What an interseting idea. Answer a "skill-testing question" about the subject and you can moderate the discussion. The author of the story would come up with the question to go along with the story.
Glad someone remembers when Usenet was still pretty cool. Like many people here I'm sure, I remember a time when most people you met on the Net (Usenet, irc, gopher - WWW what's that?) were intelligent, friendly people that were almost always a pleasure to converse with. Why do things always have to seek out the lowest common denominator.. sigh. Good luck Rob.
Hey I didn't say he did or did not do good things. I just said he "looked" good doing what he was doing. By the way, the NEP rocked on! An excellent example of things going the way they should IMHO. He he.
Just in case you don't read the article...
on
Babelfish Mutations
·
· Score: 1
Literally speaking the story IS true. *Parts* of the elaborated story (i.e. the Germans present thought the pronouncement to be humourous) are not.
The article admits that the most literal translation of standard Hochdeutsch German "Ich bin ein Berliner" would be I am a Berliner (Berliner meaning a type of doughnut - a very tasty and popular one at that - try one if you're ever in Germany sepecially around New Year's). But the article rightly points out that a living language is a much more fluid thing than a set of grammatical rules - dialects and context come heavily into play. The article puts the lie to the fact that based on an overstrict interpretation of Kennedy's phrase people actually listening to him had a chuckle at his expense. Everyone there knew exactly what the US President was saying that day. Basically the article says you *could* after a fashion interpret the sentence Kennedy said to mean "I am a German-style jelly-filled doughnut". But you'd have to be pretty juvenile to do it (the article says that not me - I say go for it!) and you'd have to basically be on crack to believe that anyone there that day heard anything other than a message of solidarity. (Which I agree with entirely).
So if you enjoy having a chuckle at the jelly doughnut inerpretation. By all means continue. You are still justified doing so. It's not completely a myth.
Mmmmm, im Moment wuerde ich sehr gerne ein Berliner fressen! And I don't mean a citizen of the city of Berlin!
The goalie mask Pablum for babies the paint roller the snowmobile Standard Time (i.e. modern system of time zones) 1/2 of Superman The electric $^#%^ing light bulb!!! (1874) (Canadian Henry Woodward sold a share in his patent to Thomas Edison, who designed a more practical bulb in 1879. However, later on another Cdn Reginald Fessenden invented an even better version and its *his* model we *still* use today around the world. Edison was a middle man between two canucks baby!)
voice over radio the best screwdriver: "the robertson" sonar many cancer-causing (oops) insect repellants the Polyethylene Garbage Bag (can anyone say landfill?) the Franks anti-gravity suit (G-suit) - (used by Allied WW2 pilots - later developed into more advanced G-suits) IMAX movies Trivial Pursuit The Java programming language (in the US supported by US coworkers and a US multinational giant) The Canadarm robotic space arm thing the rollerskate Insulin treatment for diabetics the walkie-talkie snowblower electric streetcar poutine insulated coverings for indoor skating rinks the zamboni kerosene fuel the McIntosh apple Greenpeace The English Patient (sorry guys) shooting down the Red Baron the idea of U.N. peacekeepers (blue helmets to you Euro-types) wood-pulp paper (i.e. modern "paper") *universal* medicare (Sask. was the first) Nanaimo Bars the heart pacemaker (an American later invented one that was much much smaller and could be implanted in the body - definately an improvemnt on the (very big) original) the kidney dialysis machine the electron microscope ginger ale Oka cheese (yum its so good I'm eating some right now as I hum the gens du pays)
Please do not show any disrespect to the Avro Arrow. Thank you. The man says it was doing Mach 2. It was bloody well doing Mach 2 - or pretty well Terrence-and-Philliping close. The biggest what if in Canadaian history. Our national trauma. Where were you the day the Arrow was scrapped? Too bad PET wasn't PM when the Arrow was around. He wouldn't have scrapped it. He would've flown one around himself. (Not that PET didn't have his faults - it just would've been cool.)
You are right that various parts of certain creation myths are falsifiable if taken literally but since no "Theory of Creationism" generally accepted by creation "scientists" has been put forward we can't count on any particular detail to be in any particular account. Creationism as defined by "a supernatural being created the universe" is pretty much an unfalsifiable statement best left to philosophy and theology. (At this point in history anyway). How can modern science try to disprove such a "hypothesis"?
The further we go back in time the murkier the scientific method gets (until we hit the greeks I guess and things clear up for a bit). When Europe was basically a corrupt theocracy the majority of scientists probably considered God to be part of the natural world - the distinction hadn't been clearly made yet. We begin to see rationalists making the distinction when we see the rise of deism and the concept of the "Watchmaker God" among the leading figures of the Enlightenment.
