I'm not making a statement regarding the truth of biological intelligent design here, just defending its claim to validity. Just as bad as those who would censor evolutionism are those who would censor creationism or intelligent design. Evolution is incomplete, because every scientifically-testable theory must be incomplete. Intelligent design is incomplete, because it depends on faith as much as proof.
It is very simple:
Intelligent design is not science.
Therefore, intelligent design should not be taught in science class.
Keeping intelligent design out of science classes is not censorship. All the other gibberesh about evolution being incomplete, or teaching the controversy, or alternative theories is meant only to muddy the waters and sidesteps the issue:
Intelligent design is not science.
Teach science in science classes, religion in religion classes, and philosophy in philosophy classes.
There were times, as a child, when I was sleeping on the floor in a run down house with many other people, that was how I lived. Kids' showers were shared to save on the water bill. Food was as often provided by charity as by purchase. I was lucky to even have a few small toys. Here's the shocker for you....I'm "white." There are plenty of poor "white" people out there, I know, I've seen them, lived among them, been one of them.
And as everyone also knows, personal anecdote always trumps statistics. Your story clearly represents the majority.
Local and state governments were thoroughly incompetant, and FEMA was unable to force their way in thanks to that pesky Constitution that gives states power in times of crisis (not that FEMA was all that on-the-ball either). More of this is better?
First of all, the states asked for aid, and Bush signed a state of emergency, BEFORE Katrina hit. There was no question about authority. FEMA and the federal government had all the authority and responsibility in this situation.
Secondly FEMA dropped the ball so badly because we have had five years of a government that thinks just like you do. The Bush adminstration has so little respect for government agencies that they choked them with insufficient budgets and apointed unqualified cronies to run them, forcing out experienced disaster management people. Read the recent columns by Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman in the NYT for lots of details.
Is it any wonder New Orleans got the response it did with the leaders we have?
But it seems to me the issue is that this method of cooling is far less other energy efficient than other methods. Couple that with the fact that one still needs a source of energy to compress the gas and it is not clear what possible advantages there are here.
Some people actually rely on the government instead of thinking and acting for themselves.
After all, any fool knows that a catagory 4 hurricane, broken levee's, 10 feet of flood water, and the breakdown of social order shouldn't require any pesky government meddling to deal with. Just gutsy individuals with a can-do attitude!
Those dang people should quit whinging and get over their "victim" mentality.
According to the article this method doesn't require electricity. Then where does the energy to generate the required volume of compressed air come from? Hand pumps?
I looked, but did not see, any analysis of the noise in the data and methodology. Furthermore, if you look at the data for a single browser whose market share is relatively stable, the month to month fluctuations do not change by more than 0.1 or 0.2%.
So the original question stands : how do we know that 0.64% is "in the noise" as claimed by Hemos?
This is statistical noise, pure and simple. There is no story here.
Who says this is statistical noise? Where is the analysis? Considering that the slip in market share of Firefox (.64% according to the article) is larger than the share of Mozilla suite (0.52%) and Opera (0.49%) it seems significant to me.
It may well be in the noise, but from the minimal amount of data in the article it doesn't look like it to. I need more proof than Hemos' off the cuff editorializing.
Now if you're some guy who doesn't want to spend the money to pay for the license, well then you're free to invent something new and better, and, if you're so philanthropic, give it away for free (but you'd be a fool to do so).
Says the guy who is posting on Slashdot. Oh the irony!
You are wasting your time my friend. Trying to argue logic with johnnyb is a pointless endeavor. People like him are skilled at spewing out many large, impressive sounding phrases while ignoring inconvinient things like facts.
Seems to me the important task is to blow off gasbags like him while educating the public as to the true scientific process and why it is ok to teach evolution in public schools and that it is not an attack their religious beliefs.
I agree with you whole heartedly. My desire would be, however, that evolution be taught as just that - a scientific theory that represents itself as the best explaination we have now, but not rock-solid fact. That's the major beef I have.
