Jesus teachings survived, his personal history didn't so we don't know. There is a 30 year gap where we don't know anythign about him. Buddha as well is steeped in the fog of time. Ditto for Zoroaster. We are fairly certain that Mohammad was a conquering warrior philosopher.
This is kind of what I'm saying, some of whom may be considered the holiest men in our history were not without fault -- they were, after all, men.
"How much of it would the [U.S.] government have to cede to China if it also landed there?"
That's a trick question, no one owns the Moon, much like Antarctica isn't owned by any country either.
It's more than a trick question. It's also an ethical/philosophical question:
What gives someone the right to a piece of ground that was there long before them and long after them, and is in no way theirs any more than they can muster violence to hold it? Do we have a right to deprive others from that which isn't even ours? Since land is not property --even in the loosest sense-- until you can put up a fence, then it seems like if China goes to the moon, and founds bases there uncontested, the moon is de facto theirs. What would be a coup is if they could get the Americans to call it Yueqiu or something (sorry if that's wrong, I've never seriously studied Chinese).
Often quoted: "Men did not make the [Moon]... It is the value of the improvements only, and not the [Moon] itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." (apologies and attribution to that radical Thomas Paine (Agrarian Justice, 1795-6))
(and here is the context:)
There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility of separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement was made.
The value of the improvement so far exceeded the value of the natural earth, at that time, as to absorb it; till, in the end, the common right of all became confounded into the cultivated right of the individual. But there are, nevertheless, distinct species of rights, and will continue to be, so long as the earth endures. (from http://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html
(should I just say PC? Apple'll be Intel soon anyways, will we get to simplify things then?)
It should be noted that Apples were PCs before PCs were. Recall, IBM (the Great Evil of the time) co-opted the "personal computer" (the friendly name for micro-computers used by Apple and others) for their own brand. What's weird is after a couple years of writing PC and PC-XT and PC-Clone about every piece of Intel-Architecture software/hardware that we didn't all start calling them ATs when the IBM PC-AT came on the scene; Everyone just kept calling them (ambiguously) PCs. The AT is the most surviving architecture wise (today's IA32 has more in common with the AT ["Advanced Technology" 80286] than with the PC/XT).
No point really... just interesting that the generic term became a brand (not unlike Windows) -- strange compared to other industries. Look how successful Le Car was for example:-p
Where are you persecuted? You keep saying that Christians are persecuted in this country. And yet, I don't see it. Jacksonville, Florida is full of churches. It's full of schools with prayer groups and Bible studies. It's also full of wide open public spaces where any man can stand and pray or even proselytize (within the rights of others not to be harassed under the definition of statute).
It's weird to see you come at it from both sides though -- refreshing even. Both your Jewish ex-wife and son and persecuted for their beliefs, and yet, so are you, a Protestant in a country chock-full of WASPs. There's no shortage of evidence that Muslims are also persecuted in this country. Where on earth are all these repressive heathens coming from?! They aren't part of the establishment, nor the government, nor largely the corporate power-elite. In fact, the non-religious and atheist* are such a tiny minority as to be laughable. (*describing atheism as the only religion that could be against all other largely monotheistic religions).
You are honestly convinced that tiny bands of libertarians are controlling the whole country based merely on the anecdotes of your own town.
It would seem to me, that you have a vested interest in secular public education. Do you want to undermine your sons religious education by subjecting him to prayer in Jesus' name? I can see that you'd rather turn him to your own religion, to save him from eternal damnation, but failing that I'd imagine he'd have a more enjoyable education at a private Jewish school, or a secular public school.
The fact you can't pray in Jesus' name at a public-school graduation does not limit your constitutional freedoms one whit.
Anyhow, the cult of victimization only belittles though who are actually victims of religious persecution (e.g., murdered Muslims in England, Jews in Poland, etc.).
(and as a humorous aside -- what's with these dress codes?! Shouldn't gangs have the right to free expression via jewelry and head-coverings? I can't believe schools would want to mitigate the violent tension between gangs.)
I don't care what they think. Good scientists focus on ideas, not people's opinions. Look at the merit of an idea at face value, not where it came from or who endorses it.
Here's lets focus on the idea... The ID theory says that life is too complex to have occurred 'on its own' (i.e., by physical and chemical processes over billions of years). Incidentally, this is very similar to (what it sounds like you are defending) the Classical Watch-maker Theory (i.e., an intelligent extra-universal --or you might say super-natural-- "watch-maker" created our universe and its physical laws with great care and then set it in motion with His divine hands). This is a great idea. Idea. Idea. An idea which can't be tested or falsified (here's the argument buster: until we become ultra-evolved, super-dimensional, extra-universal, dare I say it, super-natural beings ourselves and can begin making our own "watches"). The problem with the "magic happens here" idea (or ID theory if you prefer) is that it's not scientifically useful. If you cast aside all the other baggage, all its proponents, all its political wrangling and look just at the core of the ID theory then you have to agree that it does not advance our knowledge of science. How can it? It has no predictive power. It has no testable properties. It has no natural foundation (with which to explain it, only the supernatural).
