Bank accounts are not IOUs from banks. They represent property. The bank is contractually obliged to give you that money on demand. That's what "money" in a checking or savings account is. It's as real as what's in your wallet.
Ummm.... Let's see I give a some one money to do something with, and they are contractually obliged to give that money back under certain conditions. Sure sounds like an IOU to me. A bank account is a loan to a bank. The terms for forcing repayment of that loan tend to be very easy, but it is still a loan.
It appears from the looks of things that both were wrong. Although it looks like Bush ahs done everything he coudl to make things worse. The median projected difference in Social Security benefits between now and 2050 or so, appears to be almost the same as the Bush tax cut, were it to be extended.
Good deal. Actually, I never said there is no such thing as a fact, I was just pointing out that facts should be in the past. Saying something will happen is a prediction. Saying it has happened is a fact.
You don't actually do science do you? Your argument is specious and is more about your agenda than the facts. Hand covered in sulphuric acid = PAIN. If you twist the English language to suit your arguments I will simply think poorly of you. People who make arguments like yours (well, that depends on what the meaning of is is) simply give sophistry a bad name.
I was exagerating to try to make a point.
I think we are on the same side. And, I do have an agenda. I was just demonstrating a extreme case of how strong a scientific theory is compared to a theory in the common language. Of course, hand covered in sulphuric acid = PAIN, but you cannot call it a fact that it will happen next time. The observation has not been made, yet. Does every piece of evidence in the entire universe tell us this is exactly what will happen? Hell, yes. We also take away from the evidence that every other time this has happened even if we did not observe it, the exact same thing happened.
My end point was this corelates with the theory of evolution. We have a whole bunch of facts, genetic similatities between species, fossils, etc... Analagous to the hands always getting burned by the acid everytime we observed it. We formulated a theory that explains these facts called the Theory of Evolution that also implies that evolution happened and will happen. Just as the Theory of Hands Burning in Acid explains why they burn and therefore that they will burn everytime in the future and the past.
I am however playing devils advocate and trying to show the lack of evidence to cliaim it as fact over another theory.
You are right microevolution occurs (although scientists don't use the term, just creationists). The theory of evolution posits that lots of micro evolution equals a macroevolution (another creationist term). There is evidence for this in genetic analysis, fossils, mutation rates, and more that I cannot think of since I am not an expert in evolutionary biology. Because the consequences of evolution are that if life evolved from a common anscestor(s) then there should be genetic similarities. This is why evolution ranks with other theories it makes predictions about what we should observe and observations so far have fit the predictions.
I am however playing devils advocate and trying to show the lack of evidence to cliaim it as fact over another theory. We could be the bastard children of drunken perverted aliens that screwed some other animals and dumped thier ofspring on earth to get rid of them. We could also be a science experiment for a race of giants that are so large, we are atomes in relation to thier size. or we are in a aquarium/electron accelerator and being developed as biological weapon to use against thie renemies.
And, these could be possible, so what observations should be looked for given these theories that would differentiate the theories from evolution?
I would also like to mention that evidence for the origin of life is not available. It appears life originated at least a billion years ago. The fossil evidence shows no times since then when there was no life. And, genetic evidence suggests relation between life that has been sequenced so far. Hypothetically, all life could have been destroyed and replaced with other life that was genetically similar, and also looked like evolved versions of the destroyed life. But, there is no evidence to support this over evolution. Aliens coudl have also periodically dropped engieered species off every once in a while, that were engineered from the same gene pools, but there is no evidence for this that excludes evolution.
The interesting thing here is that there is also a small group of zealots who are so opposed to the concept that any higher intelligence could have had a part in life that they blindly accept evolution without pushing to find the cracks and either break it or fix it.
Every so called "proof" of evolution could just as easily disprove evolution. If the measurement or observation went the other way evolution would be disproved. Although these days with so much evidence for evolution any evidence against must be looked at skeptically, and analyzed thoroughly. This is like the Martian meteor that supposedly had signs of life, given all the other evidence against life on Mars. The results and conclulsions of those scientists were looked at skeptically, and in the end the consensus was that there evidence was inconclusive.