If that is your beef than perhpas it comes about because of a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories. There is no such thing as "rock-solid fact" in science and if it's taught that way in school that is too bad. Only theories which are constantly refined to meet the data.
That being said, evolution rests on a foundation as strong as the theory of gravity. People frequently say we should teach that evolution is "just a theory." Yes it is but so is gravity. So probably to avoid teaching such nuances it is easier for a teacher to teach it as a rock-solid fact.
Depends. The problem is that people want a sharp dividing line. To the left of the line - no human life. To the right of the line - human life.
Seems to me there are many ways to define human life. At conception. At the appearance of brain waves. At the appearance of a heart beat. At the point when a fetus can survive outside of a womb.
You are looking for an easy answer. There isn't one. For me, an embryo does not constitute human life. A baby clearly does. Where is the transition - I don't know. As much as some people would like to believe other wise the world is not black and white but full of greys.
I don't necessarily agree with this whole-heartedly, but in fact it's true - in so MANY places - religion, politics, PC in schools, etc. - where the minority extremist voice is the loudest. That said, there are plenty of Christians - educated ones I might add - who are Creationists and take offense to schools teaching evolution as scientific fact.
At the point where a person advocates teaching religion in science classes, or campaign against scientific theories on the basis of religious orthodoxy, they are an extremist in my book.
Evolution is an established scientific theory, in the most generally accepted scientific use of the word. If it is a science class, then evolution belongs there.
The structure of a science class should be designed by professional scientists. The structure of a music class should be designed by musicians. The structure of a theology class should be designed by theologians. The problems comes when Christians take it upon themselves to outline the agenda of a science class.
For what it is worth, I think most of what you write is very well reasoned. But:
Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"
I think you make quite a stretch. There are an awful lot of implied assumptions in such a statement . Clearly, your definition of "human life" consists of some sort of creature with a full set of DNA that will eventually grow into a human being. I am not sure what the medical definition of "human life" is but if such a definition even exists it is probably significantly more nuanced than what you put forth. I know, for me personally, an embryo does not fit the definition of "human life".
And saying it was created by Creationists is a red herring. It doesn't matter who "created" it. The concept is what it is.
I kind of have to disagree with you here. ID is being used specifically by its advocates to mask religious ideas as science and confuse the public, with the goal being to inject religion into science classes and undermine the teaching of Darwinian evolution.
As such, it does matter who created it. There is a load of sneaky political baggage associated with ID. As such it leaves a bad taste in reasonable peoples mouth and cannot be reasonably seperated from the people who "created it" at this point.
I take serious amounts of offense to a person believing in Creationism or ID being called an extremist.
You are correct. There are many Christians who believe in Creationism and ID, but do not want it taught in science classes.
The problem is that the people who are making the most noise out there advocating Creationism and trying to teach ID in science classes ARE extremists. So, right or not, Creationism and ID become linked with extremism in the minds of people who do not think they belong in the classroom.
I don't buy this for a second. Microsoft OS dominance does not come by people getting all excited about upgrading their OS. The vase majority of home users get Windows automatically when they buy their new Dell PC. And corporate users get Windows because that is what IT has standardized on for the corporate desktop.
None of this is going to change because some columinist over-enamored of his own opinion is less than enthusiastic about Vista.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not making a statement regarding the truth of biological intelligent design here, just defending its claim to validity. Just as bad as those who would censor evolutionism are those who would censor creationism or intelligent design. Evolution is incomplete, because every scientifically-testable theory must be incomplete. Intelligent design is incomplete, because it depends on faith as much as proof.
It is very simple:
Intelligent design is not science.
Therefore, intelligent design should not be taught in science class.
Keeping intelligent design out of science classes is not censorship. All the other gibberesh about evolution being incomplete, or teaching the controversy, or alternative theories is meant only to muddy the waters and sidesteps the issue:
Intelligent design is not science.
