Re:fool-proof indicator
on
Science Askew
·
· Score: 1
Actually, Don Simanek--unless he's retired since the last time I talked to him--is a physics professor at Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania. (www.lhup.edu)
Ah, BUT the Daleks had an organic component--the "pepper shaker" was just a casing for the little creature inside. Similarly, the Cybermen were just living beings that gradually replaced their organic parts with cybernetic ones, because their home planet (Mondas) flew away from Earth's sun.
Point taken, but "coder" doesn't necessarily mean "member of the community." I'd say the majority of Linux coders are "members of the community," just because the very nature of Linux really encourages open communication between developers.
On the other hand, I do quite a bit of MS coding (hey, gotta make my motorcycle payments) including ASP,.NET, Visual Studio, etc. I don't consider myself part of the "community" because I have no vested interest in MS and don't often communicate with other MS developers (outside of projects I'm involved in, of course). There are some people who do, sure, probably a (small) minority of MS coders. I'd say a majority of Linux coders, however, communicate separate and apart from their current needs.
There's more of a *community* around Linux than there is around MS. As I said, Linux' very nature encourages this kind of open communication. While I don't think Microsoft particularly discourages a community from developing, they really try to get developers to communicate more with the corporation than with each other.
Not to mention you don't always get to hear how the questions are phrased.
If it appeared as something akin to "Do you believe terrorists should be able to hide behind the First Amendment," it would probably generate more "no" responses.
Granted, that's an exaggeration, but there's an entire profession built around phrasing poll questions to "push" the numbers in the direction you want.
Any scientist who says one "did" absolutely positively happen is practicing a faith, not science. In essence, they're both religions, with whacko irrational devotees on both sides.
Evolution is like gravity, both fact and theory. The fact is that it does, has, and will continue to happen. The theory is how it happens. Darwin's contribution was not evolution's existence; this much was already known. His contribution was a mechanism for evolution to happen--descent with modification due to natural selection.
Claiming that evolution and creation are both "just theories" shows an astounding ignorance of science. "Theories" are models used that best fit the available evidence. Putting both creation and evolution in this category would need several steps up just to get to "wrong." Where evolution is concerned, we have physical evidence, genetic evidence, laboratory evidence, and observation. Where creation is concerned, we have....A book that says it happened.
First of all, I think it should be illegal to Cryofreeze good athletes, like Ted Williams. What will stop a crooked couple in the future from stealing some of Ted's frozen Dna, implanting it in themselves, and then having a child who will become a base ball superstar and make them Millionaires. If they are going to cyrofreeze really good people there should be lot's of government security to prevent people from Dna theft. Becuase that is immoral and human cloning.
Normal people on the other hand should be able to get frozen.
Well, on the upside, you certainly don't qualify...
First, any possibility of future revival is speculative at best. Second, we know that freezing a body at these temperatures causes immense damage to the tissue. (This is why we don't have "deep-freeze" suspended animation.) Third, the financial viability of these firms is questionable, leaving one to wonder what happens to the remains if the company goes under. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like a huge waste of money.
Me, I want to be cremated and have my ashes quietly put into Bill Gates' breakfast cereal. My last message to Microsoft: "Eat Me."
As often as not, as in this case, people do it because the link has been/.ed. It's actually helpful for those of us who don't get there before the server gets overloaded.
It depends on how you define "ape." Zoologists are pretty specific when it comes to that definition--they mean modern "great apes;" chimpanzees, gorillas, orangs, etc.
If a layman was to run across an australopithecine in the woods, their first thought would be that it's an ape. Australopithecines were covered with hair, had a broad nose, etc.--never mind that they were bipedal. So in a certain sense, yeah, they were apes, but not in the sense that zoologists use the word.
Not to be rude, but "duh." Even Darwin said that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor--the only ones who talk about humans descending from apes are horribly misinformed creationists. It's akin to your family tree--unless you live in West Virginia, typically you're not descended from your cousin. From an evolutionary standpoint, modern apes are our cousins, not our ancestors.
Regarding the statement you quoted--the mystery is not that our family tree has branches. That much we know. For example, based on DNA analysis we know that Neandertals were probably a subspecies that died out, not our ancestors--another branch in the tree, you could say. The wonder lies in investigating these branches, and discovering new forks, roots, and origins.
On a more serious note, seeing as a human being has already been cloned, would it be too much to expect a clone of this guy or girl? It would only take a tiny amount of good DNA... If it survived.
