If watching three seasons of "Knight Rider" has taught me anything, it's that the Cancer cells will all have goatees, look like David Hasslehoff, and your immune system will emerge from this with a tricked out new trans-am.
Not to mention that parent is assuming that clean air has no value. Which is like saying "eat that doughnut in the garbage. It's cheaper! I'm sure that bakeries make these new garbage-free doughnuts, and those dumbasses think they're better, but until it becomes cheaper than a garbage can doughnut, it isn't feasible".
I hate to defend these people, but I would assume part of it is that you can either spend 8 hours a day at Walmart answering to somebody else, or you can spend less time somewhere breaking into a vending machine (or at home, setting up a fake bank website), working on your own schedule, not answering to anyone, getting the occasional thrill out of knowing that you just tricked (read outsmarted) someone, and make almost the same money.
It's common practice in bioinformatics to measure the same data repetitively in an effort to reduce the error. While 0.993 isn't very good, (0.993)^3 is pretty awsome. In practice, the errors might be correlated (as in a flaw in the measuring system), so the benefit of re-measuring might not be exponential...however it should be darn close.
I don't mean to trample your point, but three iterations wouldn't give a (0.993)^3, (which would equal 97.9%). The odds of an error would be 1-(0.007)^3, which would actually be 99.9999657%.
No sound! When I am looking for something, I like to open several windows at once. I do a Google search, open everything that might have the information I need in a new window, and then scan over each window until I find what I want. (It's my computer, so I will not change my browsing habits to better accomodate the advertisers).
I HATE hearing that "congratulations you have won a free iPod" ad, and then having to find and close the window it's coming from. (and yes, I do close the window without viewing the page).
it has not crashed more than 1 or 2 times in 2237 days of cumulative uptime
Apparently, you have pre-existing stability problems with this box. The fact that it crashed yet again yesterday should come as no great surprise.
Well, he said continuous uptime. I guess that means that when it crashed, he didn't bother to reboot it. He's been staring at a kernel panic message for six years.
They are generally more concerned with things like the origins of new organs and systems, or the transformation of one type of organ into an entirely different type of organ.
That is an interesting point. I am surprised to hear it, because it does not deny the possibility of man evolving from primates or other animals, but merely asks how did the heart evolve or how did mammals evolve from fish.
When people make a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, they generally are not talking about the minutia of what might constitute a new species.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Granted, they often seem to argue as if species is a huge chasm that can never be jumped, or they claim that evolutionists believe that cats give birth to dogs, or some other ridiculous mischaracterization. I think many ID proponents are trying to argue that man could not have evolved naturally from anything else.
To me, the current explanations available for these types of changes..., ring hollow to the point of seeming almost ridiculous.
Not being a biologist myself, I can't answer that question. I know that Darwin had answered a similar question regarding the evolution of the eye. As for the notion that other explanations ring hollow, they are still possible, and the most plausible explanations available.
As for God, He gets full credit for macroevolution and microevolution alike, so I don't see where He need come in to the question.
If that is your personal belief, then I would say that I disagree, and leave it at that. I just hope that you're not promoting that opinion as a scientific theory.
But there are examples of subsets of a species that when separated over time become unable to interbreed. In GP's scenario, the fish became unable to interbreed with the original species. for a real world example, see CASE HISTORIES OF SPECIATION I&II .
There is also the issue of ring species in which one subset (A) can breed with a nearby subset (B), and subset (B) can interbreed with a third subset (C), but subset (A) cannot interbreed with subset (C).
This blurs the line between species, as, by the popular definition of species, varieties A and B are the same species, and varieties B and C are the same species, but A and C are two different species.
Over time these two populations no longer breed amongst each other. By my understanding, evolution defines them as two separate species and state that MACRO-evolution has occurred.
So, here we have two different varieties of fish that look different, have different genes, and cannot inter-breed. Species is a classification system that is subjective in nature, so there is no truly objective definition of whether they are two different species, but where would you draw the line? What else would need to happen before you could say they were different species?
The hard part is this; When you say I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution, you are really saying "I believe in evolution, but with some exceptions". The broader your definition of species is (I.E. the more differences that are needed to declare something a new species), the fewer exceptions you are allowing. The narrower your definition, the more exceptions you are allowing (and the more credit you are giving to a god), but also the more difficult it is to make a claim that hasn't already been disproved.