Saying "Cells sure are elegant, that's evidence of God, er, Intelligent Designer" is different from "Two objects in space falling towards each other, that's evidence of a gravity well" (but let's admit there are other ideas why that happens, like "Uncaused Force" or angels pushing them together or invisible alien propulsor beams or subterranean bug-like creatures with immense telekinetic powers moving objects around at their whim... etc., All of which should be mentioned in high-school science). All of this wild hypothesizing is not to detract from the point I'm making in this paragraph: the theory involved in gravitation is explore-able through science, but the theory involved in Divine Intervention is not (or if you prefer Intelligent Intervention, I think you've mentioned elsewhere that the intelligence in design may not be divine?).
And you say one step down the thread, "That is still irrelavent. Look at the concept at face value. Evil motivation by itself does not turn a concept false or non-scientific. We shouldn't ignore relativity for example if by chance it came from Hitler instead."
Ding ding ding, it took much longer than normal to demonstrate Godwin's law this time!
What a waste. Another boring response in this thread about the differences between scientific theories and theories. Maybe I should have just linked the other posts that have said this very same thing for months.
In closing, have you seen any testable evidence (an experimental procedure that I can recreate) that shows where the magic happens? Shouldn't that be enough to evaluate the idea in-so-far as it will advance our knowledge of the universe? Isn't that the point?
And to cite a passage from a book, you cite the book, not anyone else who happened to have used that same passage. Get it? It's really not a difficult concept.
This isn't true. If you had his book in front of you and typed it in yourself from the page referenced you would only cite the book (and author, and page, and edition, and in most circumstances the date of publication and the publisher and often the publisher's city).
When you copy and paste something from the web it is proper to cite the page you copied it from. If you are copying a quotation from a website you cite it as quoted. E.g., Futayama wrote in such and such as quoted by so and so "blah blah blah". This would appear in a a list of works cited as (roughly, MLA):
Futuyama, something. "some book." page x. qtd. in some, author. "some other book." city: publisher, date. page y.
An in-text citation would be something like (Futuyama qtd. in So-and-So: page).
Often when writing about biology (as we are in this case) you might prefer ACS to MLA. You can google for the rules in your profession with the words "indirect sources".
Not mentioning that you are quoting someone else's quotation implies a different context (e.g., you could be committing the same quotation out of context as an author who'd been previously rebuked for it, or you may not know the context at all, and your audience should be [made] aware of that; citing an indirect source does exactly that, it lets the reader know that you don't have/haven't read the work that's quoted, just the quotation in question). That's why there are rules/guidelines for indirect citation. This is first year English with a rehash in third year science courses (when you're writing about science, not just doing it), at least in Florida.
Now... The part that appears as plagiarism? The part you have bolded aren't Futuyama's words, and thus aren't attributed at all and passed off as your own. Those words are Bob Murphy's. That's why down thread people are calling you a liar. Plagiarism is an unforgivable sin to some people.
I'm making no accusations, as I'm not invested in this conversation at all... just passing by. Cheers!
uhh. yeah I stand by my comment. That is a non-sequiter. Pornography? Adolf hilter was 1/4 jew. OSama wasn't a veyr good muslim when he was younger either. But he was also very rich.
This gave me a chuckle. I think it would be obvious given that G.W. Bush was once a coke-snorting drunk (hardly a good Christian) that bin Laden could have once been a wine-drinking pork-eating rich-kid hedonist (hardly a good Muslim).
Even more off topic: Weird, this kinda holds for the first Buddha and the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). Was even Jesus without sin (well at least he was without original sin) -- I'm asking because I don't know. I can see why a cult of personality would form around any sinless man!
Also: Pronography and prayer don't go together, they're opposites. I know some guys who pray for their pornography to download faster. Porn and prayer hand in hand.
In addition to the sibling comments (specifically, that secularism doesn't mean atheism)... your logic is fundamentally flawed:
The constitution of the USA is clear - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" so the argument that a valid scientific theory has some base in religion and cannot be taught is in violation of the Constitution and the basic rights it grants Americans. (emphasis added)
First, ID and Creationism are not "valid scientific theories". They are theories, granted, but they aren't scientific, and as such it makes it terribly difficult to demonstrate evaluate their validity. Rewriting your argument without this flaw gives us the statement: "The [Constitution] is clear[,...] the argument that a theory [based] in religion and cannot be taught is in violation of the Constitution". I don't think the Constitution makes that clear. In fact, it's probably at the States' discretion what is taught, except when Congress (and its federal funding) treads near the establishment of religion (you know, by like spreading or re-inforcing religious teachings with its institutions).
