Exactly and biologists should only look at the DNA of animals to understand their behavior.
Just because we know what the instructions are doesn't mean we can account for what will happen when those instructions actually meet any given environment. Even simple things like instructions for installing or using software should be tested on some users in order to see their pitfalls and problems.
Don't wear aluminum hats! They changed the frequency the aluminum HELPS the signal come in stronger. Use those anti-static bags many electronics are packaged in such as ram, or hard drives.
Indeed juries should not be exposed to the random and shameful arguments of a rogue defense lawyer. Indeed the only proper thing is to have the defense team wear ball gags and point to a given selection of proper phrases and defense strategies that have been pre-screened to apply to their case.
Nothing good has ever come out of it. No cherished ideas in law, such as the idea of truth as a defense for liable and slander, have come out of a novel augment to a judge or jury.
Oh the judge is just saying that the standards for fair use are very vague and that to use them in a legal system you'd need an entire system to judge weather or not the use was in fact fair, a judgement system if you will. Too bad the US doesn't seem to have one of these at the movement.
Still there are many cases where court information should be kept private. Thus the mechanisms for keeping information private at some times while generally having the proceedings be public should be put and kept in place. Our current US system could use a reworking on those grounds.
The open market is very stupid when it comes to software for the most part. They just go with whatever is installed with little to no research into what the program actually runs like or long term performance. It is mostly advertising that gets new software onto computers with a little word of mouth after that. Problems are only noticed when the computer stops "running like it used to" or shows other major faults.
Politics aside, there is also another valid reason for junking the paper and that is if it is Junk then it SHOULD be junked.
Science is not a simple set of professions or easy to follow set of instructions. It is difficult and requires deep and long thinking about many variables. It also requires a very rigorous set of testing at nearly every stage, not just in the laboratory but in the offices and armchairs, namely "Peer Review" where other scientists have to read what comes out of a scientific study for conclusions as well as the data gathered, and all the procedures used to gain that data and decide if there are any flaws with any of those points.
Things are not supposed to be decided with one study. It take many years of research and multiple similar studies to come to solid findings and even THEN things can be overturned. A single study being pushed up or down is little evidence of political pollution of the scientific process (though there is no honest denying that it exists). In order to show political prejudice in a scientific concept you have to show a systemic trend for or against a theory because of politics. Furthermore showing such prejudice does NOT invalidate the biased results; to do that you MUST show that those biased results are flawed scientifically.
For your funny note I've heard that argument made several times over the colder winter just this last year in earnest by many presumably educated people.
That all said I dunno if current "Cap and Trade" legislation will actually amount to anything and do much serious good, but I hope it does and truly believe based on the evidence I've seen and trusted opinions I've heard(We can't ALL have PHDs in Climatology) I think some kind of legislation is needed to limit pollution and carbon emissions in the US, even if that means economic hardship in the short term.
How about I have no illegally downloaded or obtained music on my phone, but the RIAA still cannot search it in ANY way until they get a warrant and have to submit to the proper procedural and regulation requirements that any government agency would have to.
Well we DO know that there is liquid iron and rock in the Earth's interior. Volcanos spew the stuff out all the time.
Now we also know from evidence that the deeper you go, the hotter it gets, miners have encountered this quite a lot.
Now we also know that hot things tend to melt and with our other evidence we have presence of molten minerals(with quite a large amount of iron in many cases) coming up from deeper in the earth than we can study, as well as a lot of evidence that the heat is spread over the entire world and not just near volcanoes.
Yes there could be a solid ball at the center but we can be fairly sure that between that unknown ball and the crust there is a layer of molten rock, which more than likely contains a high concentration of iron.
Just as valid as a hypothesis perhaps, but not as a theory.
A theory requires some evidence and logical reasoning.
While scientists don't "truly know" in that their knowledge is incomplete; they do have a large body of clues, expirmentation and evidence to help them build a more complete knowledge.
You on the other hand simply have given your hypothesis without bothering to look at any clues further than your own skull, or at least you haven't bothered to publish or explain your clues and reasoning to others in any fashion, least of all a repeatable, verifiable fashion that is required for rigorous science.
Thus good scientific theory is indeed more valid than your unsupported hypothesis.
Slashdot Mirror
And the next time a government contractor wants to get the latest linux distro?
There are other uses of P2P than just porn, music, etc.
Yes I believe that our society would be better off with more ball-gags. Ring-gags, latex wear, and various leather goods would also be an improvement.
Exactly and biologists should only look at the DNA of animals to understand their behavior.
Just because we know what the instructions are doesn't mean we can account for what will happen when those instructions actually meet any given environment. Even simple things like instructions for installing or using software should be tested on some users in order to see their pitfalls and problems.
Don't wear aluminum hats! They changed the frequency the aluminum HELPS the signal come in stronger. Use those anti-static bags many electronics are packaged in such as ram, or hard drives.
