In science, "theory" is the highest order an idea can achieve. According to the National Academy of Sciences, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." This is of course in contrast to the colloquial term "theory" which is closer to the meaning of "hypothesis"
They're just getting ready the European versions of our China Town for when they inevitably dominate the world. We'll find settling into America Town and Europe Town very comfortable.
The only arguments ceationists have are against evolution. There are no arguments *for* creationism, because your theory, by definition, is untestable. So until you provide an actual argument for creationsim we can only assume at a fundamental level you hold the common view, which is "because I said so."
Second, there has obviously been interactions between virus and other species that has occurred in the past.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. The article argues that a virus infected a developing organism and inserted itself into its DNA. That organism grew up and it turns out that the virus DNA did something beneficial for the organism, so it survived and procreated and perpetuated the virus DNA fragment. There are a couple key functional mechanism of evolution in that statement (natural selection, genetic mutation). You seem to be supporting evolution from your statement, not creationism.
finding small sequences of DNA that match when you only have 4 building blocks is not so hard to imagine given that they are not claiming a full copy of the virus, only small fragments.
The human genome is 3.4 billion pairs, 8% of which is 272 million pairs, which means on average each fragment is 2720 pairs long. I believe directionality matters in DNA sequence, so this means there are 4^2720 possible sequences of DNA to match against.... that would be 4e1637 permutations. To give you a sense of scale, that's more permutations than there are atoms in the universe but 1500 orders of magnitude. So no, finding a small (2720 pairs) sequence of DNA that matches another found in a virus is not a likely at all. This is the kind of combinatorics that makes the DNA in every single creature on this planet unique.
Looking around the barnyard, off hand I see two major reproductive methods that are hard to explain how they come about using the theory of evolution.
Just because you personally can't come up with an explanation doesn't mean there is one. This is the same reason why people turned to the Gods to explain thunder and lighting since they had no idea about electrons and sonic booms.
For the example, I can easily give a hypothesis that egg birth evolved first, and then live birth evolved from that. We even have some intermediate "link" creatures alive today, such as egg-laying mammals like the platypus; and marsupials like kangaroos, which give birth to fetus-like babies and incubate them in a pouch. So I can draw a gradient between egg laying and live birth where at each stage, the creature lays less and less of an egg and more and more of a live creature. No God needed. Now I just need to see if the evidence out there supports it. At this point though, it doesn't really matter if what I said is how it *really* happened... the point is just because *you* can't think of an explanation doesn't mean there isn't one.
Seems that this implies pretty long odds.
At the kind of time scales and trials involved with evolution scales we're talking about, long odds mean nothing. Consider a hypothetical die with a billion sides. Odds of rolling a 1 are 1:10^9... not very probable. But evolution is like rolling that die a billion times a year for a billion years. Now it's very probable at the end of that time, you've rolled 1 at least once (probably actually a billion times on average).
Obviously somebody took the time to design the parts, manufacturer the parts and assemble them because we all understand that Model-T's just don't happen, they are created.
It's very ironic that you point to the Model-T in support of a creator. The Model T wasn't just "created" out of thin air. The Model-T cam after the the Model-N, which came after the Model-F, which came after the Model-C, which came after the Model-A, which came after the Quadricycle, which came after the first internal combustion engine, which came after the first steam engine, which came after the first horse drawn carriage, which came after the invention of the wheel....... etc. Henry Ford didn't say "Let there be Model-T!" and there it was. He took the next step (evolved, if you will) in centuries of human engineering.
because we all understand that Model-T's just don't happen, they are created. So why is it not a good argument for one fundamental part of a complex thing we call life?
Because creationism is exactly arguing that life just "happened"! You seem to be confusing theories. Evolution is the theory that provides answers for how life was "manufactured," "assembled," "tested," and "quality controlled". The *only* thing creationism says is "It just happened."
My point here is not to convince you that you should be a creationist, but that there are problems raised by them that are not easily dismissed.
This is not a problem for science. Science permits you to not have all the answers. For example, there are absolutely gaping holes in the Theory of Gravity, but I don't hear you questioning all the stuff we do have right.
Better graphics and new games are something you get in the current cycle, without upgrade consoles. Games from 2012 look a lot better than they did in 2005 on the same hardware.
Yes, because the only thing this does is display ads. From the videos and information released, that's probably about the *least* of what it does. A keyboard/mouse for internet browsing on the TV. A second screen for gaming that displays things like mini maps (a la supreme commander). Allows you to push video and audio around between devices (like airplay). It's even cross platform with Android and iOS support.
