Before you blast me with examples of how the Catholic church is blundering (big bang?) Wasn't it a Catholic priest that came up with the idea of the Big Bang?
Galileo had a mathematical justification for his theory.
So what? Geocentrists did too. In fact, Ptolemaic epicycles are mathematically easier than Galilean epicycles. And the pendulum effect might be due to some other reason. Accepting Heliocentrism as fact just because of it would be the paradigmatic jump to conclusions. The first known observation of the full planetary phases of Venus were first observed by Galileo at the end of 1610 (though not published until 1613). Using a telescope, Galileo was able to observe Venus going through a full set of phases, something prohibited by the Ptolemaic system (which would never allow Venus to be fully lit from the perspective of the Earth). This observation essentially ruled out the Ptolemaic system, and was compatible only with the Copernican system and the Tychonic system.
All the pope did ask for, was that Galileo presents both points of view fairly -- his _and_ the Aristotelian one -- and, basically, explains exactly what his own system explains better than the old one. Which is IMHO very much in line even with the modern scientific method. No, the pope asked that he present both point of view as equal even though one point of view had empirical evidence to support it and the other did not.
This is not in line with modern science, this is in line with modern "teach the controversy" creationist shenanigans.
Galileo was not, as is commonly believed, imprisoned for advocating heliocentrism. In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture," and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo, June 22, 1633 (translated from the Latin), in Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo, University of Chicago Press, 1955, pp. 306-10.
Many people misunderstand the real issue behind the problem the church had w/ Galileo. It had nothing to do w/ the basic contention that the earth revolved about the sun. Copernius (a Catholic priest) proposed heliocentricity about a 100 years before the Galileo incident. The concept was generally accepted by most educated people (including members of the Church hierarchy) at the time. BULLSHIT
In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth moves and the Sun doesn't was "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture." The same decree also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.
the Discovery Institute is a case in point. Most of its members are scientists with Ph.D.s who teach in universities. Guillermo Gonzalez was a professor of Astronomy at my alma mater, Iowa State University. You can't just dismiss them and say there is no controversy in the scientific community A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis" by incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.
Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact-fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, creationist version, FTE 4996-4997, pp. 2-14, 2-15)
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact-fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, intelligent design version, FTE 4667, p. 2-15)
1989 Of Pandas and People was published, printed by "Haughton Publishing Co." (Horticultural Printers, Inc. of Dallas, with no other books in print).[9] It included all of the basic arguments of intelligent design in essentially modern form (except for Behe's irreducible complexity argument which appeared in the 1993 edition).[27][18] In 2004, Jon Buell of the FTE stated this was "the first place where the phrase 'intelligent design' appeared in its present use."
it is just basically mass chaos, which either U.S. military intelligence either knew or should have known would happen in a country splintered and segregated along ethnic, religious and cultural divisions. Now now, NO ONE could have known it would turn into a quagmire.
the courts are not the battlefield they are looking to enter. they are pushing for school board and textbook adoption board change. THAT is the critical element. Gotta hook 'em while they're young.
Amounts to religion from the response point of view, because what they believe becomes a part of their reality and self image, and when you question the belief, they take it as a personal attack because it's easier to attack the person attacking the idea than to look again at their beliefs and change their self image and world view to coincide with the new data. Bullshit.
You did NOT provide "new data". You said something FANTASTICALLY stupid (the existence of monkeys prove man didn't evolve), and you got aggressive replies because of it. What you said did not warrant an intelligent reply because it was not an intelligent statement.
By putting science and mythology on the same level of validity, you're displaying an enormous amount of bias towards mythology.
The other end was extended to include Halloween for safety reasons; kids can go Trick-Or-Treating in daylight. Which is a pretty sure way to kill Halloween: The fun starts after dark.
Programmers that have to adapt their code to take in account daylight savings time.
That's Arthur David Olsen for all Unix, Linux, BSD, Macintosh, and then the guy from Microsoft. It's gotta be only one guy at Microsoft, the way of handling this in Vista is so dumb.
Actually, this being microsoft, I'm betting it's 5 programmers, 3 managers, in two departments.
Creationism wrapped up in the guise of scientific knowledge and academic freedom. This is an OBVIOUS effort by members of the FL legislature to pander to religious groups. It just happens to be couched in an "academic freedom" argument. Don't buy it. It isn't value neutral and it isn't fair.