You oppose changing the theory to fit the facts???!! You almost get it but you think its wrong! If the facts go against the theory the theory must be modified (if possible) or discarded in favour of something superior (Occam's razor helps here). That's the scientific method! Another clever way to advance human knowledge is more like it!
Scientists no longer consider non-evolutionary theories because evolution has too many correct predictions for any reasonable scientist to ignore. *How* evolution happened is still a going concern. This is not to say that evolution could be up for debate in the future - but extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence to back them up. No theory that does a better a job of explaining observed facts than evolution has come down the pipe yet. Evolution has the same standing as heliocentrism in modern science. Something that is *generally* accepted to be worthless to argue over anymore.
Actually I don't think creationism qualifies as a hypothesis. Doesn't a hypothesis have to be falsifiable to be considered a valid scientific hypothesis? I don't believe creationism is falsifiable. Since creationism rests on supernatural explanations for natural events it puts itself outside the realm of science as science limits itself to the strictly natural world.
You are like a few hundred other posters who seemingly don't read before they post. (No offence intended - it's just that this point has been made and refuted several hundred times in the past few days on/.)
The word "theory" colloquially has a meaning of something which may or may not be true, just an idea that someone is throwing out, etc. etc. This is *not* it's meaning when speaking of scientific theories.
A theory in science is a hypothesis which has made so many correct predictions about observations that it has become generally accepted by all reasonable opinion.
Evolution qualifies 100% as a theory because it has made so many predictions that have then been observed to be true. Quantum theory, the theory of reletivity are other theories of which you may have heard. Evolution has the same standing in science as these theories.
Creationism does not qualify *at all* as a scientific theory. It has made no predictions which have been observed to be true. It is not falsifiable. It cannot have any status within science at all because it puts forward supernatural explanations. Science by its very nature restricts itself to the natural world. It has nothing to say about religious belief.
If you wait until something is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt you cannot teach anything about science at all. Science does not "prove" anything. In science nothing can be *absolutely* proven. There is always room for doubt that we may not have the 100% correct answer. That is fundamental to the nature of science. If you don't want to teach science at all that's your perogative but you would be mistaken in my point of view.
One other thing that may deserve repeating is there is *no* debate in science about whether or not evolution occured. The only open debate in science is *how* evolution occured. Misquoted scientists arguing about the *how* are not some sort of anti-proof of evolution, they are simply misquoted scientists! And please allow me to drive home the very American-centric nature of this "debate" over evolution. This sort of thing isn't happening outside of the USA (except maybe in a few rural towns in western Canada). I think the fact that the US is the only western country with this powerful extemist Christian movement and the only one with this peculiar "debate" is not mere coincidence.
Apparently (once again) it seems a fairly nastily large chunk of them actually are. Makes you feel good to not have to put up with that sort of stuff, no? I extend an offer of sympathy to the poor clue-having Americans who must endure in such circumstances. If creation "science" is a legitimate science why is it confined essentially to one country? Silly American fundamentalists who somehow have been allowed to accumulate power do something ignorant and shame their nation in front of the world *again*. Always good to keep the rest of us amused. Thanks!
Man, I can't believe someone posted something about that old game. It was one of the first things I ever saw running on a computer - a Commodore PET at my elementary school (at the time we had three PETs on carts and that was it). They showed us that and a tic-tac-toe game and a few other simple programs like that and the BASIC code behind the scenes. The first non-"hello world" program I ever coded was my own version of Lemonade Stand on my C64 back at home, just to see if I could do it. What a load of spaghetti code! But it worked and it had more "features" too.:-)
Hey sorry guy. I'm not usually so snappy. I never saw a post that seemed more obviously chock-full of sarcasm. I was laughing my ass off.
I couldn't believe someone would actually believe what that guy wrote was genuine, especially when he gave himself away with the (library = free books = COMMIES!) thing at the end (a little bit too far over the top).
I've never met someone who actually believes these sorts of things, except in satire in American pop-culture. It's hard for me to understand that people who believe such things really exist.
Slashdot Mirror
What an interseting idea.
Answer a "skill-testing question" about the subject and you can moderate the discussion. The author of the story would come up with the question to go along with the story.
Glad someone remembers when Usenet was still pretty cool. Like many people here I'm sure, I remember a time when most people you met on the Net (Usenet, irc, gopher - WWW what's that?) were intelligent, friendly people that were almost always a pleasure to converse with. Why do things always have to seek out the lowest common denominator.. sigh. Good luck Rob.
You're not going to get shot, but... there's not such a bad chance that you'll get knifed
Hey I didn't say he did or did not do good things. I just said he "looked" good doing what he was doing. By the way, the NEP rocked on! An excellent example of things going the way they should IMHO. He he.
Literally speaking the story IS true. *Parts* of the elaborated story (i.e. the Germans present thought the pronouncement to be humourous) are not.
