice thing about laws. No matter what the author wants, laws mean exactly what they say.
Nothing I read in the senate bill permits creationism to be discussed in science class. In fact, one passage appears to prohibit that. It does, however, encourage science teachers to critique evolution and talk about the evidence supporting each of the pieces. And to encourage students to think about whether each piece of evidence offers strong or weak support for the theory.
one could sit down, blow the Creationism nonsense out of the scientific water so to speak, to show just how infantile the thought-patterns of its supporters are
You're mistaken. The reason creationism is not science is because it's not falsifiable. It implies no experiments nor relies on any data which can be demonstrated to be true or false. So no, on a _scientific_ level Creationism can't be blown out of the water. And that's the whole point. It's not science.
What alternatives to evolution? See, that's the problem with your position. You treat it as given that the strengths and weaknesses of a theory can't be evaluated absent an alternative. That's absurd. Science isn't "true-by-default." A theory isn't accepted until it makes falsifiable claims, attempts are made to prove it false using those claims, and those attempts reveal instead that it's true.
Evolution is a broad theory with many pieces. Some of those pieces are well tested in controlled conditions. Some have supporting evidence in the fossil record but no one has successfully tested them in the lab. A few are just guesswork.
How do you expect a student to reject intelligent design if you won't let him critically evaluate punctuated equilibrium? If you turn it in to an article of faith, science loses.
Can you explain how the absence of a mainstream alternative scientific theory bears on the strengths and weaknesses of the one mainstream theory? Aside from it being a single check mark in the strengths column?
You don't suggest that public school science should be taught by providing the current prevailing theories while discouraging students from critical thinking about those theories, right? Science without challenge is doctrine, not science.
And that matters because? Last I checked there is no such thing as "accept by default if no alternative" in science. A theory has to make falsifiable predictions and then experiments attempting to prove the theory false have to unambiguously show that it's true.
Many of the "disjointed nitpicks" in climate science have to do with it making predictions so close to the measurement error that they may not qualify as falsifiable.
Agree 100%. Now here's my question: do you believe that school administrators or local school boards should have the power to prevent those lessons? The senate bill says that they should not.
So... I'm a bad guy for electing to discuss the bill that's reasonable instead of the one that's not? The hit-piece article went after two bills. One of them doesn't deserve it.
Okay. That's good enough for me to retract the label.
I think you're probably misreading the subtext. There are no "scientific controversies" in evolutionary theory because there are no competing scientific theories. One could, however, get away with teaching scientific controversy in global warming.
I agree: teaching "controversy" between evolution and religion is a lie. One is science. The other is not.
When I read the senate bill, I found no direction to teach such controversy. In fact, the "no religion" part suggested to me that science class was supposed to confine itself to science.
What I'm still not hearing is why it's not OK to teach which parts of evolutionary theory are rock solid and which parts are still mostly guesswork and why. It seems to me that would improve a student's understanding of science, not detract from it.
And if you read the senate bill and explain which part of it permits science teachers to teach religious myth I'll retract my statement labeling you an ignoramus.
The senate bill says what it says. You have the complete text. Show me where it says what you claim.
What I see is a trap for evolutionists. If you can't challenge a theory then it isn't science, it's doctrine. The author is trying to trick you into treating science exactly as he would treat religion.
If you do a grid tie, you size your solar plant to meet the load at some percentile along your daily demand curve and leave out the expensive batteries with the limited lifespan. Sure, you can size to a higher percentile so that less electricity comes from the power company. I don't see how you figure that entitles you to sell the excess to the power company at a higher than market rate.
Can anyone explain to me how discussing the strengths and weaknesses of a theory is anti-science? Particularly in light of part D which states, "This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."
Yes, exactly. The folks who sized solar generation to meet *their* needs aren't harmed by this change. The only ones harmed are the ones who thought they'd get rich quick on an artificial market.
At least one technician has to review the footage and redact portions that would create a privacy issue for the folks caught on camera. And that's after identifying the correct 190 hours amongst a much vaster archive of footage.
$200/hr is government rates (which are always out of whack) but $100/hr is probably not unreasonable.
Is there any particular reason Warner needs 8 24-hour days of video? If they wanted 2 hours of video they'd only be out $400.
When someone dies, it's simple respect to his friends and admirers to report the cause and circumstance of his death. From the reports of Murdock's death, it was indisputable that something went very, very wrong in his brain.
Calling someone rude for saying so, presupposes that one is revealing a shameful situation. Not only is that ludicrous, it disrespects the dead. Dude got sick and died. Shouldn't we talk about how to help the next person who gets sick avoid dying?
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. I'm not on Facebook but I know folks who are. That puts me an average 5.5 degrees of separation from anyone else who is not on Facebook but knows somebody who is. 3.5 degrees of separation between Facebook users doesn't refute 6 degrees of separation, it actually -confirms- it.
How is bitcoin a failed experiment? It was a pyramid scheme. It made a bunch of money for the folks who were in early and got out before it started to collapse. Everybody else gets screwed. Pyramid schemes have been done to death. They're far past the experimental stage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
1. Less javascript in the stories list and the story pages. Preferably none. We don't need or want a spiffied up interface.
2. The current meta-moderation system is completely ineffective. Years ago Slashdot hat a workable meta-moderation system which kept moderators more or less honest by denying moderation points to users who mismoderated posts. With the current system, nobody blinks at down-moderating folks simply because they disagree. Bring back the old meta-moderation mechanism.