There is also this misconception that evolution and scientific theories in general are these monolithic entities that fall apart when one little stone is removed. Just because General Relativity falls apart at a singularity doesn't make the rest of the theory any less meaningful, and therefore any new theory must be reduceable to General Relativity just as General Relativity reduces to Newtonian gravitation at lower strengths. The point of this is that opponents to evolution tend to nit pick at it little piece fo evidence is 100% positive proof, and there is a lot of error in this other measurement, and so on and so forth. But, taken together evolution fits the mountain of evidence, but we still have not figured out every mechanism. And, the creationists seem to figure that what we don't know disproves evolution.
Additionally, trying to prove the existence of god scientifically is a fools errand, and just sets up a believer to have his/her beliefs dashed. Let's say some believer accepts some Creationist/ID writing that says the complexity of the eye is proof of intelligent design. Then, when real scientists show how the eye developed without intelligent design our original believer who said "Hey, I know god exists because an eye could not have developed without a god." would have his belief in god shaken, and solely because some idiot decided to misuse science in the pursuit of god.
Basically, ID-ers seem to be misguided fools who are so insecure in their faith that they must look towards science to "prove" their faith. And, in the process are providing the tools to destroy their faith. It is rather sad.
In fact, if you were to show that sticker to any person who knew nothing about the controversy here and that the opponents of evolution theory are religious, they wouldn't necessarily connect religion.
The problem is that anyone with a lick of critical thinking would ask the question. "What about every other scientific theory?" "Why single out evolution?" The simple answer is because evolution offends a small group of religious zealots who think it contradicts the word of God. By singling out evolution the sticker proves it is religiously motivated.
I think you have to look at what it doesn't say anything about in order to realize it was a religious sticker. It does not mention that the Theory of General Relativity is not a fact, or Quantum Theory is not a fact, or Atomic theory, etc... By singling out evolution in particular the label became an obvious government endorsement of a particular religious view point. They probably could have gotten away with the same sticker about all scientific theories, but then the religious zealots wouldn't be telling the students exactly which theory they want them to ignore. Then, after being taught dozens of theories that coincide with what they observe in everyday life, they will have little reason to be skeptical of evolution.
1)There's two parts to the "is evolution true" discussion: That species change over time, which is immutable fact. It's in the fossil record. Species change into other species. This is not a theory. The "theory" of evolution is about HOW species change over time.
Not Fact. The fact is that there are fossils, and what the fossils look like.
Then, based on known physical processes we theorize that these fossils were at one time living creatures, that lived during a certain time period. Then, from there we notice that fossils from farther in the past seem to develop into newer fossils that are quite different, but we can trace back the changes. But, this is all based on the theory that all physical processes worked the same in the past, for which there is considerable supporting evidence.
So, be very careful what you call fact. The conclusion that fossils were once living creatures that died at a certain time is a conclusion arrived from observations of all available facts. Another conclusion is that the world was created 10 million years ago as a giant supper computer in order to find the ultimate question of life the universe and everything. The fossils were artificialy placed to look like they were much older, and we are descended from the crash landing of a ship full of hair dressers, agents, and manicurists. Of course there is no evidence to support this that does not equally support evolution.:)
Stick your hand into a vat of sulfuric acid. You will be burned. That is a fact. Your statement is nonsense.
No that is not a fact. The fact is that the last time you stuck your hands into a vat of sulfuric acid they were burned. And, the time before that, and the time before that. You cannot know 100% for sure that they will be burned the next time, therefore that is not a fact. But, given the facts from the past I have formulated the "Theory of Burned Hands when placed in Sulfuric Acid" that says whenever hands are placed in sulfuric acid they are burned, and an explanation of why this is.
Now it is possible some one sticks there hands into sulfuric acid adn they do not burn and my theory doesn't cover that case. Perhaps I did not account for the existence of "Sulfuric Acid Proof Gloves" therefore I must alter my theory to account for "Sulfuric Acid Proof Gloves", but it is entirely likely thaat my theory is still correct for the conditions where no "Sulfuric Acid Proof Gloves" are worn.
Relating this back to the sticker. If these creationists wanted a legal sticker put in the front it should give the scientific definition of theory. Which could include that theories are not facts. The only problem is that definition includes the statement that a theory is supported by the evidence and is not contradicted by the evidence. Therefore, putting that sticker in the books would actually be supportive of evolution.
