Sorry, right back at you. A President may be impeached for any "High crime or Misdemeanor". An 18th century synonym of "Misdemeanor" is "an act of incompetence". If being wrong about something winds up costing half a trillion dollars and 4000 American lives isn't incompetence, I don't know what is.
I guess there is no reason for the U.S. to have any armed forces because, with your logic, anytime we would actually attempt to use those armed forces and any one member of those forces die then it would be considered incompetence by the President. No President would ever use the armed forces if he would be considered incompetent if the people who volunteer to put themselves in harms way to defend their country would actually be killed doing so.
The sheer fact a person makes the wrong decision about something doesn't mean the person is incompetent. You have to look at why they were wrong. In the case of the President, the information he uses to make his decisions is based on advisors and intelligence reports. If those sources of information indicate a threat then most likely a President is going to act on the information. If it turns out the information is wrong that doesn't mean the President is incompetent because he acted competently given the information he had at his disposal. If anything you would have to say the intelligence agencies are incompetent for not verifying the information they gather.
Reversing the situation, if he was told Iraq had WMDs and he ignored it and Iraq had used the WMDs to attack the U.S. and millions of people die then you and many others would have called him incompetent for not acting on what we have to assume would have been credible intelligence information. Given the fact he acted the way he should have based on the information he had, it wasn't incompetence in my opinion.
Being in the miority during those years might ahve ahd something to do with it, as well as trusting what the president had said about WMDs.
At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe the president. Of course, now that we know he lied, he should be tossed out, perferable on the last day in office, so he still gets it noted in the history books, but Cheney has no time to do anything else.
The President wasn't over in Iraq searching bunkers and what not for the WMDs. There were intelligence forces that determined Iraq had WMDs and this information was passed to the President. Just because the information that was given to him was wrong and therefore the information he gave us was wrong doesn't mean anyone lied. Intelligence isn't 100% right 100% of the time. The story I heard was that Hussein was spreading rumors he had WMDs in order to prevent Iran from invading his country. Unfortunately this had the side effect that the U.S. got worried and therefore Hussein's remarks to protect his country had the unintended consequence of literally killing him once we got wind of the supposed WMDs. If he was so blatantly advertising he had WMDs to make Iran think twice about its own invasion it isn't any surprise that our intelligence forces picked up on it and passed it off to the President as is their job to do so. Bush was only relaying information and relying on those who he trusts.
Can you prove to the contrary he (or his advisors) blatantly lied about the WMDs as opposed to simply being misinformed? The information the U.S. intelligence forces had seemed credible. If anything, Hussein was the liar but it was more like a bluff but he wasn't bluffing because of us but Iran.
This was only the beginning. Cant wait until next holiday season.
You won't have to wait long. Easter is only a couple weeks away but then again the Easter season would start sometime before that. Although I have never figured out when any given holiday season actually starts. Is it 2 weeks prior to the day of the holiday? 1 week?
Cease selling != cease supporting. I remember games supporting Windows 98SE long after it ceased being sold because the market share was still so much larger during Windows XP's early years. I can envision a similar scenario with Windows Vista and Windows XP, especially since it seems that we've "peaked" in terms of general-use hardware performance this time around.
Not to mention that even cease supporting != disabled, at least not yet. Those who run illegal copies don't use MS support anyway and Service Packs can be provided by friends who have legit copies. I know I'll continue to run XP until I'm forced to run Vista (and I have yet to come up with a reason where I'd be forced to switch). Many users still run Win98; what MS does concerning the lifecycle of a product does not affect end users unless you are a corporation.
I don't consider commercials to be part of reading material. Ads in magazines and commercials on TV are both categorized as advertisements to me though. Yes, I do see lots of ads in magazines for Microsoft products but as far as TV is concerned I probably see 1 new MS commercial (i.e. advertisement for TV as opposed to print) once every few months if not less often. I don't read the Wall Street Journal so I can't speak for it but all the printed ads for MS that I see appear in technical magazines which a regular user would't see in the first place. Even in the WSJ, the readership is specialized. Only a commercial on TV would reach a mass general audience and I'm surprised MS isn't doing more of that. They used to advertise on TV when a new version of Windows was released (IIRC) but I never recall seeing one for Vista. Did anyone else?
I bet if I randomly took 100 people off the street, put them in a room and asked what Linux was, maybe 5 at the most would have an idea, if I asked what Windows was, at the very least they could tell me it was made by Microsoft and came with their computer. Linux distros do not have the marketing capabilities that Microsoft does, and in a world where people think things should get easier to use overtime, Linux will not take even 10% of the desktop marketshare.
