It is funny because it's viewed as an acceptably intellectual position to take against evolutionary theory when noone has every proposed a theory or offered any evidence that would suggest a segregation between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
Dear mr. Learned of Evolution,
Please expand upon your theory of distinction between micro and macro evolution. Specifically, where to draw the line and what mechanism sustains it. This topic is of great interest to me and many others who follow evolutionary debates.
You've been lied to. The resolution that was voted upon was not Murtha's, but one proposed by Republicans that was so poorly written that noone who loves the military like Jack Murtha does could vote for it. A proposal that only functioned to fool gullible citizens like yourself who do not understand that Murtha's proposal has not and will never have it's day in congress while Republicans hold sway.
I'm a Washington Dem who was glad to see the party grow a spine and support Gregoire, but I couldn't agree with you more that reliable elections are key to holding the country together, that they allow us to bitch at each other in the dark dungeons of the internets instead of shooting at each other in the street.
It's a real shame that secrecy is often the default. Challenges to the secrecy come after elections, after we see what harm has been done. Such challenges will be necessarily partisan and therefore easily dismissed.
I had one virus (monkey-d or something) that would hide in memory such that the virus scan couldn't find it, though a scan would clean a floppy. As a result, if I found a disk with the virus, I had to clean it then immediately reboot, since even "dir"ing the disk would reinfect it.
The way I understand it is that farmers degrade the experience for other players by stealing items or monopolizing resources.
Because they're trying to sell to the lowest common denominator, Blizzard has pretty well eliminated direct competition when it comes to gathering loot and improving your character. For example, if someone has done you wrong and taken an item you felt should be yours, you cant kill their character and loot the item. That's why your ping-pong analogy does not apply.
To cut straight to the chase: I promise you that Washington's invasion of Iraq had nothing at all to do with liberating anyone and everything to do with gaining control of significant oil supplies in order to forestall an imminent and rapid worsening of the ongoing energy crisis.
You give these guys far too much credit. The main motives are domestic political considerations and the prospect of looting hundreds of billions from the treasury on the backs of the military for friendly corporations. Oil strategy, besides the everyday sort of corruption that decides who gets to profit from it, consisted only of the pie in the sky neo-con theory that the US could dominate the mid-east and central asia militarily.
President Bush cavorting with an Iranian spy (Ahmed Chalabi) and a 9/11 financier (Prince Bandar) should have already disabused anyone of the notion that the current administration values US national interests when making decisions.
I'm with you on computer games. Not only are your actions laid out for you, but your perception of the world is well delineated. And the function of the world is as the programmer intends, and no more. You're basically running around inside the head of one or two guys, only it's just a small subset and it's formalized.
To some extent multiplayer games are pushing beyond that right now, and the study of emergent behaviour may offer a second avenue out of the straight jacket.
Discern whether someone has an interest in telling you a lie.
If you can verify a small part of what someone tells you, do it.
Are they open to questions and discussion. Are they willing to get specific. Or do they speak in generalities and their flaws behind fake anger, mockery and showmanship.
Are they asserting more than seems reasonable, or do they clearly delimit what is known and unknown.
A web of communication between people is actually a pretty good way to look at the truth if a low enough percentage of them have ulterior motives and a high enough percentage of them are in a position and are willing to check some facts.
But X and Y have to be at different voltages, so all a Z has to do is read the voltage on the line to learn who's switch is closed. That would, however, draw some current.
If it's like the original, there is a difficulty setting. At the easiest level, you can survive most encounters, and at the hardest, you'd best avoid every fight until you're able to get better shields, engines, weapons etc. The random nature of the game means that's sometimes not possible.
More Europeans will come to see the light as the Islamists continue attacking Europeans in Europe. It is amazing how quickly that clears the mind.
Which is why London, Madrid, New York are so Pro-War. All three cities slept blissfully free of terrorism till Al Qaeda showed up. Now things are starting to turn around.
Collin Powel could have been another Eisenhower, unfortunately, many on the left would find a black moderate Republican president intollerable.
This is good advice. I installed CVS without talking to my boss about it. Then one day a hardware problem crops up and he wants to know whether it could be software. Instead of chasing potential wild geese through the code, I just drag up an earlier version from CVS that we know works and test it.
Atheism - that is, the firm belief that God does not exist, is a religion insofar as it holds to be absolute truth that which is,
What kind of idiot equates a firm belief with absolute truth? I suppose next you'll equate a firm beleif that the Tom Cruise is gay with absolute truth, and that those who profess such a beleif implicitly declaring their religiosity.
ID is falsifiable, not a 100%, because there are always those who wiggle, and God can do anything, after all.
1. If ID is true and evolution is false, There ought to be spontaneous generation of new species. Clearly, some species that existed in the past don't exist now, and some species that exist now don't exist in the past. It seems very unlikely that spontaneous generation of entire organisms would be undetectable.
2. If ID is true and evolution is false, we should expect no correlation between unused mitochondrial DNA between species as relates to genetic similarity, unlike the correlation we see between related members of the same species.
So yes, ID is falsifiable, but unfortunately it's been pretty much falsified.
Slashdot Mirror
If you re-read his post you'll find he specifically avoids reproducing the effect.
It is funny because it's viewed as an acceptably intellectual position to take against evolutionary theory when noone has every proposed a theory or offered any evidence that would suggest a segregation between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
Dear mr. Learned of Evolution,
Please expand upon your theory of distinction between micro and macro evolution. Specifically, where to draw the line and what mechanism sustains it. This topic is of great interest to me and many others who follow evolutionary debates.