Teach science in science classes, religion in religion classes, and philosophy in philosophy classes.
Simple, eh?
There were times, as a child, when I was sleeping on the floor in a run down house with many other people, that was how I lived. Kids' showers were shared to save on the water bill. Food was as often provided by charity as by purchase. I was lucky to even have a few small toys. Here's the shocker for you....I'm "white." There are plenty of poor "white" people out there, I know, I've seen them, lived among them, been one of them.
And as everyone also knows, personal anecdote always trumps statistics. Your story clearly represents the majority.
Local and state governments were thoroughly incompetant, and FEMA was unable to force their way in thanks to that pesky Constitution that gives states power in times of crisis (not that FEMA was all that on-the-ball either). More of this is better?
First of all, the states asked for aid, and Bush signed a state of emergency, BEFORE Katrina hit. There was no question about authority. FEMA and the federal government had all the authority and responsibility in this situation.
Secondly FEMA dropped the ball so badly because we have had five years of a government that thinks just like you do. The Bush adminstration has so little respect for government agencies that they choked them with insufficient budgets and apointed unqualified cronies to run them, forcing out experienced disaster management people. Read the recent columns by Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman in the NYT for lots of details.
Is it any wonder New Orleans got the response it did with the leaders we have?
I didn't have access to the full article either.
But it seems to me the issue is that this method of cooling is far less other energy efficient than other methods. Couple that with the fact that one still needs a source of energy to compress the gas and it is not clear what possible advantages there are here.
In liberal America, EVERYTHING--and I mean everything-damned-thing--is about race. If anything, yes, this was about class--but not race.
And in conservative America, everyone likes to pretend that class and race are distinct issues.
Some people actually rely on the government instead of thinking and acting for themselves.
After all, any fool knows that a catagory 4 hurricane, broken levee's, 10 feet of flood water, and the breakdown of social order shouldn't require any pesky government meddling to deal with. Just gutsy individuals with a can-do attitude!
Those dang people should quit whinging and get over their "victim" mentality.
According to the article this method doesn't require electricity. Then where does the energy to generate the required volume of compressed air come from? Hand pumps?
In other news, mountains continue to erode.
Film at eleven.
Sheesh.
Ask for more data and ye shall recieve:a sp
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.
I looked, but did not see, any analysis of the noise in the data and methodology. Furthermore, if you look at the data for a single browser whose market share is relatively stable, the month to month fluctuations do not change by more than 0.1 or 0.2%.
So the original question stands : how do we know that 0.64% is "in the noise" as claimed by Hemos?
This is statistical noise, pure and simple. There is no story here.
Who says this is statistical noise? Where is the analysis? Considering that the slip in market share of Firefox (.64% according to the article) is larger than the share of Mozilla suite (0.52%) and Opera (0.49%) it seems significant to me.
It may well be in the noise, but from the minimal amount of data in the article it doesn't look like it to. I need more proof than Hemos' off the cuff editorializing.
Now if you're some guy who doesn't want to spend the money to pay for the license, well then you're free to invent something new and better, and, if you're so philanthropic, give it away for free (but you'd be a fool to do so).
Says the guy who is posting on Slashdot. Oh the irony!
These were my thoughts exactly. To me the work hack implies a do-it-yourself workaround. None of this applies here.
You are wasting your time my friend. Trying to argue logic with johnnyb is a pointless endeavor. People like him are skilled at spewing out many large, impressive sounding phrases while ignoring inconvinient things like facts.
Seems to me the important task is to blow off gasbags like him while educating the public as to the true scientific process and why it is ok to teach evolution in public schools and that it is not an attack their religious beliefs.
I agree with you whole heartedly. My desire would be, however, that evolution be taught as just that - a scientific theory that represents itself as the best explaination we have now, but not rock-solid fact. That's the major beef I have.