I have a hard time accepting evolution in general due to the wild leaps it makes. For instance, Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins about the origins of life in the universe and the possibility of intelligent design. The best answer that a practiced scientist and atheist can give on the spot is that some higher form of life evolved and then populated the earth with life. That is, aliens evolved & put life on earth. But, the aliens themselves would have had to evolved through some natural process. THAT is his answer to intelligent design.
In this interview, Richard Dawkins was asked for a scenario in which ID would be feasible. He answered "Aliens" because the theory that a god existed seemed unfeasible to him. But of course, if you believe in a god, then he is an alien. Dawkins merely repeated ID's claim and suggested an answer to the question "where did god come from".
If you want to criticize Richard Dawkins for having ridiculous ideas, then please criticize him for the moments in which he describes his own beliefs, not yours.
I know that one concept that I had difficulty with was the notion that species is nothing more than a classification system. It took a long time to truly rid myself of the notion that organisms "jumped from one species to another". I still would have difficulty making the "what is a species/where is this invisible line that cannot be crossed" argument without feeling like I'm using double talk.
The unpaid labor part is pretty crazy. Ooh, they're testing the cell-phone. So are their customers doing them a favor by testing the product? It's a good thing that Ford doesn't give out free cars to their employees. The poor people have worked too hard to be asked to test a new car.
As for the bonus, last year, I worked as a software tester at a good employer that was heading into a slump. They gave me a $25 gift certificate, and my wife who works in fast food got a better bonus than I did. This year, at a different employer, my bonus was around 46$ after tax, and my wife got around $30, still working in fast food.
I would love it if my employer bought me a $400 cell phone.
Slashdot Mirror
If watching three seasons of "Knight Rider" has taught me anything, it's that the Cancer cells will all have goatees, look like David Hasslehoff, and your immune system will emerge from this with a tricked out new trans-am.
Another fix would be to send every mass email to a dummy address and BCC it to the distribution list.
Or...
To have a spam filter any emails sent to the distribution list that did not originate from one of a few well trusted addresses.
Not to mention that parent is assuming that clean air has no value. Which is like saying "eat that doughnut in the garbage. It's cheaper! I'm sure that bakeries make these new garbage-free doughnuts, and those dumbasses think they're better, but until it becomes cheaper than a garbage can doughnut, it isn't feasible".
I hate to defend these people, but I would assume part of it is that you can either spend 8 hours a day at Walmart answering to somebody else, or you can spend less time somewhere breaking into a vending machine (or at home, setting up a fake bank website), working on your own schedule, not answering to anyone, getting the occasional thrill out of knowing that you just tricked (read outsmarted) someone, and make almost the same money.
It's common practice in bioinformatics to measure the same data repetitively in an effort to reduce the error. While 0.993 isn't very good, (0.993)^3 is pretty awsome. In practice, the errors might be correlated (as in a flaw in the measuring system), so the benefit of re-measuring might not be exponential...however it should be darn close.
I don't mean to trample your point, but three iterations wouldn't give a (0.993)^3, (which would equal 97.9%). The odds of an error would be 1-(0.007)^3, which would actually be 99.9999657%.
Ok. good. I'm glad we got that resolved.
Does anyone else see the irony in the idea of someone who did so much to make snail mail less relevant being commemorated in a stamp?
Who cares if Chrome renders this well and/or is faster... CAN IT BLOCK ADS??, No?... OK! Fine... So, where's my FF icon? )
Chrome blocked it.
Can I add one thing to your rant?
No sound! When I am looking for something, I like to open several windows at once. I do a Google search, open everything that might have the information I need in a new window, and then scan over each window until I find what I want. (It's my computer, so I will not change my browsing habits to better accomodate the advertisers).
I HATE hearing that "congratulations you have won a free iPod" ad, and then having to find and close the window it's coming from. (and yes, I do close the window without viewing the page).
Umm...considering how much the Bush administration has gotten away with so far, this would be peanuts.
Apparently, you have pre-existing stability problems with this box. The fact that it crashed yet again yesterday should come as no great surprise.
Well, he said continuous uptime. I guess that means that when it crashed, he didn't bother to reboot it. He's been staring at a kernel panic message for six years.
Lose 20 channels, tell people who bitch to use torrents, impose strict bandwidth caps, then charge out the ass for going over the limit.
It's a perfect circle.
But with the new HD convertors they will be able to use standard rabbit ears to get standard network...oh, never mind.
So how much do we have to pay them to get Jon Stewart back?
Don't they get to jack up their rates from the second problem?
I can see your point, but getting the price down to something more competitive is much more important.
Besides...
This is a little out of order, but...
