I'm reminded of the statistical rule of thumb that "infinity" (as in, when a t-distribution becomes essentially the same as a z-distribution) is about 45 (42 if you're a Douglas Adams geek).
Well, we don't all have infinite funds. There are also ethical issues: it's unethical to use more subjects than you need.
124 is pretty good for a study to identify an effect. I imagine these guys are biochemists who are after the active ingredients, not population health specialists who want to make recommendations for the general public.
I thought I remembered that Amazon had originally locked the Kindle so installing from other sources was not allowed, then relented. Just like they interfered with other app sources in the browser, then relented.
I'm not saying that OS X/iOS and Android are the same, just that they're less different than many people, including Google, would have you believe, particularly once certain handset manufacturers and carriers get their hands on it.
Google also restricts the use of some of the (closed and proprietary) apps that would be considered part of Android, like the maps app. Many would consider those apps on a smartphone to be at least as essential as the GUI.
The horse has a higher kinetic energy when it hits because of BOTH it's higher mass AND it's higher velocity.
Your (current) post is the one that's misleading. And as someone else pointed out, you're both grossly oversimplifying the problem because the relevant metric is the pressure the tissue experiences when it hits. Nevertheless, either of your explanations are sufficient to demonstrate the principle. The one that doesn't consider different terminal velocities is simpler, and possibly a better starting point for someone who doesn't know much physics.
I took calculus in standard Canadian high school. We started with limits, moved through the fundamental theorem of calculus to solving integrals and derivatives, and finished with problem solving using calculus.
The course was optional, but was highly recommended if you wanted to do science or math in university. The kids who were going to work on the rigs after graduating didn't take it.
"Grades should be based on participation, and how 'far' a student move forward in the subject."
What's the point? Sure, effort marks might make kids feel good, but the point of a grade is to say how well you know a given subject. No, standardized tests might not be the best way to measure that.
The secret stuff generally gets declassified, so the hypothesis is not non-falsifiable. In fact, it's easily testable. Just look back thirty years at what was commonly available, what the government was thought to be up to, and what they actually had. It turns out they probably didn't have magic UFO technology, but they did have things like stealth that were quite a bit beyond what was commonly available. Extrapolating, the US military probably has some interesting capabilities we don't know about, but probably falls well short of the things the conspiracy theorists think they can do.
"it's also possible (at least theoretically) for atoms bombarded by radiation to transmute into radioactive isotopes themselves."
It's a little more than theoretically possible. If you've got an older smoke detector or have ever had a PET scan, you've taken advantage of transmutation to a radioactive isotope.
Both OS X/iOS and Android are OSs with open portions and closed portions. Both have an open kernel. There are various open GUIs available for both. Manufacturers also make closed GUIs, for both. Parts of both systems on actual devices, particularly cell phones, are invariably closed (the baseband, for example). Manufacturers also provide a variety of closed applications for both OSs, many of which are installed by default and in some cases, on both OSs, may not be removable.
If you buy a phone from Google you're going to get something considerably more open than a phone from Apple. But if you buy a tablet from Amazon, you're going to get something pretty much as locked down as a tablet from Apple.
There ARE incredible adaptations out there, it's just that the "if a $YOUR_CHOICE_OF_SMALL_INSECT were the size of a man it could $AMAZING_FEAT_HERE" stuff isn't. It's simply a meaningless linear extrapolation when the proper function is quadratic or cubic (or higher).
Yes, if a man could cover the same number of lengths of his body as an ant in the same amount of time, he might be running 1500 km/h. So? If the Empire State building could cover the same number of lengths of it's height as I can when running, it would be running at 8000 km/h.
There are manufacturer specific Android versions that are locked down as far as installing apps as well. And I bet those manufacturer specific GUIs aren't open.
The differences are less than you'd like to think.
If a man were the size of an ant, he'd be able to run the same speed. The "feats" of insects aren't due to incredible adaptations, they're due to you extrapolating using the wrong function.
His explanation was correct, just not complete. Dynamics becomes quite a bit more complicated when you include air resistance. In this case, unnecessarily complicated. He made a simplification that illustrates the point, gets the right answer, and greatly simplifies the problem. A simplification just like your spherical horse. So stop being pedantic.
