You're missing the essence of science, which is the scientific method. In the scientific method, one comes up with a hypothesis, which is an explanation for something in nature. One then generates predictions from that hypothesis, and then tests whether those predictions match our measurements. If the predictions do not match, we throw away the hypothesis as not useful. If many predictions match, we come to the conclusion that it is useful for making more predictions, as it has proven itself useful.
We cannot observe the big bang. But big bang theory tells us we should observe the cosmic background radiation, that it should be redshifted by a certain amount, that it should contain small fluctuations. When we measure the cosmic background radiation, we see exactly what the theory says we should observe.
We cannot observe species evolving over millions of years. But evolutionary theory tells that we should find genetic differences in two species proportional to the time since the two species diverged. When we measure the genetic differences between two species, we see exactly what the theory says we should observe.
When it comes to religious beliefs, they do not make any predictions we can test. Those beliefs could simply be true or not, and we have no way to prove them one way or the other. Believe in them if you like, but do not confuse religious beliefs with scientific beliefs. Religion is only an educated guess. Science is tested and proven to be useful.
Evolution explains everything to me. It explains how life could have started as something simple, such as a strand of RNA that could replicate itself. Random mutations caused some RNA to be able to replicate better, so more of it was created. These mutations built up and the heartier ones survived better. This process continued for billions of years. We can look back in the fossil record and see how life has become more complex. When we measure the genetic differences between species and calculate how long it would take for mutations to produce that amount of difference, the time matches closely with the age of rocks in which we find the fossils of what we believe the common ancestor to be. There are even computer algorithms based on evolution. They also put random mutations in entities that are reproduced over generations, with the fittest members surviving, and we find that those entities evolve over time.
It seems to be that religion is a ploy to keep simple minded people happy, is there just to make money, and explains nothing if you really think about it. God did it. Sorry, that doesn't explain anything to me at all. How did God come to be?
The bill says it's about critical thinking. From the recent history of discussing "critical thinking" about evolution in the US public education system, I think this is more about bringing the supernatural into the science classroom than about actual scientific critical thinking. Critical thinking is what science is all about, and if it really does produce more critical thinking in science classrooms, I'm all for it!
I don't know what you're on about with global warming. The Earth's global mean temperature has increased about 0.1 degrees Celsius in the past decade, continuing the trend of warming about 0.7 degrees Celsius over the past five decades. See the rising red line in the top graph on Wikipedia's entry on global warming, for example. If your assertion were correct, it would be falling, not rising. If you believe you have evidence that global warming is simply not occurring, let's see it.
There is debate about global warming, in fact, a significant amount of active research. The debate is about how much the increased carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere will warm the Earth, and what all the other climate effects will be. On the other hand, the "debates" you see on Slashdot are simply flat-out denials that there's been any warming at all, supported by the flimsiest "evidence" that no warming has been taking place. If we're to have debates, let's at least not ignore evidence.
Evolution is the unifying idea in biology. If we don't use evolution, we could still do a lot of biology that doesn't depend on that theory. Doing without evolution would simply mean we would limit ourselves to the biology we could do. For example, we could not use the genetic difference between two species as evidence for when the two species diverged.
If you're looking for complete answers, look to religion. Science is always open to competing theories.
You're right. We didn't evolve from primates. We are primates. Either you should have been paying better attention in science classes, or you should have had better science instructors.
If radiocarbon dating is less accurate than using a random number generator, why do the dates given by that technique match so well with the historical record and coral growth rates? And you do realize that radiocarbon dating works only for things that were alive just thousands of years ago, right?
You are correct that both are beliefs. On the other hand, evolution makes predictions that can be tested. That gives us validation that it is valuable to believe it. ID does not make any predictions that can be tested, giving us no reason to believe it. That is the difference between science and religion.
Because IE's layout engine is used by Windows programs other than IE. You should always grab the security updates for IE, even if you think you never use it.
In that case, the number you pick as the correct number is uniformly distributed. The OP was referring to the distribution of the bunch of people's guesses, not the distribution of the correct number. Yes, statistics is hard.
I think you need another class in statistics. It doesn't matter whether the guesses are normally or uniformly distributed. If the guesses are distributed around the correct value, the average over many guesses will converge to the correct value. All this shows is that when someone makes an estimate, they are usually close, and they overestimate about as much as they underestimate. The average of those guesses will then be more accurate than any one guess selected at random. The guesses probably are normally distributed, but that the fact that the average of the guesses converges to the correct result in itself does not prove that they are.