Second, is teaching in public schools "the free exercise" of religion? Is the teaching of Christian belief in State schools the "establishment of religion"? As an exercise in open-mindedness, I challenge you to defend both positions -- maybe it will help you gain some insight into the debate. Maybe it will help you to defend secular education by pretending that you are a Christian in a majority Muslim U.S.; since we enjoy compulsory education in the U.S., would you want all the kids who couldn't afford Christian school to be taught science from the Quran (or the Torah or the Analects and the Five Classics or any other ancient work)? Further, imagine if non-Christian religious education was the norm, would you want your kids to be discriminated against in the workplace because they have an abnormal education?
The only reason I can see Christians being for Christianity being taught and practiced in public (i.e. State-run) schools is the Christian hegemony in the U.S.; the Christian power-elite are blinded by this against minority religions.
The obvious defense is to teach all religions in school! This defense is ludicrous of course -- given there is no fixed number of religions how does one teach the infinite in finite existence? Then there's the opt-out defense which instantly raises the counter: why not the opt-in approach we already use?
Anyhow, nothing personal. I look forward to your well-reasoned defense.
Instead, what I developed was a system where the full dataset was first compressed, but in such a manner the dataset was still randomly accessable. The uncompressed dataset was never written to disk, since my code was a layer in the I/O component of the simulation software.
That sounds neat. Isn't this kind of what's happening with non-linear video editing? It's not exactly analgous I can see (this is also how, in the bad old days [of early 90s consumer PCM audio editing] Cooledit's "peak files" would give you low latency access to long pieces of audio -- the peak files were just variable resolution maps to the audio on disk, requiring one-time delays on initial/final i/o).
OMG, you have a UID bait right in your sig! How could I resist. Now you'll have to "Be sure you are truly worthy to reply to someone with such a low user ID" just to quip back at me.:-D
Not to mention... most free countries having this debate also have public libraries. Public Libraries may even subscribe to both Science and Nature.
Hm... maybe I can get back on-topic by mentioning that some evidence for "The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science" would be the general public apathy towards funding of public libraries. Just ask a librarian about it, you'll get your ear talked off.:-D
Read C.S. Lewis. try "A Grief Observed". C.S. Lewis was a atheist, and great intellectual, who eventually became a Christian [...]
Thanks. That appeal to authority was very scientific. I think you've made his point.
I understand the GP was being inflammatory and possibly over-zealous. Incidentally s/he refuted your argument before you even made it: "Just because an individual is smarter than you in one field doesn't mean they're any more or less immune to the mental compartmentalization process required to become [more or less] religious than you."
If your C.S. Lewis-theory-of-finding-Christianity was sound science then anyone could repeat the journey and life-experience of C.S. Lewis and reach the same conclusion --in the same joyless way-- every time. No rational* person would believe this experiment to be possible, let alone irrefutable. (Additionally, to claim that merely reading about said journey is sufficient is more dubious.)
I'll grant that I could just be stupidly missing your point (C.S. Lewis explains how smart people can find faith? that religion can be joyless?). Cheers.
(*) pardon the generalization, rhetorical device.
Very OT: Replying to myself.
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
s/Sight/Sigh/
I guess that's what I get for not previewing before I 'stumbit'. Requisite, damn you Slashcode for not letting us edit posts before we have replies!
Also, I know that English sort of has a genitive particle in the preposition of (when it's used more like de in Romance languages or no in Japanese).
Mildly OT: More lame moderation
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
The parent comment shouldn't have been modded down, and especially not with off-topic.
At the time of the comment, the article contained a typo and this comment points it out. The fact that the story no longer contains that typo is a testament to the parent's informative nature.
I know that all the descriptivists will start jumping up and down now saying that the difference between its and it's doesn't matter because the meaning was expressed through context. Whatever, I don't want to debate it. I'll just say that we have rules for a reason. Its is a possessive pronoun unless one is, for example, asking how many its were in the prior sentences (words mentioned as words should be italicized). I can't think of a time when it's isn't a contraction and therefore requiring its apostrophe.
(Oh, I know... maybe if It was a proper noun or an acronym...;) like, "I don't care what IT's problem is -- I'm about to fire them all!" In cases like that though, we use capitalization for clarity. Oh wait, now all the capitalization-haters are going to complain.)
Sight. Language is so hard. If only English had a particle for the genitive.
Also worth mentioning is The Advantage (you can even find their CD on Amazon.com), but as they are from the West Coast they only get ups, but not big- or otherwise. I will admit they do some good work with Ninja Gaiden and Castlevania(s).
