You are describing natural selection, not evolution.
No.
That's what gives us specifically breeded creatures like English Pointers and Scottish Terriors.
No. Human intervention is decidedly not natural selection.
Evolution, on the other hand, is a belief that information (that's what DNA is - information) has the ability to become both more complex, and more orderly over a period of time.
No. That is not the scientifically accepted definition, nor the one those defending evolution subscribe.
So, natural selection can be proven. Evolution can not.
No again. But only because you're attempting to re-define evolution.
When Charles Darwin originally described evolution he mentioned things like flightless birds. Sounds to me like that's less complicated than the flighted birds which they are believed to have descended from.
Our universe is an isolated system, so the degree of disorder is always increasing. That said, How is it that evolution could even remotely be possible?
Gah, why does this always come up?
Did you notice that you can stack firewood without God's help? But stacked firewood has more order than firewood lying around where it was cut. How is this possible?! It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics!
What makes you think that the degree of disorder means that evolution is impossible? Evolution is a decrease in disorder, therefore for evolution to have happened on earth there must have been energy input from somewhere else... Somewhere where the entropy has increased to make up for the decrease in entropy from evolving life. Now where might our poor planet have received this energy from?
There are a few possibilities: God, the Sun, extra terrestrials, Xenu, the Tooth Fairy, or who knows what else.
Our world, infact, our Universe was Created by God through Jesus Christ His Son.
I bet more people on this planet disagree with that statement than agree. Like me. I don't remember Jesus being mentioned in the book of Genesis. Particularly Genesis 1:1.
As for the factorial part, that isn't used because the order is irrelevant and the individual trials are not dependant on each other.
Whoa, missed this earlier. I think you have a major mistake in there: The factorial part IS USED because the order is irrelevant and the individual trials are not dependant on each other. The factorial part accounts for all possible combinations of 47 successes and 3 failures.
Consider the simplified example of three people taking the polygraph test and you'll see you must use combinatorics to arrive at the proper probability.
It is the binomial, but you aren't applying it properly.
Okay, well what is the probability distribution function for the binomial distribution?
The probability is:
H[.96 *.96 *... (44 more)... *.96 *.04 *.04] * S[.04] Which simplifies to.96^47 *.04^3 or 9.9 per million.
.96^47 *.04^3 means you will get exactly 47 successes followed by exactly 3 failures in exactly that order, which seems strange. However the probability of exactly that outcome is what you say, about one in 9 million.
If you get 1 failure, followed by 47 successes followed by 2 failures, your model does not permit that possibility. You require all 3 failures to come at the end. There are about 20,000 different ways to get 47 successes and 3 failures in any order (50 choose 47 - the binomial aspect for which the distribution is named).
If your argument were a coin, you would say the probability of getting 1 success (say a head) in two tosses is (.5)^1*(.5)^1 = 0.25. But we all know that sample space is { HH, HT, TH, TT } = 0.5 probability of exactly one head. However the probability of getting 1 head followed by 1 tail is indeed (0.5)^1*(0.5)^1.
The model it looks like your are describing is binomial with probability of success 0.96. If that's so, the probability of having exactly 3 positives is.18, and the probability of having at least 3 positives is.32. That's a 1 in 3 chance that you are falsely accusing 2 or more people.
China seems moderately active but they probably don't have the means to do much yet.
How do they not have the means to do much yet? Everybody and their brother is eyeing China's explosively growing economy. Or is it that they need to seem somewhat passive because they like the Kyoto accords which limits Europe, Russia and America but lets them dump all the CO2 they want since they are a 'developing' country?
Perhaps the US is not the only country watching the bottom line?
Also, if you could cite me a study that says definitively that alcohol is physically addictive, please do.
I'm not sure why that's important, but here is a journal article concerning withdrawal from heavy alcohol use.
But you're right, perhaps I shouldn't generalize--not all alcoholics are wife beaters. But how many alcoholics would I have to meet for you to say that my experience isn't "too narrow"?
A properly randomized sample of about 100 would probably be adequate at the 80% confidence level. The method of properly getting that sample is rather difficult though. It is estimated that about 10% of the population is susceptible to alcoholism, but many of those who are susceptible will have chosen not to drink. You'll likely have to interview about 2000 people, ask a battery of questions to both them and a significant other to determine if they are alcoholic and if so are they more abusive than the non-alcoholics.