Do you think that by "free speech" it would be okay for me to knowingly add a feature that many others think is a bug to open source code? Would the suppression of my patch constitute the suppression of free speech? For example, should I be allowed to add a "Free Tibet!" splash screen to Firefox, no matter how much objection there is to it by other users?
Windows XP has a "switch user" feature that allows many people to be logged into the computer locally at the same time. On my 1 GB home computer, we regularly have three people logged in, all running Firefox with multiple pages open.
Firefox 3 used less memory than Firefox 2, Internet Explorer, and Opera, and it also freed more memory than the other browsers when pages were closed... The results of this experiment, which others have been able to consistently reproduce using the same tools, represent a big victory for Firefox, which has previously faced widespread criticism for its high memory consumption.
You mean like a formal standard for the language? That's ECMAScript. Do you mean a standard way of interfacing with the browser? That would be DOM. Or do you mean some practical tests of scripting to ensure that different browsers behave consistently? Sounds like Acid3.
I may be possible to create black holes with very little mass. A black hole with a mass of under a ton quickly explodes due to emitting Hawking radiation very quickly, so they don't have time to go around gobbling other things up.
It's called responsible disclosure. You'd be surprised at the number of people around here that advocate full disclosure, that is, telling the whole world all the details of a security problem as soon as you find it. The ones who advocate it keep saying it somehow allows users to protect themselves. On the other hand, it seems like everyone who practices full disclosure has a l33t hacker name and is looking for attention, and not at all concerned with anyone's security.
Damn, he sure has one fancy pants computer if it's worth thousands used! Or are you saying it'll fetch tons of cash on eBay because some hacker doodz would think it's l33t?
I suppose if they used those crappy chipsets with Mini-ITX 1.0, they'll continue to use them with Mini-ITX 2.0. I wonder why they can't simply use a decent chipset? There are small form factor computers available for a few hundred dollars, as well as tiny laptops, that have decent gigabit ports. Certainly price, size, and power consumption are not a barrier. Oh, well, I'll wait for a decent Mini-ITX 2.0 board that uses good chipsets and comes with a warranty. Until then, small form factor will have to do.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the essence of science, which is the scientific method. In the scientific method, one comes up with a hypothesis, which is an explanation for something in nature. One then generates predictions from that hypothesis, and then tests whether those predictions match our measurements. If the predictions do not match, we throw away the hypothesis as not useful. If many predictions match, we come to the conclusion that it is useful for making more predictions, as it has proven itself useful.
We cannot observe the big bang. But big bang theory tells us we should observe the cosmic background radiation, that it should be redshifted by a certain amount, that it should contain small fluctuations. When we measure the cosmic background radiation, we see exactly what the theory says we should observe.
We cannot observe species evolving over millions of years. But evolutionary theory tells that we should find genetic differences in two species proportional to the time since the two species diverged. When we measure the genetic differences between two species, we see exactly what the theory says we should observe.
When it comes to religious beliefs, they do not make any predictions we can test. Those beliefs could simply be true or not, and we have no way to prove them one way or the other. Believe in them if you like, but do not confuse religious beliefs with scientific beliefs. Religion is only an educated guess. Science is tested and proven to be useful.
Evolution explains everything to me. It explains how life could have started as something simple, such as a strand of RNA that could replicate itself. Random mutations caused some RNA to be able to replicate better, so more of it was created. These mutations built up and the heartier ones survived better. This process continued for billions of years. We can look back in the fossil record and see how life has become more complex. When we measure the genetic differences between species and calculate how long it would take for mutations to produce that amount of difference, the time matches closely with the age of rocks in which we find the fossils of what we believe the common ancestor to be. There are even computer algorithms based on evolution. They also put random mutations in entities that are reproduced over generations, with the fittest members surviving, and we find that those entities evolve over time.
It seems to be that religion is a ploy to keep simple minded people happy, is there just to make money, and explains nothing if you really think about it. God did it. Sorry, that doesn't explain anything to me at all. How did God come to be?
The bill says it's about critical thinking. From the recent history of discussing "critical thinking" about evolution in the US public education system, I think this is more about bringing the supernatural into the science classroom than about actual scientific critical thinking. Critical thinking is what science is all about, and if it really does produce more critical thinking in science classrooms, I'm all for it!
I don't know what you're on about with global warming. The Earth's global mean temperature has increased about 0.1 degrees Celsius in the past decade, continuing the trend of warming about 0.7 degrees Celsius over the past five decades. See the rising red line in the top graph on Wikipedia's entry on global warming, for example. If your assertion were correct, it would be falling, not rising. If you believe you have evidence that global warming is simply not occurring, let's see it.