Indeed juries should not be exposed to the random and shameful arguments of a rogue defense lawyer. Indeed the only proper thing is to have the defense team wear ball gags and point to a given selection of proper phrases and defense strategies that have been pre-screened to apply to their case.
Nothing good has ever come out of it. No cherished ideas in law, such as the idea of truth as a defense for liable and slander, have come out of a novel augment to a judge or jury.
Oh the judge is just saying that the standards for fair use are very vague and that to use them in a legal system you'd need an entire system to judge weather or not the use was in fact fair, a judgement system if you will. Too bad the US doesn't seem to have one of these at the movement.
And remember soap should be used in a process that repeats at regular intervals.
What does this have to do with learning how to compete in the Female Pro Golfer's Association?
The Great Blue God is always angry. Watchout for chairs.
Except it isn't a browser. It is a paper, about a theoretical browser, with not even so much as a screen shot.
Wow basic ideals of modern justice...unfortunetly unheard of on the internet these days.
Isn't plasma a decent conductor? The electrons moving pretty much as they please?
Indeed, what is the reason behind the field lines, by current theory?
Still there are many cases where court information should be kept private. Thus the mechanisms for keeping information private at some times while generally having the proceedings be public should be put and kept in place. Our current US system could use a reworking on those grounds.
Well the ads will cut the cost for you the consumer, at least that is what they will tell you.
And besides they'll make sure there are no real alternatives to getting the book.
Not really.
The open market is very stupid when it comes to software for the most part. They just go with whatever is installed with little to no research into what the program actually runs like or long term performance. It is mostly advertising that gets new software onto computers with a little word of mouth after that. Problems are only noticed when the computer stops "running like it used to" or shows other major faults.
Why? What exactly was so appealing about HotBar that they kept on reinstalling it? What service was it providing?
Politics aside, there is also another valid reason for junking the paper and that is if it is Junk then it SHOULD be junked.
Science is not a simple set of professions or easy to follow set of instructions. It is difficult and requires deep and long thinking about many variables. It also requires a very rigorous set of testing at nearly every stage, not just in the laboratory but in the offices and armchairs, namely "Peer Review" where other scientists have to read what comes out of a scientific study for conclusions as well as the data gathered, and all the procedures used to gain that data and decide if there are any flaws with any of those points.
Things are not supposed to be decided with one study. It take many years of research and multiple similar studies to come to solid findings and even THEN things can be overturned. A single study being pushed up or down is little evidence of political pollution of the scientific process (though there is no honest denying that it exists). In order to show political prejudice in a scientific concept you have to show a systemic trend for or against a theory because of politics. Furthermore showing such prejudice does NOT invalidate the biased results; to do that you MUST show that those biased results are flawed scientifically.
For your funny note I've heard that argument made several times over the colder winter just this last year in earnest by many presumably educated people.
That all said I dunno if current "Cap and Trade" legislation will actually amount to anything and do much serious good, but I hope it does and truly believe based on the evidence I've seen and trusted opinions I've heard(We can't ALL have PHDs in Climatology) I think some kind of legislation is needed to limit pollution and carbon emissions in the US, even if that means economic hardship in the short term.
How about I have no illegally downloaded or obtained music on my phone, but the RIAA still cannot search it in ANY way until they get a warrant and have to submit to the proper procedural and regulation requirements that any government agency would have to.
2 + 2 = Jesus and that is all they need to know!
Well we DO know that there is liquid iron and rock in the Earth's interior. Volcanos spew the stuff out all the time.
Now we also know from evidence that the deeper you go, the hotter it gets, miners have encountered this quite a lot.
Now we also know that hot things tend to melt and with our other evidence we have presence of molten minerals(with quite a large amount of iron in many cases) coming up from deeper in the earth than we can study, as well as a lot of evidence that the heat is spread over the entire world and not just near volcanoes.
Yes there could be a solid ball at the center but we can be fairly sure that between that unknown ball and the crust there is a layer of molten rock, which more than likely contains a high concentration of iron.
It is a lot simpler on other planets as you often don't have quite as many things crawling around on top of them.
Also they provide other points of reference allowing us to compare our planet with theirs.
He did imply his belief by claiming it to be his assertion.
Just as valid as a hypothesis perhaps, but not as a theory.
A theory requires some evidence and logical reasoning.
While scientists don't "truly know" in that their knowledge is incomplete; they do have a large body of clues, expirmentation and evidence to help them build a more complete knowledge.
You on the other hand simply have given your hypothesis without bothering to look at any clues further than your own skull, or at least you haven't bothered to publish or explain your clues and reasoning to others in any fashion, least of all a repeatable, verifiable fashion that is required for rigorous science.
Thus good scientific theory is indeed more valid than your unsupported hypothesis.
Yes exactly water ice in comets. Do you know what a comet's tail is made out of? Water evaporated and removed from the comet by solar radiation.