Evolution can be tested by observing the rate of mutations in the lab, measuring the amount of genetic difference between two species, and performing simple math to determine when their most recent common ancestor lived. If the fossil record did not agree with the prediction, evolution could be falsified.
Anthropogenic global warming can be tested by using climate models to determine the amount of warming that will occur for a given increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If the warming did not agree with the prediction, AGW could be falsified. I suppose I need to point out that the predicted warming matches closely with our observations.
The people who try to promote intelligent design do not point out any weaknesses in the theory of evolution. They present a series of rhetorical, non-scientific arguments (some would say lame excuses) not to believe in evolution because some people find it uncomfortable to believe. ID is junk science and has no place in a science classroom.
The science behind evolution and anthropogenic climate change are not controversial. I think it makes perfect sense to present "both sides" on a debate team, or to discuss them in a philosophy or history class, but not in a science class. There is no "other side" of evolution and AGW, in terms of the science. It's just lots of people saying "Nuh-uh, I just don't believe it!" without providing any scientific evidence. It's the same with people who believe in astrology, alien abductions, ghosts, psychic abilities, and the like. There is not compelling scientific evidence for those ideas, and therefore they should not be covered in a science class either.
Not many critical systems in the third world are highly computerized. Even those that are obtained their systems from companies that did spend money on Y2K.
But why should we abolish software patents? I just see statements that we should without explaining why, and any arguments that I've seen apply equally well to any other kind of patent. Why should we abolish software patents?
Just glancing at the page for reasons why to abolish software patents, I see the claim that nearly all software is patentable, and it's easy to come up with software that is patentable. Inventions are supposed to be non-obvious to be patentable. If the patent office simply enforced this simple rule, the problems with software patents would be fixed. We don't need to abolish software patents.
As for your arguments about writing books, books (and software) are copyrighted, not patented. Inventions (such as algorithms) are patented. A software implementation of an algorithm is copyrighted, but the algorithm itself is patented. If you can't understand the difference between patents and copyrights, I don't think you can reason sensibly about patents and copyrights. Understand what you're discussing before you start discussing it.
What property is being seized? These are just bits on a server being set differently, just as downloading a movie without paying for it is sending bits down a wire. If one is "imaginary property" isn't the other? Or is there a double standard?
I tried to use this excuse when I watched over the admin's shoulder while he was typing his password so I could perform simple admin duties. I tried to argue that I was using simple observance to improve results, but for some reason he didn't buy it either!
It doesn't seem like Mozilla's development process has changed much. I think it used to be trendy to praise Firefox, and now it's trendy to criticize Firefox.
I suppose one could consider Firefox's implementation worse. One could also consider Opera's or Chrome's implementation worse because a user could get confused about which tabs or windows are private and mistakenly open a URL meant to be private in a non-private tab or window. One person's bug could be another person's feature.
The more important point is that anyone who writes a web page can use inline pictures, frames, and blink just by editing their page with a text editor. Do not track requires web server support. I think most web developers do not have access to the configuration of the web server, and even if they do have access, they generally don't know how to configure it properly.
The post isn't about a build. The post is about the second most popular browser suddenly adding support for a much desired feature, soon after the third most popular browser added the same feature. To put it another way, it really doesn't matter whether SeaMonkey or Opera alone supports a particular feature, because their usage share is so low they can't influence much on their own.
And the public eats it up, even as large portions of the population dismiss evolution and anthropogenic global warming. I suppose some people just believe what they want to believe.
I see many people making this statement, but it is false. Mathematics is based upon axioms which we assume to be true. We can then prove conclusively theorems derived from those axioms and be absolutely sure of the result. Science is based on observation of the real world and making hypotheses that match our observations. We can make hypotheses that match our observations but are not entirely correct. Math uses deductive reasoning. Science uses inductive reasoning. Science does use mathematical models for its hypotheses, but it is not math.
Nearly everything in mathematics has a very precise definition so that theorems can be decisively proven. I think the one exception is the term "set". Math defines everything else in terms of a set, and if it defined a set in terms of something else in math it would just be a circular definition. It would make as much sense as defining a ghoricane as a muflap with a handle and a muflap as a ghoricane without a handle. The definitions are circular, and therefore have no meaning.
