Yeah, after all, the Brits and Americans never fought, neither did all those German states or all those Latin-speaking folks. I mean, they all lived in harmony, and never took to arms.
The difference is that today, with modern telecommunications, it's actually possible for there to be a large degree of communication between 2 groups, if only they can understand each other. That largely wasn't the case for the examples you give.
Now, of course war won't be eliminated completely, but it seems likely to me that mutual comprehension is helpful.
The point I'm trying to get through is that one can hardly say that the polar bear population is perfectly safe when we have a specific prediction that their habitat will be wiped out in the future. Their past population increase (if such there is; I've not seen a primary source yet) will not save them in the event of a future catastrophe.
While it is popular, in some circles, to say people are contributing to global warming in a meaningful way, the science is still out, and in many cases pointing towards a "shit happens" point of view, if it turns out badly for people.
If the science is "still out" then why is the press release you link to called "Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming" (emphasis mine)?
In the cosmic scheme of things it doesn't matter one wit if a big rock wipes out all life on this planet tomorrow.
Great attitude. It matters to me, and even in the "cosmic scheme of things" I should think the annihilation of an entire civilisation is a fairly major event.
Although fair enough - if it's just water vapour then the chances are probably no better than any other Jupiter-like planet. It's usually liquid water that we think is necessary for life...
any hypothesis we construct must not only predict but also be able to be proven false if it fails to meet an experimental test.
There's a difference between the claim that a theory is falsifiable, and the claim that a theory will be falsified. I'm claiming that many theories we have now will never be falsified, because they are correct.
e.g. The theory that bacteria can cause infection. The theory that negatively charged electrons are involved in electricity. The theory that the sun is a star undergoing nuclear fusion. The theory that complex life evolved from simpler forms. Et cetera.
All these theories are falsifiable - because it is logically possible that evidence against them will turn up - but none of those will be falsified.
Science is not, and never has been, about being right. It's about trying to find predictive models of the universe which you can rely on most of the time.
I don't agree. Science isn't just about making predictions, it's also about providing explanations. But putting that aside, one of the reasons why some theories can provide accurate predictions is that they actually are correct - ie, the world really is the way they say it is.
I mean, there really are things like electrons, bacteria, anti-matter, and so on; things which were unknown to science a couple of centuries ago, but which are now known about and let us make predictions in physics, medicine, etc.
Lots of science is really unlikely to ever be shown to be false.
The brain is a dynamic machine that self organizes as we develop based in no small part on the stimulus we give it.
This is undoubtedly true, but it's also undoubtedly true that your genes play a role too. Scientists studying identical twins raised apart find that they are much more similar than non-identical twins so raised, and more similar than non-related children raised together.
You say you don't want to debate "nature vs nurture", but that's exactly what you're doing.:-) Still, it's important for those on the "nature" side of that debate to emphasise that it's not all or nothing. Saying that genes play a role is not the same as saying that their influence is 100%. No serious person is a "genetic determinist" - nobody seriously believes everything is down to the genes.
The issue this guy raises is a serious issue in evolutionary psychology - the field looking at how evolution (and thus, our genes) shapes our behaviour. There really are good reasons why men and women's minds might be innately different in some ways, because of the different roles and lifestyles that they had for the million or so years before civilisation.
But people discussing this stuff need to be a bit more wary about what they say. Instead of saying "women have less innate ability at science", you need to say something like "fewer women are interested in science (and the reason is genetic)", which, if true, at least doesn't imply that those women who are interested will necessarily be bad at it. It wouldn't imply that an admissions supervisor could rule someone out as a prospective scientist just because she was female.
People making this argument need to make clear that people are individuals and that using any sort of average measure of a population to judge the person you have in front of you right now is morally abhorrent.
I'm watching the NASA broadcast and just a few minutes ago everyone started cheering. I heard someone say they were receiving "Chain B" but not "Chain A" - these appear to be redundant instruments or something.
But I guess the knee-jerk "It's a Bush comsperacie!" crap is appropriate for slashdot.
Firstly, the actual/. article, being rather light on details, said nothing of the sort. Secondly, is it somehow better that the U.S. authorities are taking down news websites at the request of foreign governments, rather than on their own initiative?
The Independent Media Center, also called Indymedia or the IMC, is a network of media organizations and journalists. It was started in late November, 1999, to cover the protests of the anti-globalization movement against the World Trade Organization in Seattle, Washington. By 2002, there were 89 local IMCs around the world spread between 31 countries plus the West Bank and 6 continents. The country with the most IMCs is the United States with 39, followed by Canada with 11.
(Source: Wikipedia.org. Released under the GFDL. See article)
[The antivirus guy] named it MyDoom after spotting a line of text that included "mydom" (short for "my domain") in the virus code. "It was evident early on that this would be very big," he says. "I thought having 'doom' in the name would be appropriate."
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, after all, the Brits and Americans never fought, neither did all those German states or all those Latin-speaking folks. I mean, they all lived in harmony, and never took to arms.
The difference is that today, with modern telecommunications, it's actually possible for there to be a large degree of communication between 2 groups, if only they can understand each other. That largely wasn't the case for the examples you give.
Now, of course war won't be eliminated completely, but it seems likely to me that mutual comprehension is helpful.
The point I'm trying to get through is that one can hardly say that the polar bear population is perfectly safe when we have a specific prediction that their habitat will be wiped out in the future. Their past population increase (if such there is; I've not seen a primary source yet) will not save them in the event of a future catastrophe.
