The binding energies of the carbon atom are neither too strong nor too weak to allow the required complexity of molecules for life functions...as we understand them.
molecules based on silicon are much more difficult to break apart and re-assemble in the myriads of configurations that are constantly happening in all..earthlinglife forms
it is very safe to assert that noearth-like life forms can be based on anything other than the element carbon.
Any physical life forms, obeying the laws of physics as we know them cannot be too radically different from life on earth.
That's a anthropocentric prejudice, similar to thinking that Earth is the center of the universe (isn't it obvious?). Also your phrase "Because the laws of physics appear to operate uniformly throughout the Universe as far as we have observed until now, the only physical life allowed must be based on carbon, just like life on Earth" is more a guess than an established fact.
Have you seen Solaris? (the novel, not the movies). It described an alien intelligent life in the form of a whole planet: the ocean itself had evolved to react to the environment in order to sustain its existence.
That lifeform wouldn't have a need to "communicate", "feed" itself or any other action that we usually relate to life. This kind of "alien" life is what the previous poster was arguing. It has nothing to do with spirituality, the Bible or alternate planes of existence.
Oh, so you have formed an opinion on the prequels without actually having seen them all. Suddenly, the incessant whining around here makes a little more sense.
You mean, he can't have a separate opinion on each one of them?
I did the same thing, and have watched Episode II last week for the first time. The story was a little bit better than in Episode I (not difficult, because it haven't any story at all). But the movie was boring, the FX were plain and the acting was as bad as everybody had previously told me.
So yes, one can have a very good sense of what a movie will be by only seeing other works from the same director.
But if you do that in this context then you're falling to the "begging the question" fallacy (the "What created God" is relevant in terms of the Thomas Aquinas demonstration of the existence of God, explained in the GP's post).
If you state that God exists by definition, then you can't use their properties to demonstrate the existence of God. Either you accept (as you do) that God is a definition and not a proven fact, or you admit that Aquinas' logic is not sound because God fails to conform to the laws of physics (and thus a physical reasoning can't prove its existence).
what are the percentages of IT managers and CIO who were not interested in Linux, were not sure about Linux, and planned to evaluate Linux before the Get the Facts campaign started?
1. The following rights are recognized and protected:
a) the right to freely express and disseminate thoughts, ideas and opinions by word, in writing or by any other means of communication;
b) the right to literary, artistic, scientific and technical production and creation;
c) the right to academic freedom;
d) the right to freely communicate or receive accurate information by any means of dissemination whatsoever. The law shall regulate the right to invoke personal conscience and professional secrecy in the exercise of these freedoms.
2. The exercise of these rights may not be restricted by any form of prior censorship.
3. The law shall regulate the organization and Parliamentary control of the social communications media under the control of the State or any public agency and shall guarantee access to such media to the main social and political groups, respecting the pluralism of society and of the various languages of Spain.
4. These freedoms are limited by respect for the rights recognized in this Title, by the legal provisions implementing it, and especially by the right to honour, to privacy, to personal reputation and to the protection of youth and childhood.
5. The confiscation of publications and recordings and other information media may only be carried out by means of a court order.
If this was about Microsoft and Bill refused to fix the vulnerability, nobody else could write a patch for the sources to solve the problem. See the difference?
In conclusion, speciation by natural selection does occur (at least in a few cases demonstrably -- polar gulls, etc.), but I think there has to be another mechanism in there
Congratulations, you have discovered variations due to sexed reproduction. I.e. not all variations in individuals are generated by mutations, almost all are due to gene recombination.
If you are a billion dollar corporation with a multi-million dollar support, you don't need that communist concept of "freedom". You have power instead. Freedom is good for the rest of us.
The "correct" design should give you results relavent to what you searched for. i.e. "Tiger" or "Tigers" should give you info about furry creatures (and potentially furry creatures in advertising and sports), because that's what you searched for.
That's what Answers.com does. Also when you google for tigers. But the word "Tiger" is the name of an important operating system, and that's what Google should find.
Slashdot Mirror
The binding energies of the carbon atom are neither too strong nor too weak to allow the required complexity of molecules for life functions... as we understand them.
molecules based on silicon are much more difficult to break apart and re-assemble in the myriads of configurations that are constantly happening in all.. earthling life forms
it is very safe to assert that no earth-like life forms can be based on anything other than the element carbon.
So proprietry code is the Dark Side of Source?
It's also not enough to rely on people's subjective experience of why they are gay or not.
Trust me, hornyness is quite an objective experience. And it's not chosen.
Any physical life forms, obeying the laws of physics as we know them cannot be too radically different from life on earth.