The third hit of "about 44,800" is "In defense of cramming Jesus down their throats". The variety of blank crammed down throat is so vast one would wonder where you got the perception that it was locked up by "non-Christians". I wonder when the phrase was born and in what context.
you realize of course the CEO would have ultimitly ok'ed the "code" adn the GM is only doing what the people who create the polices wish for him to do right?
I think so. That's why the subject of his, and your posts were "Fantasy Scenario".
Yeah I don't blame you - even people who like Macs don't like some of the classic revisions.:-D As I alluded to in the post, I moved off to x86 around that time... up until OS X was released (at which point I shamelessly dropped the Linux desktop).
You said, "No, the point is more that lil old me [...] could fill have [sic] a terabyte rather incidentally."
If that was your point, why did you lead off with the rhetorical regarding a quantity one order of magnitude greater? ("Do you really think a petabyte is a lot of space?")
You then said, "I picked up 1TB for next to nothing. [...] So if 1TB is sort of the ho-hum consumer standard, 1PB doesn't excite me all that much."
But this of course is a complete fallacy. For one, "next to nothing" times 1000 is... greater than next to nothing! I can't see how you make it out to be some sort of equivalence. Further, in my light-hearted response I alluded to the problem of owning (let alone buying) a petabyte of storage -- the non-trivial facilities required. FWIW, as non-sequitors go, 1PB doesn't excite me either.
I'm used to working with scientific datasets up to 13TB in size, so, lesse, I could hold a whopping 76 runs on this 1PB server. Eh, thats about half a year's worth of data.
Well this raises the question, while doing your work/research how do you store a year's worth of data (if you even do)? Tape? Tape/Cartridge library (like Sony's PetaSite)? Online?
With today's storage densities a ho-hum consumer hard-drive is 80 cubic inches per terabyte (roughly 4x2x5 inches and that's on the small side, I don't know if any.5 TB drives meet those dimensions). So, you'll need a thousand of those or so, 80,000 cubic inches. That's a big drive: 44 inches on three sides (and damn heavy). Optionally, just take any 500 GB drive you have and imagine it twelve and a half times longer, wider and higher.
"Have you seen my buddy Pete? He's a petabyte drive a little over 5'2", blonde hair, blue eyes. I don't know how I lost him; He's impossible to move."
Either way, I guess it's all just personal opinion.:-\ Using the same scaling factor to my apartment... I can imagine that some folks feel a 12 story mansion with 200,000 sq.ft. per floor is "not that much space".
Just sparked me as odd that a storage capacity that was conveniently measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars could not be "a lot of space" to some folks. Cheers.
IIRC, you can run either program, but you'd need a Mac from that era, and yes they installed off of floppies (check eBay, look for Yahoo groups devoted to older software, I'm sure someone could "hook you up"). You'd need a PPC Mac (maybe a G4 or older) with OS 7.6.1 or older (I've heard that some features of SuperPaint 3.5 (the last version?) don't work correctly on newer versions of what is now the Classic OS). Someone correct me if I'm wrong... you could run 7.6 on a G4 right? You'll have to forgive me -- this is about the time I forsook Macs, as the Dark Age had arrived.
I have to chime in with a me too though, Aldus SuperPaint was the shiz-nite! SuperPaint had the gradient tool that PhotoShop stole, down to the dialog box. I shouldn't say 'stole' of course, as they bought them outright and then incorporated all the best features into PhotoShop and Illustrator. There was a big flap because Freehand was also Aldus's and got spun to Macromedia instead of going to Adobe.
I didn't look at the time stamps on the other posts, so maybe you just didn't know yet. Yes the parent was stupid to say "why would you want to lock your screen?" that undermines his point that (as he put it in like the first paragraph) "partial logout/fast switch" was the solution you asked for.
You MISS THE POINT. Of COURSE I can write apple script to do something, or download something that will do it. The POINT is that the mac does not nativly do something that the other major players do. Because this very basic feature does not exist, we have to do STUPID work arounds. Logging out? Putting the computer to sleep? Stupid.
You don't have to write a script. You don't have to download anything. The Mac does do natively that which you request. It takes four clicks. That very basic feature does exist. I don't see how pulling up the login window is a work around. No logging out or sleeping is necessary.
I know it's more fun to just bash people even when they've tried to help! Yay Slashdot!
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus teachings survived, his personal history didn't so we don't know. There is a 30 year gap where we don't know anythign about him. Buddha as well is steeped in the fog of time. Ditto for Zoroaster. We are fairly certain that Mohammad was a conquering warrior philosopher.
This is kind of what I'm saying, some of whom may be considered the holiest men in our history were not without fault -- they were, after all, men.
That's a trick question, no one owns the Moon, much like Antarctica isn't owned by any country either.