These are the same people who when asked what kind of computer they have answer with "black". Also, not many people can associate the maker of the softare they use with the actual software application. You ask them which browser they use and they will say "I don't know. I just click on the blue 'e'." despite the fact that the title bar says "Internet Explorer" 100% of the time the application is open. So I hope you don't expect them to know Microsoft created it if they don't even know its name.
As far as marketing capabilities, I hardly ever see a Microsoft commercial. When I do they don't ever specify any particular product in the commercial. How does that really sell Windows or Office? All the marketing seems to happen behind the scenes from the point of view of the end consumer using deals that happen between OEMs and Microsoft salespeople.
I'm sure it doesn't supply all of the water Coca-Cola uses for Dasani, but it goes to show what a ripoff bottled water can be, and usually is.
I don't think it is any surprise that companies try to eek every bit of profit out of consumers who want to buy water. It's free to begin with out of the tap and people can buy their own filters but I guess they choose not to and rather spend more money buying it from someone else's tap. Pepsi (Aquafina) was recently in trouble last year because people found out the source of its water wasn't what Pepsi said it was on the bottle. Then during the Super Bowl (IIRC) this year Pepsi ran ads to make up for the bad publicity. The commercial basically told viewers that they filter their water multiple times so that it is as pure as possible. Now Pepsi will be changing the bottle labels. It is not a surprise that Coca-Cola uses tap for Dasani since Pepsi does the same.
In my parents case, I believe they are simply running into Verizon over-subscribing the local node such that at peak times (evenings from around 7-midnight) and sometimes weekends their DSL modem loses the ability to maintain a DHCP lease and if the lease is held no webpages can be downloaded due to lack of available bandwidth. Internal communication works fine because I can reach the internal admin page of their modem/router but anything from their modem/router to the Verizon node doesn't work during those times. But it used to work fine for the first year or so they had the service. Of course they aren't quite savvy enough to explain this to the Verizon support person so the support person will attempt to run through their canned scripts to diagnose the problem and always ask that my parents have an ethernet cable to test but because my parents' PC is using wireless (as well as their laptops) they do not have an ethernet cable which makes the situation all the more frustrating for them. I'm still trying to convince them to switch to Comcast (lesser of 2 evils).
They aren't used interchangeably based on what you quoted. If you notice, they are using a compact disc as the definition for "disc". If I look up "disk" I get:
Definition disk, UK ALSO disc
noun [C]
a flat circular device, usually inside a square container, which has a magnetic covering and is used for storing computer information
See also disc; floppy (disk); hard disk.
As you can see, it specifies "magnetic covering". Just because it says "ALSO disc" or "ALSO disk" doesn't mean they are interchangeable, only that other definitions/examples are filed under the other word precisely because there is a distinction.
I wonder what the correct spelling for the disk in SSD is?
It is "disk". Most people use "disk" when referring to SSD although some sites in a google search use "disc". Wikipedia uses "disk" as shown here:
Even though solid state disk (SSD) technology has been marketed to the military and niche industrial markets since the mid-1990s, it is only recently that the enterprise sector has taken notice of the benefits that SSDs can offer as key SSD technologies emerge, prices drop and several case studies, along with analyst reports, are published.
If we can pay an actor $20 million dollars to appear in a film, is it really that bad to pay a researcher (or team of researchers) $20 million for solving the Hodge conjecture, or proving P!=NP?
Charge $5-$10 (like a movie ticket) for everyone who would potentially use a product developed by solving the problem and the money can go to paying the person to solve it. The source of the money isn't the same between an actor being paid and a researcher being paid, therefore you can't make a fair comparison.
In its way, rather similar to what happened with the 3" floppy disc drive.
Just as an FYI and future reference, "disc" is reserved for optical media while "disk" is for magnetic (hard or soft media). So if you have seen CD expanded to "compact disk" it is wrong as far as the nomenclature is concerned. And yes I am aware your ID is a lot lower than mine but when something is factually incorrect it is factually incorrect.
why the hell is any DoD network connected to the Internet????
On the surface, it does sound crazy, however in the technologically connected world we live in even secure networks must be connected to inherently insecure networks. Of course, those "secure" networks aren't so secure anymore and that's where IDSs/IPSs, firewalls, etc. come into play. The DoD must be able to communicate with DHS- and DOJ-type agencies at the federal level and probably many other entities at the state level and as such their data must be on those networks in order for full communication to take place. And although that network may itself be a private WAN specifically for that inter-agency communication, some communication must still occur over the Internet (whether via VPN or not). And that's where you run into originally secure networks coming into contact with insecure networks. It's the nature of business now which demands running the latest technology to be properly protected.