Hey, not all people who sleep through classes are goof-offs. Some just don't learn too well in that environemnt and are likely tired because they've been up reading the text all night.
Yeah... I slept through Stems because the professors were boring, and didn't teach worth crap in the lecture, and it was an 0820 lecture right after morning practice. I learned most of that class during the section with a different professor than the lecturers and from the book. Got a B. I did get an A in Physics E&M which was immediately after that class with an engaging professor.
O.k., fair dues. I read through it. But I still don't see anything of decently-sized medical centers. Just mining towns in Montana or clinics elsewhere.
I am kind of surprised he would go to North Dakota looking for better medical treatment, although in that kind of situation going to see the parents and the doctors they know and trust may have felt better. Although, had he stayed in the Bay Area UC San Francisco Medical Center probably would have been a good target. I believe UC Davis also has a good medical center. And, a short drive would get him to UCLA, USC, or UC Irvine which also have top medical centers.
It may be like some other posters mentioned where due to low oxygenation they were unable to think clearly.
This will change the nature of the job dramatically, but will seriously reduce the temptation on the part of management to call for overtime. In fact, it will virtually eliminate overtime.
Actually, it may prevent excessive overtime, but probably would not eliminate overtime. The reason is that even at time and a half it may not make sense to go through the process of hiring an extra employee that you may not need later. The overtime might also cost less than an additional employee due to cerain fixed costs associated with adding another body. ti would prevent excessive overtime as there is a point at which a new employee costs less.
I'm guessing you are joking on the Jeb Bush thing?
I am not joking. You have name recognition and likely the endorsement of the sitting president. Unless there is something hiding in his past that makes him unsuitable, Jeb would be the safest bet for the Republicans in 2008.
If he has enough popular support in the primaries he will get the nomination.
Popular support doesn't count for squat in the primaries. Republican base, i.e. the most ocnservative side of the party decides who wins the primary, and in Jeb Bush vs John McCain, Bush wins, especially with a presidential endorsement.
Now, assuming Jeb did not run against McCain, I woudl pick him, but the Republican leadership will not back him as their first pick which likely means Bush doesn't endorse McCain. Which makes it a big uphill battle just to get the initial funding to run in a primary.
but I think the lesson for the Democrats is "not Bush" (or "not Cheney" in 4 years) is not a winning candidate.
Umm... I dobt the Republicans will put Cheney up in 4 years. Kind of a scary guy, and a bad ticker. I actually think Jeb Bush is the most likely candidate.
I have yet to understand how you "defend" marriage by stopping gay people from being married, how in the world does that help the heterosexual married couples?
This is why Bush won. The people against gay marriage are REALLY against it. A lot of the people "For" gay marriage are the I don't give a rip either way.
This is a genuine post. Calling half the nation "bigger morons" does not achieve anything. In light of condescending nature, you should congratulate yourself, take the day off and have a beer, go mope somewhere where you can't insult people. After you've resolved your differences with the rest of the world please reply with something constructive.
Some of us decided The Daily Show election covereage was more fun for an hour last night. You missed who he was quoting.
No. If Alaska had the same number of electoral votes as New York, then you'd have a valid point. Since New York has something like seven times the number of electoral votes that Alaska has, one vote in New York is just as valuable as one vote in Alaska.
Buzzzz!!! Wrong!
A vote in Alaska is more valuabe than a vote in New York. Why? Every state regardless of population starts with 2 eletoral votes.
The real problem is the ignorance of US citizens
If you are from the US, then you have proven your own ignorance. Sorry.
I expect the next election to be between McCain and Hillary Clinton.
I would like to diagree on one point. I doubt McCain can get the party leadership or party base support needed to win the primary. So, I would like to present my alternative.
I expect the next election to be Jeb Bush vs Hillary Clinton.
Slashdot Mirror
Bank accounts are not IOUs from banks. They represent property. The bank is contractually obliged to give you that money on demand. That's what "money" in a checking or savings account is. It's as real as what's in your wallet.
Ummm.... Let's see I give a some one money to do something with, and they are contractually obliged to give that money back under certain conditions. Sure sounds like an IOU to me. A bank account is a loan to a bank. The terms for forcing repayment of that loan tend to be very easy, but it is still a loan.