Unfortunately, DNA simply doesn't survive the fossilization process. The closest they've been able to come is extracting damaged Neandertal DNA, and that specimen was fairly old (40,000 bp if memory serves). Even with that, they had to drill pretty far into the partially fossilized bone to get it. Something on this order is simply not possible.
First of all--if you went expecting stunning dialogue, exceptional acting, or a serious plot, fuggedaboudit. You shouldn't have gone to see the first one, either.
The whole point of MIB/MIIB is that it's supposed to be *fun*. Not a major, serious, Issues Of Our Time movie, but the kind of flick to sit back and just have fun with. And IMO it worked. Frank (the pug) was a howl--the whole theatre howled when he was singing "I will survive." Will Smith was, of course, Will Smith. (Let's face it, the guy plays a single character in all of his movies.) And the locker creatures were just hilarious ("and the adult entertainment's in the back!").
Personally, I enjoyed it. And if you didn't, hey, that's your opinion. And you know what opinions are like--everyone's got one, and nobody thinks that theirs stinks.
First of all--*24* hours in a day. It's not THAT hard to keep track of.
Second--if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Other than outdated astronomical measurements, you're right, there's no logical reason why we've got what we do. However, there's no logical reason why Bush is in the White House, either. You play with what you're dealt. And the fact is, the way we measure time *works*. It may be messy, difficult to calculate on-the-fly, but hey, if you can figure out a mortgage, you can figure out how many days you *really* work each week.
Not to mention the fact that it's one of the few systems truly used all over the world. Some countries use 24-hour, some use 12-hour clocks, but it's still the same system. Not everyone uses the metric system, but everyone recognizes there are 24 hours in a day and 7 days in a week. That is, everyone except the person who posted this.
Question: Can The Doctor go back to meet face-to-face a previous regeneration? I'm ignorant of the laws of time.
He did so, three times IIRC. The first was "The three Doctors," where Pertwee's Doctor met with Patrick Troughton and William Hartnell (who was only on video, because Hartnell was ill). There was also the movie special "The Five Doctors," with Peter Davison, Jon Pertwee, Patrick Troughton, and Richard Hurndall (sp) as Hartnell's Doctor #1. Tom Baker had only a brief part, as (again IIRC) he had a spat of some sort with the producers. Finally, in the Two Doctors, Colin Baker hooked up with Patrick Troughton, as well as with Troughton's companion Jamie McRimmon (Zoe was mysteriously missing).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Don Simanek--unless he's retired since the last time I talked to him--is a physics professor at Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania. (www.lhup.edu)
Ah, BUT the Daleks had an organic component--the "pepper shaker" was just a casing for the little creature inside. Similarly, the Cybermen were just living beings that gradually replaced their organic parts with cybernetic ones, because their home planet (Mondas) flew away from Earth's sun.
:)
I'm such a frelling geek.
Point taken, but "coder" doesn't necessarily mean "member of the community." I'd say the majority of Linux coders are "members of the community," just because the very nature of Linux really encourages open communication between developers.
.NET, Visual Studio, etc. I don't consider myself part of the "community" because I have no vested interest in MS and don't often communicate with other MS developers (outside of projects I'm involved in, of course). There are some people who do, sure, probably a (small) minority of MS coders. I'd say a majority of Linux coders, however, communicate separate and apart from their current needs.
On the other hand, I do quite a bit of MS coding (hey, gotta make my motorcycle payments) including ASP,
There's more of a *community* around Linux than there is around MS. As I said, Linux' very nature encourages this kind of open communication. While I don't think Microsoft particularly discourages a community from developing, they really try to get developers to communicate more with the corporation than with each other.
Not to mention you don't always get to hear how the questions are phrased.
If it appeared as something akin to "Do you believe terrorists should be able to hide behind the First Amendment," it would probably generate more "no" responses.
Granted, that's an exaggeration, but there's an entire profession built around phrasing poll questions to "push" the numbers in the direction you want.
Dammit. Must've forgotten a closing tag in there. My bad.
Creationism, Evolution... They're both theories.
Any scientist who says one "did" absolutely positively happen is practicing a faith, not science. In essence, they're both religions, with whacko irrational devotees on both sides.
Evolution is like gravity, both fact and theory. The fact is that it does, has, and will continue to happen. The theory is how it happens. Darwin's contribution was not evolution's existence; this much was already known. His contribution was a mechanism for evolution to happen--descent with modification due to natural selection.