There are still classified networks where the really sensitive data resides (or not as the case may be but the capability for top-secret information to be stored on a classified is possible with the 'classified' label) but for systems accessible on the Internet the information is at most sensitive but unclassified (SBU).
If they don't disclose everything then some people on Slashdot (and elsewhere) will complain that the US government doesn't divulge every last tidbit of information, whether it is related to national security or not. All they care is whether the government lies or not, not whether there is a legitimate reason for doing so.
SO it is plausible he created the universe AND still have the big bang theory still be in harmony.
I don't think they are out of harmony. I believe everything a cosmologist or physicist discovers is further evidence of what the Christian Bible already states (to some degree since the Bible isn't a science text book). The Big Bang is evidence of a Creation for example. Of course some of that evidence is interpreted by people with biases (Fred Hoyle and stead-state is an example of that) and so they try to think of another way to interpret the evidence that does not lend credence to what the Bible says. I don't know how long a day in Genesis really lasted compared to how long we consider a day to last but I still think that how old the Bible says the universe is (after some calculations of course since it isn't explicitly stated) is more accurate compared to what an astronomer think the age is given the fact he has to interpret even moreso than someone reading the Bible.
Except that Scientists don't want to accept that and Zealot, fundamentalist religionsists do not want to acknoledge this.
I think we agree here too for the most part. If religion *was* in science then religious people (they are not fundamental religionists or whatever derogatory term you wish to use or make up) would acknowledge and listen to scientists more often and scientists may even have some eureka moments to help them progress their theories since they would be more open-minded. Both sides win. Taking what I said in my first paragraph, science is really just discovering everything we can about what God has done. Many people, including many scientists, believe science and religion don't mix which I believe couldn't be further from the truth. They have the same subjects of focus but approach them from different angles.
There seems to be too much order in the small and larger details for that to be considered a "random" accident of the universe. On the other hand it coule be random which also seems possible as well. The answer is not conclusivly known for either or, and only human arrogance would presume otherwise.
It could be random except that things aren't random. Properties of the universe are specifically set. The question is why and/or how. Time flows in one direction. Why not in both directions or what we consider the reverse direction? Why is the Big Bang the only exception to something from nothing? Why are we just far enough away from the Sun to not die? Why is our planet tilted to provide us with seasons to help grow crops all year around? Why is water important to our entire planet and is no where to be found in a usable state anywhere else in the universe (as we know it)? Why are the physical, chemical, and nuclear laws as they are? Why didn't the universe collapse upon Creation(this is due to the value of a constant but the question is why is the value as it is and not something eles)? The simple answer to all those questions is because they had to be so that we would have a place to live but the key point is that I believe those properties are set for us; we are not a result of them.
If laymen would look at the world the way scientists can with telescopes, microscopes and particle accelerators they would realize just how awesome this place is and I would think they would have to question how something so complex can be so "random". The universe's complexity is as great as it's size. If everyone realized that they would think twice about its origins. By the way, here is your human arrogance:
Plait's comment on the age result: 'Some people might say it doesn't look a day over 6000 years. They're wrong.'"
Someone sure does seem full of himself. I guess he has never made a calculation or observation error in his entire life in order to make such a bold claim.
One final note, I enjoyed reading your post. I believe you are open-minded and we need more people like you on this site.
Technology has evolved and what people mostly say is they don't object to bad graphics aliens being shot but as soon as we move it to 3-D and add a bit of blood rather then just random colors it now is violent.
Not quite. Big surprise to hear of a gross generalization on slashdot. Let me set you straight. As soon as we move the games to being life-like then people object. 3D and a bit of blood does not make a game life-like but those are properties of a life-like game. And maybe it's just my perception but we seem to have moved away from using aliens as targets and use humans more often in video games. All those different games based on war come to mind (Call of Duty, Medal of Honor and Metal Gear series). Using humans as targets intead of non-existent aliens brings the experience of the game that much closer to real life.
Of course, most children know it isn't right to shoot humans in real life but not all seem to realize that. Those who do I think are just brought up that way to not care about human life and video games are just another way to lash out at society and serve to only practice their shooting spree plans. Banning video games isn't the answer to that situation just like banning cars isn't the solution for minority of the population who drink a lot and on occasion decide to drink and drive and kill people.
No... no it is not carbon dating, which can only get us a few tens of thousands of years back. In stuff from 400 mya, all the radiocarbon has long since decayed.
