Animals are multicellular. They only unicellular animals I know about are zygotes and other immature forms.
You should have written "Bacteria count as life." "Bacteria" is a plural word.
They did not find bacteria from Mars. They found little formations in the meteorite that they claimed looked bacterial. Find the pictures. From my viewing, the photographs do not show bacteria or their remnants.
Dr. Howard Gardner of the Harvard Graduate School of Education is the leading proponent. Seven of them are musical intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, spatial intelligence, interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence. He recently added naturalist intelligence as the eighth. This site has a good overview.
My sister, a graduate student in education, had to learn about these ideas for a class. One idea coming out of the theory is that teachers should schedule different kinds of learning activities to suit different students. Some students may gain benefit from building models, others from writing papers and others from from working problems on paper.
I asked a graduate student in education psychology about this theory. He is very skeptical. While we certainly see people with particular talents who learn by different methods, Dr. Gardner's theory seems overwhelmingly based on anecdotes, his random observations and his imagination. It might turn out to be descriptive and useful. While the end product looks formal and authoritative, the underlying research and deduction is weak, if it is there.
Traditional theories of general intelligence, such as a general intelligence factor G, match my experience to some degree, as do the ideas of Gardner. I have some general ability to learn in a wide variety of fields, but I show and feel more aptitude toward some more than others.
For me, my attitude toward this argument on intelligence mirrors my ideas toward many areas of psychology. Many ideas help describe the world of psychology, but they usually have flaws. It leaves us with a few choices. One is to become dogmatic and fight the opposition. Another is to look at how so many psychological theories fail and disregard it all. I choose a third stance. This field often just does not allow for the rigorous, exact measurements of others. It does not mean that all the theories are worthless. We need to keep our wits about us when evaluating them, though. The old using 10% of the brain and left brain/right brain theories may have some small merits, but both have been shown too simple. If we are to continue with psychology being a social scientist, we must act as scientists. Challenge the results. Dispute the theories. Make measurements. Test the alternatives. Do science.
Stevie Wonder, born Stevland Morris, was a premature baby. Medical treatment in those early days left him blind. I believe in involved oxygen exposure, but it may have been light exposure or something else.
"Physician" is not necessarily better. Surgeons are considered, by some, to be different from physicians, yet they are still medical doctors.
I looked in a couple of dictionaries. There are several accepted uses of the word "doctor." Do you mean correct according to you?
My point is that "doctor" is a term with several meanings, and you have no monopoly on the word. Those people with the most advanced degrees are indeed doctors, but they're hardly the only type. Language is fluid. While the original use of "doctor" seems similar to "teacher," it is different today. Not everyone who has the little special piece of paper teaches. Should we take back their diplomas and tell them that they are not doctors? Let's give them and speakers of nearly all European languages spankings for corrupting the perfectly good Latin language while we're at it. They're not using the Latin terms correctly.
There are at least two varieties of medical doctors. Most I have known had earned MD degrees at allopatric medical schools. Some medical doctors earn DO, doctor of osteopathic medicine, degrees. Osteopathic doctors have a more holistic view of the body. Osteopathic doctors are most prevalent as primary care physicians.
For that matter, a doctor is not simply one who earns a degree at a university. A certain Christian scholars, such as Thomas Aquinas, are known as the "doctors of the church." While it is a degree of recognition by the Roman Catholic Church, receiving the title is different from writing a dissertation at a university.
Etymologically, the word is related to the Latin docere meaning "to teach."
In short, you are wrong about both language and medicine.
I've heard Linus pronounce it 3 ways.
on
Linux on Jeopardy
·
· Score: 1
I, with my own ears through the miracle of digital audio, have heard Linus say Linux as "lee-nooks," "lie-nuks" and "lin-uks." On ZDNET television, I heard him say both "lie-nuks" and "lin-uks."
Humble is an inappropriate description. Galileo was a courtier and a favorite of the Medici family. He named the moons of Jupiter that he found for them.
Congressmen are finally learning K-12 science? It's about time. There is no limit to what our representatives might learn. They might get a handle on the periodic table, Newton's laws, algebra, the phyla of life, natural selection and more. We must be patient, however.
Personally, I applaud them for acknowledging this shortcoming and taking steps to bridge it. Way to go congress! I'm sure you'll master K-12 science within the next 20 or 25 years. Then there will be no stopping us. U S A! U S A!