Claiming that evolution and creation are both "just theories" shows an astounding ignorance of science. "Theories" are models used that best fit the available evidence. Putting both creation and evolution in this category would need several steps up just to get to "wrong." Where evolution is concerned, we have physical evidence, genetic evidence, laboratory evidence, and observation. Where creation is concerned, we have....A book that says it happened.
Well, on the upside, you certainly don't qualify...
First, any possibility of future revival is speculative at best. Second, we know that freezing a body at these temperatures causes immense damage to the tissue. (This is why we don't have "deep-freeze" suspended animation.) Third, the financial viability of these firms is questionable, leaving one to wonder what happens to the remains if the company goes under. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like a huge waste of money.
Me, I want to be cremated and have my ashes quietly put into Bill Gates' breakfast cereal. My last message to Microsoft: "Eat Me."
As often as not, as in this case, people do it because the link has been /.ed. It's actually helpful for those of us who don't get there before the server gets overloaded.
It depends on how you define "ape." Zoologists are pretty specific when it comes to that definition--they mean modern "great apes;" chimpanzees, gorillas, orangs, etc.
If a layman was to run across an australopithecine in the woods, their first thought would be that it's an ape. Australopithecines were covered with hair, had a broad nose, etc.--never mind that they were bipedal. So in a certain sense, yeah, they were apes, but not in the sense that zoologists use the word.
Not to be rude, but "duh." Even Darwin said that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor--the only ones who talk about humans descending from apes are horribly misinformed creationists. It's akin to your family tree--unless you live in West Virginia, typically you're not descended from your cousin. From an evolutionary standpoint, modern apes are our cousins, not our ancestors.
Regarding the statement you quoted--the mystery is not that our family tree has branches. That much we know. For example, based on DNA analysis we know that Neandertals were probably a subspecies that died out, not our ancestors--another branch in the tree, you could say. The wonder lies in investigating these branches, and discovering new forks, roots, and origins.
On a more serious note, seeing as a human being has already been cloned, would it be too much to expect a clone of this guy or girl? It would only take a tiny amount of good DNA... If it survived.
Unfortunately, DNA simply doesn't survive the fossilization process. The closest they've been able to come is extracting damaged Neandertal DNA, and that specimen was fairly old (40,000 bp if memory serves). Even with that, they had to drill pretty far into the partially fossilized bone to get it. Something on this order is simply not possible.
First of all--if you went expecting stunning dialogue, exceptional acting, or a serious plot, fuggedaboudit. You shouldn't have gone to see the first one, either.
The whole point of MIB/MIIB is that it's supposed to be *fun*. Not a major, serious, Issues Of Our Time movie, but the kind of flick to sit back and just have fun with. And IMO it worked. Frank (the pug) was a howl--the whole theatre howled when he was singing "I will survive." Will Smith was, of course, Will Smith. (Let's face it, the guy plays a single character in all of his movies.) And the locker creatures were just hilarious ("and the adult entertainment's in the back!").
Personally, I enjoyed it. And if you didn't, hey, that's your opinion. And you know what opinions are like--everyone's got one, and nobody thinks that theirs stinks.
First of all--*24* hours in a day. It's not THAT hard to keep track of.
Second--if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Other than outdated astronomical measurements, you're right, there's no logical reason why we've got what we do. However, there's no logical reason why Bush is in the White House, either. You play with what you're dealt. And the fact is, the way we measure time *works*. It may be messy, difficult to calculate on-the-fly, but hey, if you can figure out a mortgage, you can figure out how many days you *really* work each week.
Not to mention the fact that it's one of the few systems truly used all over the world. Some countries use 24-hour, some use 12-hour clocks, but it's still the same system. Not everyone uses the metric system, but everyone recognizes there are 24 hours in a day and 7 days in a week. That is, everyone except the person who posted this.
Question: Can The Doctor go back to meet face-to-face a previous regeneration? I'm ignorant of the laws of time.
He did so, three times IIRC. The first was "The three Doctors," where Pertwee's Doctor met with Patrick Troughton and William Hartnell (who was only on video, because Hartnell was ill). There was also the movie special "The Five Doctors," with Peter Davison, Jon Pertwee, Patrick Troughton, and Richard Hurndall (sp) as Hartnell's Doctor #1. Tom Baker had only a brief part, as (again IIRC) he had a spat of some sort with the producers. Finally, in the Two Doctors, Colin Baker hooked up with Patrick Troughton, as well as with Troughton's companion Jamie McRimmon (Zoe was mysteriously missing).
"But I didn't wipe, and didn't enjoy it."