Sooooooo...are they just pulling 400 mya out of their ass? If not, care to offer up the way they would date this stuff if no carbon is left to date it?
If Faith Healers wanted "balanced time" for their views in a health class, would you be in favor of that?
The reason this is different is because it's not "a valid alternative theory". It's trying to water down the separation of religion and school.
It is unknown what each teacher will supplement the textbook information with so you can not yet say it is not a valid alternative theory. If, in a health class, teachers chose to teach faith healing as an alternative theory to the textbook information then so be it. It's at the teacher's discretion what they use for supplemental information. By the wording you used it almost seems to me that you are scared that students will be informed of alternative theories, whether they are outlandish or not. Every theory is outlandish at first no matter how closely the theory matches observation. That is especially true for theories which begin paradigm shifts in understanding which is why paradigm shifts take so long.
You assume anything other than students being taught evolution will turn into a sermon and maybe that's where your fear comes into play but it is just an assumption and we all know what assuming does. Alternative theories are not automatically sermons despite what you may fear.
It's strange that 200 years ago religion was allowed in schools and no one complained nor thought it was a violation of any amendment. Between the people currently living and those who lived 200 years ago I think those people had a better idea if something violated the 1st amendment since those who wrote it were still around to actually state what its intentions were had any disputes arisen. Since religion stayed in schools up until a few decades ago without complaints it seems to me that people were just continuing what had already been proven legal 200 years ago. Yet, without any change to the wording of the same amendment that has existed for 200 years and which allowed religion in schools, it has now been used to remove religion from schools.
How do these fancy-pants "scientists" know what happened 442,994,000 years before Earth was created?
For that matter, how do they know it was 443 million years ago and not some other time in the past? Carbon-dating? Sure, if you can trust that it is going to be accurate. What do they have to prove their dating mechanism is even correct? Oh, they don't have proof that it is correct. I guess we have to take their word for it that carbon breaks down *all* the time at the *same* rate. Of course, we weren't around back then to actually measure it's half-life so we don't have a measuring stick to make sure the measuring stick is accurate.
It is reproducible. It gets reproduced constantly in both controlled and natural conditions. Evolution is not a result, it is a process. The process of evolution is easy to document in single celled organisms in almost real-time. It can be followed in plant breeding over longer periods and there are many, many long term mammal and avian breeding experiments (aka domesticated animals) that have tracked the process over the course of thousands of years. The experiments have been run and the process is observable and documented and reproducible.
Great, part of the scientific method for a theory includes a prediction for proving the theory can not only describe observation but predict future observations. So where is the predictions of what evolution will create next? By the way, you need to stop confusing simple micro-evolution (i.e. simple mutations) with that of what most people consider evolution to be which is macro-evolution which dictates speciation. Mutations are easily observable and somewhat predictable given our knowledge of genes and how they can be affected. Show me a prediction of speciation by macro-evolution and then we'll talk. Also, I'd like to see the researchers' results for the experiments spanning thousands of years that resulted in a new species forming. I assume that was indeed the result, otherwise it would just be a bunch of mutations which is only micro-evolution and doesn't explain much (e.g. human origins). What journal was that in by the way?
Considering the deist nature of many of the founders, it's fairly obvious that they were referring to a more naturistic god then that referred to in whatever scripture you might choose.
Or "Nature's God" refers to the Christian God because God created Nature as we know it and as such, Nature's God would be the God, aka the Christian God.
In addition, further down in your quoted text of the DoI, the writers purposely included "Creator". It doesn't state "creators" or "Creators" but "Creator" so just as they believe in a single Creator for Nature they also believed in a Creator for men. I don't see how mention of a "Creator" can mean anything but a not-of-this-world God especially when "Nature's God" is mentioned in the prior sentence. Looking at it another way, why would they mention a "God" at all? They could have easily not have included those words but they did because that was their foundation and it was important enough to them (considering they wouldn't have been around had it not been for their Creator) for mention in foundational documents for the United States of America.
If this was actually done ("all" the evidence), then no one would have the slightest doubt about evolution, anymore than someone looking at the Earth from space would still question a flat earth. The problem is that most people don't want to look at the all the facts, because reality would conflict with their world view. Therefore, they ignore the facts.