I suppose we are using different definitions of arbitrary. Why couldn't the cutoff be at 70 mph or 80 mph? If it could, then the 75 mph cutoff is arbitrary.
Maybe you're saying it is not arbitrary whether a particular storm is a hurricane or a tropical storm, yes. But the clear line of distinction between them is arbitrary. Just like when there's a law that you must be 21 years old to buy alcohol. It isn't arbitrary whether you're allowed to buy alcohol, but the fact that the difference happens on your 21st birthday is arbitrary. I could happen at 19 years, 4 months, 18 days.
Doesn't it depend on your frame of reference? In our frame of reference, it really currently is 13.2 billion light years away, isn't it? It's funny how many comments that involve relativity seem to implicitly assume there is one preferred frame of reference. Talk about not getting the point!
It's the same for other subjects. In biology, there's no clear definition of the term species. You can define a species as a group of animals that can reproduce sexually with one another, but as far as I know there's no good definition of species for organisms that reproduce in other ways. Sometimes definitions are completely arbitrary, such as the difference between a tropical storm or a hurricane.
No, you're reading that into the article exactly as I described. They mention an effect of a genocide that we can study to our benefit, and you have concluded that they are saying that genocide is good.
We can easily reduce the population to 500,000,000 without killing anyone. People die naturally. Just don't have as many children. In many countries, families are already having fewer children than needed to keep the population at the current level.
I don't think the article is stupid at all. It's about measuring the effects of Khan's actions on the atmosphere. The point, as the article states, is to help understand the effects of land usage on the atmosphere and environment. Of course, we can stop deforestation and reforest deforested areas without killing anyone as Khan did. No one is saying that Khan's genocide was good -- many seem to be reading that into the article.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution can be tested by observing the rate of mutations in the lab, measuring the amount of genetic difference between two species, and performing simple math to determine when their most recent common ancestor lived. If the fossil record did not agree with the prediction, evolution could be falsified.
Anthropogenic global warming can be tested by using climate models to determine the amount of warming that will occur for a given increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If the warming did not agree with the prediction, AGW could be falsified. I suppose I need to point out that the predicted warming matches closely with our observations.
The people who try to promote intelligent design do not point out any weaknesses in the theory of evolution. They present a series of rhetorical, non-scientific arguments (some would say lame excuses) not to believe in evolution because some people find it uncomfortable to believe. ID is junk science and has no place in a science classroom.
The science behind evolution and anthropogenic climate change are not controversial. I think it makes perfect sense to present "both sides" on a debate team, or to discuss them in a philosophy or history class, but not in a science class. There is no "other side" of evolution and AGW, in terms of the science. It's just lots of people saying "Nuh-uh, I just don't believe it!" without providing any scientific evidence. It's the same with people who believe in astrology, alien abductions, ghosts, psychic abilities, and the like. There is not compelling scientific evidence for those ideas, and therefore they should not be covered in a science class either.
Not many critical systems in the third world are highly computerized. Even those that are obtained their systems from companies that did spend money on Y2K.
But why should we abolish software patents? I just see statements that we should without explaining why, and any arguments that I've seen apply equally well to any other kind of patent. Why should we abolish software patents?
Just glancing at the page for reasons why to abolish software patents, I see the claim that nearly all software is patentable, and it's easy to come up with software that is patentable. Inventions are supposed to be non-obvious to be patentable. If the patent office simply enforced this simple rule, the problems with software patents would be fixed. We don't need to abolish software patents.
As for your arguments about writing books, books (and software) are copyrighted, not patented. Inventions (such as algorithms) are patented. A software implementation of an algorithm is copyrighted, but the algorithm itself is patented. If you can't understand the difference between patents and copyrights, I don't think you can reason sensibly about patents and copyrights. Understand what you're discussing before you start discussing it.
What property is being seized? These are just bits on a server being set differently, just as downloading a movie without paying for it is sending bits down a wire. If one is "imaginary property" isn't the other? Or is there a double standard?