I didn't say Genesis, or any other holy book is accurate, reliable, or free of contradictions. You quoted a holy book then made a statement about a god, so I quoted a holy book to contradict you. It's a fun game to play with people who think holy books are evidence of some kind.
"We see slow ongoing changes in the fossil record but there is no shortage of "flood" events. Where we see rapid change as well. Many species becoming extinct and rapid changes in others."
Which has nothing to do with the fact that the flood, even if it were true, doesn't explain the fossil evidence, as evolution does. The quote you gave in response to Leakey's assertion that holy books do not explain evolutionary changes over long periods of time was about the flood. Were you just throwing out random quotes then?
"The logic of "Genesis didn't tell us about this" is weak. What do people expect to be told about their origins by the Creator?"
People who hold that evolution is not true because it is not described in the bible are basing their arguments mostly on that fact. And that IS what we're talking about here.
Perhaps I should have said "origin of present day life" to avoid pedantic responses, but evolution DOES describe the origin of life.
Evolution is not just a theory of the origin of species. It does describe how species come to be, but that's a minor prediction. Evolution is a theory of how life changes over time. It describes everything about how life came to it's present state, except the formation of the very first self-reproducing molecule. So according to evolution, the origin of life is a molecule that can reproduce itself. The theory doesn't explain how that molecule came to be, but it explains everything that followed.
The oldest manuscripts of Genesis, from the Greek Septuagint, are from the fourth century. The authoritative Jewish copy is the Hebrew Masoretic text, from the middle ages. Tradition and various historical evidence suggest that the story is certainly older than that, but the "book" Genesis that you can read today is based on a text that is 1000 to 1300 years old. The dead sea scrolls do show that the Masoretic text isn't an entirely faithful copy of earlier works.
Of course, most Jewish sects have no problem with evolution. The "noisy nutcases" the OP is referring to are almost certainly certain Christian groups, almost exclusively located in the US. As such, they're basing their opinions on English interpretations of Genesis, most of which date from sometime in the last 500 years or so. And the translation is very much the story when you're talking about creationists. Hebrew text is notoriously difficult to translate accurately. Most Jewish sects hold that you can't understand the written texts without the aid of the oral tradition. If your argument is based on a few particular interpretive choices in the story then I would very much say that your source is only as old as the particular interpretation/translation.
Unregulated private sale of "non-military" firearms (which include pistols of.38 calibre and smaller), which are supposed to be licensed but usually aren't. That doesn't really sound like strict gun control.
Note also that "gun control" includes both laws and the ability to enforce them. Mexico has a bit of a problem with the ability to enforce any laws at all in some places.
I agree with you that culture and other factors play a role - Switzerland is famous for having lots of guns, but then everyone who has one likely also has military training.
Also, congratulations, you're the first reply with an intelligent counterargument. Unfortunately the other replies don't really provide any reassurance that the average American in favour of relaxed gun laws should be trusted with a weapon.
Your first two links demonstrate that you apparently don't know what "modern" means. Your last link is the story of an invading force fighting a very unpopular war a long way from home. The outcome of the Vietnam war was determined in the US, not in Vietnam.
If true then Americans are fooling themselves. Criminals aren't idiots, and most will not commit a murder except by accident. The average burglar in non-gun obsessed countries runs away when confronted. Getting caught by the homeowner is a no brainer - run away and the burglary MIGHT get reported, MIGHT get investigated, and in the unlikely event you actually get arrested, attempted burglary doesn't carry a huge penalty. But if you kill the homeowner it will DEFINITELY get reported, DEFINITELY be investigated, and the solved rate on homicides in most western nations is pretty good, so you've got a good chance of doing hard time.
Countries with reasonable gun control have much lower rates of violent crime. Since you seem to be American, you have only to look north.
Socialized healthcare is cheaper than that crazy system you guys have. The argument for public health measures is that epidemic poor health is bad for the economy, hurts the community in a variety of ways, and most people just don't like to see others dropping dead around them all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm reminded of the statistical rule of thumb that "infinity" (as in, when a t-distribution becomes essentially the same as a z-distribution) is about 45 (42 if you're a Douglas Adams geek).
Well, we don't all have infinite funds. There are also ethical issues: it's unethical to use more subjects than you need.