It's interesting you say that since the exact same wording could be applied to the opposite side of the argument for people who don't believe in evolution and think that those who do aren't reviewing "all" the evidence correctly or at all. Something similar to this is already done, hopefully, in all schools, that being that text books can only be so up-to-date and for schools that have little to no funding the books could be very old and teachers have to supplement (or correct) what is stated in the books with their own knowledge as they keep up with their own research, etc. (e.g. Pluto is no longer a planet). The fact that in this case the teachers are allowed to supplement the information with *competing* information isn't any different and it's sad to see it takes a bill/law for this to even happen. If stating competing facts and theories is already happening in other subjects (and I don't know if it is but it should be if not) then I don't see why a bill is required to allow the same thing to be done for this specific topic of evolution other than for those who have an agenda and push evolution no matter what the competing facts and theories state.
If evolution is so 100% spot on then evolutionists shouldn't have anything to worry about as far as the potential loss of students who could help them fight for their cause because the students will be able to see for themselves that the competing facts/theories don't support observation and thus will go back to evolution on their own. Isn't that what teaching is supposed to be about? Teach kids the facts and let them come up with their own conclusions. If we purposely leave out facts because of our own agendas and biasses then we are doing a disservice to the students. This pertains to ANY subject not just evolution.
Actually, it is more like the older users (as in, used a computer more in their lifetime), are more aware of what concequences the ISP can really do. After all, they AREN'T the copyright holders. They aren't the police. "And what the hell are you doing looking at my traffic anyway? If you are going to be like that, I'll just go somewhere else!"
That is possible except the poll said that younger people showed they would be more likely to change their behavior not the older people so although you have a good theory it doesn't seem to match the (unscientific) poll.
Nearly every ISP on the planet has terms of service, and almost all of them have provisions regarding the unauthorized distribution of copywritten material, child porn, hate speech, and so on.
Yeah gotta love that. They should take a look at their own news servers to see they violate their own ToS.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess there is no reason for the U.S. to have any armed forces because, with your logic, anytime we would actually attempt to use those armed forces and any one member of those forces die then it would be considered incompetence by the President. No President would ever use the armed forces if he would be considered incompetent if the people who volunteer to put themselves in harms way to defend their country would actually be killed doing so.
The sheer fact a person makes the wrong decision about something doesn't mean the person is incompetent. You have to look at why they were wrong. In the case of the President, the information he uses to make his decisions is based on advisors and intelligence reports. If those sources of information indicate a threat then most likely a President is going to act on the information. If it turns out the information is wrong that doesn't mean the President is incompetent because he acted competently given the information he had at his disposal. If anything you would have to say the intelligence agencies are incompetent for not verifying the information they gather.
Reversing the situation, if he was told Iraq had WMDs and he ignored it and Iraq had used the WMDs to attack the U.S. and millions of people die then you and many others would have called him incompetent for not acting on what we have to assume would have been credible intelligence information. Given the fact he acted the way he should have based on the information he had, it wasn't incompetence in my opinion.
The President wasn't over in Iraq searching bunkers and what not for the WMDs. There were intelligence forces that determined Iraq had WMDs and this information was passed to the President. Just because the information that was given to him was wrong and therefore the information he gave us was wrong doesn't mean anyone lied. Intelligence isn't 100% right 100% of the time. The story I heard was that Hussein was spreading rumors he had WMDs in order to prevent Iran from invading his country. Unfortunately this had the side effect that the U.S. got worried and therefore Hussein's remarks to protect his country had the unintended consequence of literally killing him once we got wind of the supposed WMDs. If he was so blatantly advertising he had WMDs to make Iran think twice about its own invasion it isn't any surprise that our intelligence forces picked up on it and passed it off to the President as is their job to do so. Bush was only relaying information and relying on those who he trusts.
Can you prove to the contrary he (or his advisors) blatantly lied about the WMDs as opposed to simply being misinformed? The information the U.S. intelligence forces had seemed credible. If anything, Hussein was the liar but it was more like a bluff but he wasn't bluffing because of us but Iran.
You won't have to wait long. Easter is only a couple weeks away but then again the Easter season would start sometime before that. Although I have never figured out when any given holiday season actually starts. Is it 2 weeks prior to the day of the holiday? 1 week?
Soon Chicagoans will be pissed, if they aren't already, due to a recent sales tax increase.
Not to mention that even cease supporting != disabled, at least not yet. Those who run illegal copies don't use MS support anyway and Service Packs can be provided by friends who have legit copies. I know I'll continue to run XP until I'm forced to run Vista (and I have yet to come up with a reason where I'd be forced to switch). Many users still run Win98; what MS does concerning the lifecycle of a product does not affect end users unless you are a corporation.