It's more than a trick question. It's also an ethical/philosophical question:
What gives someone the right to a piece of ground that was there long before them and long after them, and is in no way theirs any more than they can muster violence to hold it? Do we have a right to deprive others from that which isn't even ours? Since land is not property --even in the loosest sense-- until you can put up a fence, then it seems like if China goes to the moon, and founds bases there uncontested, the moon is de facto theirs. What would be a coup is if they could get the Americans to call it Yueqiu or something (sorry if that's wrong, I've never seriously studied Chinese).
Often quoted: "Men did not make the [Moon]... It is the value of the improvements only, and not the [Moon] itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." (apologies and attribution to that radical Thomas Paine (Agrarian Justice, 1795-6))
(and here is the context:)
To be both off-topic and pedantic:
:-p
(should I just say PC? Apple'll be Intel soon anyways, will we get to simplify things then?)
It should be noted that Apples were PCs before PCs were. Recall, IBM (the Great Evil of the time) co-opted the "personal computer" (the friendly name for micro-computers used by Apple and others) for their own brand. What's weird is after a couple years of writing PC and PC-XT and PC-Clone about every piece of Intel-Architecture software/hardware that we didn't all start calling them ATs when the IBM PC-AT came on the scene; Everyone just kept calling them (ambiguously) PCs. The AT is the most surviving architecture wise (today's IA32 has more in common with the AT ["Advanced Technology" 80286] than with the PC/XT).
No point really... just interesting that the generic term became a brand (not unlike Windows) -- strange compared to other industries. Look how successful Le Car was for example
Where are you persecuted? You keep saying that Christians are persecuted in this country. And yet, I don't see it. Jacksonville, Florida is full of churches. It's full of schools with prayer groups and Bible studies. It's also full of wide open public spaces where any man can stand and pray or even proselytize (within the rights of others not to be harassed under the definition of statute).
It's weird to see you come at it from both sides though -- refreshing even. Both your Jewish ex-wife and son and persecuted for their beliefs, and yet, so are you, a Protestant in a country chock-full of WASPs. There's no shortage of evidence that Muslims are also persecuted in this country. Where on earth are all these repressive heathens coming from?! They aren't part of the establishment, nor the government, nor largely the corporate power-elite. In fact, the non-religious and atheist* are such a tiny minority as to be laughable. (*describing atheism as the only religion that could be against all other largely monotheistic religions).
You are honestly convinced that tiny bands of libertarians are controlling the whole country based merely on the anecdotes of your own town.
It would seem to me, that you have a vested interest in secular public education. Do you want to undermine your sons religious education by subjecting him to prayer in Jesus' name? I can see that you'd rather turn him to your own religion, to save him from eternal damnation, but failing that I'd imagine he'd have a more enjoyable education at a private Jewish school, or a secular public school.
The fact you can't pray in Jesus' name at a public-school graduation does not limit your constitutional freedoms one whit.
Anyhow, the cult of victimization only belittles though who are actually victims of religious persecution (e.g., murdered Muslims in England, Jews in Poland, etc.).
(and as a humorous aside -- what's with these dress codes?! Shouldn't gangs have the right to free expression via jewelry and head-coverings? I can't believe schools would want to mitigate the violent tension between gangs.)
The other intelligent designer...
And what made that?
The other intelligent designer...
And what made that?
The other intelligent designer...
Absolutely. Therefore, I'll watch for you to refer to it as "Intelligent Designers Theory" from now on. Or better yet, "Infinite Designers Theory."
Cheers.
I don't care what they think. Good scientists focus on ideas, not people's opinions. Look at the merit of an idea at face value, not where it came from or who endorses it.
Here's lets focus on the idea... The ID theory says that life is too complex to have occurred 'on its own' (i.e., by physical and chemical processes over billions of years). Incidentally, this is very similar to (what it sounds like you are defending) the Classical Watch-maker Theory (i.e., an intelligent extra-universal --or you might say super-natural-- "watch-maker" created our universe and its physical laws with great care and then set it in motion with His divine hands). This is a great idea. Idea. Idea. An idea which can't be tested or falsified (here's the argument buster: until we become ultra-evolved, super-dimensional, extra-universal, dare I say it, super-natural beings ourselves and can begin making our own "watches"). The problem with the "magic happens here" idea (or ID theory if you prefer) is that it's not scientifically useful. If you cast aside all the other baggage, all its proponents, all its political wrangling and look just at the core of the ID theory then you have to agree that it does not advance our knowledge of science. How can it? It has no predictive power. It has no testable properties. It has no natural foundation (with which to explain it, only the supernatural).
Saying "Cells sure are elegant, that's evidence of God, er, Intelligent Designer" is different from "Two objects in space falling towards each other, that's evidence of a gravity well" (but let's admit there are other ideas why that happens, like "Uncaused Force" or angels pushing them together or invisible alien propulsor beams or subterranean bug-like creatures with immense telekinetic powers moving objects around at their whim... etc., All of which should be mentioned in high-school science). All of this wild hypothesizing is not to detract from the point I'm making in this paragraph: the theory involved in gravitation is explore-able through science, but the theory involved in Divine Intervention is not (or if you prefer Intelligent Intervention, I think you've mentioned elsewhere that the intelligence in design may not be divine?).
