None of these theoies are presented as 'fact'. Not in university, nor in scientific publications.
Exactly my point. There is no point in present ANY scientific theory as 'fact'; rather, they should be presented as tested models which have produced useful results.
However, I would dispute the accuracy of your statement. Are you saying that in all of this century, in all schools and universities, in all scientific publications, there has never been any implication that these theories are true and factual? You speak of the ideal while I address the real. Regardless of what abstract science does, real flesh-and-blood people tend to make asses of themselves, regardless of the situation.
Why do you assume that someone who believes in evolution has never examined the evidence given for Creationism?
The person you are responding to asked "Are you willing to consider evidence that people with religous beliefs might be right?" Are you?
I have, in fact, considered such evidence in then past. Approaching religion on the basis of scientific evidence strikes me a lot like approaching science by praying to Einstein, Feynman, and Bohr and being disappointed when they fail to answer.
Is that the act of a moral, honest, and straightforward person? So you've discovered that there are charlatans who will take advantage of gullible peoples' religious beliefs. Too bad more people don't take the time to do that.
Your examples are all interesting - they have all provided useful results, but they are by no means true - all of them yield false results at times. The theory of relativity does not mix well with quantum mechanics (another very useful theory) - you get lots of absurd results (none of which I could explain - I am not a physicist, just a voracious reader). Atomic theory (as you state it) fails when applied to neutron stars, black holes, or the electron beams in CRTs. It is one thing to teach people about useful theories; it is another thing to present these useful theories as dogmatic, unsupported facts.
BTW, I would suggest that any attempts you might make to prove your own existence to me would also fall under the category of pseudoscience.
Evolution does not contradict...religion... Religion assumes the existence of non-repeatable phenomena. Science, when developing explanations for events, assumes the non-existence of such phenomena. It is illogical to believe that two contradictory assumptions will NOT lead to contradictory conclusions (consider planar and hyperbolic geometry, for example). In the face of obvious contradictions to your claim (such as religious people hysterically objecting to the teaching of evolution), it is unreasonable to make your statement.
Oh, and those who claim that there is a debate, there is not. I agree that there is no debate among those who believe in evolution regarding the validity of evolution, but it is proves nothing. Consider that members of the Flat Earth Society do not debate the curvature of the earth. It is silly of "creationists" to suggest that the validity of the theory of evolution is still being debated in the scientific community. It is silly of scientists in general (and evolutionary biologists in particular) to suggest that their epistemological beliefs are superior to all others.
Very simple, very logical, and very consistant with the spirit of the original meanings.
The hard disk industry has been around for decades longer than the PC industry. The metric system has been around since the French revolution. The prefixes are from a language that's millenia old. Now, tell me again how hard disk manufacturers are being inconsistent with the original meanings?
What we should look for here is MS' marketing message: We can't cope with managing one machine receiving high traffic while enduring a little foul weather? We hired tech people who can't configure a server to stay up reliably. We are unprepared.
Yeah, I agree. Some people at MS are going to lose their jobs over this. Perhaps then they'll be able to come in from the cold...
Let me just say that it is super wierd throwing your own bash at a conference instead of just leaching off everyone else's, but hey, free beer, right?
When you say "free beer", do you mean beer that is free in the sense of "libre", or beer that is free in the sense of "gratis"? I urge those of you reading this not to drink the beer unless Andover is willing to provide the recipe (a kind of "source code" for food) and details on its brewing process (a kind of "compilation" for beverages) for this beer.
From the (really too short to be called an) article:
Also not that this is probably the last time that we'll mention Geeks in Space on the Slashdotomepage. From now on we'll announce new episodes on the Geeks in Space Section on Slashdot. So bookmark it if you care.
Ye GODS, man, are you MAD? We can't be letting the imperialist enemies of America get their hands on our cows! What havoc they could wreak! What war they could wage! Have you never read Shakespeare in the original, and seen the (now oft-mistranslated) line "...let slip the COWS of war..."? (cows => dogies => dogs)
I find it humorous that the exact same behavior (focusing corporate effort on taking out a competitor) that is so exemplary in Bill Gates is so quixotic for Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison. Would someone please explain to me how what Microsoft did to Digital Research or Netscape is any different from what Sun and Oracle want to do to Microsoft
Because only in the movies can a couple dozen snub fighters take down the death star. It is one thing to focus corporate resources on taking down a small opponent; it is quite another to focus corporate resources on trying to take down the de facto standard for desktop computing. My suggestion to those who feel they can only succeed in a world where Microsoft fails is to get a life, a clue, and a better business plan.