124 is pretty good for a study to identify an effect. I imagine these guys are biochemists who are after the active ingredients, not population health specialists who want to make recommendations for the general public.
I thought I remembered that Amazon had originally locked the Kindle so installing from other sources was not allowed, then relented. Just like they interfered with other app sources in the browser, then relented.
I'm not saying that OS X/iOS and Android are the same, just that they're less different than many people, including Google, would have you believe, particularly once certain handset manufacturers and carriers get their hands on it.
Google also restricts the use of some of the (closed and proprietary) apps that would be considered part of Android, like the maps app. Many would consider those apps on a smartphone to be at least as essential as the GUI.
The horse has a higher kinetic energy when it hits because of BOTH it's higher mass AND it's higher velocity.
Your (current) post is the one that's misleading. And as someone else pointed out, you're both grossly oversimplifying the problem because the relevant metric is the pressure the tissue experiences when it hits. Nevertheless, either of your explanations are sufficient to demonstrate the principle. The one that doesn't consider different terminal velocities is simpler, and possibly a better starting point for someone who doesn't know much physics.
I took calculus in standard Canadian high school. We started with limits, moved through the fundamental theorem of calculus to solving integrals and derivatives, and finished with problem solving using calculus.
The course was optional, but was highly recommended if you wanted to do science or math in university. The kids who were going to work on the rigs after graduating didn't take it.
"Grades should be based on participation, and how 'far' a student move forward in the subject."
What's the point? Sure, effort marks might make kids feel good, but the point of a grade is to say how well you know a given subject. No, standardized tests might not be the best way to measure that.
"conveniently non-falsifiable"
The secret stuff generally gets declassified, so the hypothesis is not non-falsifiable. In fact, it's easily testable. Just look back thirty years at what was commonly available, what the government was thought to be up to, and what they actually had. It turns out they probably didn't have magic UFO technology, but they did have things like stealth that were quite a bit beyond what was commonly available. Extrapolating, the US military probably has some interesting capabilities we don't know about, but probably falls well short of the things the conspiracy theorists think they can do.
"it's also possible (at least theoretically) for atoms bombarded by radiation to transmute into radioactive isotopes themselves."
It's a little more than theoretically possible. If you've got an older smoke detector or have ever had a PET scan, you've taken advantage of transmutation to a radioactive isotope.
To both your points: so?
Both OS X/iOS and Android are OSs with open portions and closed portions. Both have an open kernel. There are various open GUIs available for both. Manufacturers also make closed GUIs, for both. Parts of both systems on actual devices, particularly cell phones, are invariably closed (the baseband, for example). Manufacturers also provide a variety of closed applications for both OSs, many of which are installed by default and in some cases, on both OSs, may not be removable.
If you buy a phone from Google you're going to get something considerably more open than a phone from Apple. But if you buy a tablet from Amazon, you're going to get something pretty much as locked down as a tablet from Apple.
There ARE incredible adaptations out there, it's just that the "if a $YOUR_CHOICE_OF_SMALL_INSECT were the size of a man it could $AMAZING_FEAT_HERE" stuff isn't. It's simply a meaningless linear extrapolation when the proper function is quadratic or cubic (or higher).
Yes, if a man could cover the same number of lengths of his body as an ant in the same amount of time, he might be running 1500 km/h. So? If the Empire State building could cover the same number of lengths of it's height as I can when running, it would be running at 8000 km/h.
There are manufacturer specific Android versions that are locked down as far as installing apps as well. And I bet those manufacturer specific GUIs aren't open.
The differences are less than you'd like to think.
If a man were the size of an ant, he'd be able to run the same speed. The "feats" of insects aren't due to incredible adaptations, they're due to you extrapolating using the wrong function.
His explanation was correct, just not complete. Dynamics becomes quite a bit more complicated when you include air resistance. In this case, unnecessarily complicated. He made a simplification that illustrates the point, gets the right answer, and greatly simplifies the problem. A simplification just like your spherical horse. So stop being pedantic.
So it's just like OS X or iOS.
No, it's potentially inaccurate for things that were alive in 775 and later. If the shroud was growing plants after 774 then it is a fake.
"Men and women have faults, does God as well?"