And like clockwork, Slashdot comes out crying "invasive advertising shenanigans"!
At the keynote they said it will work with Windows 8, Windows Phone, iOS, and Android. Now to what degree of "works" is yet to be specified. I imagine iOS and Android apps might have access to a subset of features, but it's nice to see some attempts at cross platform functionality.
That's because in this day, hard work and dedication is almost distinguishable from intellect. I mentioned this in a post below, but I knew 3 people who graduated college at 17/18, and then went on to do nothing. I had very close interactions with one, and he was the laziest person I'd ever met... basically graduated college and figured he had proven himself, without realizing that's when then real work begins.
I don't know any genius level people, but I know 3 who were fast-tracked through high school and graduated very prestigious colleges at 17/18. They all went on to get PhDs, and they all failed out for the same reason: sometime during their PhD they wanted to try to re-live their youth as they should have, and began acting like teenagers again again. Drinking, partying, getting in trouble.... these guys were the smartest guys I knew, but each one, on their own, managed to derail their careers because they completely missed their youth.
Not saying this kid is in any danger of going down the same path... maybe his massive intellect will divert him from temptation. But every time I hear about someone graduating college exceedingly young, I always wonder when their fuse is going to run out.
Original Sin is different from disobeying God in that humans are born in a state of sin before they even do anything. This has the unfortunate implication that infants who die go to Hell, according to Christianity. But I guess that doesn't mean it has to be literally that Eve ate the forbidden fruit, if that's what you're getting at.
I didn't say anything about artists doing gigs, did I?
No you didn't, which is why your position makes no sense. If the only way for an artist to make money is through CD sales, yes, it makes some degree of sense for an artist to charge X to a 15 year old and Y to a DJ (Y>>X). But this is ignoring the fact that the DJ is in fact not a consumer of your music, but more along the lines of a marketer of your music; the more the DJ plays your song at clubs/parties, the more 15 year olds will buy your CD. Ultimately that's what you want, since the population of 15 year olds is much larger than the population of DJs.
But even all of that ignores the fact that artists are not making much money at all from their recordings: record labels are. Historically, artists made their money from either patronage or live performances. Only very recently, thanks to technological and legal conditions, have artists been able to make money by performing once and selling that performance for the rest of eternity. Why are artists so special that they can do work once and get paid for it forever?
The line you're towing is the recording industry's, not the artist's. The recording industry are the ones who don't make money off of live performances, so they're the ones who need to make money off of the 15 year old and the DJ, so they're the ones offering the different licensing agreements, etc.
AS an artist, if people aren't listening to your song, they're going to listen to someone else's. That's just a fact. Therefore its in your best interest to get your song played in as many places in front of as many people as you can. After people hear it and like it, then you hold a series of concerts around the country where everyone hearing your song gets to hear you play it live. And that's how you make your money: actually being an artist, creating and proliferating art. This whole, write once, rake in money forever scheme that's being perpetrated is complete nonsense.
Sorry no. If you're an artist, you should make money by, I dunno, making art that people want to buy. If I pay you $15 for your CD, I'm going to play it whenever, however, and for whomever I want. I paid you your $15. So if I want to pop it in the CD player at my wedding, I don't owe you anything. This whole concept of "royalties" where an artist gets money for the next 70 years every time someone wants to sing or play his song is completely asinine, and counter to the way art/music has worked since the dawn of humanity.
According to the links, Google installed a Big toolbar, opted to send search results to Bing, sent search results to Bing, and then Bing used the results sent to them. Where exactly is the problem?
Regardless of whether or not you _can_ turn off the secure boot, when you consider what the _majority_ of end users feel comfortable and competent in doing, what kind of barrier to entry does this raise?
The majority of end users hardly feel comfortable and competent in turning on their computer, let alone installing a new OS UEFI secure boot or otherwise. Pretending this is the one thing that will prevent the masses from running Linux is disingenuous.
Slashdot Mirror
Scroll through the ratings on Kinect-required titles, and the percentages are abysmal.
Scroll through? Scroll where? Let's head over to amazon then and see how they're doing:
Do I need to keep scrolling? I don't see many games with reviews under 3 stars. Where are these supposed abysmal ratings?
Actually there were two Model As. This is the one I'm referring to. Some more trivia for you ;)
it should be pointed out that it is just a theory
In science, "theory" is the highest order an idea can achieve. According to the National Academy of Sciences, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." This is of course in contrast to the colloquial term "theory" which is closer to the meaning of "hypothesis"
They're just getting ready the European versions of our China Town for when they inevitably dominate the world. We'll find settling into America Town and Europe Town very comfortable.