You're mistaken on that as well. Laws mean what they say. That's the nice thing about laws. No matter what the author wants, laws mean exactly what they say.
Nothing I read in the senate bill permits creationism to be discussed in science class. In fact, one passage appears to prohibit that. It does, however, encourage science teachers to critique evolution and talk about the evidence supporting each of the pieces. And to encourage students to think about whether each piece of evidence offers strong or weak support for the theory.
one could sit down, blow the Creationism nonsense out of the scientific water so to speak, to show just how infantile the thought-patterns of its supporters are
You're mistaken. The reason creationism is not science is because it's not falsifiable. It implies no experiments nor relies on any data which can be demonstrated to be true or false. So no, on a _scientific_ level Creationism can't be blown out of the water. And that's the whole point. It's not science.
What alternatives to evolution? See, that's the problem with your position. You treat it as given that the strengths and weaknesses of a theory can't be evaluated absent an alternative. That's absurd. Science isn't "true-by-default." A theory isn't accepted until it makes falsifiable claims, attempts are made to prove it false using those claims, and those attempts reveal instead that it's true.
Evolution is a broad theory with many pieces. Some of those pieces are well tested in controlled conditions. Some have supporting evidence in the fossil record but no one has successfully tested them in the lab. A few are just guesswork.
How do you expect a student to reject intelligent design if you won't let him critically evaluate punctuated equilibrium? If you turn it in to an article of faith, science loses.
Can you explain how the absence of a mainstream alternative scientific theory bears on the strengths and weaknesses of the one mainstream theory? Aside from it being a single check mark in the strengths column?
You don't suggest that public school science should be taught by providing the current prevailing theories while discouraging students from critical thinking about those theories, right? Science without challenge is doctrine, not science.
And that matters because? Last I checked there is no such thing as "accept by default if no alternative" in science. A theory has to make falsifiable predictions and then experiments attempting to prove the theory false have to unambiguously show that it's true.
Many of the "disjointed nitpicks" in climate science have to do with it making predictions so close to the measurement error that they may not qualify as falsifiable.
Agree 100%. Now here's my question: do you believe that school administrators or local school boards should have the power to prevent those lessons? The senate bill says that they should not.
So... I'm a bad guy for electing to discuss the bill that's reasonable instead of the one that's not? The hit-piece article went after two bills. One of them doesn't deserve it.
Okay. That's good enough for me to retract the label.
I think you're probably misreading the subtext. There are no "scientific controversies" in evolutionary theory because there are no competing scientific theories. One could, however, get away with teaching scientific controversy in global warming.
Quote from the senate bill or you're full of crap. It does not say what you claim it says.
I agree: teaching "controversy" between evolution and religion is a lie. One is science. The other is not.
When I read the senate bill, I found no direction to teach such controversy. In fact, the "no religion" part suggested to me that science class was supposed to confine itself to science.
What I'm still not hearing is why it's not OK to teach which parts of evolutionary theory are rock solid and which parts are still mostly guesswork and why. It seems to me that would improve a student's understanding of science, not detract from it.
And if you read the senate bill and explain which part of it permits science teachers to teach religious myth I'll retract my statement labeling you an ignoramus.
The senate bill says what it says. You have the complete text. Show me where it says what you claim.
What I see is a trap for evolutionists. If you can't challenge a theory then it isn't science, it's doctrine. The author is trying to trick you into treating science exactly as he would treat religion.
I see. So teachers should be forbidden from discussing strengths and weaknesses of a theory because confusing or faulty arguments might be discussed?
If you do a grid tie, you size your solar plant to meet the load at some percentile along your daily demand curve and leave out the expensive batteries with the limited lifespan. Sure, you can size to a higher percentile so that less electricity comes from the power company. I don't see how you figure that entitles you to sell the excess to the power company at a higher than market rate.
The senate bill, the one that talks about discussing the strengths and weaknesses of a theory, says what it says. Read the bill.
The sentence you quoted from the article wasn't even referring to the senate bill, it was talking about the house bill.
Can anyone explain to me how discussing the strengths and weaknesses of a theory is anti-science? Particularly in light of part D which states, "This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."
Yes, exactly. The folks who sized solar generation to meet *their* needs aren't harmed by this change. The only ones harmed are the ones who thought they'd get rich quick on an artificial market.
If a third party possesses your secret key, your communications are not secure. Period. Full stop.
At least one technician has to review the footage and redact portions that would create a privacy issue for the folks caught on camera. And that's after identifying the correct 190 hours amongst a much vaster archive of footage.
$200/hr is government rates (which are always out of whack) but $100/hr is probably not unreasonable.
Is there any particular reason Warner needs 8 24-hour days of video? If they wanted 2 hours of video they'd only be out $400.
When someone dies, it's simple respect to his friends and admirers to report the cause and circumstance of his death. From the reports of Murdock's death, it was indisputable that something went very, very wrong in his brain.
Calling someone rude for saying so, presupposes that one is revealing a shameful situation. Not only is that ludicrous, it disrespects the dead. Dude got sick and died. Shouldn't we talk about how to help the next person who gets sick avoid dying?
This from a guy who doesn't have the courage to identify himself. Thanks buddy, I'll take it under advisement.