Even still, wrong. Evolution says nothing about the existence or not of God. Even in terms of origin of life, this says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God. It would seem to be as though you are suggesting that any suggestion that contradicts your beliefs in regard to a specific God (and His historical actions) must mean that there is no God. It is possible that God exists, and yet man evolved from molecules. The unthinkable thought is that Genisis could be myth, and yet God could still exist.
Your use of the title "Creator" would still be appropriately applied to a God who initiated the Big Bang (or who otherwise created Reality).
We can observe that selection causes adaption and minor mutations, but we have never observed a whole new species evolving from another. You don't have to see a new species to observe evolution. That was the parent's point. Genetic drift and natural selection explain the evolution of anti-biotic resistant bacteria from ancestors that weren't resistant, but the simple observence is that these bacteria show up. You can't say it hasn't been observed.
There seems to be an acceptance of QM as the guiding light of modern physics, with an unspoken undercurrent suggesting that while relativity is useful, since QM and General Relativity aren't compatible, then eventually the mistake with relativity will be found.
Well but that is exactly what has happened here. The "how those forces would work differently" is general relativity. He asked exactly the right question, and if people had tried to answer it they might have found the answer then.
I'd like to suggest that questioning is not attacking. Asking "why is A better than B?", is not an attack on A. It also doesn't have anything to do with "belief".
Ah but "we don't know" is true, but not testable. Saying, "the fairies cause it with their magic dust", allows you to test whether there are correlatiions between color of pixie dust and outcomes. The bullshit theory is bullshit, but it is a step towards developing a Law, whereas saying, "well, it's a mystery" is just standing still.
As I recall, it was the strong force. A quick google:
...there exists an attractive force between nucleons. This is called strong interaction and is unique to the nucleus. It acts on charged particles as well as on uncharged ones. Its range is far smaller than that of the electrostatic repulsion. But within this range its effect is much greater than that of the electrostatic force. This force binds a nucleon with other nucleons in its immediate vicinity unlike the electrical force with which a proton repels all other protons in the nucleus. The strong interaction force attains saturation within a closed group of nucleons. This force appears to favour the binding of pairs of particles such as two protons with opposite spin or two neutrons with opposite spin and of pairs of pairs i.e. a pair of protons with a pair of neutrons.
Which goes on after a bit...
This is exactly what should be happening to the protons in the nucleus except for the fact that when they are pushed close enough together by the external agent, the very strong attractive forces - the strong interaction - takes over control and pulls all the particles even closer together binding them into a stable nucleus. Till the particles come within range of the strong interaction, the external agent would do work and the system's potential energy would increase by a certain amount. But once within range of the strong force, the system's force now does a much greater amount of work and the system loses this much greater amount of energy than it had previously gained. Thus the formation of a nucleus involves a substantial net loss of energy of the system. That is to say that a system of nucleons apart from each other has more potential energy than a formed nucleus. This accounts for the stability of the nucleus.
Thus if the nucleus is to be separated into its constituent particles then this difference in energy has to be supplied to it. This is called the binding energy of the nucleus.
There is a nice graph showing the binding energy per nucleon by mass number. Iron is of course the most stable (and hence why things fusion and fission towards iron, from different directions) but note that the binding energy is decreasing as the mass number goes down. Stability is related to the binding energy, since this is what is overcome (or tunneled thru).
This doesn't explain why the neutron does a beta decay, but it does suggest that once in a nucleous the strong force's contribution to increased binding energy prevents the decay...
Ah, but can they swim and climb trees? Perhaps a condo-treehouse on an island in the middle of a lake or large river? If all else fails, there are always hobbit holes! For those suddenly experiencing an unsure sinking sensation, don't worry, these people are sure that digging a hobbit hole won't sink an island.
Newton didn't have the internet and the FOSS communities, though;-) Seriously, though, I think it is safe to suggest that the time gap between theory and implementation is shrinking.
Well but "services" includes financial services, too. So go ahead and manufacture, just don't forget to make your mortgage payments on time. Oh and those pesky license fees for those manufacturing processes. Engineering is a "service", too.
Actually it is "exactly as much" rather than "about as much" as the Halting Problem. The two are related.
"The Entscheidungsproblem (English: decision problem) is the challenge in symbolic logic to find a general algorithm which decides for given first-order statements whether they are universally valid or not."
"A first-order statement is called "universally valid" or "logically valid" if it follows from the axioms of the first-order predicate calculus."
"Before the question could be answered, the notion of "algorithm" had to be formally defined. This was done by Alonzo Church in 1936 with the concept of "effective calculability" based on his lambda calculus and by Alan Turing in the same year with his concept of Turing machines. The two approaches are equivalent, an instance of the Church-Turing thesis."
