If properly implemented, a combination of electronic and paper ballots can provide much better integrity than either mode can provide by itself. See Ensuring the Integrity of Electronic Voting
I got screwed out of $50 on an Envision monitor rebate. I don't know why they rejected my claim, and I don't have time to pursue it -- considering that it would probably be a waste of time anyway. Next time you see an Envision monitor rebate offer, consider the rebate worthless. The bastards cannot be trusted.
This was taken by some idiot to be what you "quoted" above. How do you feel about falling for a ruse like that? Like a fool, perhaps? Oh, and I'll bet you've never misspoken in your entire life, eh loser?
TCL is a command language for TK. For that purpose it is excellent, but for general scripting it is awkward at best. If you have a GUI intensive application to write, use TCL/TK, otherwise use another language, such as Python.
By the way, check out GVI, the Graphical Voter Interface, which I wrote in TCL/TK.
I program in Tcl and Python, and they are great for a certain class of problems, but they are certainly not right for everything.
For large projects that are shipped to a customer and must work right in the field, scripting languages are inappropriate. An air traffic control system, for example, should not be written in a scripting language.
Having said that, Python is great for analysing air traffic data and for automated testing of air traffic control software. I know because I do just that routinely.
I am an aerospace research engineer, and I've published several (technical papers. I can tell you that I seldom read the papers I cite from start to finish. I'm not a fast enough reader, and I simply don't have enough time. If I did, I would have no time left for my own creativity and work. However, I do read the most important parts of a paper and at least skim over the rest.
One must understand that reading technical papers is not like reading a novel. Often they are very difficult to understand, either because the material is just inherently difficult (advanced mathematics, for example) or because it is simply not explained well. I often have to read the difficult parts over several times.
I happen to believe that the "publish or perish" mentality in academia causes many papers to be published that are not even worth reading. And the glut of papers makes the good ones get lost in the schuffle. So many technical papers are published that an engineer or scientist cannot even scratch the surface of the literature in his or her own narrow field of specialization. What good does it do to publish stuff that nobody has time to read?
Here's another little secret. Professors often don't even read papers on which they are listed as co-authors! It happens all the time, particularly for lowly conference papers. A student or group of students do some research in consultation with the professor, then they append the profs name to the paper as a courtesy. All the prof wants is another notch on his list of publications, and he couldn't care less about the quality of the paper because he knows nobody will read it carefully anyway -- and few will read it at all.
Considering that political contributions are often used to pay for advertising, why don't you geniuses ask yourself how much influence the media has? In other words, the mass media already owns what other industries are trying to buy. And if we carry your logic to its logical conclusion, shouldn't we regulate the media? Oh, wait a minute, that would violate the First Amendment, wouldn't it. Any of you geniuses ever heard of it?
I'm kidding, but I'll bet some genius here on slashdot will claim that the "evolution" of antibiotic-resistant bacteria proves that all life evolved from a single cell.
I suggest you grow up yourself. The point is that with privatized Social Security you will decide for yourself where to put your money. You'll be able to put it into Treasurey Bills if you wish -- or under your mattress if that makes you feel better. Right now it goes into a black hole. If that doesn't bother you then you are a genuine fool.
Generation X will get screwed royally by Social Security. They get to pay now, but they probably won't get to collect later -- at least not until they are 90 years old! Anyone in that generation who voted for Gore ought to be forced to wear a dunce cap. At least Bush is trying to move toward privatization, which genXers need badly.
Why do liberals insist on spending $8,000 per year per student at government schools when private schools do a much better job at half the price? The answer, of course, is that $8,000 is not enough, and we obviously need to spend more.
That's funny, my experience is just the opposite. I've read perhaps a half dozen books on evolution over the years, including 2 or 3 in favor of the Neo-Darwinian Theory.
I believed that only religious fanatics doubted NDT before I started, but then I read Denton's brilliant book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. I urge everyone to read chapter 11 of that book over and over until you understand it. I have read a couple of supposed refutations of that chapter and book by supposed experts, but it was clear to me that they did not understand what he was saying and how the facts supported his claim.
Perhaps I am biased, but I read Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker, and I am absolutely amazed that anyone takes it seriously. In one chapter he speculates wildly about the first living cell could have come into existance, which is fine. But by the end of the chapter he blurts out the standard line that although we don't know how it happened, we know for absolute fact that it happened without any intelligent design or divine intervention. Well, excuse me, but we don't know that. In fact, his own wild speculations show that we almost certainly know that intelligent was needed.
By the way, Dawkins also wrote an earlier book called The Selfish Gene. I haven't read it, but I know that his central theses is that we are just complicated mechanisms to propogate our genes. That's all he thinks we are. I kid you not. Think about that good and hard, and if you don't come to the conclusion that this guy is deeply disturbed, then I think you are.
Yes, Hoyle is an excellent example of a respected athiest scientist who came to the same conclusion that the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is absurd. How he could remain an athiest after coming to that conclusion is beyond me, but perhaps God is using him to prove a point (Hoyle cannot be dismissed as a religious nut).