And you say one step down the thread, "That is still irrelavent. Look at the concept at face value. Evil motivation by itself does not turn a concept false or non-scientific. We shouldn't ignore relativity for example if by chance it came from Hitler instead."
Ding ding ding, it took much longer than normal to demonstrate Godwin's law this time!
What a waste. Another boring response in this thread about the differences between scientific theories and theories. Maybe I should have just linked the other posts that have said this very same thing for months.
In closing, have you seen any testable evidence (an experimental procedure that I can recreate) that shows where the magic happens? Shouldn't that be enough to evaluate the idea in-so-far as it will advance our knowledge of the universe? Isn't that the point?
And to cite a passage from a book, you cite the book, not anyone else who happened to have used that same passage. Get it? It's really not a difficult concept.
0 &cid=13910607 (had you in fact copied this quotation from another site) you could have made the proper citation with these words:
"
This isn't true. If you had his book in front of you and typed it in yourself from the page referenced you would only cite the book (and author, and page, and edition, and in most circumstances the date of publication and the publisher and often the publisher's city).
When you copy and paste something from the web it is proper to cite the page you copied it from. If you are copying a quotation from a website you cite it as quoted. E.g., Futayama wrote in such and such as quoted by so and so "blah blah blah". This would appear in a a list of works cited as (roughly, MLA):
Futuyama, something. "some book." page x. qtd. in some, author. "some other book." city: publisher, date. page y.
An in-text citation would be something like (Futuyama qtd. in So-and-So: page).
Often when writing about biology (as we are in this case) you might prefer ACS to MLA. You can google for the rules in your profession with the words "indirect sources".
In your case http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=16682
"Really? Then explain this quote from Douglas Futuyma, p. 123 of his Science on Trial (qtd. in http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy75.html):
Not mentioning that you are quoting someone else's quotation implies a different context (e.g., you could be committing the same quotation out of context as an author who'd been previously rebuked for it, or you may not know the context at all, and your audience should be [made] aware of that; citing an indirect source does exactly that, it lets the reader know that you don't have/haven't read the work that's quoted, just the quotation in question). That's why there are rules/guidelines for indirect citation. This is first year English with a rehash in third year science courses (when you're writing about science, not just doing it), at least in Florida.
Now... The part that appears as plagiarism? The part you have bolded aren't Futuyama's words, and thus aren't attributed at all and passed off as your own. Those words are Bob Murphy's. That's why down thread people are calling you a liar. Plagiarism is an unforgivable sin to some people.
I'm making no accusations, as I'm not invested in this conversation at all... just passing by. Cheers!
uhh. yeah I stand by my comment. That is a non-sequiter. Pornography? Adolf hilter was 1/4 jew. OSama wasn't a veyr good muslim when he was younger either. But he was also very rich.
This gave me a chuckle. I think it would be obvious given that G.W. Bush was once a coke-snorting drunk (hardly a good Christian) that bin Laden could have once been a wine-drinking pork-eating rich-kid hedonist (hardly a good Muslim).
Even more off topic: Weird, this kinda holds for the first Buddha and the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). Was even Jesus without sin (well at least he was without original sin) -- I'm asking because I don't know. I can see why a cult of personality would form around any sinless man!
Also: Pronography and prayer don't go together, they're opposites. I know some guys who pray for their pornography to download faster. Porn and prayer hand in hand.
In addition to the sibling comments (specifically, that secularism doesn't mean atheism)... your logic is fundamentally flawed:
...] the argument that a theory [based] in religion and cannot be taught is in violation of the Constitution". I don't think the Constitution makes that clear. In fact, it's probably at the States' discretion what is taught, except when Congress (and its federal funding) treads near the establishment of religion (you know, by like spreading or re-inforcing religious teachings with its institutions).
The constitution of the USA is clear - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" so the argument that a valid scientific theory has some base in religion and cannot be taught is in violation of the Constitution and the basic rights it grants Americans. (emphasis added)
First, ID and Creationism are not "valid scientific theories". They are theories, granted, but they aren't scientific, and as such it makes it terribly difficult to demonstrate evaluate their validity. Rewriting your argument without this flaw gives us the statement: "The [Constitution] is clear[,
Second, is teaching in public schools "the free exercise" of religion? Is the teaching of Christian belief in State schools the "establishment of religion"? As an exercise in open-mindedness, I challenge you to defend both positions -- maybe it will help you gain some insight into the debate. Maybe it will help you to defend secular education by pretending that you are a Christian in a majority Muslim U.S.; since we enjoy compulsory education in the U.S., would you want all the kids who couldn't afford Christian school to be taught science from the Quran (or the Torah or the Analects and the Five Classics or any other ancient work)? Further, imagine if non-Christian religious education was the norm, would you want your kids to be discriminated against in the workplace because they have an abnormal education?