I have NOT used such an argument in this forum
The only arguments ceationists have are against evolution. There are no arguments *for* creationism, because your theory, by definition, is untestable. So until you provide an actual argument for creationsim we can only assume at a fundamental level you hold the common view, which is "because I said so."
Second, there has obviously been interactions between virus and other species that has occurred in the past.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. The article argues that a virus infected a developing organism and inserted itself into its DNA. That organism grew up and it turns out that the virus DNA did something beneficial for the organism, so it survived and procreated and perpetuated the virus DNA fragment. There are a couple key functional mechanism of evolution in that statement (natural selection, genetic mutation). You seem to be supporting evolution from your statement, not creationism.
finding small sequences of DNA that match when you only have 4 building blocks is not so hard to imagine given that they are not claiming a full copy of the virus, only small fragments.
The human genome is 3.4 billion pairs, 8% of which is 272 million pairs, which means on average each fragment is 2720 pairs long. I believe directionality matters in DNA sequence, so this means there are 4^2720 possible sequences of DNA to match against.... that would be 4e1637 permutations. To give you a sense of scale, that's more permutations than there are atoms in the universe but 1500 orders of magnitude. So no, finding a small (2720 pairs) sequence of DNA that matches another found in a virus is not a likely at all. This is the kind of combinatorics that makes the DNA in every single creature on this planet unique.
Looking around the barnyard, off hand I see two major reproductive methods that are hard to explain how they come about using the theory of evolution.
Just because you personally can't come up with an explanation doesn't mean there is one. This is the same reason why people turned to the Gods to explain thunder and lighting since they had no idea about electrons and sonic booms.
For the example, I can easily give a hypothesis that egg birth evolved first, and then live birth evolved from that. We even have some intermediate "link" creatures alive today, such as egg-laying mammals like the platypus; and marsupials like kangaroos, which give birth to fetus-like babies and incubate them in a pouch. So I can draw a gradient between egg laying and live birth where at each stage, the creature lays less and less of an egg and more and more of a live creature. No God needed. Now I just need to see if the evidence out there supports it. At this point though, it doesn't really matter if what I said is how it *really* happened... the point is just because *you* can't think of an explanation doesn't mean there isn't one.
Seems that this implies pretty long odds.
At the kind of time scales and trials involved with evolution scales we're talking about, long odds mean nothing. Consider a hypothetical die with a billion sides. Odds of rolling a 1 are 1:10^9... not very probable. But evolution is like rolling that die a billion times a year for a billion years. Now it's very probable at the end of that time, you've rolled 1 at least once (probably actually a billion times on average).
Obviously somebody took the time to design the parts, manufacturer the parts and assemble them because we all understand that Model-T's just don't happen, they are created.
It's very ironic that you point to the Model-T in support of a creator. The Model T wasn't just "created" out of thin air. The Model-T cam after the the Model-N, which came after the Model-F, which came after the Model-C, which came after the Model-A, which came after the Quadricycle, which came after the first internal combustion engine, which came after the first steam engine, which came after the first horse drawn carriage, which came after the invention of the wheel....... etc. Henry Ford didn't say "Let there be Model-T!" and there it was. He took the next step (evolved, if you will) in centuries of human engineering.
because we all understand that Model-T's just don't happen, they are created. So why is it not a good argument for one fundamental part of a complex thing we call life?
Because creationism is exactly arguing that life just "happened"! You seem to be confusing theories. Evolution is the theory that provides answers for how life was "manufactured," "assembled," "tested," and "quality controlled". The *only* thing creationism says is "It just happened."
My point here is not to convince you that you should be a creationist, but that there are problems raised by them that are not easily dismissed.
This is not a problem for science. Science permits you to not have all the answers. For example, there are absolutely gaping holes in the Theory of Gravity, but I don't hear you questioning all the stuff we do have right.
New for Firefox, old for users of browsers like Opera since 2007.
Better graphics and new games are something you get in the current cycle, without upgrade consoles. Games from 2012 look a lot better than they did in 2005 on the same hardware.
Yes, because the only thing this does is display ads. From the videos and information released, that's probably about the *least* of what it does. A keyboard/mouse for internet browsing on the TV. A second screen for gaming that displays things like mini maps (a la supreme commander). Allows you to push video and audio around between devices (like airplay). It's even cross platform with Android and iOS support.
And like clockwork, Slashdot comes out crying "invasive advertising shenanigans"!