I do not know what the consequences will be. I used the word "could" for that reason. Anyone who claims to know is guessing or outright lying. Read my post again.
As for looking, I've seen farms and food in grocery stores. What is your point?
How do we determine when acts are natural and when they are not? Do we vote? Do we have a supreme authority? Should we form a committee? Are there criteria for evaluation? What defines one case as natural and the other as unnatural? Is there a set of natural set of behaviors?
Doing nothing lies somewhere between completely impossible and utterly impossible. The home in which you advise staying has an impact. Your death will impact other organisms. How much is too much? How can we determine what is allowable?
Why is it sad that the species went extinct? Why do you phrase the risk as you do? Bringing back a species could provide new ecological openings. Do you know what the consequences will be?
I hope you don't like eating. Nearly every crop resembles wild plants little. Livestock are very different than related wild animals. The genetic techniques are new, but the idea of modifying organisms to give us more food is not.
In this modern age, leading causes of premature death still include poor sanitation, bad nutrition and diseases with cures. We know how to fix them. Just provide decent sewage systems, better diets and basic medicine. Those tasks do not constitute interesting puzzles, however, and they do not help the wealthy, lazy, fat Westerners who already have easy access to good water, good food and good medicine.
Someone brought up medical research. It gets big money. The push for making older tried and proven treatments widely available is small, though.
You're thinking on the same track they are, except they want skin to make it act, not just look, more human. Dr. Anne Foerst is a post-doc at the lab working on skin. If you fish around the MIT AI site, you may find a bit about the work. Cog, Kismet's "older brother," has some fake skin on his stomach. Judging from what I've read, developing skin for the robots has proved very difficult.
I saw Dr. Foerst speak, and she is amazing. She has a joint appointment with MIT AI and Harvard Divinity. Her work on skin has a theological basis from Genesis informed by modern studies of human development. Her exegesis of Genesis, based on the work of a 14th century rabbi, was something totally new to me. She is both a theologian and a computer scientist with formal education in both fields. This article includes a brief background.
There was an attempt following the French Revolution (approximately) during the Reign of Terror. They wanted to rid themselves of the ancien regime as much as possible, including that obviously corrupt time system. My freshman humanities class learned about it from a reader on the French Revolution. If I recall correctly, the plan was 12 months per year 3 weeks per month 10 days per week 10 hours per day 100 minutes per house 100 seconds per minute The leftover days each year were intended as holidays for celebrating the revolution. I don't remember about leap years. This plan never got far although I have seen a photograph of a metric clock built during this period.
Many people would like to study Mars before we completely alter it. Biologists, geologists, certain classes of physicists and meteorologists, among many others, might learn a great deal from Mars. If we slap on some life too soon, we destroy some opportunities to see into Mars' past. If there is life on Mars, the arguments becomes even strong. Competition between earth organisms and Mars organisms could greatly alter both before we can study the Martians.
The Giving Tree is not an instruction manual. It provides an example reflective of reality, but it does not promote it as right or good.
The book was not meant to be "nice." It illustrates a problematic and flawed relationship. I understand the boy as a presentation of bad behavior, not an example to emulate. He abuses the tree. Only in old age does he understand what he has done.
You ought to notice how little choice the tree has, too. You assert that the tree "willingly gives up each and every bit of itself." How can you write about the willingness of an entity that cannot reject or stop the actions of the boy? How much will have many women had historically? All the tree can do is emote, and it choses to love the boy.
The Giving Tree itself is a criticism. Perhaps he chose the female gender for the tree as part of a social commentary against the mistreatment of women. I would not put it beyond Silverstein. Critics with agenda must neglect this idea to write particular reviews. To do so misses an underlying theme of his work, honest consideration of alternatives.
*I* aren't sure why you aren't getting this kind of attention. I'm just kidding. Am I not a picky punk? Aren't I a picky punk? Ain't I a picky punk? English is weird.
Slashdot Mirror
Animals are multicellular. They only unicellular animals I know about are zygotes and other immature forms.
You should have written "Bacteria count as life." "Bacteria" is a plural word.
They did not find bacteria from Mars. They found little formations in the meteorite that they claimed looked bacterial. Find the pictures. From my viewing, the photographs do not show bacteria or their remnants.