The only reason I can see Christians being for Christianity being taught and practiced in public (i.e. State-run) schools is the Christian hegemony in the U.S.; the Christian power-elite are blinded by this against minority religions.
The obvious defense is to teach all religions in school! This defense is ludicrous of course -- given there is no fixed number of religions how does one teach the infinite in finite existence? Then there's the opt-out defense which instantly raises the counter: why not the opt-in approach we already use?
Anyhow, nothing personal. I look forward to your well-reasoned defense.
To all the creepy sibling AC posters ... maybe you could just use Google?
s ha
:-D
http://images.google.com/images?q=site:mit.edu+ma
I make no claims that the results of this search are accurate
It's getting obnoxious. Can't we all agree to start saying other things?
Heh, I understand where you're coming from. The phrase that drives me crazy these days is now, more than ever.
Instead, what I developed was a system where the full dataset was first compressed, but in such a manner the dataset was still randomly accessable. The uncompressed dataset was never written to disk, since my code was a layer in the I/O component of the simulation software.
That sounds neat. Isn't this kind of what's happening with non-linear video editing? It's not exactly analgous I can see (this is also how, in the bad old days [of early 90s consumer PCM audio editing] Cooledit's "peak files" would give you low latency access to long pieces of audio -- the peak files were just variable resolution maps to the audio on disk, requiring one-time delays on initial/final i/o).
OMG, you have a UID bait right in your sig! How could I resist. Now you'll have to "Be sure you are truly worthy to reply to someone with such a low user ID" just to quip back at me. :-D
Sorry, just bored.
In addition to sibling (http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166715&ci d=13902186)...
:-D
Not to mention... most free countries having this debate also have public libraries. Public Libraries may even subscribe to both Science and Nature.
Hm... maybe I can get back on-topic by mentioning that some evidence for "The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science" would be the general public apathy towards funding of public libraries. Just ask a librarian about it, you'll get your ear talked off.
Read C.S. Lewis. try "A Grief Observed". C.S. Lewis was a atheist, and great intellectual, who eventually became a Christian [...]
Thanks. That appeal to authority was very scientific. I think you've made his point.
I understand the GP was being inflammatory and possibly over-zealous. Incidentally s/he refuted your argument before you even made it: "Just because an individual is smarter than you in one field doesn't mean they're any more or less immune to the mental compartmentalization process required to become [more or less] religious than you."
If your C.S. Lewis-theory-of-finding-Christianity was sound science then anyone could repeat the journey and life-experience of C.S. Lewis and reach the same conclusion --in the same joyless way-- every time. No rational* person would believe this experiment to be possible, let alone irrefutable. (Additionally, to claim that merely reading about said journey is sufficient is more dubious.)
I'll grant that I could just be stupidly missing your point (C.S. Lewis explains how smart people can find faith? that religion can be joyless?). Cheers.
(*) pardon the generalization, rhetorical device.
s/Sight/Sigh/
I guess that's what I get for not previewing before I 'stumbit'. Requisite, damn you Slashcode for not letting us edit posts before we have replies!
Also, I know that English sort of has a genitive particle in the preposition of (when it's used more like de in Romance languages or no in Japanese).
The parent comment shouldn't have been modded down, and especially not with off-topic.
... maybe if It was a proper noun or an acronym... ;) like, "I don't care what IT's problem is -- I'm about to fire them all!" In cases like that though, we use capitalization for clarity. Oh wait, now all the capitalization-haters are going to complain.)
At the time of the comment, the article contained a typo and this comment points it out. The fact that the story no longer contains that typo is a testament to the parent's informative nature.
I know that all the descriptivists will start jumping up and down now saying that the difference between its and it's doesn't matter because the meaning was expressed through context. Whatever, I don't want to debate it. I'll just say that we have rules for a reason. Its is a possessive pronoun unless one is, for example, asking how many its were in the prior sentences (words mentioned as words should be italicized). I can't think of a time when it's isn't a contraction and therefore requiring its apostrophe.
(Oh, I know
Sight. Language is so hard. If only English had a particle for the genitive.
Every time I see a +5 funny with a +5 informative right under it I die a little inside.
C'mon kids! Avoid moderating off-topic unless your breadth on the topic is so great you actually no what isn't in it.
Glad to see the Bboys reference further upthread didn't get modded off topic. Sheesh.
I have to also give "big-ups" to my hometown players: The NESkimos.