At the keynote they said it will work with Windows 8, Windows Phone, iOS, and Android. Now to what degree of "works" is yet to be specified. I imagine iOS and Android apps might have access to a subset of features, but it's nice to see some attempts at cross platform functionality.
That's because in this day, hard work and dedication is almost distinguishable from intellect. I mentioned this in a post below, but I knew 3 people who graduated college at 17/18, and then went on to do nothing. I had very close interactions with one, and he was the laziest person I'd ever met... basically graduated college and figured he had proven himself, without realizing that's when then real work begins.
I don't know any genius level people, but I know 3 who were fast-tracked through high school and graduated very prestigious colleges at 17/18. They all went on to get PhDs, and they all failed out for the same reason: sometime during their PhD they wanted to try to re-live their youth as they should have, and began acting like teenagers again again. Drinking, partying, getting in trouble.... these guys were the smartest guys I knew, but each one, on their own, managed to derail their careers because they completely missed their youth.
Not saying this kid is in any danger of going down the same path... maybe his massive intellect will divert him from temptation. But every time I hear about someone graduating college exceedingly young, I always wonder when their fuse is going to run out.
Original Sin is different from disobeying God in that humans are born in a state of sin before they even do anything. This has the unfortunate implication that infants who die go to Hell, according to Christianity. But I guess that doesn't mean it has to be literally that Eve ate the forbidden fruit, if that's what you're getting at.
I didn't say anything about artists doing gigs, did I?
No you didn't, which is why your position makes no sense. If the only way for an artist to make money is through CD sales, yes, it makes some degree of sense for an artist to charge X to a 15 year old and Y to a DJ (Y>>X). But this is ignoring the fact that the DJ is in fact not a consumer of your music, but more along the lines of a marketer of your music; the more the DJ plays your song at clubs/parties, the more 15 year olds will buy your CD. Ultimately that's what you want, since the population of 15 year olds is much larger than the population of DJs.
But even all of that ignores the fact that artists are not making much money at all from their recordings: record labels are. Historically, artists made their money from either patronage or live performances. Only very recently, thanks to technological and legal conditions, have artists been able to make money by performing once and selling that performance for the rest of eternity. Why are artists so special that they can do work once and get paid for it forever?
The line you're towing is the recording industry's, not the artist's. The recording industry are the ones who don't make money off of live performances, so they're the ones who need to make money off of the 15 year old and the DJ, so they're the ones offering the different licensing agreements, etc.
AS an artist, if people aren't listening to your song, they're going to listen to someone else's. That's just a fact. Therefore its in your best interest to get your song played in as many places in front of as many people as you can. After people hear it and like it, then you hold a series of concerts around the country where everyone hearing your song gets to hear you play it live. And that's how you make your money: actually being an artist, creating and proliferating art. This whole, write once, rake in money forever scheme that's being perpetrated is complete nonsense.
Sorry no. If you're an artist, you should make money by, I dunno, making art that people want to buy. If I pay you $15 for your CD, I'm going to play it whenever, however, and for whomever I want. I paid you your $15. So if I want to pop it in the CD player at my wedding, I don't owe you anything. This whole concept of "royalties" where an artist gets money for the next 70 years every time someone wants to sing or play his song is completely asinine, and counter to the way art/music has worked since the dawn of humanity.
According to the links, Google installed a Big toolbar, opted to send search results to Bing, sent search results to Bing, and then Bing used the results sent to them. Where exactly is the problem?
That thing that requires one to connect to the internet to play a game that has no internet requirement for play?
This is false. You can play single player games without an internet connection just fine.
Blaming your teacher's woes on Microsoft rather than the school's IT policy is pretty silly as well.
Want to run Linux on that shiny ARM Win 8 tablet? Tough luck.
If you want to run Linux on a tablet, why don't you just buy one of the hundreds of ARM android tablets out there and run Linux on that?
You don't need Linux to teach Computer Science. You don't even need a computer to teach computer science.
Except TFA says it's a one-off $99 fee. And the money goes to Verisign, not even Microsoft. How is your crazy ranting rated +4 Insightful?
The money goes to Verisign, not Microsoft. Did you read TFA?
Regardless of whether or not you _can_ turn off the secure boot, when you consider what the _majority_ of end users feel comfortable and competent in doing, what kind of barrier to entry does this raise?
The majority of end users hardly feel comfortable and competent in turning on their computer, let alone installing a new OS UEFI secure boot or otherwise. Pretending this is the one thing that will prevent the masses from running Linux is disingenuous.
It leaves them with going into the UEFI settings and turning on custom mode, then installing any OS they want.