You've been lied to. The resolution that was voted upon was not Murtha's, but one proposed by Republicans that was so poorly written that noone who loves the military like Jack Murtha does could vote for it. A proposal that only functioned to fool gullible citizens like yourself who do not understand that Murtha's proposal has not and will never have it's day in congress while Republicans hold sway.
I'm a Washington Dem who was glad to see the party grow a spine and support Gregoire, but I couldn't agree with you more that reliable elections are key to holding the country together, that they allow us to bitch at each other in the dark dungeons of the internets instead of shooting at each other in the street.
It's a real shame that secrecy is often the default. Challenges to the secrecy come after elections, after we see what harm has been done. Such challenges will be necessarily partisan and therefore easily dismissed.
I had one virus (monkey-d or something) that would hide in memory such that the virus scan couldn't find it, though a scan would clean a floppy. As a result, if I found a disk with the virus, I had to clean it then immediately reboot, since even "dir"ing the disk would reinfect it.
... why don't you just imagine a beowulf cluster of them while you're at it?
The way I understand it is that farmers degrade the experience for other players by stealing items or monopolizing resources.
Because they're trying to sell to the lowest common denominator, Blizzard has pretty well eliminated direct competition when it comes to gathering loot and improving your character. For example, if someone has done you wrong and taken an item you felt should be yours, you cant kill their character and loot the item. That's why your ping-pong analogy does not apply.
To cut straight to the chase: I promise you that Washington's invasion of Iraq had nothing at all to do with liberating anyone and everything to do with gaining control of significant oil supplies in order to forestall an imminent and rapid worsening of the ongoing energy crisis.
You give these guys far too much credit. The main motives are domestic political considerations and the prospect of looting hundreds of billions from the treasury on the backs of the military for friendly corporations. Oil strategy, besides the everyday sort of corruption that decides who gets to profit from it, consisted only of the pie in the sky neo-con theory that the US could dominate the mid-east and central asia militarily.
President Bush cavorting with an Iranian spy (Ahmed Chalabi) and a 9/11 financier (Prince Bandar) should have already disabused anyone of the notion that the current administration values US national interests when making decisions.
You forgot Poland!
I'm with you on computer games. Not only are your actions laid out for you, but your perception of the world is well delineated. And the function of the world is as the programmer intends, and no more. You're basically running around inside the head of one or two guys, only it's just a small subset and it's formalized.
To some extent multiplayer games are pushing beyond that right now, and the study of emergent behaviour may offer a second avenue out of the straight jacket.
Discern whether someone has an interest in telling you a lie.
If you can verify a small part of what someone tells you, do it.
Are they open to questions and discussion. Are they willing to get specific. Or do they speak in generalities and their flaws behind fake anger, mockery and showmanship.
Are they asserting more than seems reasonable, or do they clearly delimit what is known and unknown.
A web of communication between people is actually a pretty good way to look at the truth if a low enough percentage of them have ulterior motives and a high enough percentage of them are in a position and are willing to check some facts.
But if I truncate a negative number, I round up. If I truncate a positive number, I round down. Round towards zero.
If I floor a number, always rounding down. If I ceiling the number, always rounding up, positive or negative.
trunc(-1.5) = -1 = round2zero(-1.5)
trunc(1.5) = 1 = round2zero(1.5)
floor(-1.5) = -2 = rounddown(-1.5)
floor(1.5) = 1 = rounddown(1.5)
ceiling(-1.5) = -1 = roundup(-1.5)
ceiling(1.5) = 2 = roundup(1.5)
What's the difference between round-toward-zero and truncate is? Or floor round and round down? Or ceiling round and round up?
This means we can condition the casinos to better the odds on the machines by using weighted coins.
What will the do when a giant squid inevitably crawls up the pipe and gets stuck.
From another sun, as I understand it.
But X and Y have to be at different voltages, so all a Z has to do is read the voltage on the line to learn who's switch is closed. That would, however, draw some current.
If it's like the original, there is a difficulty setting. At the easiest level, you can survive most encounters, and at the hardest, you'd best avoid every fight until you're able to get better shields, engines, weapons etc. The random nature of the game means that's sometimes not possible.
More Europeans will come to see the light as the Islamists continue attacking Europeans in Europe. It is amazing how quickly that clears the mind.
Which is why London, Madrid, New York are so Pro-War. All three cities slept blissfully free of terrorism till Al Qaeda showed up. Now things are starting to turn around.
Collin Powel could have been another Eisenhower, unfortunately, many on the left would find a black moderate Republican president intollerable.
My bad, I have been trolled. Carry on.
This is good advice. I installed CVS without talking to my boss about it. Then one day a hardware problem crops up and he wants to know whether it could be software. Instead of chasing potential wild geese through the code, I just drag up an earlier version from CVS that we know works and test it.
No doubt, but this still should be better then rebels ambushing and killing the drivers, then stealing everything.
When asked why he was no longer so involved with Academic Philosphy, Bertrand Russell responded: "I discovered fucking."
Atheism - that is, the firm belief that God does not exist, is a religion insofar as it holds to be absolute truth that which is,
What kind of idiot equates a firm belief with absolute truth? I suppose next you'll equate a firm beleif that the Tom Cruise is gay with absolute truth, and that those who profess such a beleif implicitly declaring their religiosity.
ID is falsifiable, not a 100%, because there are always those who wiggle, and God can do anything, after all.
1. If ID is true and evolution is false, There ought to be spontaneous generation of new species. Clearly, some species that existed in the past don't exist now, and some species that exist now don't exist in the past. It seems very unlikely that spontaneous generation of entire organisms would be undetectable.
2. If ID is true and evolution is false, we should expect no correlation between unused mitochondrial DNA between species as relates to genetic similarity, unlike the correlation we see between related members of the same species.
So yes, ID is falsifiable, but unfortunately it's been pretty much falsified.