They are generally more concerned with things like the origins of new organs and systems, or the transformation of one type of organ into an entirely different type of organ.
That is an interesting point. I am surprised to hear it, because it does not deny the possibility of man evolving from primates or other animals, but merely asks how did the heart evolve or how did mammals evolve from fish.
When people make a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, they generally are not talking about the minutia of what might constitute a new species.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Granted, they often seem to argue as if species is a huge chasm that can never be jumped, or they claim that evolutionists believe that cats give birth to dogs, or some other ridiculous mischaracterization. I think many ID proponents are trying to argue that man could not have evolved naturally from anything else.
To me, the current explanations available for these types of changes..., ring hollow to the point of seeming almost ridiculous.
Not being a biologist myself, I can't answer that question. I know that Darwin had answered a similar question regarding the evolution of the eye. As for the notion that other explanations ring hollow, they are still possible, and the most plausible explanations available.
As for God, He gets full credit for macroevolution and microevolution alike, so I don't see where He need come in to the question.
If that is your personal belief, then I would say that I disagree, and leave it at that. I just hope that you're not promoting that opinion as a scientific theory.
But there are examples of subsets of a species that when separated over time become unable to interbreed. In GP's scenario, the fish became unable to interbreed with the original species. for a real world example, see CASE HISTORIES OF SPECIATION I&II .
There is also the issue of ring species in which one subset (A) can breed with a nearby subset (B), and subset (B) can interbreed with a third subset (C), but subset (A) cannot interbreed with subset (C).
This blurs the line between species, as, by the popular definition of species, varieties A and B are the same species, and varieties B and C are the same species, but A and C are two different species.
I just dislike how they describe each of their third party resellers' products as Used and New.
This may be a stupid question, but, if Amazon is a publicly traded corporation, then aren't they obligated to release information about their profits?
That begs the question, can a popular misconception about an expression change the meaning of the expression itself...
sorry, just had to say it.
Over time these two populations no longer breed amongst each other. By my understanding, evolution defines them as two separate species and state that MACRO-evolution has occurred.
So, here we have two different varieties of fish that look different, have different genes, and cannot inter-breed. Species is a classification system that is subjective in nature, so there is no truly objective definition of whether they are two different species, but where would you draw the line? What else would need to happen before you could say they were different species?
The hard part is this; When you say I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution, you are really saying "I believe in evolution, but with some exceptions". The broader your definition of species is (I.E. the more differences that are needed to declare something a new species), the fewer exceptions you are allowing. The narrower your definition, the more exceptions you are allowing (and the more credit you are giving to a god), but also the more difficult it is to make a claim that hasn't already been disproved.
I have a hard time accepting evolution in general due to the wild leaps it makes. For instance, Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins about the origins of life in the universe and the possibility of intelligent design. The best answer that a practiced scientist and atheist can give on the spot is that some higher form of life evolved and then populated the earth with life. That is, aliens evolved & put life on earth. But, the aliens themselves would have had to evolved through some natural process. THAT is his answer to intelligent design.
In this interview, Richard Dawkins was asked for a scenario in which ID would be feasible. He answered "Aliens" because the theory that a god existed seemed unfeasible to him. But of course, if you believe in a god, then he is an alien. Dawkins merely repeated ID's claim and suggested an answer to the question "where did god come from".
If you want to criticize Richard Dawkins for having ridiculous ideas, then please criticize him for the moments in which he describes his own beliefs, not yours.
I know that one concept that I had difficulty with was the notion that species is nothing more than a classification system. It took a long time to truly rid myself of the notion that organisms "jumped from one species to another". I still would have difficulty making the "what is a species/where is this invisible line that cannot be crossed" argument without feeling like I'm using double talk.
Oh. So that's what's been doing it.
Yeah, Vista says my proc should actually be a vacuum tube.
How about, "Enough erosion and we'll be more barren than Mother Theresa's backseat at a Gay Pride festival"?
Hold on. You write that down, I'll find a copy of "the circle of life" and we'll explain the whole process correctly.
The unpaid labor part is pretty crazy. Ooh, they're testing the cell-phone. So are their customers doing them a favor by testing the product? It's a good thing that Ford doesn't give out free cars to their employees. The poor people have worked too hard to be asked to test a new car.
As for the bonus, last year, I worked as a software tester at a good employer that was heading into a slump. They gave me a $25 gift certificate, and my wife who works in fast food got a better bonus than I did. This year, at a different employer, my bonus was around 46$ after tax, and my wife got around $30, still working in fast food.
I would love it if my employer bought me a $400 cell phone.