Sometimes it is fun to think about absurdly small probabilities. According to the theory of Quantum Mechanics, some rather strange things are possible but extremely unlikely. For example, it is possible that I could walk through a solid wall like a ghost without disturbing the wall (or my nose). But how likely do you think it is? It's also possible that all the air molecules in the room you are in will move to one half of the room, leaving a perfect vacuum on the other side. But how likely?
Probably more likely than the 1e-40,000 that Hoyle computed for Neo-Darwinian evolution!
The Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution says that all life evolved as the result of random mutations combined with natural selection. The driving force is therefore random mutation. Natural selection can do nothing except select the random mutations that happen to occur. The point is that no intelligent design is necessary, according to the theory. Spetner argues conclusively that this model does not cut it. RTFB.
Oh, I know. It's an unfair debating tactic to simply refer you to the book. OK, fine. RTFB.
Actually, the person you replied to has a point. In that particular case, both light and dark moths already existed. The "natural selection" consisted of simply adjusting the relative quantity of each kind. So that particular case is not even a case of micro-evolution, let alone macro-evolution.
What's happening today is that roles of science and the church have essentially reversed. Now it is science that wields the authority, not the church. And with regard to evolution, science is doing exactly what the church once did: repressing and ridiculing dissenters. Ever noticed that most of the scholarly oppositioin to evolution comes from retired biologists or scientists in other fields. That's because a biologist seriously jeopardizes his or her career by coming out prominently against (Neo-Darwinian) evolution. Yet many of those same biologists attend church regularly. They obviously don't subscribe to Dawkins hard-core atheistic position.
I should probably correct that statement before I get flamed. I can't remember the exact figure, but something like 99.99%+ of all mutations are either detrimental or neutral. But far, far more mutations are harmful than are helpful. The reason why is extremely obvious. Imagine random bit-flips in the Linux binary code. What percentage do you guess would be harmful, and what percentage do you guess would be helpful?
You've fallen for the Dawkins ruse. Here's what you are failing to account for: Something like 99.99%+ of all mutations are detrimental. Spetner claims that a beneficial mutation that adds information has never been observed in nature. So while you are waiting for all those "good" mutations to build up your complex organism, it will go extinct with a high probability -- very high probability. Spetner debunks Dawkins ramblings quite handily, so I suggest you RTFB!
Slashdot Mirror
If properly implemented, a combination of electronic and paper ballots can provide much better integrity than either mode can provide by itself. See Ensuring the Integrity of Electronic Voting
I got screwed out of $50 on an Envision monitor rebate. I don't know why they rejected my claim, and I don't have time to pursue it -- considering that it would probably be a waste of time anyway. Next time you see an Envision monitor rebate offer, consider the rebate worthless. The bastards cannot be trusted.
Regarding your sig:
... are children learning?
Is our children learning? --guess who
George W. Bush once corrected himself, saying,
Is
This was taken by some idiot to be what you "quoted" above. How do you feel about falling for a ruse like that? Like a fool, perhaps? Oh, and I'll bet you've never misspoken in your entire life, eh loser?
TCL is a command language for TK. For that purpose it is excellent, but for general scripting it is awkward at best. If you have a GUI intensive application to write, use TCL/TK, otherwise use another language, such as Python.
By the way, check out GVI, the Graphical Voter Interface, which I wrote in TCL/TK.
I program in Tcl and Python, and they are great for a certain class of problems, but they are certainly not right for everything.
For large projects that are shipped to a customer and must work right in the field, scripting languages are inappropriate. An air traffic control system, for example, should not be written in a scripting language.
Having said that, Python is great for analysing air traffic data and for automated testing of air traffic control software. I know because I do just that routinely.
ElectionMethods.org
Check out GVI, the Graphical Voter Interface, which I wrote in Tcl/Tk. I think it's pretty cool.
Give that man a huge cigar.
I am an aerospace research engineer, and I've published several (technical papers. I can tell you that I seldom read the papers I cite from start to finish. I'm not a fast enough reader, and I simply don't have enough time. If I did, I would have no time left for my own creativity and work. However, I do read the most important parts of a paper and at least skim over the rest.
One must understand that reading technical papers is not like reading a novel. Often they are very difficult to understand, either because the material is just inherently difficult (advanced mathematics, for example) or because it is simply not explained well. I often have to read the difficult parts over several times.
I happen to believe that the "publish or perish" mentality in academia causes many papers to be published that are not even worth reading. And the glut of papers makes the good ones get lost in the schuffle. So many technical papers are published that an engineer or scientist cannot even scratch the surface of the literature in his or her own narrow field of specialization. What good does it do to publish stuff that nobody has time to read?
Here's another little secret. Professors often don't even read papers on which they are listed as co-authors! It happens all the time, particularly for lowly conference papers. A student or group of students do some research in consultation with the professor, then they append the profs name to the paper as a courtesy. All the prof wants is another notch on his list of publications, and he couldn't care less about the quality of the paper because he knows nobody will read it carefully anyway -- and few will read it at all.