"The negative answer to the Entscheidungsproblem was then given by Alonzo Church in 1936 and independently shortly thereafter by Alan Turing, also in 1936. Church proved that there is no algorithm (defined via recursive functions) which decides for two given lambda calculus expressions whether they are equivalent or not. He relied heavily on earlier work by Stephen Kleene. Turing reduced the halting problem for Turing machines to the Entscheidungsproblem, and his paper is generally considered to be much more influential than Church's. "
"The Entscheidungsproblem is related to Hilbert's tenth problem, which asks for an algorithm to decide whether or not Diophantine equations have a solution. The non-existence of such an algorithm (proven by Yuri Matiyasevich in 1970) implies a negative answer to the Entscheidungsproblem."
Actually in the graduate math classes I've had, it was pretty much a given that the Grand Dream of Russell was shattered on the rocky shores of Godel. Seems like there was a crisis in Mathematics (due to Godel) as severe as the crisis in Physics (due to QM). It was said that before Physics could procede, a generation of Physicists would have to die out. Mathematics proved more resistant, embraced Formalism, and climbed into its navel instead. (Noteable exception: Tristan Needham's Visual Complex Analysis, also see the book's homepage.
Actually it would seem that taking the arguement to its conclusion, whenever you aren't dealing with a formal, stable, restricted edge, smallish domain, you should use google. Why even have wikis? The thing is that categories and search engines are two qualitatively different methods. I tend to use search engines when I know what I want. On the other hand, category based models are interesting to browse to very quickly see what sort of subjects are associated with what I'm interested in. I use categories as "fishing expeditions" to look for keywords to google. Perhaps I should have already internalized all those categorical relationships. But I haven't:-)
I suspect that for visually oriented individuals there might be more comfort associated with pictoral filtering. The fact is that working in a computer lab on campus I've helped people who *do* think that search engines are hard. Sometimes it isn't so much a matter of wording a query in a deliberately obtuse fashion, as it is having diffuclty 1) generating multiple forms and 2)selecting the best form from amongst them. I'd like to suggest that "Care to try again?" is the right question, but the answer is actually along the lines of, "Yes! Lets try many approaches to interfacing many types of people to search engines, and see what works best for whom.":-)
"Score:5, Insightful"...but I've noticed a tendency of late for people to post: "In a world where people are too stupid to use computers anyway, what good is...(insert technology here)." Is it insightful? Tuning in TV signals used to be difficult. Using a telephone used to be difficult. As stupid as people are, they aren't as stupid as we so often portray them.
Should I have to learn to drive a car? Sure, I had to learn my motorcycle and my airplane. But what about a cab? A cab is obvious. It has a cab driver who takes commands. Sure, cabs aren't the most powerful form of transportation, but still. Its freaking transportation. I should be able to step to the curb, raise my arm, say where I wish I was, and have somebody take me there, without ever having seen the cab or the driver before in my life. None of the public transportation I've ever used suffers from the problem of having to learn to drive, since they have drivers who drive me where I'm going. But for some reason, the idea of being driven, rather than driving, hasn't caught on in the Linux world.
Well the testing suite having bugs to the point where it isn't usable *does* say something about distros that "pass" the test. And it raises questions about the fairness of the process, not just the test suite, and the trustworthyness of the people involved on both sides.
The only advantage I can see to binary compatibility is making it easier to distribute binary only. Why is this a good thing? Unless you want to sell proprietary software, of course.
I'd rather see systems developed that can determine and track the state of my system, rather than try to squeeze all systems together into one form. If this means binary compatibility is out the window, and compilation becomes the norm, then that is one more evolutionary hurdle that proprietary software will trip upon and fall.
Actually by far the majority of software written in the world is *not* written to be sold. Rather, it is written to be used (inhouse.) Therefor, it isn't so much true that you need to finish an application before you are hired, because the people who hire you are going to be telling you what they want. I would suggest that your statement, "seem to misunderstand how business works in the real world" triggers a "pot trying to call the kettle black". This is especially true if you really believe FOSS is written by 18 year olds who leave Cheetos dust on their keyboards. The really cool stuff comes from places like UC Berkeley, Los Alamos, and Sandia Labs.
Actually at my school they won't provide support for Linux, but they admit that they'd rather see Linux installed because of the severe problems with Win boxes getting owned. They've even made Symantec Corp. AV required for every win box that connects (paid for out of the connect fee.) Our routers shutdown when outgoing spam hits a certain level, and they can't just toggle it 'cause the infected boxes are still spamming. They have to clean the infected boxes first. Never had a problem with a linux box, ever.