The article admits that the most literal translation of standard Hochdeutsch German "Ich bin ein Berliner" would be I am a Berliner (Berliner meaning a type of doughnut - a very tasty and popular one at that - try one if you're ever in Germany sepecially around New Year's). But the article rightly points out that a living language is a much more fluid thing than a set of grammatical rules - dialects and context come heavily into play. The article puts the lie to the fact that based on an overstrict interpretation of Kennedy's phrase people actually listening to him had a chuckle at his expense. Everyone there knew exactly what the US President was saying that day. Basically the article says you *could* after a fashion interpret the sentence Kennedy said to mean "I am a German-style jelly-filled doughnut". But you'd have to be pretty juvenile to do it (the article says that not me - I say go for it!) and you'd have to basically be on crack to believe that anyone there that day heard anything other than a message of solidarity. (Which I agree with entirely).
So if you enjoy having a chuckle at the jelly doughnut inerpretation. By all means continue. You are still justified doing so. It's not completely a myth.
Mmmmm, im Moment wuerde ich sehr gerne ein Berliner fressen! And I don't mean a citizen of the city of Berlin!
That's an intersting idea. Is it lack of processing time that is slowing down the Human Genome Project? Or something else?
The goalie mask
Pablum for babies
the paint roller
the snowmobile
Standard Time (i.e. modern system of time zones)
1/2 of Superman
The electric $^#%^ing light bulb!!! (1874) (Canadian Henry Woodward sold a share in his patent to Thomas Edison, who designed a more practical bulb in 1879. However, later on another Cdn Reginald Fessenden invented an even better version and its *his* model we *still* use today around the world. Edison was a middle man between two canucks baby!)
voice over radio
the best screwdriver: "the robertson"
sonar
many cancer-causing (oops) insect repellants
the Polyethylene Garbage Bag (can anyone say landfill?)
the Franks anti-gravity suit (G-suit) - (used by Allied WW2 pilots - later developed into more advanced G-suits)
IMAX movies
Trivial Pursuit
The Java programming language (in the US supported by US coworkers and a US multinational giant)
The Canadarm robotic space arm thing
the rollerskate
Insulin treatment for diabetics
the walkie-talkie
snowblower
electric streetcar
poutine
insulated coverings for indoor skating rinks
the zamboni
kerosene fuel
the McIntosh apple
Greenpeace
The English Patient (sorry guys)
shooting down the Red Baron
the idea of U.N. peacekeepers (blue helmets to you Euro-types)
wood-pulp paper (i.e. modern "paper")
*universal* medicare (Sask. was the first)
Nanaimo Bars
the heart pacemaker (an American later invented one that was much much smaller and could be implanted in the body - definately an improvemnt on the (very big) original)
the kidney dialysis machine
the electron microscope
ginger ale
Oka cheese (yum its so good I'm eating some right now as I hum the gens du pays)
gotta go (yes, I realize doing this was sad)
Please do not show any disrespect to the Avro Arrow. Thank you. The man says it was doing Mach 2. It was bloody well doing Mach 2 - or pretty well Terrence-and-Philliping close. The biggest what if in Canadaian history. Our national trauma. Where were you the day the Arrow was scrapped? Too bad PET wasn't PM when the Arrow was around. He wouldn't have scrapped it. He would've flown one around himself. (Not that PET didn't have his faults - it just would've been cool.)
aujourd'hui.... c'est Pepsi!
GO HABS!
ON Y VA!
Welcome to Canada Chicago. MWAHAHAHA!
That's one down.
.edu is *not* necessarily the States
.edu
.ca domain hadn't been as widely used yet
.edu domain
When I was a student at the University of Toronto in the early 90s all my e-mail addresses ended with
Most Canadian universities were doing the same thing then as the
Now most addresses are utoronto.ca but in previous years many unis outside of the US used the
Check out www.kde.org when the site comes back up.
You are right that various parts of certain creation myths are falsifiable if taken literally but since no "Theory of Creationism" generally accepted by creation "scientists" has been put forward we can't count on any particular detail to be in any particular account. Creationism as defined by "a supernatural being created the universe" is pretty much an unfalsifiable statement best left to philosophy and theology. (At this point in history anyway). How can modern science try to disprove such a "hypothesis"?
The further we go back in time the murkier the scientific method gets (until we hit the greeks I guess and things clear up for a bit). When Europe was basically a corrupt theocracy the majority of scientists probably considered God to be part of the natural world - the distinction hadn't been clearly made yet. We begin to see rationalists making the distinction when we see the rise of deism and the concept of the "Watchmaker God" among the leading figures of the Enlightenment.
You oppose changing the theory to fit the facts???!!
You almost get it but you think its wrong!