There is debate about global warming, in fact, a significant amount of active research. The debate is about how much the increased carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere will warm the Earth, and what all the other climate effects will be. On the other hand, the "debates" you see on Slashdot are simply flat-out denials that there's been any warming at all, supported by the flimsiest "evidence" that no warming has been taking place. If we're to have debates, let's at least not ignore evidence.
Evolution is the unifying idea in biology. If we don't use evolution, we could still do a lot of biology that doesn't depend on that theory. Doing without evolution would simply mean we would limit ourselves to the biology we could do. For example, we could not use the genetic difference between two species as evidence for when the two species diverged.
If you're looking for complete answers, look to religion. Science is always open to competing theories.
You're right. We didn't evolve from primates. We are primates. Either you should have been paying better attention in science classes, or you should have had better science instructors.
If radiocarbon dating is less accurate than using a random number generator, why do the dates given by that technique match so well with the historical record and coral growth rates? And you do realize that radiocarbon dating works only for things that were alive just thousands of years ago, right?
You are correct that both are beliefs. On the other hand, evolution makes predictions that can be tested. That gives us validation that it is valuable to believe it. ID does not make any predictions that can be tested, giving us no reason to believe it. That is the difference between science and religion.
Because IE's layout engine is used by Windows programs other than IE. You should always grab the security updates for IE, even if you think you never use it.
In that case, the number you pick as the correct number is uniformly distributed. The OP was referring to the distribution of the bunch of people's guesses, not the distribution of the correct number. Yes, statistics is hard.
I think you need another class in statistics. It doesn't matter whether the guesses are normally or uniformly distributed. If the guesses are distributed around the correct value, the average over many guesses will converge to the correct value. All this shows is that when someone makes an estimate, they are usually close, and they overestimate about as much as they underestimate. The average of those guesses will then be more accurate than any one guess selected at random. The guesses probably are normally distributed, but that the fact that the average of the guesses converges to the correct result in itself does not prove that they are.
I have often taken exit 69 to Big Beaver road. Let's hope no SOB complains about that one!
It must be a real PIA to live there.
No, you're SOL.
Do you think that by "free speech" it would be okay for me to knowingly add a feature that many others think is a bug to open source code? Would the suppression of my patch constitute the suppression of free speech? For example, should I be allowed to add a "Free Tibet!" splash screen to Firefox, no matter how much objection there is to it by other users?
Firefox 3.0 rarely crashes for me. You might want to follow the instructions for fixing Firefox crashes from the MozillaZine Knowledge Base.
Windows XP has a "switch user" feature that allows many people to be logged into the computer locally at the same time. On my 1 GB home computer, we regularly have three people logged in, all running Firefox with multiple pages open.
You mean like a formal standard for the language? That's ECMAScript. Do you mean a standard way of interfacing with the browser? That would be DOM. Or do you mean some practical tests of scripting to ensure that different browsers behave consistently? Sounds like Acid3.
I meant "It may be possible," but who knows, maybe I'm creating small mass black holes right now and not even aware of it!
I may be possible to create black holes with very little mass. A black hole with a mass of under a ton quickly explodes due to emitting Hawking radiation very quickly, so they don't have time to go around gobbling other things up.
It's called responsible disclosure. You'd be surprised at the number of people around here that advocate full disclosure, that is, telling the whole world all the details of a security problem as soon as you find it. The ones who advocate it keep saying it somehow allows users to protect themselves. On the other hand, it seems like everyone who practices full disclosure has a l33t hacker name and is looking for attention, and not at all concerned with anyone's security.
Damn, he sure has one fancy pants computer if it's worth thousands used! Or are you saying it'll fetch tons of cash on eBay because some hacker doodz would think it's l33t?
I have a PS/2 KVM switch and use it with servers that have only USB ports. Just buy a $10 PS/2 to USB splitter cable.
I suppose if they used those crappy chipsets with Mini-ITX 1.0, they'll continue to use them with Mini-ITX 2.0. I wonder why they can't simply use a decent chipset? There are small form factor computers available for a few hundred dollars, as well as tiny laptops, that have decent gigabit ports. Certainly price, size, and power consumption are not a barrier. Oh, well, I'll wait for a decent Mini-ITX 2.0 board that uses good chipsets and comes with a warranty. Until then, small form factor will have to do.