And finally, no I've never experienced what addiction is like, though if alcohol were actually physically addictive, I and many of my friends should be junkies by now. But we aren't, because we have common sense.
It has nothing to do with common sense. About 90% of the general population is not prone to alcoholism. The number varies among different ethnic groups. If you chose your friends at random, we'd expect to see 1 in 10 of them have issues with alcoholism. However, unless you are very unusual you don't choose your friends at random.
Coincidentally you do see similar things even for hard drugs. If the entire population of the country were given a hit of crack, most of them would not turn in to junkies. There is something different about those who will become junkies and we don't yet understand exactly what. Whatever it is, it is not simple and is an active area of research.
No, I've never heard of the shakes. Is that the medical term for "bad hangover"?
The medical term is "tremor." They are involuntary movements and a symptom of alcohol withdrawal which generally goes away when the affected person has a drink. Many alcoholics claim that they cannot function without a drink and the reason for this is the withdrawal symptoms, including small things like anxiety and tremor, and going all the way up to grand mal seizure.
Here is a useful site giving some diagnostic information on alcohol withdrawal, including why it is that some people die from alcohol withdrawal:
Episodes of delirium tremens have a mortality rate of 1 to 5 percent.
Redundant is repeating something similar in the same context. Since this post came from an entirely different thread off the article it is a poor candidate for being redundant. Since the two threads were discussing different things: one attacking Juries, one asking why Sun did not show similar prior art to the Judge, redundant would be an incorrect moderation.
It is far more helpful, and concise, to deliver a one line reply than to link elsewhere which may not accurately answer the posters question of why showing the Judge would have been insufficient.
Are you bitter about something else here? You attack the system behind the veil of anonymity, and it isn't a particularly good attack at that.
Alcoholics drink too much alcohol because they are degenerate assholes.
Your real problem is that in your short 22 years you've never experienced what addiction is like and haven't yet developed the compassion to sympathize with those that have. Ripping a basement apart looking for hidden bottles is likely a symptom of the desperation to get a fix to quell the very real and very uncomfortable effects of withdrawal.
There are alcoholics out there that have a very real problem but are not mean drunks. Part of your problem seems to be your experience is narrow and you're okay generalizing that most drunks are belligerent and beat their family.
4. As set forth in more detail below, IBM has breached its own obligations to SCO, induced and encouraged others to breach their obligations to SCO, interfered with SCO's business, and engaged in unfair competition with SCO, including by
a) misusing and misappropriating SCO's proprietary software;
b) inducing, encouraging, and enabling others to misuse and misappropriate SCO's proprietary software; and
c) incorporating (and inducing, encouraging, and enabling others to incorporate) SCO's proprietary software into open source software offerings.
Sounds like IBM's partial summary judgement would go a long way towards dispelling this favorite crank of SCO's.
I'm afraid OpenBeer contains a non-literal copy of the ingredients SCO's proprietary Beer offering, and is therefore infringing on their IP.
To wit, this comparison of ingredients shown by SCO CEO Darl McBride at a recent conference:
Open source:
Water
Malt
Hops
Yeast
SCO:
High fructose corn syrup
Partially hydrogenated vegetable oil
Monosodium glutamate
E. Coli
Fine spirits analyst L. DiDio from the wankee group stated unequivocally after reviewing the ingredients there is strong evidence that some ingredients have been copied illegally from SCO into OpenBeer and other free beer offerings.
India has the best computer science program in the world (IIT) - not according to me, but rather 60 minutes.
India may or may not have the best computer science program in the world, but you should cite a more credible source than 60 minutes. Not that 60 minutes would intentionally mislead the public, but did they mention their source? What criteria was used to qualify that statement? Broadcast news magazines usually don't.
Which is a lot, but I imagine that's peak power, and the satellite cannot be in the sun all the time, so it's got to charge batteries for night time use
It is true that the satellites need battery power for when the earth eclipses its access to the sun. Fortunately the batteries never need to last much more than an hour, and this is only for a few weeks on either side of each equinox. Access to the sun isn't a huge problem for these satellites until the quality of the batteries declines from too many charging cycles.