I first picked up Ender's Games in the library about eight years ago. I was looking for something to read and found something written by this guy who used to write some cool articles in COMPUTE! I've since read EVERY one of his books that I could get my hands on
Still, it says something interesting about technology that we are expected to adapt to its needs rather than the other way around
This is such a specious argument. Learning to write on paper is adapting to technology. Learning to type and use a mouse is adapting to technology. Learning to drive is adapting to technology.
Until someone comes up with the perfect IUI ( Intuitive User Interface - an AI that can speak and hear and interpret pointing, head waggles, and other gestures), we will ALWAYS be adapting to technology.
Yup. NASA has subscribed to the theory "If at first you don't succeed, lower your expectations." Now they plan a high-stakes mission and then sit back and say "If it fails, what can we accomplish anyway? OK, THAT'S what we'll say our goal is." I was flabbergasted when it hit me that once you cut through all the PR, the stated goal of the Mars Explorer project was "Shoot a package at Mars and hit it." We did that and more in the 70s. Of course, the project was a resounding success, but if the little Mars Rover had died on impact, they still could have said "The project succeeded because the package landed!"
BULL SHUCKING FIT! I can go to Las Vegas and put every cent I have on one spin of the roulette wheel. I can give all that I own to a televangelist (praying for that hundred-fold increase). I can buy tickets in a lottery run by my state. But I'm not can't invest in the stock market because I'm not QUALIFIED? What a load of CARP!
The bill of rights is binding upon state governments, and state governments organize school districts (though they usually delegate control to local school boards). So the bill of rights is binding on school districts. For that matter, any entity (such as a school board) that is the recipient of tax money is bound by the bill of rights.
I used to teach, so point me to a legal decision if you think I'm wrong. If you are 18, you are an adult, and the legal relationship between the school and the student changes. One day you're at their mercy, and the next day thay can NOT violate the constitutional rights that you share with every adult. All public schools I have dealt with received some Federal funds, and all were supported by of tax dollars. They are governmental institutions and are subject to Constitutional prohibitions on violating your rights (unlike private schools). Of course, they don't tell you this. If you don't know you have rights, schools can violate them with little consequence.
On the other hand, 18-year-old students who threaten to break their teachers face can be expelled, charged with assault, and tried and sentenced as an adult (smiles at the memory).
To receive a complaint, two things have to happen:
1. The kids have to access an unblocked porn, racist, bomb-making, or whatever-the-parents-don't-like site. 2. The parents have to catch them.
If the parents are using a blocking service, they aren't likely to feel a need to monitor the kids' internet use, so #2 isn't too likely. Therefore, receiving few complaints means nothing. NASA received few complaints about the shuttle until it exploded without warning.
1. This is what we have now. You can determine the validity of an article by seeing how many other researchers cite that it. Not a perfect method, but it does work. Of course, it implies that most master's theses are pure crap, as they are never cited. 2. A mathematical technique for quantifying and validating this approach has been developed. I don't remember where I read this, but it was 5-7 years ago. The writer indicated that the technique could be used for ranking college football teams or for separating scientific research articles from pseudoscientific ones. You started by assigning values to some teams/articles, and an iterative process based on who played those teams or who cited those articles would eventually produce values for all teams/articles.
So while/. moderation itself would not be good science, a formalized method of review by ALL peers could be successfully implemented. I think.:)
Don't forget the investment income that ETrade gets from those accounts. Imagine this: 1000 people send $1,000 and cancel the accounts a week later. ETrade waits a week and mails them a check, which takes a week to arrive and clear. ETrade would make a nontrivial amount of money from the deal. I'd LOVE to have $1E6 in my 4% APR savings account for three weeks, and I'm sure that ETrade earns a much higher rate.
You hold copyright on everything you write. If you don't grant them permission to reproduce it, they can't without risking an unwinnable lawsuit. You'd end up with something that looked like this:
Q (Deleted due to copyright issues) A Yes, that's correct.
Furthermore, they didn't want to limit what they did with those questions; they might want to post them somplace else, reproduce them in an interview, publish them in a book, or whatever. Assuming that you granted them all these rights would be wrong. Telling you ahead of time "Don't submit material if you aren't willing to do this" is perfectly honorable. Not asking for exclusive rights is, too.
Slashdot Mirror
None of these theoies are presented as 'fact'. Not in university, nor in scientific publications.
Exactly my point. There is no point in present ANY scientific theory as 'fact'; rather, they should be presented as tested models which have produced useful results.