Dr. Howard Gardner of the Harvard Graduate School of Education is the leading proponent. Seven of them are musical intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, spatial intelligence, interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence. He recently added naturalist intelligence as the eighth. This site has a good overview.
My sister, a graduate student in education, had to learn about these ideas for a class. One idea coming out of the theory is that teachers should schedule different kinds of learning activities to suit different students. Some students may gain benefit from building models, others from writing papers and others from from working problems on paper.
I asked a graduate student in education psychology about this theory. He is very skeptical. While we certainly see people with particular talents who learn by different methods, Dr. Gardner's theory seems overwhelmingly based on anecdotes, his random observations and his imagination. It might turn out to be descriptive and useful. While the end product looks formal and authoritative, the underlying research and deduction is weak, if it is there.
Traditional theories of general intelligence, such as a general intelligence factor G, match my experience to some degree, as do the ideas of Gardner. I have some general ability to learn in a wide variety of fields, but I show and feel more aptitude toward some more than others.
For me, my attitude toward this argument on intelligence mirrors my ideas toward many areas of psychology. Many ideas help describe the world of psychology, but they usually have flaws. It leaves us with a few choices. One is to become dogmatic and fight the opposition. Another is to look at how so many psychological theories fail and disregard it all. I choose a third stance. This field often just does not allow for the rigorous, exact measurements of others. It does not mean that all the theories are worthless. We need to keep our wits about us when evaluating them, though. The old using 10% of the brain and left brain/right brain theories may have some small merits, but both have been shown too simple. If we are to continue with psychology being a social scientist, we must act as scientists. Challenge the results. Dispute the theories. Make measurements. Test the alternatives. Do science.
I think this Yahoo! article gives a good overview of his background, including his blindness.
Stevie Wonder at Yahoo!
Stevie Wonder, born Stevland Morris, was a premature baby. Medical treatment in those early days left him blind. I believe in involved oxygen exposure, but it may have been light exposure or something else.
"Physician" is not necessarily better. Surgeons are considered, by some, to be different from physicians, yet they are still medical doctors.
I looked in a couple of dictionaries. There are several accepted uses of the word "doctor." Do you mean correct according to you?
My point is that "doctor" is a term with several meanings, and you have no monopoly on the word. Those people with the most advanced degrees are indeed doctors, but they're hardly the only type. Language is fluid. While the original use of "doctor" seems similar to "teacher," it is different today. Not everyone who has the little special piece of paper teaches. Should we take back their diplomas and tell them that they are not doctors? Let's give them and speakers of nearly all European languages spankings for corrupting the perfectly good Latin language while we're at it. They're not using the Latin terms correctly.
There are at least two varieties of medical doctors. Most I have known had earned MD degrees at allopatric medical schools. Some medical doctors earn DO, doctor of osteopathic medicine, degrees. Osteopathic doctors have a more holistic view of the body. Osteopathic doctors are most prevalent as primary care physicians.
For that matter, a doctor is not simply one who earns a degree at a university. A certain Christian scholars, such as Thomas Aquinas, are known as the "doctors of the church." While it is a degree of recognition by the Roman Catholic Church, receiving the title is different from writing a dissertation at a university.
Etymologically, the word is related to the Latin docere meaning "to teach."
In short, you are wrong about both language and medicine.
I, with my own ears through the miracle of digital audio, have heard Linus say Linux as "lee-nooks," "lie-nuks" and "lin-uks." On ZDNET television, I heard him say both "lie-nuks" and "lin-uks."
Humble is an inappropriate description. Galileo was a courtier and a favorite of the Medici family. He named the moons of Jupiter that he found for them.
Check out a good website on Galileo.
The Galileo Project
Congressmen are finally learning K-12 science? It's about time. There is no limit to what our representatives might learn. They might get a handle on the periodic table, Newton's laws, algebra, the phyla of life, natural selection and more. We must be patient, however.
Personally, I applaud them for acknowledging this shortcoming and taking steps to bridge it. Way to go congress! I'm sure you'll master K-12 science within the next 20 or 25 years. Then there will be no stopping us. U S A! U S A!
The potential of a biological weapon to replicate itself frightens me.
You must be an SE.
I'm just funning you.