Considering that political contributions are often used to pay for advertising, why don't you geniuses ask yourself how much influence the media has? In other words, the mass media already owns what other industries are trying to buy. And if we carry your logic to its logical conclusion, shouldn't we regulate the media? Oh, wait a minute, that would violate the First Amendment, wouldn't it. Any of you geniuses ever heard of it?
I'm kidding, but I'll bet some genius here on slashdot will claim that the "evolution" of antibiotic-resistant bacteria proves that all life evolved from a single cell.
I suggest you grow up yourself. The point is that with privatized Social Security you will decide for yourself where to put your money. You'll be able to put it into Treasurey Bills if you wish -- or under your mattress if that makes you feel better. Right now it goes into a black hole. If that doesn't bother you then you are a genuine fool.
Generation X will get screwed royally by Social Security. They get to pay now, but they probably won't get to collect later -- at least not until they are 90 years old! Anyone in that generation who voted for Gore ought to be forced to wear a dunce cap. At least Bush is trying to move toward privatization, which genXers need badly.
Ensuring the Integrity of Electronic Voting
nuclear power emits no greenhouse gases.
Ensuring the Integrity of Electronic Voting
Some private schools are more expensive than government schools, but many excellent private schools are about half the price of government schools.
Why do liberals insist on spending $8,000 per year per student at government schools when private schools do a much better job at half the price? The answer, of course, is that $8,000 is not enough, and we obviously need to spend more.
That's funny, my experience is just the opposite. I've read perhaps a half dozen books on evolution over the years, including 2 or 3 in favor of the Neo-Darwinian Theory.
I believed that only religious fanatics doubted NDT before I started, but then I read Denton's brilliant book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. I urge everyone to read chapter 11 of that book over and over until you understand it. I have read a couple of supposed refutations of that chapter and book by supposed experts, but it was clear to me that they did not understand what he was saying and how the facts supported his claim.
Perhaps I am biased, but I read Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker, and I am absolutely amazed that anyone takes it seriously. In one chapter he speculates wildly about the first living cell could have come into existance, which is fine. But by the end of the chapter he blurts out the standard line that although we don't know how it happened, we know for absolute fact that it happened without any intelligent design or divine intervention. Well, excuse me, but we don't know that. In fact, his own wild speculations show that we almost certainly know that intelligent was needed.
By the way, Dawkins also wrote an earlier book called The Selfish Gene. I haven't read it, but I know that his central theses is that we are just complicated mechanisms to propogate our genes. That's all he thinks we are. I kid you not. Think about that good and hard, and if you don't come to the conclusion that this guy is deeply disturbed, then I think you are.
Yes, Hoyle is an excellent example of a respected athiest scientist who came to the same conclusion that the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is absurd. How he could remain an athiest after coming to that conclusion is beyond me, but perhaps God is using him to prove a point (Hoyle cannot be dismissed as a religious nut).
Sometimes it is fun to think about absurdly small probabilities. According to the theory of Quantum Mechanics, some rather strange things are possible but extremely unlikely. For example, it is possible that I could walk through a solid wall like a ghost without disturbing the wall (or my nose). But how likely do you think it is? It's also possible that all the air molecules in the room you are in will move to one half of the room, leaving a perfect vacuum on the other side. But how likely?
Probably more likely than the 1e-40,000 that Hoyle computed for Neo-Darwinian evolution!
The Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution says that all life evolved as the result of random mutations combined with natural selection. The driving force is therefore random mutation. Natural selection can do nothing except select the random mutations that happen to occur. The point is that no intelligent design is necessary, according to the theory. Spetner argues conclusively that this model does not cut it. RTFB.
Oh, I know. It's an unfair debating tactic to simply refer you to the book. OK, fine. RTFB.
Actually, the person you replied to has a point. In that particular case, both light and dark moths already existed. The "natural selection" consisted of simply adjusting the relative quantity of each kind. So that particular case is not even a case of micro-evolution, let alone macro-evolution.
What's happening today is that roles of science and the church have essentially reversed. Now it is science that wields the authority, not the church. And with regard to evolution, science is doing exactly what the church once did: repressing and ridiculing dissenters. Ever noticed that most of the scholarly oppositioin to evolution comes from retired biologists or scientists in other fields. That's because a biologist seriously jeopardizes his or her career by coming out prominently against (Neo-Darwinian) evolution. Yet many of those same biologists attend church regularly. They obviously don't subscribe to Dawkins hard-core atheistic position.
I should probably correct that statement before I get flamed. I can't remember the exact figure, but something like 99.99%+ of all mutations are either detrimental or neutral. But far, far more mutations are harmful than are helpful. The reason why is extremely obvious. Imagine random bit-flips in the Linux binary code. What percentage do you guess would be harmful, and what percentage do you guess would be helpful?
You've fallen for the Dawkins ruse. Here's what you are failing to account for: Something like 99.99%+ of all mutations are detrimental. Spetner claims that a beneficial mutation that adds information has never been observed in nature. So while you are waiting for all those "good" mutations to build up your complex organism, it will go extinct with a high probability -- very high probability. Spetner debunks Dawkins ramblings quite handily, so I suggest you RTFB!