"Yaacov Cohen, CEO of Mainsoft, said the challenge is a way to show off the capabilities of Grasshopper. Mainsoft offers tools that let Visual Studio users build applications that run natively in the Unix, J2EE and Linux environments.
Grasshopper, a free Visual Studio.NET plug-in released in May, lets developers write.NET server applications that can run on Linux or any Java-enabled platform. "
Slashdot Mirror
Other needed negative moderations categories:
-1 Not Funny
-1 Wrong, DumbAss
-1 Boring Waste of Time -1 Get a Clue
Even still, wrong. Evolution says nothing about the existence or not of God. Even in terms of origin of life, this says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God. It would seem to be as though you are suggesting that any suggestion that contradicts your beliefs in regard to a specific God (and His historical actions) must mean that there is no God. It is possible that God exists, and yet man evolved from molecules. The unthinkable thought is that Genisis could be myth, and yet God could still exist.
Your use of the title "Creator" would still be appropriately applied to a God who initiated the Big Bang (or who otherwise created Reality).
We can observe that selection causes adaption and minor mutations, but we have never observed a whole new species evolving from another. You don't have to see a new species to observe evolution. That was the parent's point. Genetic drift and natural selection explain the evolution of anti-biotic resistant bacteria from ancestors that weren't resistant, but the simple observence is that these bacteria show up. You can't say it hasn't been observed.
There seems to be an acceptance of QM as the guiding light of modern physics, with an unspoken undercurrent suggesting that while relativity is useful, since QM and General Relativity aren't compatible, then eventually the mistake with relativity will be found.
Well but that is exactly what has happened here. The "how those forces would work differently" is general relativity. He asked exactly the right question, and if people had tried to answer it they might have found the answer then.
I'd like to suggest that questioning is not attacking. Asking "why is A better than B?", is not an attack on A. It also doesn't have anything to do with "belief".
Ah but "we don't know" is true, but not testable. Saying, "the fairies cause it with their magic dust", allows you to test whether there are correlatiions between color of pixie dust and outcomes. The bullshit theory is bullshit, but it is a step towards developing a Law, whereas saying, "well, it's a mystery" is just standing still.
This doesn't explain why the neutron does a beta decay, but it does suggest that once in a nucleous the strong force's contribution to increased binding energy prevents the decay...
Ah, but can they swim and climb trees? Perhaps a condo-treehouse on an island in the middle of a lake or large river? If all else fails, there are always hobbit holes! For those suddenly experiencing an unsure sinking sensation, don't worry, these people are sure that digging a hobbit hole won't sink an island.
Newton didn't have the internet and the FOSS communities, though ;-) Seriously, though, I think it is safe to suggest that the time gap between theory and implementation is shrinking.
Well but "services" includes financial services, too. So go ahead and manufacture, just don't forget to make your mortgage payments on time. Oh and those pesky license fees for those manufacturing processes. Engineering is a "service", too.
Actually it is "exactly as much" rather than "about as much" as the Halting Problem. The two are related.
"The Entscheidungsproblem (English: decision problem) is the challenge in symbolic logic to find a general algorithm which decides for given first-order statements whether they are universally valid or not."
"A first-order statement is called "universally valid" or "logically valid" if it follows from the axioms of the first-order predicate calculus."
"Before the question could be answered, the notion of "algorithm" had to be formally defined. This was done by Alonzo Church in 1936 with the concept of "effective calculability" based on his lambda calculus and by Alan Turing in the same year with his concept of Turing machines. The two approaches are equivalent, an instance of the Church-Turing thesis."
"The negative answer to the Entscheidungsproblem was then given by Alonzo Church in 1936 and independently shortly thereafter by Alan Turing, also in 1936. Church proved that there is no algorithm (defined via recursive functions) which decides for two given lambda calculus expressions whether they are equivalent or not. He relied heavily on earlier work by Stephen Kleene. Turing reduced the halting problem for Turing machines to the Entscheidungsproblem, and his paper is generally considered to be much more influential than Church's. "
"The Entscheidungsproblem is related to Hilbert's tenth problem, which asks for an algorithm to decide whether or not Diophantine equations have a solution. The non-existence of such an algorithm (proven by Yuri Matiyasevich in 1970) implies a negative answer to the Entscheidungsproblem."
