You misunderstand the term "provable" it means that an idea is capable of being tested in an abstract sense. It has nothing to do with whether the idea is ultimately correct or incorrect. A false theory can still be provable.
Why do you need capacitors? Wouldn't a constant application of DC provide a constant force proportional to the product of current and magnetic field strength?
A railgun like the one described on the linked site is basically a linear motor, except they use the induced magnetic field instead of having a set of magnets at 90 degree angles to the conductors.
Is there any reason that this same principal could not be used to move a conductive liquid (such as seawater)?
If their goal was really do develop a real scientific theory, then the would use your approach. Their actual goal is to disredit evolution in specific and science in general to advance their idological goals.
The point made by his poster is valid. No real scientist would ever expect his unfinished theory to be placed on an equal footing with an established theory, yet the proponents of ID expect this kind of treatement. I think this picture demonstrates their claim the best.
If you are talking about this : String Theory, Multiple Universes (Anthropic Principle), time travel
String theory and any multiple universe theory are still under development and as such are not really theories. Once they have developed into statements that can be tested using experimants that generate reproducable results, then they will be full-fledged theories.
Time travel in the forward direction has been observed in many experiments, time travel in the reverse direction is merely speculation at this point.
Like any other idea, ID will be a scientific theory once it is shown to be predictive, logical, testable, and falsifiable.
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
You are right, there is no exclusiveness claim. In fact, their statement could claim anything or nothing at all. What makes one explaination "better" than another? Maybe all they claim is that ID is easier to say than evolution, making their explanation "best". But the real question is exactly what about this "scientific theory" is predictive or testable?
ID (in its best form) does NOT require the existence of a supernatural being(s). We as mortals may be able to create life in the lab someday also.
If ID claimed that intelligent intervention can create life, then it would be a scientific theory and this debate would not be occuring.
What ID actually claims is the life can not be created by any methond other than intelligent intervention. This can not be disproven, since no experiment can prove that a previously unknown intelligence is not acting on a population. Since ID can not be disproven, it is not scientific.
It is not "false-ifiable" because it is impossible to prove the non-existance of a supernateral entity. Your example of filming natural selection would not disprove ID, because it could always be claimed that the evolution occured because God wanted it to. For more info, google Carl Sagan's invisible dragon example.
The difference between morality and law (maybe I should specify criminal law) is just a semantic one. They both fundementally create a division between actions that are allowed and not allowed. They only difference is that law is morality that is enforced by the power of the state.
We should worry more about the laws themselves rather than if they are moral or not.
All laws represent morality; they are an expression of what is legal (right) or illegal (wrong). The question isn't if the government should legislate morality, but rather which morailty should those laws reflect. The basic libertarian principal is everything should be legal, except for those actions than infringe on another person's rights.
For years, I never got spam. Then my family started to use email... I can't make them understand why its bad to forward everyone in their address book every chain letter they get.
Private welfare nothing more than a way for greedy affluent people to keep more of their own money in their pocket at the expense of the poor who deserve the product of someone else's labor by virtue of their "need".
From what I can remember wasn't as bad when the site was new, but it's always been like that to some degree. Any time you have a group of like-minded people in once place, this thing tends to happen.
That's all well and good, but I wasn't talking about double buffering.
Are you sure? From his description of double buffering, it does exactly what you want. The front buffer is used for displaying to the screen. Whenever an application updates the display, it updates the back buffer. Once the update is complete, it issues the swapbuffers command and the updated buffer is displayed. This way, there is never any delay redrawing a window.
On my system, it will startup and all the sample applications work (except for terminal, which I didn't compile). The only issue is that the mouse doesn't work. When I move the mouse, the pointer flickers erraticly, but won't actually move.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes
Yes: expensive but worth the money
You misunderstand the term "provable" it means that an idea is capable of being tested in an abstract sense. It has nothing to do with whether the idea is ultimately correct or incorrect. A false theory can still be provable.
Why do you need capacitors? Wouldn't a constant application of DC provide a constant force proportional to the product of current and magnetic field strength?