I would think it reasonable to expect well over 1kW of power output 24/7.
I believe $11 gets you the HDTV channels - there aren't a lot of them. I think you'll need another subscription to get everything else. The DirecTV page for their HDTV package is here.
I suppose you have a link to the police report that proves he was arrested on political grounds...
Nope. Coincidentally there aren't many arrest reports from the 19th and 20th centuries that prove arrests were made on racial grounds. Are you implying that if it isn't in the arrest report, it is definitively untrue? He was completely cooperative throughout the whole ordeal, why would they arrest him rather than just cite him?
And like someone else has said here, what is civil disobedience worth if it doesn't earn an arrest?
It's worth a lot. The emotional impact is the willingness of people to be arrested, not the act of being arrested.
They were arrested for breaking the law.
But was this person breaking the law? If he was spraying water soluble chalk, he wasn't.
So how about we just stick to technology and NOT have anything related to the convention or the election?
If you can get the government to stop making laws that curtail the use of technology, then I'll agree that we should stop yapping about politics in here.
But when technology and politics overlap (particularly when it's a pretty geeky creation, and its creator is getting arrested on political grounds) then it sounds like fair game to me.
Does damage have to "permanent" to qualify? For example, if you "temporarily" disabled my car in a way that ceased to function for only a limited amount of time, I would still consider it "damaged" for the amount of time it didn't function as intended.
Since the sidewalk still functioned even after it had chalk on it, I don't see how this is a valid analogy. There's a difference between damaging something and defacing something.
Generally, water-soluble chalk has not been considered vandalism on public property because it can be quickly and easily cleaned up. As long as your message isn't lascivious, vulgar, or a threat, it should be protected.
As soon as this guy gets a court date and they find out more about what he was doing, then yes - he should absolutely be let go. He has done nothing illegal.
Yes, let's make that court date some time in early November... say on a Wednesday?
Slashdot Mirror
You are describing natural selection, not evolution.
No.
That's what gives us specifically breeded creatures like English Pointers and Scottish Terriors.
No. Human intervention is decidedly not natural selection.
Evolution, on the other hand, is a belief that information (that's what DNA is - information) has the ability to become both more complex, and more orderly over a period of time.
No. That is not the scientifically accepted definition, nor the one those defending evolution subscribe.
So, natural selection can be proven. Evolution can not.
No again. But only because you're attempting to re-define evolution.
When Charles Darwin originally described evolution he mentioned things like flightless birds. Sounds to me like that's less complicated than the flighted birds which they are believed to have descended from.
Our universe is an isolated system, so the degree of disorder is always increasing. That said, How is it that evolution could even remotely be possible?
Gah, why does this always come up?
Did you notice that you can stack firewood without God's help? But stacked firewood has more order than firewood lying around where it was cut. How is this possible?! It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics!
What makes you think that the degree of disorder means that evolution is impossible? Evolution is a decrease in disorder, therefore for evolution to have happened on earth there must have been energy input from somewhere else... Somewhere where the entropy has increased to make up for the decrease in entropy from evolving life. Now where might our poor planet have received this energy from?
There are a few possibilities: God, the Sun, extra terrestrials, Xenu, the Tooth Fairy, or who knows what else.
Our world, infact, our Universe was Created by God through Jesus Christ His Son.
I bet more people on this planet disagree with that statement than agree. Like me. I don't remember Jesus being mentioned in the book of Genesis. Particularly Genesis 1:1.
As for the factorial part, that isn't used because the order is irrelevant and the individual trials are not dependant on each other.
Whoa, missed this earlier. I think you have a major mistake in there: The factorial part IS USED because the order is irrelevant and the individual trials are not dependant on each other. The factorial part accounts for all possible combinations of 47 successes and 3 failures.
Consider the simplified example of three people taking the polygraph test and you'll see you must use combinatorics to arrive at the proper probability.
It is the binomial, but you aren't applying it properly.
.96 * ... (44 more) ... * .96 * .04 * .04] * S[.04] .96^47 * .04^3 or 9.9 per million.
.04^3 means you will get exactly 47 successes followed by exactly 3 failures in exactly that order, which seems strange. However the probability of exactly that outcome is what you say, about one in 9 million.
