I disagree. One of easiest ways for proponents of ID to attack science is that many scientists bandy about words like "proof" rather than talking about likelihood. The less of that, the better.
Good GOD! Maybe he was depressed because his theory left him no HOPE! At least with my belief in God, I have some hope that the world situation won't suck as much as it does now, but what hope do people have who REFUSE to believe in ANY higher power?
We don't refuse. Refusal implies a choice; I suppose we could pretend to believe in something, but who would we really be kidding? Personally, I think that my interpretation of the world, in which suffering is a side-effect of the laws of physics, is less hopeless than yours, in which suffering is all part of God's plan.
Friend, even if we had been observing "this" and "that" over the entire timescale your church elders would have you believe the earth has existed, we still wouldn't see any "half and half". You've got to think bigger.
In which case, how can you ever mix GPL and non-GPL code? I mean, even if your GPL GSM stack is running on a different chip, you've got to interface with it somehow, right?
I'd rather the EU was spending my tax euros on something of more immediate consequence - like a new generation of nuclear reactors, or advanced solar power plants
Of course you can. The question is: What happens next?
Indeed. Some might even say that question was implied from the context. To apply the same level of pedantry to your response: you don't have to evaluate anything if you want to distribute the code. Which is to say: the laws of physics do not compel you to.
Seconded. It's such a good book that it's partly responsible for my wife and me getting together -- having read it on my recommendation she suspected that we would make good soul mates:)
These people in the photos are believed to be "cashers," low-level players, in a scheme devised from some mastermind -- a dangerous computer hacker or hacking ring authorities fear could strike again.
The implication being that they are dangerous in the sense of "do not approach these hackers, they are armed and dangerous". But there was nothing in the article to suggest they meant dangerous in any other sense than being dangerous to the profits of banks.
It's when the eye candy gets in the way of the functionality that it becomes a problem. (To stretch your analogy, you can never go out with your beautiful girlfriend, because she takes all night to put her make-up and clothes on.)
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. One of easiest ways for proponents of ID to attack science is that many scientists bandy about words like "proof" rather than talking about likelihood. The less of that, the better.
I hadn't noticed, but I sure do now :)
The article author's suggestion of an alternative title for what people commonly refer to as Darwinism was indeed rather conspicuous in its absence.
Good GOD! Maybe he was depressed because his theory left him no HOPE! At least with my belief in God, I have some hope that the world situation won't suck as much as it does now, but what hope do people have who REFUSE to believe in ANY higher power?
We don't refuse. Refusal implies a choice; I suppose we could pretend to believe in something, but who would we really be kidding? Personally, I think that my interpretation of the world, in which suffering is a side-effect of the laws of physics, is less hopeless than yours, in which suffering is all part of God's plan.
+5, All Things Dull And Ugly
Slashdotters already do live on pizzas and coke, without ever reproducing, you insensitive clod!
Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously.
[if evolution is falsified] then The Bible is correct
Have you always have the reasoning capabilities of a fruitfly, or is this a relatively recent acquisition?
No skeleton of a half of this and a half of that.
Friend, even if we had been observing "this" and "that" over the entire timescale your church elders would have you believe the earth has existed, we still wouldn't see any "half and half". You've got to think bigger.
Not at all. "How To Falsify X" is a necessary part of the evaluation of any scientific theory X.
In which case, how can you ever mix GPL and non-GPL code? I mean, even if your GPL GSM stack is running on a different chip, you've got to interface with it somehow, right?
I'd rather the EU was spending my tax euros on something of more immediate consequence - like a new generation of nuclear reactors, or advanced solar power plants
Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of research?
Listen pal, it ain't as easy as you would think to do things as they are done here.
Perhaps you could elaborate? Many of us do difficult jobs and still know what year it is.
You were a bit keen!
Impostor. The true morgan_greywolf would not have said something as inanely stupid as that.
Of course you can. The question is: What happens next?
Indeed. Some might even say that question was implied from the context. To apply the same level of pedantry to your response: you don't have to evaluate anything if you want to distribute the code. Which is to say: the laws of physics do not compel you to.
Can you #include header files from GPLed code in proprietary code?
Because government is for the people, not for the person ;)
Seconded. It's such a good book that it's partly responsible for my wife and me getting together -- having read it on my recommendation she suspected that we would make good soul mates :)
If this law to track citizens' movement were passed in America, we would exercise our second amendment rights
I hear this sort of thing a lot from Americans, but it really isn't borne out by the evidence.
It is also true that those who are ethically unencumbered are more likely to win the races they enter than anyone who tries to follow the rules.
Apparently if you smoke a little weed every now and again you can kick ass in the swimming pool.
These people in the photos are believed to be "cashers," low-level players, in a scheme devised from some mastermind -- a dangerous computer hacker or hacking ring authorities fear could strike again.
The implication being that they are dangerous in the sense of "do not approach these hackers, they are armed and dangerous". But there was nothing in the article to suggest they meant dangerous in any other sense than being dangerous to the profits of banks.
It's when the eye candy gets in the way of the functionality that it becomes a problem. (To stretch your analogy, you can never go out with your beautiful girlfriend, because she takes all night to put her make-up and clothes on.)
System Preferences -> Keyboard & Mouse -> Keyboard Shortcuts -> Full Keyboard Access -> All Controls.
I wouldn't dream of using OS X any other way.
Amateur!
Imagine a future water cooler conversation over broadband choice: 'I went with Comcast 'cause they get Yahoo.'"
That's ESPN's vision. The reality is: "I started using Google cause Yahoo! stopped working."