"The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say."
And here is how to get moderated up:
1. Post quickly 2. Post a link or block quote 3. Post a very long self-written comment (note that the content, to first order, doesn't matter) 4. Tell the moderators to moderate you down 5. Use a lot of white space 6. Already be at +3 or +4, most people will moderate up at this point assuming that it must be good
And, oh yes, there is also: 7. Say something original that adds to the conversation. Possibly something that was missed in the original posting or an update/clarification to that post. Possibly a new and different way of looking at the issue.
Sigh, I almost want to go set it so that I can't see scores and I never get moderator points, but you know what? I will still see all these comments which are not about the real topic, but just about moderation and I won't be able to see the context, so I'd just have to go turn them back on to see what was going on. Look at me! This conversation is supposed to be about Napster! have I said anything about Napster yet? Could I, in fact, be posting this without even knowing what Napster is? Am I just wasting space on the comments page?
Now that everyone can see their Karma, Slashdot seems to have become, for a lot of people, a game of "who can get their Karma highest." Wake up people. Karma doesn't matter. The issues matter. I'd call for complete elimination of moderation, but that will never happen. A comprimise would be, oh I don't know... 1. Hide Karma. People can't fight over what they don't know about. 2. Remove the automatic +1 bonus for high Karma. This way there is nothing to fight about, not even an invisible something. 3. Remove metamoderation. It was a good idea, but how many people activly meta-moderate anyway? It's just more time spent not reading things that matter.
So there's my rant, I don't know why I did it here and I realize that by putting it here, I am part of what I am complaining about, but I had to say it.
Re:Errgggh!! I'm so tired...
on
Happy Odd Day!
·
· Score: 2
No... 12 is the weight of carbon-12, which is "arbirarily" defined. This is different from the number of protons and neutrons, which "coincidentally" is also 12. An atoms weight is not determined only by the number of nucleons, because the binding energy also plays a factor. If the weight of C-12 was defined as 1 or 42 everything would work out the same.
My karma is going to be so low after today...
on
Happy Odd Day!
·
· Score: 2
ZERO IS EVEN!!! GO ASK ANY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER!!! 0/2 = 0, 0 is an integer, therefore 0 is even! ZERO IS A NUMBER!!! WHO THE HELL TOLD YOU THAT ZERO ISNT A NUMBER? Zero is the number before 1 and after -1. It is the NUMBER that is the additive identity. It is the NUMBER that when multiplied by another number makes itself. It is the NUMBER that when raised to any power other than itself, equals itself. It is the NUMBER that when any other number is raised to its power, equals 1. It is the NUMBER whose angle signifies the positive x direction. It is the NUMBER that is arbitrarily chosen to be the value of potential energy at infinity for a point charge, and works EXACTLY the same as if you picked any other number! Please do not run around slashdot disscusions talking about things you do not understand, like basic math.
Re:How stupid are Slashdot readers?
on
Happy Odd Day!
·
· Score: 2
Except for your personal prime/odd confusion and understaing of the number of stupid wrong things that have been repeated ad nausueum, "Exactly!"
Simple: Wi-to-kay = 3 sylables yir-to-thow-sand = 4 sylables Y2K = 3 chars Year 2000 = 9 chars Y2K means a computer bug Year 2000 means a year or a computer bug or a host of other things
You are a random vent target
on
Happy Odd Day!
·
· Score: 2
WHO THE HELL TAUGHT ALL YOU PEOPLE THAT 0 IS SOMEHOW A SPECIAL NON-EVEN NON-ODD NUMBER!?!?!?!?!? 0 is just like 2 or 6 or -4. When you divide by 2, you get an integer! That's all "even" means! It is not very complicated!!! 0 is not special!!! This isn't number theory, it is simple 2nd grade arithmetic!
*pant* *gasp* *wheeze* No offence to you personally (offence maybe to the average second grade math teacher tho), but i had to get that off my chest.
um, dude: A)Slashdot is based in the US if i am not mistaken, and no one has said anything that suggests that it has a responsibility to be international (As nice as that would be). B)Just reverse the numbers and have a happy 19/11/1999.