If the facts go against the theory the theory must be modified (if possible) or discarded in favour of something superior (Occam's razor helps here). That's the scientific method! Another clever way to advance human knowledge is more like it!
Scientists no longer consider non-evolutionary theories because evolution has too many correct predictions for any reasonable scientist to ignore. *How* evolution happened is still a going concern. This is not to say that evolution could be up for debate in the future - but extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence to back them up. No theory that does a better a job of explaining observed facts than evolution has come down the pipe yet. Evolution has the same standing as heliocentrism in modern science. Something that is *generally* accepted to be worthless to argue over anymore.
Actually I don't think creationism qualifies as a hypothesis.
Doesn't a hypothesis have to be falsifiable to be considered a valid scientific hypothesis?
I don't believe creationism is falsifiable.
Since creationism rests on supernatural explanations for natural events it puts itself outside the realm of science as science limits itself to the strictly natural world.
Yes you most certainly are missing something.
/.)
You are like a few hundred other posters who seemingly don't read before they post. (No offence intended - it's just that this point has been made and refuted several hundred times in the past few days on
The word "theory" colloquially has a meaning of something which may or may not be true, just an idea that someone is throwing out, etc. etc. This is *not* it's meaning when speaking of scientific theories.
A theory in science is a hypothesis which has made so many correct predictions about observations that it has become generally accepted by all reasonable opinion.
Evolution qualifies 100% as a theory because it has made so many predictions that have then been observed to be true. Quantum theory, the theory of reletivity are other theories of which you may have heard. Evolution has the same standing in science as these theories.
Creationism does not qualify *at all* as a scientific theory. It has made no predictions which have been observed to be true. It is not falsifiable. It cannot have any status within science at all because it puts forward supernatural explanations. Science by its very nature restricts itself to the natural world. It has nothing to say about religious belief.
If you wait until something is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt you cannot teach anything about science at all. Science does not "prove" anything. In science nothing can be *absolutely* proven. There is always room for doubt that we may not have the 100% correct answer. That is fundamental to the nature of science. If you don't want to teach science at all that's your perogative but you would be mistaken in my point of view.
One other thing that may deserve repeating is there is *no* debate in science about whether or not evolution occured. The only open debate in science is *how* evolution occured. Misquoted scientists arguing about the *how* are not some sort of anti-proof of evolution, they are simply misquoted scientists! And please allow me to drive home the very American-centric nature of this "debate" over evolution. This sort of thing isn't happening outside of the USA (except maybe in a few rural towns in western Canada). I think the fact that the US is the only western country with this powerful extemist Christian movement and the only one with this peculiar "debate" is not mere coincidence.
Anyway good luck rational American people!
Apparently (once again) it seems a fairly nastily large chunk of them actually are. Makes you feel good to not have to put up with that sort of stuff, no?
I extend an offer of sympathy to the poor clue-having Americans who must endure in such circumstances. If creation "science" is a legitimate science why is it confined essentially to one country?
Silly American fundamentalists who somehow have been allowed to accumulate power do something ignorant and shame their nation in front of the world *again*. Always good to keep the rest of us amused. Thanks!
Actually, I believe it was "This hour has 7 days". It was a weekly hour long news program that went over the previous week's news.
The 22 Minutes crew are paying homage to that old CBC anchor program. (Of course their way to pay homage is to have a joke at their expense).
Wasn't the oldest fork yet discovered by archeologists found not too long ago at a dig in northern China? No joke... they did it all first baby...
actually if you insist,
its "mac-an-toish"
scots gaelic for "son of the chief"
The exhibit of which you speak is at the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto. It tells the story of these experiments.
we're your northern *neighbour*
You can make bread out of a "nut flour" and still stick to the diet.
Yeah and it was set to music...
4, 3, 2, 1... Earth below us, drifting, falling, floating weightless, calling, calling home...
Man, I can't believe someone posted something about that old game. :-)
It was one of the first things I ever saw running on a computer - a Commodore PET at my elementary school (at the time we had three PETs on carts and that was it).
They showed us that and a tic-tac-toe game and a few other simple programs like that and the BASIC code behind the scenes.
The first non-"hello world" program I ever coded was my own version of Lemonade Stand on my C64 back at home, just to see if I could do it. What a load of spaghetti code! But it worked and it had more "features" too.
Hey sorry guy. I'm not usually so snappy.
I never saw a post that seemed more obviously chock-full of sarcasm. I was laughing my ass off.
I couldn't believe someone would actually believe what that guy wrote was genuine, especially when he gave himself away with the (library = free books = COMMIES!) thing at the end (a little bit too far over the top).
I've never met someone who actually believes these sorts of things, except in satire in American pop-culture. It's hard for me to understand that people who believe such things really exist.