While it is popular, in some circles, to say people are contributing to global warming in a meaningful way, the science is still out, and in many cases pointing towards a "shit happens" point of view, if it turns out badly for people.
If the science is "still out" then why is the press release you link to called "Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming" (emphasis mine)?
In the cosmic scheme of things it doesn't matter one wit if a big rock wipes out all life on this planet tomorrow.
Great attitude. It matters to me, and even in the "cosmic scheme of things" I should think the annihilation of an entire civilisation is a fairly major event.
The destruction of the habitat of polar bears is an event predicted for the future. Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
Your argument is like saying that humanity has nothing to worry about, since our population has increased 300% in 80 years (source).
No one will tell you where to work
They might tell you not to work in an abortion clinic or a brothel. But yes, your point is generally well made. :-)
all sorts of illegal stuff ... pamphlets critical of the American way of life
Those are illegal now?
Secret Buildings...
No photographs please. We own the light.
Although fair enough - if it's just water vapour then the chances are probably no better than any other Jupiter-like planet. It's usually liquid water that we think is necessary for life...
You mean no chance of life as we know it...
Compare and contrast with this story. There are some conceptual similarities, at least: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/02/18 39251&from=rss
"stealing music is stealing music"
"right is right"
"wrong is wrong"
This guy's just overflowing with profound truths.
"just deleting the pictures (or confiscating the memory card so it can be securely erased down at the station) ought to have been sufficient"
What right do the police have to delete my own data?
Parachute Cloak
Binds when equipped
Back
30 Armor
+8 Agility
Requires Engineering (225)
Use: Reduces your fall speed for 10 sec.
any hypothesis we construct must not only predict but also be able to be proven false if it fails to meet an experimental test.
There's a difference between the claim that a theory is falsifiable, and the claim that a theory will be falsified. I'm claiming that many theories we have now will never be falsified, because they are correct.
e.g. The theory that bacteria can cause infection. The theory that negatively charged electrons are involved in electricity. The theory that the sun is a star undergoing nuclear fusion. The theory that complex life evolved from simpler forms. Et cetera.
All these theories are falsifiable - because it is logically possible that evidence against them will turn up - but none of those will be falsified.
Science is not, and never has been, about being right. It's about trying to find predictive models of the universe which you can rely on most of the time.
I don't agree. Science isn't just about making predictions, it's also about providing explanations. But putting that aside, one of the reasons why some theories can provide accurate predictions is that they actually are correct - ie, the world really is the way they say it is.
I mean, there really are things like electrons, bacteria, anti-matter, and so on; things which were unknown to science a couple of centuries ago, but which are now known about and let us make predictions in physics, medicine, etc.
Lots of science is really unlikely to ever be shown to be false.
The brain is a dynamic machine that self organizes as we develop based in no small part on the stimulus we give it.
:-) Still, it's important for those on the "nature" side of that debate to emphasise that it's not all or nothing. Saying that genes play a role is not the same as saying that their influence is 100%. No serious person is a "genetic determinist" - nobody seriously believes everything is down to the genes.
This is undoubtedly true, but it's also undoubtedly true that your genes play a role too. Scientists studying identical twins raised apart find that they are much more similar than non-identical twins so raised, and more similar than non-related children raised together.
You say you don't want to debate "nature vs nurture", but that's exactly what you're doing.
The issue this guy raises is a serious issue in evolutionary psychology - the field looking at how evolution (and thus, our genes) shapes our behaviour. There really are good reasons why men and women's minds might be innately different in some ways, because of the different roles and lifestyles that they had for the million or so years before civilisation.
But people discussing this stuff need to be a bit more wary about what they say. Instead of saying "women have less innate ability at science", you need to say something like "fewer women are interested in science (and the reason is genetic)", which, if true, at least doesn't imply that those women who are interested will necessarily be bad at it. It wouldn't imply that an admissions supervisor could rule someone out as a prospective scientist just because she was female.
People making this argument need to make clear that people are individuals and that using any sort of average measure of a population to judge the person you have in front of you right now is morally abhorrent.
I'm watching the NASA broadcast and just a few minutes ago everyone started cheering. I heard someone say they were receiving "Chain B" but not "Chain A" - these appear to be redundant instruments or something.
Seems to be going quite well...
Interesting story here about how it almost went disasterously wrong...
But I guess the knee-jerk "It's a Bush comsperacie!" crap is appropriate for slashdot.
/. article, being rather light on details, said nothing of the sort. Secondly, is it somehow better that the U.S. authorities are taking down news websites at the request of foreign governments, rather than on their own initiative?
Firstly, the actual
The Independent Media Center, also called Indymedia or the IMC, is a network of media organizations and journalists. It was started in late November, 1999, to cover the protests of the anti-globalization movement against the World Trade Organization in Seattle, Washington. By 2002, there were 89 local IMCs around the world spread between 31 countries plus the West Bank and 6 continents. The country with the most IMCs is the United States with 39, followed by Canada with 11.
(Source: Wikipedia.org. Released under the GFDL. See article)
Hmm I don't have sound so I don't hear any commentary but it looked like it just crashed?
Most of the new options seem pretty normal, but can someone explain this "Default codepage for FAT" option? Cheers...
April First Post!
[The antivirus guy] named it MyDoom after spotting a line of text that included "mydom" (short for "my domain") in the virus code. "It was evident early on that this would be very big," he says. "I thought having 'doom' in the name would be appropriate."