I don't consider commercials to be part of reading material. Ads in magazines and commercials on TV are both categorized as advertisements to me though. Yes, I do see lots of ads in magazines for Microsoft products but as far as TV is concerned I probably see 1 new MS commercial (i.e. advertisement for TV as opposed to print) once every few months if not less often. I don't read the Wall Street Journal so I can't speak for it but all the printed ads for MS that I see appear in technical magazines which a regular user would't see in the first place. Even in the WSJ, the readership is specialized. Only a commercial on TV would reach a mass general audience and I'm surprised MS isn't doing more of that. They used to advertise on TV when a new version of Windows was released (IIRC) but I never recall seeing one for Vista. Did anyone else?
These are the same people who when asked what kind of computer they have answer with "black". Also, not many people can associate the maker of the softare they use with the actual software application. You ask them which browser they use and they will say "I don't know. I just click on the blue 'e'." despite the fact that the title bar says "Internet Explorer" 100% of the time the application is open. So I hope you don't expect them to know Microsoft created it if they don't even know its name.
As far as marketing capabilities, I hardly ever see a Microsoft commercial. When I do they don't ever specify any particular product in the commercial. How does that really sell Windows or Office? All the marketing seems to happen behind the scenes from the point of view of the end consumer using deals that happen between OEMs and Microsoft salespeople.
I don't think it is any surprise that companies try to eek every bit of profit out of consumers who want to buy water. It's free to begin with out of the tap and people can buy their own filters but I guess they choose not to and rather spend more money buying it from someone else's tap. Pepsi (Aquafina) was recently in trouble last year because people found out the source of its water wasn't what Pepsi said it was on the bottle. Then during the Super Bowl (IIRC) this year Pepsi ran ads to make up for the bad publicity. The commercial basically told viewers that they filter their water multiple times so that it is as pure as possible. Now Pepsi will be changing the bottle labels. It is not a surprise that Coca-Cola uses tap for Dasani since Pepsi does the same.
In my parents case, I believe they are simply running into Verizon over-subscribing the local node such that at peak times (evenings from around 7-midnight) and sometimes weekends their DSL modem loses the ability to maintain a DHCP lease and if the lease is held no webpages can be downloaded due to lack of available bandwidth. Internal communication works fine because I can reach the internal admin page of their modem/router but anything from their modem/router to the Verizon node doesn't work during those times. But it used to work fine for the first year or so they had the service. Of course they aren't quite savvy enough to explain this to the Verizon support person so the support person will attempt to run through their canned scripts to diagnose the problem and always ask that my parents have an ethernet cable to test but because my parents' PC is using wireless (as well as their laptops) they do not have an ethernet cable which makes the situation all the more frustrating for them. I'm still trying to convince them to switch to Comcast (lesser of 2 evils).
They aren't used interchangeably based on what you quoted. If you notice, they are using a compact disc as the definition for "disc". If I look up "disk" I get:
Definitiondisk, UK ALSO disc
noun [C]
a flat circular device, usually inside a square container, which has a magnetic covering and is used for storing computer information
See also disc; floppy (disk); hard disk.
As you can see, it specifies "magnetic covering". Just because it says "ALSO disc" or "ALSO disk" doesn't mean they are interchangeable, only that other definitions/examples are filed under the other word precisely because there is a distinction.
I wonder what the correct spelling for the disk in SSD is?It is "disk". Most people use "disk" when referring to SSD although some sites in a google search use "disc". Wikipedia uses "disk" as shown here:
Even though solid state disk (SSD) technology has been marketed to the military and niche industrial markets since the mid-1990s, it is only recently that the enterprise sector has taken notice of the benefits that SSDs can offer as key SSD technologies emerge, prices drop and several case studies, along with analyst reports, are published.Charge $5-$10 (like a movie ticket) for everyone who would potentially use a product developed by solving the problem and the money can go to paying the person to solve it. The source of the money isn't the same between an actor being paid and a researcher being paid, therefore you can't make a fair comparison.
I'm not sure how many I have to post before you are convinced but here goes:
Exhibit A (most reliable) from Apple
Exhibit B (least reliable but similar to what you said) is here
Exhibit C (medium reliability) from Washington State University
In the end, I believe they all support what I said.
Just as an FYI and future reference, "disc" is reserved for optical media while "disk" is for magnetic (hard or soft media). So if you have seen CD expanded to "compact disk" it is wrong as far as the nomenclature is concerned. And yes I am aware your ID is a lot lower than mine but when something is factually incorrect it is factually incorrect.