I didn't say Genesis, or any other holy book is accurate, reliable, or free of contradictions. You quoted a holy book then made a statement about a god, so I quoted a holy book to contradict you. It's a fun game to play with people who think holy books are evidence of some kind.
"We see slow ongoing changes in the fossil record but there is no shortage of "flood" events. Where we see rapid change as well. Many species becoming extinct and rapid changes in others."
Which has nothing to do with the fact that the flood, even if it were true, doesn't explain the fossil evidence, as evolution does. The quote you gave in response to Leakey's assertion that holy books do not explain evolutionary changes over long periods of time was about the flood. Were you just throwing out random quotes then?
"The logic of "Genesis didn't tell us about this" is weak. What do people expect to be told about their origins by the Creator?"
People who hold that evolution is not true because it is not described in the bible are basing their arguments mostly on that fact. And that IS what we're talking about here.
Perhaps I should have said "origin of present day life" to avoid pedantic responses, but evolution DOES describe the origin of life.
Evolution is not just a theory of the origin of species. It does describe how species come to be, but that's a minor prediction. Evolution is a theory of how life changes over time. It describes everything about how life came to it's present state, except the formation of the very first self-reproducing molecule. So according to evolution, the origin of life is a molecule that can reproduce itself. The theory doesn't explain how that molecule came to be, but it explains everything that followed.
The oldest manuscripts of Genesis, from the Greek Septuagint, are from the fourth century. The authoritative Jewish copy is the Hebrew Masoretic text, from the middle ages. Tradition and various historical evidence suggest that the story is certainly older than that, but the "book" Genesis that you can read today is based on a text that is 1000 to 1300 years old. The dead sea scrolls do show that the Masoretic text isn't an entirely faithful copy of earlier works.
Of course, most Jewish sects have no problem with evolution. The "noisy nutcases" the OP is referring to are almost certainly certain Christian groups, almost exclusively located in the US. As such, they're basing their opinions on English interpretations of Genesis, most of which date from sometime in the last 500 years or so. And the translation is very much the story when you're talking about creationists. Hebrew text is notoriously difficult to translate accurately. Most Jewish sects hold that you can't understand the written texts without the aid of the oral tradition. If your argument is based on a few particular interpretive choices in the story then I would very much say that your source is only as old as the particular interpretation/translation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Mexico
Unregulated private sale of "non-military" firearms (which include pistols of .38 calibre and smaller), which are supposed to be licensed but usually aren't. That doesn't really sound like strict gun control.
Note also that "gun control" includes both laws and the ability to enforce them. Mexico has a bit of a problem with the ability to enforce any laws at all in some places.
I agree with you that culture and other factors play a role - Switzerland is famous for having lots of guns, but then everyone who has one likely also has military training.
Also, congratulations, you're the first reply with an intelligent counterargument. Unfortunately the other replies don't really provide any reassurance that the average American in favour of relaxed gun laws should be trusted with a weapon.
With all the arguing you'd think there was more at stake than just how much plastic to cut off the old design.
Your first two links demonstrate that you apparently don't know what "modern" means. Your last link is the story of an invading force fighting a very unpopular war a long way from home. The outcome of the Vietnam war was determined in the US, not in Vietnam.
If true then Americans are fooling themselves. Criminals aren't idiots, and most will not commit a murder except by accident. The average burglar in non-gun obsessed countries runs away when confronted. Getting caught by the homeowner is a no brainer - run away and the burglary MIGHT get reported, MIGHT get investigated, and in the unlikely event you actually get arrested, attempted burglary doesn't carry a huge penalty. But if you kill the homeowner it will DEFINITELY get reported, DEFINITELY be investigated, and the solved rate on homicides in most western nations is pretty good, so you've got a good chance of doing hard time.
Countries with reasonable gun control have much lower rates of violent crime. Since you seem to be American, you have only to look north.
Socialized healthcare is cheaper than that crazy system you guys have. The argument for public health measures is that epidemic poor health is bad for the economy, hurts the community in a variety of ways, and most people just don't like to see others dropping dead around them all the time.
The Fourier transform is in the public domain. And oddly enough, Google has a music store.
Of course, they already DO this.
Contact information changes, and frequently the paper only carries contact info for one author.