If that is your beef than perhpas it comes about because of a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories. There is no such thing as "rock-solid fact" in science and if it's taught that way in school that is too bad. Only theories which are constantly refined to meet the data.
That being said, evolution rests on a foundation as strong as the theory of gravity. People frequently say we should teach that evolution is "just a theory." Yes it is but so is gravity. So probably to avoid teaching such nuances it is easier for a teacher to teach it as a rock-solid fact.
Depends. The problem is that people want a sharp dividing line. To the left of the line - no human life. To the right of the line - human life.
Seems to me there are many ways to define human life. At conception. At the appearance of brain waves. At the appearance of a heart beat. At the point when a fetus can survive outside of a womb.
You are looking for an easy answer. There isn't one. For me, an embryo does not constitute human life. A baby clearly does. Where is the transition - I don't know. As much as some people would like to believe other wise the world is not black and white but full of greys.
I don't necessarily agree with this whole-heartedly, but in fact it's true - in so MANY places - religion, politics, PC in schools, etc. - where the minority extremist voice is the loudest. That said, there are plenty of Christians - educated ones I might add - who are Creationists and take offense to schools teaching evolution as scientific fact.
At the point where a person advocates teaching religion in science classes, or campaign against scientific theories on the basis of religious orthodoxy, they are an extremist in my book.
Evolution is an established scientific theory, in the most generally accepted scientific use of the word. If it is a science class, then evolution belongs there.
The structure of a science class should be designed by professional scientists. The structure of a music class should be designed by musicians. The structure of a theology class should be designed by theologians. The problems comes when Christians take it upon themselves to outline the agenda of a science class.
That, to me, is extremism.
For what it is worth, I think most of what you write is very well reasoned. But:
Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"
I think you make quite a stretch. There are an awful lot of implied assumptions in such a statement . Clearly, your definition of "human life" consists of some sort of creature with a full set of DNA that will eventually grow into a human being. I am not sure what the medical definition of "human life" is but if such a definition even exists it is probably significantly more nuanced than what you put forth. I know, for me personally, an embryo does not fit the definition of "human life".
And saying it was created by Creationists is a red herring. It doesn't matter who "created" it. The concept is what it is.
I kind of have to disagree with you here. ID is being used specifically by its advocates to mask religious ideas as science and confuse the public, with the goal being to inject religion into science classes and undermine the teaching of Darwinian evolution.
As such, it does matter who created it. There is a load of sneaky political baggage associated with ID. As such it leaves a bad taste in reasonable peoples mouth and cannot be reasonably seperated from the people who "created it" at this point.
I take serious amounts of offense to a person believing in Creationism or ID being called an extremist.
You are correct. There are many Christians who believe in Creationism and ID, but do not want it taught in science classes.
The problem is that the people who are making the most noise out there advocating Creationism and trying to teach ID in science classes ARE extremists. So, right or not, Creationism and ID become linked with extremism in the minds of people who do not think they belong in the classroom.
What's up with peoples lack of imagination these days?
It's fucking down right PATHETIC.
When I was younger I played the hell out of every NES game I could get my hand on and there was TONS of variety. It was great!
Or maybe it is just that you were younger then and as you have grown older you have become more discerning?
I don't buy this for a second. Microsoft OS dominance does not come by people getting all excited about upgrading their OS. The vase majority of home users get Windows automatically when they buy their new Dell PC. And corporate users get Windows because that is what IT has standardized on for the corporate desktop.
None of this is going to change because some columinist over-enamored of his own opinion is less than enthusiastic about Vista.
You would think that a program that is the "answer to everything" would deserve at least a 1.0 release!
If the people who run this site are going to promote themselves to the post of "editor", then shouldn't they actually bother to edit?
I don't think the editors of this site are capable of performing such simple tasks "sucessfully".
I'm still trying to figure out why Amazon is patenting their customers.
Furthermore, if you patent a customer, why would you want to remind them of the fact?
Curious...