However, I would dispute the accuracy of your statement. Are you saying that in all of this century, in all schools and universities, in all scientific publications, there has never been any implication that these theories are true and factual? You speak of the ideal while I address the real. Regardless of what abstract science does, real flesh-and-blood people tend to make asses of themselves, regardless of the situation.
Why do you assume that someone who believes in evolution has never examined the evidence given for Creationism?
The person you are responding to asked "Are you willing to consider evidence that people with religous beliefs might be right?" Are you?
I have, in fact, considered such evidence in then past.
Approaching religion on the basis of scientific evidence strikes me a lot like approaching science by praying to Einstein, Feynman, and Bohr and being disappointed when they fail to answer.
Is that the act of a moral, honest, and straightforward person?
So you've discovered that there are charlatans who will take advantage of gullible peoples' religious beliefs. Too bad more people don't take the time to do that.
Nope...we're all hominids - I mean mammals - I mean vertebrates - I mean...
Names and categories are a useful for communication, but they prove nothing.
Your examples are all interesting - they have all provided useful results, but they are by no means true - all of them yield false results at times. The theory of relativity does not mix well with quantum mechanics (another very useful theory) - you get lots of absurd results (none of which I could explain - I am not a physicist, just a voracious reader). Atomic theory (as you state it) fails when applied to neutron stars, black holes, or the electron beams in CRTs. It is one thing to teach people about useful theories; it is another thing to present these useful theories as dogmatic, unsupported facts.
BTW, I would suggest that any attempts you might make to prove your own existence to me would also fall under the category of pseudoscience.
Evolution does not contradict...religion...
Religion assumes the existence of non-repeatable phenomena. Science, when developing explanations for events, assumes the non-existence of such phenomena. It is illogical to believe that two contradictory assumptions will NOT lead to contradictory conclusions (consider planar and hyperbolic geometry, for example). In the face of obvious contradictions to your claim (such as religious people hysterically objecting to the teaching of evolution), it is unreasonable to make your statement.
Oh, and those who claim that there is a debate, there is not.
I agree that there is no debate among those who believe in evolution regarding the validity of evolution, but it is proves nothing. Consider that members of the Flat Earth Society do not debate the curvature of the earth. It is silly of "creationists" to suggest that the validity of the theory of evolution is still being debated in the scientific community. It is silly of scientists in general (and evolutionary biologists in particular) to suggest that their epistemological beliefs are superior to all others.
00mB, according to convention, would represent 100 milliBytes...
...or about 1/10 byte. Since 1024 is about 1000, and 1/8 is about 1/10, I declare that 100mB = 1b.
Very simple, very logical, and very consistant with the spirit of the original meanings.
The hard disk industry has been around for decades longer than the PC industry. The metric system has been around since the French revolution. The prefixes are from a language that's millenia old. Now, tell me again how hard disk manufacturers are being inconsistent with the original meanings?
What we should look for here is MS' marketing message: We can't cope with managing one machine receiving high traffic while enduring a little foul weather? We hired tech people who can't configure a server to stay up reliably. We are unprepared.
Yeah, I agree. Some people at MS are going to lose their jobs over this. Perhaps then they'll be able to come in from the cold...
Let me just say that it is super wierd throwing your own bash at a conference instead of just leaching off everyone else's, but hey, free beer, right?
When you say "free beer", do you mean beer that is free in the sense of "libre", or beer that is free in the sense of "gratis"? I urge those of you reading this not to drink the beer unless Andover is willing to provide the recipe (a kind of "source code" for food) and details on its brewing process (a kind of "compilation" for beverages) for this beer.
From the (really too short to be called an) article:
Also not that this is probably the last time that we'll mention Geeks in Space on the Slashdotomepage. From now on we'll announce new episodes on the Geeks in Space Section on Slashdot. So bookmark it if you care.
'Nuff said.
Ye GODS, man, are you MAD? We can't be letting the imperialist enemies of America get their hands on our cows! What havoc they could wreak! What war they could wage! Have you never read Shakespeare in the original, and seen the (now oft-mistranslated) line "...let slip the COWS of war..."? (cows => dogies => dogs)
...specific reasons...
Sounds more like high specific gravity to me...
I find it humorous that the exact same behavior (focusing corporate effort on taking out a competitor) that is so exemplary in Bill Gates is so quixotic for Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison. Would someone please explain to me how what Microsoft did to Digital Research or Netscape is any different from what Sun and Oracle want to do to Microsoft
Because only in the movies can a couple dozen snub fighters take down the death star. It is one thing to focus corporate resources on taking down a small opponent; it is quite another to focus corporate resources on trying to take down the de facto standard for desktop computing. My suggestion to those who feel they can only succeed in a world where Microsoft fails is to get a life, a clue, and a better business plan.