I agree with you about the date format, but it is not something to get bent out of shape about.
Whoo, today, for the first time in my life, I got a physics teacher to sorta explain when unification means in a way that actually meant something. Not that I understood really well. Can anyone point to somewhere that explains it in terms that can be understood by someone with 1 years of college physics? (And obviouly takes advantage of assuming that knowledge...)
Every time i buy something at RadioShack, they make me tell them my name on phone number. Microsoft seems to support the same general idea, expecially with this new Windows 2000 pricing scheme of theirs.
Ditto on what others have said about this not constituting being in the public domain. When you patent something, you make public all information about it, but no one can sell it until the patent expires. If you want to keep is secret, you do not patent it, you lock the information in a vault and hope nobody figures it out on their own.
Also, why do you feel it neccesary to put three lines of white space between each of your paragraphs and/or sentances? Not everyone has a huge, high res screen and can afford wasted space like this, you know. Think a little before you post about things like this.
Ok, then, IF you define adapt as "change within one lifetime" then adaptatation and evolution are indeed different. (And then you would evolve to be adaptable.) However, the argument I have heard from creationists is that adaptation is natural selection which changes one trait of an animal and that somehow this is differnt from evolution.
Just because you brought it up: there is a slight difference between evolution and adaption. An animal can make an adaption based on changing conditions, but does not have to evolve over generations in order to adapt (in all cases). Evolution works best when the creature is unable to adapt easily, thus making it harder to survive, and only the most fit pass on their genes.
Ok, this is simply wrong. Evolution is when a more fit version of a lifeform survives and reproduces better than others. By doing so, the speices as a whole eventually aquires the new characteristics. Adaptation is when a more fit version of a lifeform survives and reproduces better than others. By doing so, the speices as a whole eventually aquires the new characteristics. What you said just doesn't make sense. "[M]ak[ing] an adaption based on changing conditions" is one step in the overall evolution process, that's all. "Evolution works best [...] on their genes." Yes, evolution will occur faster under adverse conditions, but that doesnt make it fundementally different from adaptation. Perhaps I misunderstood you, if I did, please elaborate and give examples.
Now, to be on topic at least a little bit, it doesnt matter what they call it. As long as they teach it. It doesnt matter if it's right or not. Evolution is perhaps the best example of applying the scientific method that can be easily understood. A student can easily view the facts the teacher presents, and see very clearly how the scientific method was applied to produce the theory of evolution as it stood in darwin's time and as it stands today.
I really hope that you don't really mean that incorrect things should be taught just because they are good examples! I stand for evolution and all, but this is not the reason to support it.
Someone explain to me how the scientific method can be applied to the facts and come up with creationism, I'll submit and say ok, you can teach it. But you're never going to change my stance on the teaching of evolution unless and until a better theory is proposed.
In all observations made by scientists, there is a possibility that what is observed is due to random chance. For example: I observe that some notable event (call it "A") occurs once each April over a three year period. I then hypothesize that "A" always occurs once every April. Based on my observations, there is something like a 1/144 chance that "A" occuring for 3 Aprils in a row was just a coincidence. But then if I observe that "A" occurs for an additional large number of Aprils, I will almost be able to rule out the possibility of "A" occuring this way by random chance. But, this is still a possibility, if a vanishingly small one, and in a completely correct scientific disscussion of the event, the possibility must be mentioned (you may recall the report of planet 10 a few days ago included the statement "there is only about a one in 1,700 chance that it is due to chance".)
So... We have observed a very large number of things that point us towards believing evolution (and the big bang, and every other generally accepted scientific theory) are correct, but you can, using statistical methods, show that there is a 1/10^(some big number) chance that all of your observations are just coincedences and your explaination is wrong. This is what I mean by "I do not actually completely dismiss the biblical "theory" of creation. I simply assign it a very low probablity. "
I am not sure how clear I have been (It is 2 a.m. after all), so I will be happy to try again later.
Well, I suppose (judging from the record 15xx posts to the kansas article) this is destined to be an article whose comments have very deep involved threads, so I guess I'd better get myself at the top of one.