On the surface, it does sound crazy, however in the technologically connected world we live in even secure networks must be connected to inherently insecure networks. Of course, those "secure" networks aren't so secure anymore and that's where IDSs/IPSs, firewalls, etc. come into play. The DoD must be able to communicate with DHS- and DOJ-type agencies at the federal level and probably many other entities at the state level and as such their data must be on those networks in order for full communication to take place. And although that network may itself be a private WAN specifically for that inter-agency communication, some communication must still occur over the Internet (whether via VPN or not). And that's where you run into originally secure networks coming into contact with insecure networks. It's the nature of business now which demands running the latest technology to be properly protected.
There are still classified networks where the really sensitive data resides (or not as the case may be but the capability for top-secret information to be stored on a classified is possible with the 'classified' label) but for systems accessible on the Internet the information is at most sensitive but unclassified (SBU).
If they don't disclose everything then some people on Slashdot (and elsewhere) will complain that the US government doesn't divulge every last tidbit of information, whether it is related to national security or not. All they care is whether the government lies or not, not whether there is a legitimate reason for doing so.
I don't think they are out of harmony. I believe everything a cosmologist or physicist discovers is further evidence of what the Christian Bible already states (to some degree since the Bible isn't a science text book). The Big Bang is evidence of a Creation for example. Of course some of that evidence is interpreted by people with biases (Fred Hoyle and stead-state is an example of that) and so they try to think of another way to interpret the evidence that does not lend credence to what the Bible says. I don't know how long a day in Genesis really lasted compared to how long we consider a day to last but I still think that how old the Bible says the universe is (after some calculations of course since it isn't explicitly stated) is more accurate compared to what an astronomer think the age is given the fact he has to interpret even moreso than someone reading the Bible.
Except that Scientists don't want to accept that and Zealot, fundamentalist religionsists do not want to acknoledge this.I think we agree here too for the most part. If religion *was* in science then religious people (they are not fundamental religionists or whatever derogatory term you wish to use or make up) would acknowledge and listen to scientists more often and scientists may even have some eureka moments to help them progress their theories since they would be more open-minded. Both sides win. Taking what I said in my first paragraph, science is really just discovering everything we can about what God has done. Many people, including many scientists, believe science and religion don't mix which I believe couldn't be further from the truth. They have the same subjects of focus but approach them from different angles.
There seems to be too much order in the small and larger details for that to be considered a "random" accident of the universe. On the other hand it coule be random which also seems possible as well. The answer is not conclusivly known for either or, and only human arrogance would presume otherwise.It could be random except that things aren't random. Properties of the universe are specifically set. The question is why and/or how. Time flows in one direction. Why not in both directions or what we consider the reverse direction? Why is the Big Bang the only exception to something from nothing? Why are we just far enough away from the Sun to not die? Why is our planet tilted to provide us with seasons to help grow crops all year around? Why is water important to our entire planet and is no where to be found in a usable state anywhere else in the universe (as we know it)? Why are the physical, chemical, and nuclear laws as they are? Why didn't the universe collapse upon Creation(this is due to the value of a constant but the question is why is the value as it is and not something eles)? The simple answer to all those questions is because they had to be so that we would have a place to live but the key point is that I believe those properties are set for us; we are not a result of them.
If laymen would look at the world the way scientists can with telescopes, microscopes and particle accelerators they would realize just how awesome this place is and I would think they would have to question how something so complex can be so "random". The universe's complexity is as great as it's size. If everyone realized that they would think twice about its origins. By the way, here is your human arrogance:
Plait's comment on the age result: 'Some people might say it doesn't look a day over 6000 years. They're wrong.'"Someone sure does seem full of himself. I guess he has never made a calculation or observation error in his entire life in order to make such a bold claim.
One final note, I enjoyed reading your post. I believe you are open-minded and we need more people like you on this site.
Not quite. Big surprise to hear of a gross generalization on slashdot. Let me set you straight. As soon as we move the games to being life-like then people object. 3D and a bit of blood does not make a game life-like but those are properties of a life-like game. And maybe it's just my perception but we seem to have moved away from using aliens as targets and use humans more often in video games. All those different games based on war come to mind (Call of Duty, Medal of Honor and Metal Gear series). Using humans as targets intead of non-existent aliens brings the experience of the game that much closer to real life.
Of course, most children know it isn't right to shoot humans in real life but not all seem to realize that. Those who do I think are just brought up that way to not care about human life and video games are just another way to lash out at society and serve to only practice their shooting spree plans. Banning video games isn't the answer to that situation just like banning cars isn't the solution for minority of the population who drink a lot and on occasion decide to drink and drive and kill people.
Sooooooo...are they just pulling 400 mya out of their ass? If not, care to offer up the way they would date this stuff if no carbon is left to date it?