It's "definitely" the same way it's "finish" and not "finash." Both come from the Latin word "finis."
I do not know what the consequences will be. I used the word "could" for that reason. Anyone who claims to know is guessing or outright lying. Read my post again.
As for looking, I've seen farms and food in grocery stores. What is your point?
I think having babies is participating in evolution.
How do we determine when acts are natural and when they are not? Do we vote? Do we have a supreme authority? Should we form a committee? Are there criteria for evaluation? What defines one case as natural and the other as unnatural? Is there a set of natural set of behaviors?
Doing nothing lies somewhere between completely impossible and utterly impossible. The home in which you advise staying has an impact. Your death will impact other organisms. How much is too much? How can we determine what is allowable?
Why is it sad that the species went extinct? Why do you phrase the risk as you do? Bringing back a species could provide new ecological openings. Do you know what the consequences will be?
I hope you don't like eating. Nearly every crop resembles wild plants little. Livestock are very different than related wild animals. The genetic techniques are new, but the idea of modifying organisms to give us more food is not.
Do you fundamentally regret having food to eat? What is the difference between us and natural selection?
In this modern age, leading causes of premature death still include poor sanitation, bad nutrition and diseases with cures. We know how to fix them. Just provide decent sewage systems, better diets and basic medicine. Those tasks do not constitute interesting puzzles, however, and they do not help the wealthy, lazy, fat Westerners who already have easy access to good water, good food and good medicine.
Someone brought up medical research. It gets big money. The push for making older tried and proven treatments widely available is small, though.
The capitalization is part of their style. The first little bit of each article is capitalized. Read some more articles at the site.
You're thinking on the same track they are, except they want skin to make it act, not just look, more human. Dr. Anne Foerst is a post-doc at the lab working on skin. If you fish around the MIT AI site, you may find a bit about the work. Cog, Kismet's "older brother," has some fake skin on his stomach. Judging from what I've read, developing skin for the robots has proved very difficult.
I saw Dr. Foerst speak, and she is amazing. She has a joint appointment with MIT AI and Harvard Divinity. Her work on skin has a theological basis from Genesis informed by modern studies of human development. Her exegesis of Genesis, based on the work of a 14th century rabbi, was something totally new to me. She is both a theologian and a computer scientist with formal education in both fields. This article includes a brief background.
There was an attempt following the French Revolution (approximately) during the Reign of Terror. They wanted to rid themselves of the ancien regime as much as possible, including that obviously corrupt time system. My freshman humanities class learned about it from a reader on the French Revolution. If I recall correctly, the plan was 12 months per year 3 weeks per month 10 days per week 10 hours per day 100 minutes per house 100 seconds per minute The leftover days each year were intended as holidays for celebrating the revolution. I don't remember about leap years. This plan never got far although I have seen a photograph of a metric clock built during this period.
Many people would like to study Mars before we completely alter it. Biologists, geologists, certain classes of physicists and meteorologists, among many others, might learn a great deal from Mars. If we slap on some life too soon, we destroy some opportunities to see into Mars' past. If there is life on Mars, the arguments becomes even strong. Competition between earth organisms and Mars organisms could greatly alter both before we can study the Martians.
The Giving Tree is not an instruction manual. It provides an example reflective of reality, but it does not promote it as right or good.
The book was not meant to be "nice." It illustrates a problematic and flawed relationship. I understand the boy as a presentation of bad behavior, not an example to emulate. He abuses the tree. Only in old age does he understand what he has done.
You ought to notice how little choice the tree has, too. You assert that the tree "willingly gives up each and every bit of itself." How can you write about the willingness of an entity that cannot reject or stop the actions of the boy? How much will have many women had historically? All the tree can do is emote, and it choses to love the boy.
The Giving Tree itself is a criticism. Perhaps he chose the female gender for the tree as part of a social commentary against the mistreatment of women. I would not put it beyond Silverstein. Critics with agenda must neglect this idea to write particular reviews. To do so misses an underlying theme of his work, honest consideration of alternatives.
Can a driver be incorporated into the Video for Linux project?
Will these companies reveal the workings of their cards?
I want to use it with X and Linux.
*I* aren't sure why you aren't getting this kind of attention. I'm just kidding. Am I not a picky punk? Aren't I a picky punk? Ain't I a picky punk? English is weird.