Students already face an uphill battle in getting over unscientific hunches formed in childhood. Evolution, in its fullness, is a rejection of those hunches. This bill clouds the issue by allowing teachers to present a curriculum that plays to those hunches in order to serve as religious indoctrination. Think about some of the main "tenets" of ID: the notion that complexity cannot occur from iterated evaluations of simple rules--they claim things like the eye are "too complex" to have been formed via "random" mutation. This SOUNDS reasonable, until you realize that it is just a play on our intuition. It isn't true in the slightest. The same with the claim that animals or humans were elegantly designed. While there is what some scientists would call elegance in plenty of biological forms, their implementation shows signs of prior adaptations. It takes a lot of careful study to learn exactly how and why our endocrine system or our vascular system is imperfectly adapted let alone begin to think about how pregnancy is an imperfect adaptation. This is why ID is primed for the 8-12 crowd. Those critical thinking skill are just solidifying. There isn't a large movement to teach ID in colleges because the material would be rejected at greater rates.
This is religious nonsense packages as science. Nothing more. That was both informative and insightful.
Whoever modded the parent "troll" should have their mod points taken away for good.
I just can't see why, from the info in the summary, anyone thinks that this legalizes teaching ID or creationism. FTFA: The bill is much like the sample one posted on the website of the Discovery Institute
These hold less energy than batteries and yet they're going to be economically feasible? Can someone please explain to me how this is going to work, because it's not making sense to me right now. there's no battery memory caused by partial discharging and no reduction in capacity with each recharge. "They never wear out, they have no electrolyte, they don't have any chemistry taking place in them," Schindall says. "It's just an electric field that stores the energy. So you can recharge a capacitor a gazillion times. It's very efficient--just the internal resistance of the wires." The ions cling electrostatically to materials in a capacitor, which also allows for much quicker charge times. And by avoiding the chemical reaction that drives traditional batteries, there's no real danger of a capacitor suddenly overloading--or exploding like a laptop's lithium-ion battery pack.
That makes the assumption that you can't do both. Why wouldn't you be able to do both? You can do both, but his point is that if you're looking at the efficiency of your dollar, you'd be better buying something else that'll save you more power than this fan will. Buy a better power supply, new monitor, more power efficient CPU, better light bulbs, etc. For the amount of energy saved, it's likely that there's quite a long list of things that could save more energy for your dollar, and since you (presumably) have a finite amount of money, it'd be better to buy one of those things than this fan. The finite amount of money idea is ridiculous when you suggest buying more expenseive goods instead. A new monitor is going to cost more of your precious money than this fan. What you're doing is simply dimissing something new and different and rationalising this with incoherent aarguments, such as demonstrated by your suggestion to save money by spending more money.
Furthermore, you did not answer the question: Why can't you do both? Why, with your monetary ressources sufficient to buy a new graphics card, and at least one of the items from your list, can't you also buy the fancy fan? Is it really such a greater expense than buying a regular electric fan and normal heat sink? Compared to the total amount spent on the card and additional efficient power saver replacement part you suggested? Will the total amount spent exceed that of the card + thermocooler if it's card + X from your list?
as someone else pointed out, we all have limited amounts of money. Spending a lot of money on a fancy fan to save a few watts is a waste. If you were smart, you'd put that money towards something that gave you more bang/buck, like geo-thermal heat A heat driven processor cooling fan is orders of magnitude below geothermal devices in terms of monetary cost. If your concern was "limited amount of money", as you claim, you would not think of expenses costing vast amounts of money.
Stop being contrarian for conflicts' sake.
Energy efficiency doesn't end at the computer. According to you it does, since you would rather people increase their energy consumption by 4 watts rather than use this efficient device.
One day every other month where our home internet is down doesn't seem like the end of the world Hell, it's a relief! We wander outside, blinking and squinting at the surprising brightness, experiencing strange yet nostalgic smells and sounds.
Goddamn, you sound just like the retarded cop who [...] was full of shit and I knew it [...] replies with what is the most laughable statement I've ever encountered in my life [...] I ain't calling you retarded or trying to flame you but
[...]
So seriously, how did you come to your statement since it was obvious that they were discussing legal adverts, legal graphic design, and, in theory, a future that contains legal unsolicited commercial email where these snail-mailings would co-exist? Well, even though you start off by calling me retarded and flaming me, and then you lie and say you didn't just do that, I think you're a seriously retarded flamebaiting idiot. And you prove it by mentioning the fluidity of legality, whilst not understanding that this was my point: Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is morally right, just because it makes jobs and turns a profit doesn't make it legal.
I came up with the statement because I needed an easily-understood example where the snail mail system was used for an obviously illegal and immoral activity.
But no matter how easily-understood I think it is, there's always someone like you to miss the entire point. It ain't easy lowering ourselves to your level, all the way under your bridge there.
A fan can't draw much more than a few watts. What's the point? It seems like a complicated array of technology just to save a few watts of power. A fan needs a control system, sensors to judge the temperature of the processor, algorithms to tell it when to turn on and off.
This thing is SO geeky and elegant, it will cool an advanced bit of digital processing technoogy with a very analogous 19th century steampunk-like device that uses the heat itself as power for the cooling process, instead of a sensor-processor-algorithm-power-fan circuit, it's directly sensor-fan, where the sensor is the power.