It is unknown what each teacher will supplement the textbook information with so you can not yet say it is not a valid alternative theory. If, in a health class, teachers chose to teach faith healing as an alternative theory to the textbook information then so be it. It's at the teacher's discretion what they use for supplemental information. By the wording you used it almost seems to me that you are scared that students will be informed of alternative theories, whether they are outlandish or not. Every theory is outlandish at first no matter how closely the theory matches observation. That is especially true for theories which begin paradigm shifts in understanding which is why paradigm shifts take so long.
You assume anything other than students being taught evolution will turn into a sermon and maybe that's where your fear comes into play but it is just an assumption and we all know what assuming does. Alternative theories are not automatically sermons despite what you may fear.
It's strange that 200 years ago religion was allowed in schools and no one complained nor thought it was a violation of any amendment. Between the people currently living and those who lived 200 years ago I think those people had a better idea if something violated the 1st amendment since those who wrote it were still around to actually state what its intentions were had any disputes arisen. Since religion stayed in schools up until a few decades ago without complaints it seems to me that people were just continuing what had already been proven legal 200 years ago. Yet, without any change to the wording of the same amendment that has existed for 200 years and which allowed religion in schools, it has now been used to remove religion from schools.
For that matter, how do they know it was 443 million years ago and not some other time in the past? Carbon-dating? Sure, if you can trust that it is going to be accurate. What do they have to prove their dating mechanism is even correct? Oh, they don't have proof that it is correct. I guess we have to take their word for it that carbon breaks down *all* the time at the *same* rate. Of course, we weren't around back then to actually measure it's half-life so we don't have a measuring stick to make sure the measuring stick is accurate.
Great, part of the scientific method for a theory includes a prediction for proving the theory can not only describe observation but predict future observations. So where is the predictions of what evolution will create next? By the way, you need to stop confusing simple micro-evolution (i.e. simple mutations) with that of what most people consider evolution to be which is macro-evolution which dictates speciation. Mutations are easily observable and somewhat predictable given our knowledge of genes and how they can be affected. Show me a prediction of speciation by macro-evolution and then we'll talk. Also, I'd like to see the researchers' results for the experiments spanning thousands of years that resulted in a new species forming. I assume that was indeed the result, otherwise it would just be a bunch of mutations which is only micro-evolution and doesn't explain much (e.g. human origins). What journal was that in by the way?
Or "Nature's God" refers to the Christian God because God created Nature as we know it and as such, Nature's God would be the God, aka the Christian God.
In addition, further down in your quoted text of the DoI, the writers purposely included "Creator". It doesn't state "creators" or "Creators" but "Creator" so just as they believe in a single Creator for Nature they also believed in a Creator for men. I don't see how mention of a "Creator" can mean anything but a not-of-this-world God especially when "Nature's God" is mentioned in the prior sentence. Looking at it another way, why would they mention a "God" at all? They could have easily not have included those words but they did because that was their foundation and it was important enough to them (considering they wouldn't have been around had it not been for their Creator) for mention in foundational documents for the United States of America.
It's interesting you say that since the exact same wording could be applied to the opposite side of the argument for people who don't believe in evolution and think that those who do aren't reviewing "all" the evidence correctly or at all. Something similar to this is already done, hopefully, in all schools, that being that text books can only be so up-to-date and for schools that have little to no funding the books could be very old and teachers have to supplement (or correct) what is stated in the books with their own knowledge as they keep up with their own research, etc. (e.g. Pluto is no longer a planet). The fact that in this case the teachers are allowed to supplement the information with *competing* information isn't any different and it's sad to see it takes a bill/law for this to even happen. If stating competing facts and theories is already happening in other subjects (and I don't know if it is but it should be if not) then I don't see why a bill is required to allow the same thing to be done for this specific topic of evolution other than for those who have an agenda and push evolution no matter what the competing facts and theories state.
If evolution is so 100% spot on then evolutionists shouldn't have anything to worry about as far as the potential loss of students who could help them fight for their cause because the students will be able to see for themselves that the competing facts/theories don't support observation and thus will go back to evolution on their own. Isn't that what teaching is supposed to be about? Teach kids the facts and let them come up with their own conclusions. If we purposely leave out facts because of our own agendas and biasses then we are doing a disservice to the students. This pertains to ANY subject not just evolution.
That is possible except the poll said that younger people showed they would be more likely to change their behavior not the older people so although you have a good theory it doesn't seem to match the (unscientific) poll.
Yeah gotta love that. They should take a look at their own news servers to see they violate their own ToS.