I am a firm beliver in science above all other explainations, so I think this is a good thing. I have never understood how people could rationalize the whole "teach evolution and creationism" thing, since in order for that to make sense, you would have to teach about every single creation story to keep them on equal ground (this being the "point" of teaching both, the real point, of course, being to prevent the teaching of either).
Btw, using the scientific method, I do not actually completely dismiss the biblical "theory" of creation. I simply assign it a very low probablity.
I am also amused at Kentucky's decision to change the wording from evolution to "change over time" as tho that makes a difference.
To those of you who think there is a fundemental difference between adaptation and evolution, you are wrong, but it is probably pointless to elaborate (again looking at the kansas posts).
/12 means that they have a block that includes the last 12 bits of the address. So they can have 2^12 addresses. I'm not sure how you say it: "slash twelve"?
I think your time scale is a little off. Yes, the sun will change before the oft quoted 5 billion years from now. However, since the year you quote is only 1600 years from now, which is about one 3 millionth of the time the entire process will take, I really doubt there will be any way to detect the change. Small random changes will completely swamp any long term trends on this time scale. The estimates I have heard for when the earth becomes uninhabitable to humans range from 1 to 3 billion years from now, and that is not going to motivate congress anytime soon, as much as I wish it would.
I don't think this is a troll, guys, i think it is a valid comment. Granted, it's a bit short and easy to be misunderstood, but think a little before blasting please. (I believe) Mr. Coward is saying "why is there kiddie porn here? This is bad. It should be fixed." not "HEY EVERYONE LOOK AT THIS!!!"
This is not quite the same story. It says in the one you cite they would use elephant sperm to create an half-mammoth, half-elephant. The current article is talking about straight out cloning. However, you do have a point that it is not entirely new news.
Not all intelligent people hear about all the news in all the topics and remember all of it, give us some slack, please.
Slashdot Mirror
From the top of each and every comment section:
"The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say."
And here is how to get moderated up:
1. Post quickly
2. Post a link or block quote
3. Post a very long self-written comment (note that the content, to first order, doesn't matter)
4. Tell the moderators to moderate you down
5. Use a lot of white space
6. Already be at +3 or +4, most people will moderate up at this point assuming that it must be good
And, oh yes, there is also:
7. Say something original that adds to the conversation. Possibly something that was missed in the original posting or an update/clarification to that post. Possibly a new and different way of looking at the issue.
Sigh, I almost want to go set it so that I can't see scores and I never get moderator points, but you know what? I will still see all these comments which are not about the real topic, but just about moderation and I won't be able to see the context, so I'd just have to go turn them back on to see what was going on. Look at me! This conversation is supposed to be about Napster! have I said anything about Napster yet? Could I, in fact, be posting this without even knowing what Napster is? Am I just wasting space on the comments page?
Now that everyone can see their Karma, Slashdot seems to have become, for a lot of people, a game of "who can get their Karma highest." Wake up people. Karma doesn't matter. The issues matter. I'd call for complete elimination of moderation, but that will never happen. A comprimise would be, oh I don't know...
1. Hide Karma. People can't fight over what they don't know about.
2. Remove the automatic +1 bonus for high Karma. This way there is nothing to fight about, not even an invisible something.
3. Remove metamoderation. It was a good idea, but how many people activly meta-moderate anyway? It's just more time spent not reading things that matter.
So there's my rant, I don't know why I did it here and I realize that by putting it here, I am part of what I am complaining about, but I had to say it.
No... 12 is the weight of carbon-12, which is "arbirarily" defined. This is different from the number of protons and neutrons, which "coincidentally" is also 12. An atoms weight is not determined only by the number of nucleons, because the binding energy also plays a factor. If the weight of C-12 was defined as 1 or 42 everything would work out the same.
ZERO IS EVEN!!! GO ASK ANY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER!!!
0/2 = 0, 0 is an integer, therefore 0 is even!
ZERO IS A NUMBER!!! WHO THE HELL TOLD YOU THAT ZERO ISNT A NUMBER?
