Even if his specific accusations were correct (and I'm not granting that they were), he's still not a hero. He used those accusations to create an environment where freedom of speech and association were curtailed. His House committee attempted to change the meaning of "American" from "supporting the Constitution" to "opposing Communism, even at the expense of the Constitution". Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed in the end, although it took too long and cost too much in terms of lives damaged. Altogether a sad blight on the record.
You are confusing two different concepts. This should be an argument about the prevalence of abiogenesis (i.e. the creation of life from non-life), not the ability of life to adapt to harsh environments.
On the other hand, it could turn out that there is life on Mars that was carried there from Earth (e.g. via a chunk of rock that was ejected from Earth and landed on Mars). In that case, we're back to marveling at the resilience of our single tree of life.
Re:KDE is a perfect cross-platform environment
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
The Qyoto project doesn't seem to exist anymore. Or at least Google can't find it. Anyone got a working link?
I really wouldn't call The Beatles as something all that worthwhile. Perhaps it's just not what's "in" these days.Interesting no?
No. It's just sad (for you).
I'm trying to be nice about this. Let me put it this way: I'm confident that most people your age appreciate the Beatles more than you and your friends.
I can't find a single person above 15 who likes 2000's music. Why is that?
Going out on a limb here: It's because you and your friends haven't yet been able to drench recent events in the thick layer of "irony" you need before you can enjoy something (e.g. 50s, 70s and 80s music).
I'm over 40 and I love some of the music that's been released in this decade: Mike Doughty, Poe, Iron and Wine, Eels, etc.
I don't think so. Any surface smooth enough to be called "shiny" is going to have an effective curvature of zero at any spot the size of a laser beam. The overall shape of the surface won't matter.
No, mutation and recombination do not represent "two kinds of evolution". They are just two mechanisms involved in evolution by natural selection. The mutation rate in this particular case might be low (or zero), but that doesn't make it qualitatively different from other cases of evolution.
"Just" a shift in population ratios? Nice attempt to drive a wedge into the non-existent space between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution". For the record: Shift in population ratios = change in allele frequencies = evolution.
You exist in order to create and maintain an environment in which they can get their work done. The better you can do that job, the happier everyone (them, you, and your customers) will be.
The main problem with the switchover is that a particular "station's analog broadcast covers far more ground than its digital signal, meaning some viewers could watch that channel before the switchover but not afterward." This seems like nothing more than a bad plan by a particular station, hardly an endemic problem with the digital switchover.
Or are lots of stations also planning to broadcast weak digital signals? Why would a station do that?
I was using the word loosely. I meant that reality is subtle, and so our understanding of it changes. Also, of course, reality itself is ever-changing (even if its ultimate physical laws are not).
My point is that science is dynamic ("shifty") while religion is static. Why is science shifty? Because we constantly discover new information and adjust our understanding accordingly. (This is a good thing.) Religion cannot shift in this way, and so instead caters to the "human need for stability" that you mentioned. Unfortunately, this means that religious errors are never corrected.
Perhaps the problem here is that the word "shifty" is itself too shifty to argue about. Maybe instead we can agree on the following quote from Albert Einstein: "God is subtle, but he is not malicious". (Ironically, he was using the God = Universe identity that you espouse. It makes for a poetic quote that way, but it sure causes alot of confusion as well.)
Science is one shifty bitch. Human spirituality needs something more stable.
What a crock. It's reality that's shifty - science is just trying to plumb it. My spirituality recognizes this, but yours apparently puts the need for "stability" above the need for truth. This is the precisely attitude that leads to theocracy.
God is the Universe, sentient or not, it contains you, me and everything else. We are all part of the whole.
The English word "God" refers to a supreme being. You can look it up yourself. If you are not referring to a supreme being, why not just stick with the word "Universe" instead. That's what scientists do.
Re:Affecting me to effect change has a good effect
on
The Fedora-Red Hat Crisis
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I hope they continue to ding you, because you still have it wrong. Here's a rule that works 99% of the time:
"Affect" is a verb.
"Effect" is a noun.
So if you find yourself writing "effected" again, all you have to do is recognize that you want a verb and then use "affected" instead.
It is reasonable to assume that some terrestrial rocks made the opposite journey.
No, it is reasonable to hypothesize that some terrestrial rocks made the opposite journey and then design the experiment to test that hypothesis. That's apparently not what's going on here.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
Even if his specific accusations were correct (and I'm not granting that they were), he's still not a hero. He used those accusations to create an environment where freedom of speech and association were curtailed. His House committee attempted to change the meaning of "American" from "supporting the Constitution" to "opposing Communism, even at the expense of the Constitution". Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed in the end, although it took too long and cost too much in terms of lives damaged. Altogether a sad blight on the record.