If you can't see the point, well I pity you, and demand that you turn over your geek card and nerd badge, you poseur.
You'd be better off buying a more efficient power supply if you wanted to be "green". Why couldn't one do "both"?
Slashdot Mirror
This is not in line with modern science, this is in line with modern "teach the controversy" creationist shenanigans.
Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo, June 22, 1633 (translated from the Latin), in Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo, University of Chicago Press, 1955, pp. 306-10.
In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth moves and the Sun doesn't was "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture." The same decree also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.
Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact-fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, creationist version, FTE 4996-4997, pp. 2-14, 2-15)
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact-fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, intelligent design version, FTE 4667, p. 2-15)
1989 Of Pandas and People was published, printed by "Haughton Publishing Co." (Horticultural Printers, Inc. of Dallas, with no other books in print).[9] It included all of the basic arguments of intelligent design in essentially modern form (except for Behe's irreducible complexity argument which appeared in the 1993 edition).[27][18] In 2004, Jon Buell of the FTE stated this was "the first place where the phrase 'intelligent design' appeared in its present use."
You did NOT provide "new data". You said something FANTASTICALLY stupid (the existence of monkeys prove man didn't evolve), and you got aggressive replies because of it. What you said did not warrant an intelligent reply because it was not an intelligent statement.
By putting science and mythology on the same level of validity, you're displaying an enormous amount of bias towards mythology.
That's Arthur David Olsen for all Unix, Linux, BSD, Macintosh, and then the guy from Microsoft. It's gotta be only one guy at Microsoft, the way of handling this in Vista is so dumb.
Actually, this being microsoft, I'm betting it's 5 programmers, 3 managers, in two departments.Students already face an uphill battle in getting over unscientific hunches formed in childhood. Evolution, in its fullness, is a rejection of those hunches. This bill clouds the issue by allowing teachers to present a curriculum that plays to those hunches in order to serve as religious indoctrination. Think about some of the main "tenets" of ID: the notion that complexity cannot occur from iterated evaluations of simple rules--they claim things like the eye are "too complex" to have been formed via "random" mutation. This SOUNDS reasonable, until you realize that it is just a play on our intuition. It isn't true in the slightest. The same with the claim that animals or humans were elegantly designed. While there is what some scientists would call elegance in plenty of biological forms, their implementation shows signs of prior adaptations. It takes a lot of careful study to learn exactly how and why our endocrine system or our vascular system is imperfectly adapted let alone begin to think about how pregnancy is an imperfect adaptation. This is why ID is primed for the 8-12 crowd. Those critical thinking skill are just solidifying. There isn't a large movement to teach ID in colleges because the material would be rejected at greater rates.
This is religious nonsense packages as science. Nothing more. That was both informative and insightful.
Whoever modded the parent "troll" should have their mod points taken away for good.
Furthermore, you did not answer the question: Why can't you do both?
Why, with your monetary ressources sufficient to buy a new graphics card, and at least one of the items from your list, can't you also buy the fancy fan? Is it really such a greater expense than buying a regular electric fan and normal heat sink? Compared to the total amount spent on the card and additional efficient power saver replacement part you suggested?
Will the total amount spent exceed that of the card + thermocooler if it's card + X from your list?
If your concern was "limited amount of money", as you claim, you would not think of expenses costing vast amounts of money.
Stop being contrarian for conflicts' sake. Energy efficiency doesn't end at the computer. According to you it does, since you would rather people increase their energy consumption by 4 watts rather than use this efficient device.
Never question capitalism: It is the light, the truth, and the way.
I ain't calling you retarded or trying to flame you but
[...]
So seriously, how did you come to your statement since it was obvious that they were discussing legal adverts, legal graphic design, and, in theory, a future that contains legal unsolicited commercial email where these snail-mailings would co-exist? Well, even though you start off by calling me retarded and flaming me, and then you lie and say you didn't just do that, I think you're a seriously retarded flamebaiting idiot.
And you prove it by mentioning the fluidity of legality, whilst not understanding that this was my point: Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is morally right, just because it makes jobs and turns a profit doesn't make it legal.
I came up with the statement because I needed an easily-understood example where the snail mail system was used for an obviously illegal and immoral activity.
But no matter how easily-understood I think it is, there's always someone like you to miss the entire point. It ain't easy lowering ourselves to your level, all the way under your bridge there.
This thing is SO geeky and elegant, it will cool an advanced bit of digital processing technoogy with a very analogous 19th century steampunk-like device that uses the heat itself as power for the cooling process, instead of a sensor-processor-algorithm-power-fan circuit, it's directly sensor-fan, where the sensor is the power.
If you can't see the point, well I pity you, and demand that you turn over your geek card and nerd badge, you poseur. You'd be better off buying a more efficient power supply if you wanted to be "green". Why couldn't one do "both"?