That's a anthropocentric prejudice, similar to thinking that Earth is the center of the universe (isn't it obvious?). Also your phrase "Because the laws of physics appear to operate uniformly throughout the Universe as far as we have observed until now, the only physical life allowed must be based on carbon, just like life on Earth" is more a guess than an established fact.
Have you seen Solaris? (the novel, not the movies). It described an alien intelligent life in the form of a whole planet: the ocean itself had evolved to react to the environment in order to sustain its existence.
That lifeform wouldn't have a need to "communicate", "feed" itself or any other action that we usually relate to life. This kind of "alien" life is what the previous poster was arguing. It has nothing to do with spirituality, the Bible or alternate planes of existence.
Oh, so you have formed an opinion on the prequels without actually having seen them all. Suddenly, the incessant whining around here makes a little more sense.
You mean, he can't have a separate opinion on each one of them?
I did the same thing, and have watched Episode II last week for the first time. The story was a little bit better than in Episode I (not difficult, because it haven't any story at all). But the movie was boring, the FX were plain and the acting was as bad as everybody had previously told me.
So yes, one can have a very good sense of what a movie will be by only seeing other works from the same director.
There is no need for a beggining og God.
Yes, but also the Aquinas argument doesn't prove that God's existence is necessary. Which was the original point.
But if you do that in this context then you're falling to the "begging the question" fallacy (the "What created God" is relevant in terms of the Thomas Aquinas demonstration of the existence of God, explained in the GP's post).
If you state that God exists by definition, then you can't use their properties to demonstrate the existence of God. Either you accept (as you do) that God is a definition and not a proven fact, or you admit that Aquinas' logic is not sound because God fails to conform to the laws of physics (and thus a physical reasoning can't prove its existence).
0
00
000
long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long time ago...
That's the beauty of it! Any key can be the 'any' key!
Better yet, on this keyboard ALL keys are the 'any' key!
You should know that "mundane" also means "relating to this world" (from latin mundus, "world").
So by definition all physics is mundane, in a very literal way. You could see this as the honor of recognicing the very nature of this science.
what are the percentages of IT managers and CIO who were not interested in Linux, were not sure about Linux, and planned to evaluate Linux before the Get the Facts campaign started?
Article 20
1. The following rights are recognized and protected:
a) the right to freely express and disseminate thoughts, ideas and opinions by word, in writing or by any other means of communication;
b) the right to literary, artistic, scientific and technical production and creation;
c) the right to academic freedom;
d) the right to freely communicate or receive accurate information by any means of dissemination whatsoever. The law shall regulate the right to invoke personal conscience and professional secrecy in the exercise of these freedoms.
2. The exercise of these rights may not be restricted by any form of prior censorship.
3. The law shall regulate the organization and Parliamentary control of the social communications media under the control of the State or any public agency and shall guarantee access to such media to the main social and political groups, respecting the pluralism of society and of the various languages of Spain.
4. These freedoms are limited by respect for the rights recognized in this Title, by the legal provisions implementing it, and especially by the right to honour, to privacy, to personal reputation and to the protection of youth and childhood.
5. The confiscation of publications and recordings and other information media may only be carried out by means of a court order.
Seems like you forgot to wear your tinfoil hat ;-)
I love the movie btw.
What! Is there a Google movie? What's the title: The Found of Googling?
I figure that they will release it first in beta...
You, sir, made me laugh.
If this was about Microsoft and Bill refused to fix the vulnerability, nobody else could write a patch for the sources to solve the problem. See the difference?
Not to flamebait, but it would help for getting answers if you formatted your text with some whitespace in order to make it readable...
You might want to read some insightful essays by a usability guru on this very subject, addresing the forces that affect the problem and an existing solution.
In conclusion, speciation by natural selection does occur (at least in a few cases demonstrably -- polar gulls, etc.), but I think there has to be another mechanism in there
Congratulations, you have discovered variations due to sexed reproduction. I.e. not all variations in individuals are generated by mutations, almost all are due to gene recombination.
Energy management in SW may be awesome, but automatic tracking system were awful - they had to aim by hand!
So actually the Sarlaac digestive tract was a life-expander?
If you are a billion dollar corporation with a multi-million dollar support, you don't need that communist concept of "freedom". You have power instead. Freedom is good for the rest of us.
The "correct" design should give you results relavent to what you searched for. i.e. "Tiger" or "Tigers" should give you info about furry creatures (and potentially furry creatures in advertising and sports), because that's what you searched for.
That's what Answers.com does. Also when you google for tigers. But the word "Tiger" is the name of an important operating system, and that's what Google should find.
What, they've already released Tiger? I didn't even notice and there's even a patch!