According to the lawyer's letter, there are instructions in NSI's emails for being removed from the mailing list. Is this true?
I first picked up Ender's Games in the library about eight years ago. I was looking for something to read and found something written by this guy who used to write some cool articles in COMPUTE! I've since read EVERY one of his books that I could get my hands on
Still, it says something interesting about technology that we are expected to adapt to its needs rather than the other way around
This is such a specious argument. Learning to write on paper is adapting to technology. Learning to type and use a mouse is adapting to technology. Learning to drive is adapting to technology.
Until someone comes up with the perfect IUI ( Intuitive User Interface - an AI that can speak and hear and interpret pointing, head waggles, and other gestures), we will ALWAYS be adapting to technology.
Yup. NASA has subscribed to the theory "If at first you don't succeed, lower your expectations." Now they plan a high-stakes mission and then sit back and say "If it fails, what can we accomplish anyway? OK, THAT'S what we'll say our goal is." I was flabbergasted when it hit me that once you cut through all the PR, the stated goal of the Mars Explorer project was "Shoot a package at Mars and hit it." We did that and more in the 70s. Of course, the project was a resounding success, but if the little Mars Rover had died on impact, they still could have said "The project succeeded because the package landed!"
BULL SHUCKING FIT!
I can go to Las Vegas and put every cent I have on one spin of the roulette wheel. I can give all that I own to a televangelist (praying for that hundred-fold increase). I can buy tickets in a lottery run by my state. But I'm not can't invest in the stock market because I'm not QUALIFIED? What a load of CARP!
The bill of rights is binding upon state governments, and state governments organize school districts (though they usually delegate control to local school boards). So the bill of rights is binding on school districts. For that matter, any entity (such as a school board) that is the recipient of tax money is bound by the bill of rights.
I used to teach, so point me to a legal decision if you think I'm wrong. If you are 18, you are an adult, and the legal relationship between the school and the student changes. One day you're at their mercy, and the next day thay can NOT violate the constitutional rights that you share with every adult. All public schools I have dealt with received some Federal funds, and all were supported by of tax dollars. They are governmental institutions and are subject to Constitutional prohibitions on violating your rights (unlike private schools). Of course, they don't tell you this. If you don't know you have rights, schools can violate them with little consequence.
On the other hand, 18-year-old students who threaten to break their teachers face can be expelled, charged with assault, and tried and sentenced as an adult (smiles at the memory).
To receive a complaint, two things have to happen:
1. The kids have to access an unblocked porn, racist, bomb-making, or whatever-the-parents-don't-like site.
2. The parents have to catch them.
If the parents are using a blocking service, they aren't likely to feel a need to monitor the kids' internet use, so #2 isn't too likely. Therefore, receiving few complaints means nothing. NASA received few complaints about the shuttle until it exploded without warning.
...a monthly email with a dozen or so article ID #s...
I think this could work, for a couple of reasons.
/. moderation itself would not be good science, a formalized method of review by ALL peers could be successfully implemented. I think. :)
1. This is what we have now. You can determine the validity of an article by seeing how many other researchers cite that it. Not a perfect method, but it does work. Of course, it implies that most master's theses are pure crap, as they are never cited.
2. A mathematical technique for quantifying and validating this approach has been developed. I don't remember where I read this, but it was 5-7 years ago. The writer indicated that the technique could be used for ranking college football teams or for separating scientific research articles from pseudoscientific ones. You started by assigning values to some teams/articles, and an iterative process based on who played those teams or who cited those articles would eventually produce values for all teams/articles.
So while
Don't forget the investment income that ETrade gets from those accounts. Imagine this: 1000 people send $1,000 and cancel the accounts a week later. ETrade waits a week and mails them a check, which takes a week to arrive and clear. ETrade would make a nontrivial amount of money from the deal. I'd LOVE to have $1E6 in my 4% APR savings account for three weeks, and I'm sure that ETrade earns a much higher rate.
You hold copyright on everything you write. If you don't grant them permission to reproduce it, they can't without risking an unwinnable lawsuit. You'd end up with something that looked like this:
Q (Deleted due to copyright issues)
A Yes, that's correct.
Furthermore, they didn't want to limit what they did with those questions; they might want to post them somplace else, reproduce them in an interview, publish them in a book, or whatever. Assuming that you granted them all these rights would be wrong. Telling you ahead of time "Don't submit material if you aren't willing to do this" is perfectly honorable. Not asking for exclusive rights is, too.