... but you can Slashdot Soundclick here: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?band ID=91259
The NESkimos fuckin rock your socks off. You don't have to Slashdot their homepage
Also worth mentioning is The Advantage (you can even find their CD on Amazon.com), but as they are from the West Coast they only get ups, but not big- or otherwise. I will admit they do some good work with Ninja Gaiden and Castlevania(s).
It's hardly the non-Christians that have a monopoly on the phrase...
+ throats
Witness: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22crammed+down%22
The third hit of "about 44,800" is "In defense of cramming Jesus down their throats". The variety of blank crammed down throat is so vast one would wonder where you got the perception that it was locked up by "non-Christians". I wonder when the phrase was born and in what context.
you realize of course the CEO would have ultimitly ok'ed the "code" adn the GM is only doing what the people who create the polices wish for him to do right?
I think so. That's why the subject of his, and your posts were "Fantasy Scenario".
Why do I read ACs?!
Yeah I don't blame you - even people who like Macs don't like some of the classic revisions. :-D As I alluded to in the post, I moved off to x86 around that time... up until OS X was released (at which point I shamelessly dropped the Linux desktop).
You said, "No, the point is more that lil old me [...] could fill have [sic] a terabyte rather incidentally."
... greater than next to nothing! I can't see how you make it out to be some sort of equivalence. Further, in my light-hearted response I alluded to the problem of owning (let alone buying) a petabyte of storage -- the non-trivial facilities required. FWIW, as non-sequitors go, 1PB doesn't excite me either.
.5 TB drives meet those dimensions). So, you'll need a thousand of those or so, 80,000 cubic inches. That's a big drive: 44 inches on three sides (and damn heavy). Optionally, just take any 500 GB drive you have and imagine it twelve and a half times longer, wider and higher.
:-\ Using the same scaling factor to my apartment... I can imagine that some folks feel a 12 story mansion with 200,000 sq.ft. per floor is "not that much space".
If that was your point, why did you lead off with the rhetorical regarding a quantity one order of magnitude greater? ("Do you really think a petabyte is a lot of space?")
You then said, "I picked up 1TB for next to nothing. [...] So if 1TB is sort of the ho-hum consumer standard, 1PB doesn't excite me all that much."
But this of course is a complete fallacy. For one, "next to nothing" times 1000 is
I'm used to working with scientific datasets up to 13TB in size, so, lesse, I could hold a whopping 76 runs on this 1PB server. Eh, thats about half a year's worth of data.
Well this raises the question, while doing your work/research how do you store a year's worth of data (if you even do)? Tape? Tape/Cartridge library (like Sony's PetaSite)? Online?
With today's storage densities a ho-hum consumer hard-drive is 80 cubic inches per terabyte (roughly 4x2x5 inches and that's on the small side, I don't know if any
"Have you seen my buddy Pete? He's a petabyte drive a little over 5'2", blonde hair, blue eyes. I don't know how I lost him; He's impossible to move."
Either way, I guess it's all just personal opinion.
Just sparked me as odd that a storage capacity that was conveniently measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars could not be "a lot of space" to some folks. Cheers.
IIRC, you can run either program, but you'd need a Mac from that era, and yes they installed off of floppies (check eBay, look for Yahoo groups devoted to older software, I'm sure someone could "hook you up"). You'd need a PPC Mac (maybe a G4 or older) with OS 7.6.1 or older (I've heard that some features of SuperPaint 3.5 (the last version?) don't work correctly on newer versions of what is now the Classic OS). Someone correct me if I'm wrong ... you could run 7.6 on a G4 right? You'll have to forgive me -- this is about the time I forsook Macs, as the Dark Age had arrived.
I have to chime in with a me too though, Aldus SuperPaint was the shiz-nite! SuperPaint had the gradient tool that PhotoShop stole, down to the dialog box. I shouldn't say 'stole' of course, as they bought them outright and then incorporated all the best features into PhotoShop and Illustrator. There was a big flap because Freehand was also Aldus's and got spun to Macromedia instead of going to Adobe.
I didn't look at the time stamps on the other posts, so maybe you just didn't know yet. Yes the parent was stupid to say "why would you want to lock your screen?" that undermines his point that (as he put it in like the first paragraph) "partial logout/fast switch" was the solution you asked for.
8 78716
See: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166254&cid=13
You MISS THE POINT. Of COURSE I can write apple script to do something, or download something that will do it. The POINT is that the mac does not nativly do something that the other major players do. Because this very basic feature does not exist, we have to do STUPID work arounds. Logging out? Putting the computer to sleep? Stupid.
You don't have to write a script. You don't have to download anything. The Mac does do natively that which you request. It takes four clicks. That very basic feature does exist. I don't see how pulling up the login window is a work around. No logging out or sleeping is necessary.
I know it's more fun to just bash people even when they've tried to help! Yay Slashdot!
Cheers.