You are confusing two different concepts. This should be an argument about the prevalence of abiogenesis (i.e. the creation of life from non-life), not the ability of life to adapt to harsh environments.
On the other hand, it could turn out that there is life on Mars that was carried there from Earth (e.g. via a chunk of rock that was ejected from Earth and landed on Mars). In that case, we're back to marveling at the resilience of our single tree of life.
The Qyoto project doesn't seem to exist anymore. Or at least Google can't find it. Anyone got a working link?
Yes! Radio Paradise is a great source of new music.
I really wouldn't call The Beatles as something all that worthwhile. Perhaps it's just not what's "in" these days.Interesting no?
No. It's just sad (for you).
I'm trying to be nice about this. Let me put it this way: I'm confident that most people your age appreciate the Beatles more than you and your friends.
I can't find a single person above 15 who likes 2000's music. Why is that?
Going out on a limb here: It's because you and your friends haven't yet been able to drench recent events in the thick layer of "irony" you need before you can enjoy something (e.g. 50s, 70s and 80s music).
I'm over 40 and I love some of the music that's been released in this decade: Mike Doughty, Poe, Iron and Wine, Eels, etc.
I don't think so. Any surface smooth enough to be called "shiny" is going to have an effective curvature of zero at any spot the size of a laser beam. The overall shape of the surface won't matter.
Might be best to turn off the water entirely and drain the pipes rather than risk a burst.
No, mutation and recombination do not represent "two kinds of evolution". They are just two mechanisms involved in evolution by natural selection. The mutation rate in this particular case might be low (or zero), but that doesn't make it qualitatively different from other cases of evolution.
That's still evolution, just not the kind that's driven by natural selection. See Neutral theory of molecular evolution and Genetic drift.
Perhaps the GP meant a shift in the population ratios of two different species?
Maybe that's what he meant, but isn't true. There's only one Peppered Moth species. (Enjoy your book!)
"Just" a shift in population ratios? Nice attempt to drive a wedge into the non-existent space between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution".
For the record:
Shift in population ratios = change in allele frequencies = evolution.
Not the other way around.
You exist in order to create and maintain an environment in which they can get their work done. The better you can do that job, the happier everyone (them, you, and your customers) will be.
OK, that is funny.
That seems bad. Why?
The main problem with the switchover is that a particular "station's analog broadcast covers far more ground than its digital signal, meaning some viewers could watch that channel before the switchover but not afterward." This seems like nothing more than a bad plan by a particular station, hardly an endemic problem with the digital switchover.
Or are lots of stations also planning to broadcast weak digital signals? Why would a station do that?
I'm only posting this to make you happy.
In that case, let's see the image of Clinton with disgust on his face as he says Obama's name.
Copy and paste? One of the key "insanely great" f'ing innovations of the 1984 Macintosh, and it can't be done?
Apple did not invent copy and paste.
Wow, an actual funny retort here at the bottom of the thread. Well played.
I was using the word loosely. I meant that reality is subtle, and so our understanding of it changes. Also, of course, reality itself is ever-changing (even if its ultimate physical laws are not).
My point is that science is dynamic ("shifty") while religion is static. Why is science shifty? Because we constantly discover new information and adjust our understanding accordingly. (This is a good thing.) Religion cannot shift in this way, and so instead caters to the "human need for stability" that you mentioned. Unfortunately, this means that religious errors are never corrected.
Perhaps the problem here is that the word "shifty" is itself too shifty to argue about. Maybe instead we can agree on the following quote from Albert Einstein: "God is subtle, but he is not malicious". (Ironically, he was using the God = Universe identity that you espouse. It makes for a poetic quote that way, but it sure causes alot of confusion as well.)
Science is one shifty bitch. Human spirituality needs something more stable.
What a crock. It's reality that's shifty - science is just trying to plumb it. My spirituality recognizes this, but yours apparently puts the need for "stability" above the need for truth. This is the precisely attitude that leads to theocracy.
God is the Universe, sentient or not, it contains you, me and everything else. We are all part of the whole.
The English word "God" refers to a supreme being. You can look it up yourself. If you are not referring to a supreme being, why not just stick with the word "Universe" instead. That's what scientists do.
I hope they continue to ding you, because you still have it wrong. Here's a rule that works 99% of the time:
So if you find yourself writing "effected" again, all you have to do is recognize that you want a verb and then use "affected" instead.
It is reasonable to assume that some terrestrial rocks made the opposite journey.
No, it is reasonable to hypothesize that some terrestrial rocks made the opposite journey and then design the experiment to test that hypothesis. That's apparently not what's going on here.