A railgun like the one described on the linked site is basically a linear motor, except they use the induced magnetic field instead of having a set of magnets at 90 degree angles to the conductors.
Is there any reason that this same principal could not be used to move a conductive liquid (such as seawater)?
If their goal was really do develop a real scientific theory, then the would use your approach. Their actual goal is to disredit evolution in specific and science in general to advance their idological goals.
The point made by his poster is valid. No real scientist would ever expect his unfinished theory to be placed on an equal footing with an established theory, yet the proponents of ID expect this kind of treatement. I think this picture demonstrates their claim the best.
If you are talking about this :
String Theory, Multiple Universes (Anthropic Principle), time travel
String theory and any multiple universe theory are still under development and as such are not really theories. Once they have developed into statements that can be tested using experimants that generate reproducable results, then they will be full-fledged theories.
Time travel in the forward direction has been observed in many experiments, time travel in the reverse direction is merely speculation at this point.
Like any other idea, ID will be a scientific theory once it is shown to be predictive, logical, testable, and falsifiable.
Intelligent Design Network, Inc. is a nonprofit organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science.
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
You are right, there is no exclusiveness claim. In fact, their statement could claim anything or nothing at all. What makes one explaination "better" than another? Maybe all they claim is that ID is easier to say than evolution, making their explanation "best". But the real question is exactly what about this "scientific theory" is predictive or testable?
If ID claimed that intelligent intervention can create life, then it would be a scientific theory and this debate would not be occuring.
What ID actually claims is the life can not be created by any methond other than intelligent intervention. This can not be disproven, since no experiment can prove that a previously unknown intelligence is not acting on a population. Since ID can not be disproven, it is not scientific.
It is not "false-ifiable" because it is impossible to prove the non-existance of a supernateral entity. Your example of filming natural selection would not disprove ID, because it could always be claimed that the evolution occured because God wanted it to. For more info, google Carl Sagan's invisible dragon example.
No, if a "great" theory fails in practice then is must be the fault of reality, not the theory.
The difference between morality and law (maybe I should specify criminal law) is just a semantic one. They both fundementally create a division between actions that are allowed and not allowed. They only difference is that law is morality that is enforced by the power of the state.
We should worry more about the laws themselves rather than if they are moral or not.
All laws represent morality; they are an expression of what is legal (right) or illegal (wrong). The question isn't if the government should legislate morality, but rather which morailty should those laws reflect. The basic libertarian principal is everything should be legal, except for those actions than infringe on another person's rights.
size
weight
cost
effiency
crew requirements
For years, I never got spam. Then my family started to use email... I can't make them understand why its bad to forward everyone in their address book every chain letter they get.
You have way too much time on your hands.
On the other hand, it is kind of funny; the sound file is a nice touch.
No problem.
I was probably just feeding a troll anyway.
I guess that it's difficult to see in nested view, but my post was a response to this one, and was intended to be sarcastic.
Private welfare nothing more than a way for greedy affluent people to keep more of their own money in their pocket at the expense of the poor who deserve the product of someone else's labor by virtue of their "need".
Stop being divisive. :)
From what I can remember wasn't as bad when the site was new, but it's always been like that to some degree. Any time you have a group of like-minded people in once place, this thing tends to happen.
Post on slashdot, and you become a raving homosexual deviant, intent on sodomizing little boys and sucking off gay men in truck stop restrooms.
I doubt anyone other than yourself is interested in hearing about your personal problems...
I just finished reading the article and already I'm starting to say things I'm not supposed to.
That's all well and good, but I wasn't talking about double buffering.
Are you sure? From his description of double buffering, it does exactly what you want. The front buffer is used for displaying to the screen. Whenever an application updates the display, it updates the back buffer. Once the update is complete, it issues the swapbuffers command and the updated buffer is displayed. This way, there is never any delay redrawing a window.
On my system, it will startup and all the sample applications work (except for terminal, which I didn't compile). The only issue is that the mouse doesn't work. When I move the mouse, the pointer flickers erraticly, but won't actually move.
Now to see if it works...