It appears from the looks of things that both were wrong. Although it looks like Bush ahs done everything he coudl to make things worse. The median projected difference in Social Security benefits between now and 2050 or so, appears to be almost the same as the Bush tax cut, were it to be extended.
Thought that was an interesting point.
Good deal! I was being overly conservative.
Good deal. Actually, I never said there is no such thing as a fact, I was just pointing out that facts should be in the past. Saying something will happen is a prediction. Saying it has happened is a fact.
You don't actually do science do you? Your argument is specious and is more about your agenda than the facts. Hand covered in sulphuric acid = PAIN. If you twist the English language to suit your arguments I will simply think poorly of you. People who make arguments like yours (well, that depends on what the meaning of is is) simply give sophistry a bad name.
I was exagerating to try to make a point.
I think we are on the same side. And, I do have an agenda. I was just demonstrating a extreme case of how strong a scientific theory is compared to a theory in the common language. Of course, hand covered in sulphuric acid = PAIN, but you cannot call it a fact that it will happen next time. The observation has not been made, yet. Does every piece of evidence in the entire universe tell us this is exactly what will happen? Hell, yes. We also take away from the evidence that every other time this has happened even if we did not observe it, the exact same thing happened.
My end point was this corelates with the theory of evolution. We have a whole bunch of facts, genetic similatities between species, fossils, etc... Analagous to the hands always getting burned by the acid everytime we observed it. We formulated a theory that explains these facts called the Theory of Evolution that also implies that evolution happened and will happen. Just as the Theory of Hands Burning in Acid explains why they burn and therefore that they will burn everytime in the future and the past.
I am however playing devils advocate and trying to show the lack of evidence to cliaim it as fact over another theory.
You are right microevolution occurs (although scientists don't use the term, just creationists). The theory of evolution posits that lots of micro evolution equals a macroevolution (another creationist term). There is evidence for this in genetic analysis, fossils, mutation rates, and more that I cannot think of since I am not an expert in evolutionary biology. Because the consequences of evolution are that if life evolved from a common anscestor(s) then there should be genetic similarities. This is why evolution ranks with other theories it makes predictions about what we should observe and observations so far have fit the predictions.
I am however playing devils advocate and trying to show the lack of evidence to cliaim it as fact over another theory. We could be the bastard children of drunken perverted aliens that screwed some other animals and dumped thier ofspring on earth to get rid of them. We could also be a science experiment for a race of giants that are so large, we are atomes in relation to thier size. or we are in a aquarium/electron accelerator and being developed as biological weapon to use against thie renemies.
And, these could be possible, so what observations should be looked for given these theories that would differentiate the theories from evolution?
I would also like to mention that evidence for the origin of life is not available. It appears life originated at least a billion years ago. The fossil evidence shows no times since then when there was no life. And, genetic evidence suggests relation between life that has been sequenced so far. Hypothetically, all life could have been destroyed and replaced with other life that was genetically similar, and also looked like evolved versions of the destroyed life. But, there is no evidence to support this over evolution. Aliens coudl have also periodically dropped engieered species off every once in a while, that were engineered from the same gene pools, but there is no evidence for this that excludes evolution.
The interesting thing here is that there is also a small group of zealots who are so opposed to the concept that any higher intelligence could have had a part in life that they blindly accept evolution without pushing to find the cracks and either break it or fix it.
Every so called "proof" of evolution could just as easily disprove evolution. If the measurement or observation went the other way evolution would be disproved. Although these days with so much evidence for evolution any evidence against must be looked at skeptically, and analyzed thoroughly. This is like the Martian meteor that supposedly had signs of life, given all the other evidence against life on Mars. The results and conclulsions of those scientists were looked at skeptically, and in the end the consensus was that there evidence was inconclusive.
There is also this misconception that evolution and scientific theories in general are these monolithic entities that fall apart when one little stone is removed. Just because General Relativity falls apart at a singularity doesn't make the rest of the theory any less meaningful, and therefore any new theory must be reduceable to General Relativity just as General Relativity reduces to Newtonian gravitation at lower strengths. The point of this is that opponents to evolution tend to nit pick at it little piece fo evidence is 100% positive proof, and there is a lot of error in this other measurement, and so on and so forth. But, taken together evolution fits the mountain of evidence, but we still have not figured out every mechanism. And, the creationists seem to figure that what we don't know disproves evolution.