I tried to use this excuse when I watched over the admin's shoulder while he was typing his password so I could perform simple admin duties. I tried to argue that I was using simple observance to improve results, but for some reason he didn't buy it either!
It doesn't seem like Mozilla's development process has changed much. I think it used to be trendy to praise Firefox, and now it's trendy to criticize Firefox.
I suppose one could consider Firefox's implementation worse. One could also consider Opera's or Chrome's implementation worse because a user could get confused about which tabs or windows are private and mistakenly open a URL meant to be private in a non-private tab or window. One person's bug could be another person's feature.
The more important point is that anyone who writes a web page can use inline pictures, frames, and blink just by editing their page with a text editor. Do not track requires web server support. I think most web developers do not have access to the configuration of the web server, and even if they do have access, they generally don't know how to configure it properly.
The post isn't about a build. The post is about the second most popular browser suddenly adding support for a much desired feature, soon after the third most popular browser added the same feature. To put it another way, it really doesn't matter whether SeaMonkey or Opera alone supports a particular feature, because their usage share is so low they can't influence much on their own.
text-decoration: blink;
And the public eats it up, even as large portions of the population dismiss evolution and anthropogenic global warming. I suppose some people just believe what they want to believe.
Don't worry. The Earth has survived plenty of asteroid impacts in the past. Therefore I conclude that asteroid impacts are nothing to worry about.
I see many people making this statement, but it is false. Mathematics is based upon axioms which we assume to be true. We can then prove conclusively theorems derived from those axioms and be absolutely sure of the result. Science is based on observation of the real world and making hypotheses that match our observations. We can make hypotheses that match our observations but are not entirely correct. Math uses deductive reasoning. Science uses inductive reasoning. Science does use mathematical models for its hypotheses, but it is not math.
Nearly everything in mathematics has a very precise definition so that theorems can be decisively proven. I think the one exception is the term "set". Math defines everything else in terms of a set, and if it defined a set in terms of something else in math it would just be a circular definition. It would make as much sense as defining a ghoricane as a muflap with a handle and a muflap as a ghoricane without a handle. The definitions are circular, and therefore have no meaning.
I suppose we are using different definitions of arbitrary. Why couldn't the cutoff be at 70 mph or 80 mph? If it could, then the 75 mph cutoff is arbitrary. Maybe you're saying it is not arbitrary whether a particular storm is a hurricane or a tropical storm, yes. But the clear line of distinction between them is arbitrary. Just like when there's a law that you must be 21 years old to buy alcohol. It isn't arbitrary whether you're allowed to buy alcohol, but the fact that the difference happens on your 21st birthday is arbitrary. I could happen at 19 years, 4 months, 18 days.
I didn't say it was vague. I said it was arbitrary. Why argue when we agree?
Doesn't it depend on your frame of reference? In our frame of reference, it really currently is 13.2 billion light years away, isn't it? It's funny how many comments that involve relativity seem to implicitly assume there is one preferred frame of reference. Talk about not getting the point!
Sure, but exactly where do you draw the line between a galaxy and a cluster? Is there a clear dividing line? If not, the division is arbitrary.
It's the same for other subjects. In biology, there's no clear definition of the term species. You can define a species as a group of animals that can reproduce sexually with one another, but as far as I know there's no good definition of species for organisms that reproduce in other ways. Sometimes definitions are completely arbitrary, such as the difference between a tropical storm or a hurricane.
No, you're reading that into the article exactly as I described. They mention an effect of a genocide that we can study to our benefit, and you have concluded that they are saying that genocide is good.
We can easily reduce the population to 500,000,000 without killing anyone. People die naturally. Just don't have as many children. In many countries, families are already having fewer children than needed to keep the population at the current level.
I don't think the article is stupid at all. It's about measuring the effects of Khan's actions on the atmosphere. The point, as the article states, is to help understand the effects of land usage on the atmosphere and environment. Of course, we can stop deforestation and reforest deforested areas without killing anyone as Khan did. No one is saying that Khan's genocide was good -- many seem to be reading that into the article.