Zero is the number before 1 and after -1. It is the NUMBER that is the additive identity. It is the NUMBER that when multiplied by another number makes itself. It is the NUMBER that when raised to any power other than itself, equals itself. It is the NUMBER that when any other number is raised to its power, equals 1. It is the NUMBER whose angle signifies the positive x direction. It is the NUMBER that is arbitrarily chosen to be the value of potential energy at infinity for a point charge, and works EXACTLY the same as if you picked any other number!
Please do not run around slashdot disscusions talking about things you do not understand, like basic math.
Except for your personal prime/odd confusion and understaing of the number of stupid wrong things that have been repeated ad nausueum, "Exactly!"
Simple:
Wi-to-kay = 3 sylables
yir-to-thow-sand = 4 sylables
Y2K = 3 chars
Year 2000 = 9 chars
Y2K means a computer bug
Year 2000 means a year or a computer bug or a host of other things
WHO THE HELL TAUGHT ALL YOU PEOPLE THAT 0 IS SOMEHOW A SPECIAL NON-EVEN NON-ODD NUMBER!?!?!?!?!?
0 is just like 2 or 6 or -4. When you divide by 2, you get an integer!
That's all "even" means! It is not very complicated!!!
0 is not special!!!
This isn't number theory, it is simple 2nd grade arithmetic!
*pant* *gasp* *wheeze*
No offence to you personally (offence maybe to the average second grade math teacher tho), but i had to get that off my chest.
How the hell is it ironic?
Interesting, maybe, conincidental, maybe, but not ironic!
um, dude:
A)Slashdot is based in the US if i am not mistaken, and no one has said anything that suggests that it has a responsibility to be international (As nice as that would be).
B)Just reverse the numbers and have a happy 19/11/1999.
I agree with you about the date format, but it is not something to get bent out of shape about.
Amen, I always hated how people seemed so amazed by this when it is simply a definition.
Whoo, today, for the first time in my life, I got a physics teacher to sorta explain when unification means in a way that actually meant something. Not that I understood really well. Can anyone point to somewhere that explains it in terms that can be understood by someone with 1 years of college physics? (And obviouly takes advantage of assuming that knowledge...)
What does scrolllock-scrolllock-0-2 mean/do? I am missing the reference.
i never understand people who argue over pronumciation and then go on to write stuff like "r u goin 2 the store"
Every time i buy something at RadioShack, they make me tell them my name on phone number. Microsoft seems to support the same general idea, expecially with this new Windows 2000 pricing scheme of theirs.
Darn, my moderator points expired before I could give it a +1, underrated, o well.
Ditto on what others have said about this not constituting being in the public domain. When you patent something, you make public all information about it, but no one can sell it until the patent expires. If you want to keep is secret, you do not patent it, you lock the information in a vault and hope nobody figures it out on their own.
Also, why do you feel it neccesary to put three lines of white space between each of your paragraphs and/or sentances? Not everyone has a huge, high res screen and can afford wasted space like this, you know. Think a little before you post about things like this.
Ok, then, IF you define adapt as "change within one lifetime" then adaptatation and evolution are indeed different. (And then you would evolve to be adaptable.) However, the argument I have heard from creationists is that adaptation is natural selection which changes one trait of an animal and that somehow this is differnt from evolution.
Just because you brought it up: there is a slight difference between evolution and adaption. An animal can make an adaption based on changing conditions, but does not have to evolve over generations in order to adapt (in all cases). Evolution works best when the creature is unable to adapt easily, thus making it harder to survive, and only the most fit pass on their genes.
Ok, this is simply wrong. Evolution is when a more fit version of a lifeform survives and reproduces better than others. By doing so, the speices as a whole eventually aquires the new characteristics. Adaptation is when a more fit version of a lifeform survives and reproduces better than others. By doing so, the speices as a whole eventually aquires the new characteristics. What you said just doesn't make sense. "[M]ak[ing] an adaption based on changing conditions" is one step in the overall evolution process, that's all. "Evolution works best [...] on their genes." Yes, evolution will occur faster under adverse conditions, but that doesnt make it fundementally different from adaptation. Perhaps I misunderstood you, if I did, please elaborate and give examples.