Additionally, trying to prove the existence of god scientifically is a fools errand, and just sets up a believer to have his/her beliefs dashed. Let's say some believer accepts some Creationist/ID writing that says the complexity of the eye is proof of intelligent design. Then, when real scientists show how the eye developed without intelligent design our original believer who said "Hey, I know god exists because an eye could not have developed without a god." would have his belief in god shaken, and solely because some idiot decided to misuse science in the pursuit of god.
Basically, ID-ers seem to be misguided fools who are so insecure in their faith that they must look towards science to "prove" their faith. And, in the process are providing the tools to destroy their faith. It is rather sad.
In fact, if you were to show that sticker to any person who knew nothing about the controversy here and that the opponents of evolution theory are religious, they wouldn't necessarily connect religion.
The problem is that anyone with a lick of critical thinking would ask the question. "What about every other scientific theory?" "Why single out evolution?" The simple answer is because evolution offends a small group of religious zealots who think it contradicts the word of God. By singling out evolution the sticker proves it is religiously motivated.
I think you have to look at what it doesn't say anything about in order to realize it was a religious sticker. It does not mention that the Theory of General Relativity is not a fact, or Quantum Theory is not a fact, or Atomic theory, etc... By singling out evolution in particular the label became an obvious government endorsement of a particular religious view point. They probably could have gotten away with the same sticker about all scientific theories, but then the religious zealots wouldn't be telling the students exactly which theory they want them to ignore. Then, after being taught dozens of theories that coincide with what they observe in everyday life, they will have little reason to be skeptical of evolution.
1)There's two parts to the "is evolution true" discussion: That species change over time, which is immutable fact. It's in the fossil record. Species change into other species. This is not a theory. The "theory" of evolution is about HOW species change over time.
:)
Not Fact. The fact is that there are fossils, and what the fossils look like.
Then, based on known physical processes we theorize that these fossils were at one time living creatures, that lived during a certain time period. Then, from there we notice that fossils from farther in the past seem to develop into newer fossils that are quite different, but we can trace back the changes. But, this is all based on the theory that all physical processes worked the same in the past, for which there is considerable supporting evidence.
So, be very careful what you call fact. The conclusion that fossils were once living creatures that died at a certain time is a conclusion arrived from observations of all available facts. Another conclusion is that the world was created 10 million years ago as a giant supper computer in order to find the ultimate question of life the universe and everything. The fossils were artificialy placed to look like they were much older, and we are descended from the crash landing of a ship full of hair dressers, agents, and manicurists. Of course there is no evidence to support this that does not equally support evolution.
Stick your hand into a vat of sulfuric acid. You will be burned. That is a fact. Your statement is nonsense.
No that is not a fact. The fact is that the last time you stuck your hands into a vat of sulfuric acid they were burned. And, the time before that, and the time before that. You cannot know 100% for sure that they will be burned the next time, therefore that is not a fact. But, given the facts from the past I have formulated the "Theory of Burned Hands when placed in Sulfuric Acid" that says whenever hands are placed in sulfuric acid they are burned, and an explanation of why this is.
Now it is possible some one sticks there hands into sulfuric acid adn they do not burn and my theory doesn't cover that case. Perhaps I did not account for the existence of "Sulfuric Acid Proof Gloves" therefore I must alter my theory to account for "Sulfuric Acid Proof Gloves", but it is entirely likely thaat my theory is still correct for the conditions where no "Sulfuric Acid Proof Gloves" are worn.
Relating this back to the sticker. If these creationists wanted a legal sticker put in the front it should give the scientific definition of theory. Which could include that theories are not facts. The only problem is that definition includes the statement that a theory is supported by the evidence and is not contradicted by the evidence. Therefore, putting that sticker in the books would actually be supportive of evolution.
i mean this...
mail recipients < mail text or file
How does it send mail?