Okay, well what is the probability distribution function for the binomial distribution?
The probability is:
H[.96 *
Which simplifies to
.96^47 *
If you get 1 failure, followed by 47 successes followed by 2 failures, your model does not permit that possibility. You require all 3 failures to come at the end. There are about 20,000 different ways to get 47 successes and 3 failures in any order (50 choose 47 - the binomial aspect for which the distribution is named).
If your argument were a coin, you would say the probability of getting 1 success (say a head) in two tosses is (.5)^1*(.5)^1 = 0.25. But we all know that sample space is { HH, HT, TH, TT } = 0.5 probability of exactly one head. However the probability of getting 1 head followed by 1 tail is indeed (0.5)^1*(0.5)^1.
(.96^47)(.04^3) = .00000939 or 9.39 per million
.18, and the probability of having at least 3 positives is .32. That's a 1 in 3 chance that you are falsely accusing 2 or more people.
What distribution are you using?
The model it looks like your are describing is binomial with probability of success 0.96. If that's so, the probability of having exactly 3 positives is
China seems moderately active but they probably don't have the means to do much yet.
How do they not have the means to do much yet? Everybody and their brother is eyeing China's explosively growing economy. Or is it that they need to seem somewhat passive because they like the Kyoto accords which limits Europe, Russia and America but lets them dump all the CO2 they want since they are a 'developing' country?
Perhaps the US is not the only country watching the bottom line?
Also, if you could cite me a study that says definitively that alcohol is physically addictive, please do.
I'm not sure why that's important, but here is a journal article concerning withdrawal from heavy alcohol use.
But you're right, perhaps I shouldn't generalize--not all alcoholics are wife beaters. But how many alcoholics would I have to meet for you to say that my experience isn't "too narrow"?
A properly randomized sample of about 100 would probably be adequate at the 80% confidence level. The method of properly getting that sample is rather difficult though. It is estimated that about 10% of the population is susceptible to alcoholism, but many of those who are susceptible will have chosen not to drink. You'll likely have to interview about 2000 people, ask a battery of questions to both them and a significant other to determine if they are alcoholic and if so are they more abusive than the non-alcoholics.
And finally, no I've never experienced what addiction is like, though if alcohol were actually physically addictive, I and many of my friends should be junkies by now. But we aren't, because we have common sense.
It has nothing to do with common sense. About 90% of the general population is not prone to alcoholism. The number varies among different ethnic groups. If you chose your friends at random, we'd expect to see 1 in 10 of them have issues with alcoholism. However, unless you are very unusual you don't choose your friends at random.
Coincidentally you do see similar things even for hard drugs. If the entire population of the country were given a hit of crack, most of them would not turn in to junkies. There is something different about those who will become junkies and we don't yet understand exactly what. Whatever it is, it is not simple and is an active area of research.
The medical term is "tremor." They are involuntary movements and a symptom of alcohol withdrawal which generally goes away when the affected person has a drink. Many alcoholics claim that they cannot function without a drink and the reason for this is the withdrawal symptoms, including small things like anxiety and tremor, and going all the way up to grand mal seizure.
Here is a useful site giving some diagnostic information on alcohol withdrawal, including why it is that some people die from alcohol withdrawal:
I was under the impression that diseases are caused by micro-organisms.
A disease could be caused by micro-organisms. But other than that, you are uninformed. Learn more here.
For instance: autoimmune disease. Pretty hard to have one of those according to your definition unless you yourself are a micro-organism.
Redundant is repeating something similar in the same context. Since this post came from an entirely different thread off the article it is a poor candidate for being redundant. Since the two threads were discussing different things: one attacking Juries, one asking why Sun did not show similar prior art to the Judge, redundant would be an incorrect moderation.
It is far more helpful, and concise, to deliver a one line reply than to link elsewhere which may not accurately answer the posters question of why showing the Judge would have been insufficient.
Are you bitter about something else here? You attack the system behind the veil of anonymity, and it isn't a particularly good attack at that.
Alcoholics drink too much alcohol because they are degenerate assholes.