Actually in the graduate math classes I've had, it was pretty much a given that the Grand Dream of Russell was shattered on the rocky shores of Godel. Seems like there was a crisis in Mathematics (due to Godel) as severe as the crisis in Physics (due to QM). It was said that before Physics could procede, a generation of Physicists would have to die out. Mathematics proved more resistant, embraced Formalism, and climbed into its navel instead. (Noteable exception: Tristan Needham's Visual Complex Analysis, also see the book's homepage.
A computer world has not rules but what the programmer hath wrought.
Information theory is our Newtonian Mechanics.
Actually it would seem that taking the arguement to its conclusion, whenever you aren't dealing with a formal, stable, restricted edge, smallish domain, you should use google. Why even have wikis? The thing is that categories and search engines are two qualitatively different methods. I tend to use search engines when I know what I want. On the other hand, category based models are interesting to browse to very quickly see what sort of subjects are associated with what I'm interested in. I use categories as "fishing expeditions" to look for keywords to google. Perhaps I should have already internalized all those categorical relationships. But I haven't :-)
I suspect that for visually oriented individuals there might be more comfort associated with pictoral filtering. The fact is that working in a computer lab on campus I've helped people who *do* think that search engines are hard. Sometimes it isn't so much a matter of wording a query in a deliberately obtuse fashion, as it is having diffuclty 1) generating multiple forms and 2)selecting the best form from amongst them. I'd like to suggest that "Care to try again?" is the right question, but the answer is actually along the lines of, "Yes! Lets try many approaches to interfacing many types of people to search engines, and see what works best for whom." :-)
"Score:5, Insightful" ...but I've noticed a tendency of late for people to post: "In a world where people are too stupid to use computers anyway, what good is...(insert technology here)." Is it insightful? Tuning in TV signals used to be difficult. Using a telephone used to be difficult. As stupid as people are, they aren't as stupid as we so often portray them.
Technology makes new things possible.
Interfaces get better.
People adapt.
Should I have to learn to drive a car? Sure, I had to learn my motorcycle and my airplane. But what about a cab? A cab is obvious. It has a cab driver who takes commands. Sure, cabs aren't the most powerful form of transportation, but still. Its freaking transportation. I should be able to step to the curb, raise my arm, say where I wish I was, and have somebody take me there, without ever having seen the cab or the driver before in my life. None of the public transportation I've ever used suffers from the problem of having to learn to drive, since they have drivers who drive me where I'm going. But for some reason, the idea of being driven, rather than driving, hasn't caught on in the Linux world.
:-)
Sorry, too damn much time on my hands
Well the testing suite having bugs to the point where it isn't usable *does* say something about distros that "pass" the test. And it raises questions about the fairness of the process, not just the test suite, and the trustworthyness of the people involved on both sides.
The only advantage I can see to binary compatibility is making it easier to distribute binary only. Why is this a good thing? Unless you want to sell proprietary software, of course.
I'd rather see systems developed that can determine and track the state of my system, rather than try to squeeze all systems together into one form. If this means binary compatibility is out the window, and compilation becomes the norm, then that is one more evolutionary hurdle that proprietary software will trip upon and fall.
The GPL is neither "right" nor "traditional", but rather is copyleft, and revolutionary.
Actually by far the majority of software written in the world is *not* written to be sold. Rather, it is written to be used (inhouse.) Therefor, it isn't so much true that you need to finish an application before you are hired, because the people who hire you are going to be telling you what they want. I would suggest that your statement, "seem to misunderstand how business works in the real world" triggers a "pot trying to call the kettle black". This is especially true if you really believe FOSS is written by 18 year olds who leave Cheetos dust on their keyboards. The really cool stuff comes from places like UC Berkeley, Los Alamos, and Sandia Labs.
On the other hand, Gnumeric kicks Excel's ass. I appreciate the Gnumeric/LaTeX connection, too.
Actually at my school they won't provide support for Linux, but they admit that they'd rather see Linux installed because of the severe problems with Win boxes getting owned. They've even made Symantec Corp. AV required for every win box that connects (paid for out of the connect fee.) Our routers shutdown when outgoing spam hits a certain level, and they can't just toggle it 'cause the infected boxes are still spamming. They have to clean the infected boxes first. Never had a problem with a linux box, ever.
"The GPL says that if they distribute the binaries to you (ie.. you buy Mandriva), then they have to also make the source available to you."
And in fact, if they distribute just binaries, they have to make the source available to any third parties.
"Yaacov Cohen, CEO of Mainsoft, said the challenge is a way to show off the capabilities of Grasshopper. Mainsoft offers tools that let Visual Studio users build applications that run natively in the Unix, J2EE and Linux environments. Grasshopper, a free Visual Studio .NET plug-in released in May, lets developers write .NET server applications that can run on Linux or any Java-enabled platform. "