Call this from a shell.
mail recipients mail text or file
Hey, not all people who sleep through classes are goof-offs. Some just don't learn too well in that environemnt and are likely tired because they've been up reading the text all night.
Yeah... I slept through Stems because the professors were boring, and didn't teach worth crap in the lecture, and it was an 0820 lecture right after morning practice. I learned most of that class during the section with a different professor than the lecturers and from the book. Got a B. I did get an A in Physics E&M which was immediately after that class with an engaging professor.
I like some of their shows but they really need new management.
Well, they are now part of NBC.
O.k., fair dues. I read through it. But I still don't see anything of decently-sized medical centers. Just mining towns in Montana or clinics elsewhere.
I am kind of surprised he would go to North Dakota looking for better medical treatment, although in that kind of situation going to see the parents and the doctors they know and trust may have felt better. Although, had he stayed in the Bay Area UC San Francisco Medical Center probably would have been a good target. I believe UC Davis also has a good medical center. And, a short drive would get him to UCLA, USC, or UC Irvine which also have top medical centers.
It may be like some other posters mentioned where due to low oxygenation they were unable to think clearly.
NASA could probably teach Wal-Mart a thing or two about really big data stores.
I was thinking CERN and Fermilab. And, add to that real time processing of incoming data to decide whether to bother storing it for analysis or not.
This will change the nature of the job dramatically, but will seriously reduce the temptation on the part of management to call for overtime. In fact, it will virtually eliminate overtime.
Actually, it may prevent excessive overtime, but probably would not eliminate overtime. The reason is that even at time and a half it may not make sense to go through the process of hiring an extra employee that you may not need later. The overtime might also cost less than an additional employee due to cerain fixed costs associated with adding another body. ti would prevent excessive overtime as there is a point at which a new employee costs less.
I'm guessing you are joking on the Jeb Bush thing?
I am not joking. You have name recognition and likely the endorsement of the sitting president. Unless there is something hiding in his past that makes him unsuitable, Jeb would be the safest bet for the Republicans in 2008.
If he has enough popular support in the primaries he will get the nomination.
Popular support doesn't count for squat in the primaries. Republican base, i.e. the most ocnservative side of the party decides who wins the primary, and in Jeb Bush vs John McCain, Bush wins, especially with a presidential endorsement.
Now, assuming Jeb did not run against McCain, I woudl pick him, but the Republican leadership will not back him as their first pick which likely means Bush doesn't endorse McCain. Which makes it a big uphill battle just to get the initial funding to run in a primary.
Don't get your hopes up for a Bush defeat.
I wasn't that is why I used the terms "highly improbable" and "miracle".
but I think the lesson for the Democrats is "not Bush" (or "not Cheney" in 4 years) is not a winning candidate.
Umm... I dobt the Republicans will put Cheney up in 4 years. Kind of a scary guy, and a bad ticker. I actually think Jeb Bush is the most likely candidate.
I have yet to understand how you "defend" marriage by stopping gay people from being married, how in the world does that help the heterosexual married couples?
This is why Bush won. The people against gay marriage are REALLY against it. A lot of the people "For" gay marriage are the I don't give a rip either way.
This is a genuine post. Calling half the nation "bigger morons" does not achieve anything. In light of condescending nature, you should congratulate yourself, take the day off and have a beer, go mope somewhere where you can't insult people. After you've resolved your differences with the rest of the world please reply with something constructive.
Some of us decided The Daily Show election covereage was more fun for an hour last night. You missed who he was quoting.
No. If Alaska had the same number of electoral votes as New York, then you'd have a valid point. Since New York has something like seven times the number of electoral votes that Alaska has, one vote in New York is just as valuable as one vote in Alaska.
:-)
Buzzzz!!! Wrong!
A vote in Alaska is more valuabe than a vote in New York. Why? Every state regardless of population starts with 2 eletoral votes.
The real problem is the ignorance of US citizens
If you are from the US, then you have proven your own ignorance. Sorry.
If you are not, you have a decent exscuse.
Have a nice day!
I expect the next election to be between McCain and Hillary Clinton.
I would like to diagree on one point. I doubt McCain can get the party leadership or party base support needed to win the primary. So, I would like to present my alternative.
I expect the next election to be Jeb Bush vs Hillary Clinton.