Your real problem is that in your short 22 years you've never experienced what addiction is like and haven't yet developed the compassion to sympathize with those that have. Ripping a basement apart looking for hidden bottles is likely a symptom of the desperation to get a fix to quell the very real and very uncomfortable effects of withdrawal.
There are alcoholics out there that have a very real problem but are not mean drunks. Part of your problem seems to be your experience is narrow and you're okay generalizing that most drunks are belligerent and beat their family.
why the hell did Sun's lawyers not pull CORBA out and show the judge that Kodak's patents were worthless?
Because it wasn't the Judge they had to convince. They had to convince a Rochester jury that the area's largest employer, Kodak, was full of it.
In fact, there was not even a real investigation proving that fire caused the 9/11 collapse
Oh really? Then how did Nova manage to make an episode of it?
To wit, this comparison of ingredients shown by SCO CEO Darl McBride at a recent conference:
Open source:
SCO:
Fine spirits analyst L. DiDio from the wankee group stated unequivocally after reviewing the ingredients there is strong evidence that some ingredients have been copied illegally from SCO into OpenBeer and other free beer offerings.
India has the best computer science program in the world (IIT) - not according to me, but rather 60 minutes.
India may or may not have the best computer science program in the world, but you should cite a more credible source than 60 minutes. Not that 60 minutes would intentionally mislead the public, but did they mention their source? What criteria was used to qualify that statement? Broadcast news magazines usually don't.
You cannot not go against the DMCA, because if you do, not going against the DMCA is against the DMCA too.
(apologies to Love & Rockets)
"Ok kids, what do we do when the bomb hits?"
"DUCK! AND COVER!"
And remember: If you see a bright light, DON'T LOOK!
Which is a lot, but I imagine that's peak power, and the satellite cannot be in the sun all the time, so it's got to charge batteries for night time use
It is true that the satellites need battery power for when the earth eclipses its access to the sun. Fortunately the batteries never need to last much more than an hour, and this is only for a few weeks on either side of each equinox. Access to the sun isn't a huge problem for these satellites until the quality of the batteries declines from too many charging cycles.
I would think it reasonable to expect well over 1kW of power output 24/7.
I believe $11 gets you the HDTV channels - there aren't a lot of them. I think you'll need another subscription to get everything else. The DirecTV page for their HDTV package is here.
I suppose you have a link to the police report that proves he was arrested on political grounds...
Nope. Coincidentally there aren't many arrest reports from the 19th and 20th centuries that prove arrests were made on racial grounds. Are you implying that if it isn't in the arrest report, it is definitively untrue? He was completely cooperative throughout the whole ordeal, why would they arrest him rather than just cite him?
And like someone else has said here, what is civil disobedience worth if it doesn't earn an arrest?
It's worth a lot. The emotional impact is the willingness of people to be arrested, not the act of being arrested.
They were arrested for breaking the law.
But was this person breaking the law? If he was spraying water soluble chalk, he wasn't.
So how about we just stick to technology and NOT have anything related to the convention or the election?
If you can get the government to stop making laws that curtail the use of technology, then I'll agree that we should stop yapping about politics in here.
But when technology and politics overlap (particularly when it's a pretty geeky creation, and its creator is getting arrested on political grounds) then it sounds like fair game to me.
This was on jerkoff that got busted for vandalism. Maybe it doesn't meet the standard, maybe it does, let that come out in the general trial.
Yes. Let's keep him locked up until his fair and impartial trial. Let's hold that trial in early November... on a Wednesday in fact.
but apparently painting streets with semi-permanet chalk MAY be over the line.
What exactly is "semi-permanet"? And how is it different from temporary?
Does damage have to "permanent" to qualify? For example, if you "temporarily" disabled my car in a way that ceased to function for only a limited amount of time, I would still consider it "damaged" for the amount of time it didn't function as intended.
Since the sidewalk still functioned even after it had chalk on it, I don't see how this is a valid analogy. There's a difference between damaging something and defacing something.
Generally, water-soluble chalk has not been considered vandalism on public property because it can be quickly and easily cleaned up. As long as your message isn't lascivious, vulgar, or a threat, it should be protected.
As soon as this guy gets a court date and they find out more about what he was doing, then yes - he should absolutely be let go. He has done nothing illegal.
Yes, let's make that court date some time in early November... say on a Wednesday?