Now, to be on topic at least a little bit, it doesnt matter what they call it. As long as they teach it. It doesnt matter if it's right or not. Evolution is perhaps the best example of applying the scientific method that can be easily understood. A student can easily view the facts the teacher presents, and see very clearly how the scientific method was applied to produce the theory of evolution as it stood in darwin's time and as it stands today.
I really hope that you don't really mean that incorrect things should be taught just because they are good examples! I stand for evolution and all, but this is not the reason to support it.
Someone explain to me how the scientific method can be applied to the facts and come up with creationism, I'll submit and say ok, you can teach it. But you're never going to change my stance on the teaching of evolution unless and until a better theory is proposed.
In all observations made by scientists, there is a possibility that what is observed is due to random chance. For example: I observe that some notable event (call it "A") occurs once each April over a three year period. I then hypothesize that "A" always occurs once every April. Based on my observations, there is something like a 1/144 chance that "A" occuring for 3 Aprils in a row was just a coincidence. But then if I observe that "A" occurs for an additional large number of Aprils, I will almost be able to rule out the possibility of "A" occuring this way by random chance. But, this is still a possibility, if a vanishingly small one, and in a completely correct scientific disscussion of the event, the possibility must be mentioned (you may recall the report of planet 10 a few days ago included the statement "there is only about a one in 1,700 chance that it is due to chance".)
So... We have observed a very large number of things that point us towards believing evolution (and the big bang, and every other generally accepted scientific theory) are correct, but you can, using statistical methods, show that there is a 1/10^(some big number) chance that all of your observations are just coincedences and your explaination is wrong. This is what I mean by "I do not actually completely dismiss the biblical "theory" of creation. I simply assign it a very low probablity. "
I am not sure how clear I have been (It is 2 a.m. after all), so I will be happy to try again later.
Well, I suppose (judging from the record 15xx posts to the kansas article) this is destined to be an article whose comments have very deep involved threads, so I guess I'd better get myself at the top of one.
I am a firm beliver in science above all other explainations, so I think this is a good thing. I have never understood how people could rationalize the whole "teach evolution and creationism" thing, since in order for that to make sense, you would have to teach about every single creation story to keep them on equal ground (this being the "point" of teaching both, the real point, of course, being to prevent the teaching of either).
Btw, using the scientific method, I do not actually completely dismiss the biblical "theory" of creation. I simply assign it a very low probablity.
I am also amused at Kentucky's decision to change the wording from evolution to "change over time" as tho that makes a difference.
To those of you who think there is a fundemental difference between adaptation and evolution, you are wrong, but it is probably pointless to elaborate (again looking at the kansas posts).
I agree, all bold does not help clarify anything, it just makes it hard to read.
/12 means that they have a block that includes the last 12 bits of the address. So they can have 2^12 addresses. I'm not sure how you say it: "slash twelve"?
Um, Pluto is made of ice? Could you quote me a sourse for that?
I think your time scale is a little off. Yes, the sun will change before the oft quoted 5 billion years from now. However, since the year you quote is only 1600 years from now, which is about one 3 millionth of the time the entire process will take, I really doubt there will be any way to detect the change. Small random changes will completely swamp any long term trends on this time scale.
The estimates I have heard for when the earth becomes uninhabitable to humans range from 1 to 3 billion years from now, and that is not going to motivate congress anytime soon, as much as I wish it would.
Yes, please tell us the details. (You'd think this would go without saying...)
I don't think this is a troll, guys, i think it is a valid comment. Granted, it's a bit short and easy to be misunderstood, but think a little before blasting please. (I believe) Mr. Coward is saying "why is there kiddie porn here? This is bad. It should be fixed." not "HEY EVERYONE LOOK AT THIS!!!"
Well, two things:
This is not quite the same story. It says in the one you cite they would use elephant sperm to create an half-mammoth, half-elephant. The current article is talking about straight out cloning. However, you do have a point that it is not entirely new news.
Not all intelligent people hear about all the news in all the topics and remember all of it, give us some slack, please.