7 lions, 7 gazelle. Same problem. 20 lions, 20 gazelle. Same problem. A lion can eat a gazelle a day.
Of course, the whole "not eating" part isn't mentioned. Seems kind of important to note, in retrospect, don't you think?
The purpose of natural science is to determine the "best model" for the world, wherein this best model is best at predicting events in the past and future yet unknown, while also valuing the simplest of all equivalent choices to a certain degree.
Who cares if you're in the Matrix, if you can't get out? You'd better learn the rules of the game. Hence, science and philosophy.
because you couldn't even begin to explain how lions subsisted on plants with their digestive systems and teeth wholly unsuited for consuming it. So what, did they start out with those attributes and then slowly evolve into carnivores, all at the same time?
means to base an argument on a assumption that is entangled with the conclusion.
The evidence is abundantly clear that in the last 6,000 years the world has seen dramatic climatic change due to a waning ice age. Moreover tectonic action has moved continents around and exposed land to various conditions (aquatic, stormy, dry, etc.) over much longer periods of time which some choose to explain by "flood" of more recent time.
The use of erosion evidence to support the flood conclusion presupposes that these natural processes cannot be the more likely explanation. Rather, that the earth really is 6,000 years young, and the land could not have seen these changes in that period of time, which they have derived from the Bible. But the truth of the Bible is the conclusion of the flood argument. That is, if evidence can be found of a flood, then you have "demonstrated" that the Bible must also be true.
But that is a circular argument. That the Bible holds the absolute truth was presupposed, hence "begging the question".
This is basically the same conclusion that Godels theorem comes to: one of those unprovable statements in an axiomatic system. And God is used as sort of this "catch all" that can be twisted to support any conclusion (like those maths "proofs" that demonstrate how 0 = 1 or whatever)
The Bible is full of "axioms" and not everyone agrees on which ones should be treated thus. We have no standard, other than precedence (which can be tainted by those who wish to uphold the status quo).
You can't reasonably expect to apply logic to it, and if you want to stake important decisions on it, well that's your problem.
That is why persons such as myself eschew all of it in favor of simpler systems of belief (or none at all).
The evidence of finding water damage in places that are "obviously dry" is only significant to supporting the flood if you also believe that the Earth's geology and climate hasn't changed since it was created, or not at least until right afterward.
These beliefs tend to appear in concert. This "evidence of the Great Flood" begs the question that the earth is unchanging.
An attribute of which I would stake a King's ransom against.
I'm going to safely assume you are not a zoologist or botanist.
What do you think is the first thing the lions would do when they left the ark?
EAT THE MEASLEY TWO GAZELLES. Oops, no more gazelles.
You can argue it all you want, but the gestation period of any 3 generations of gazelles, zebras, or whatever required to even begin feeding the a single generation of lions or other carnivores would mean a lot of carnivores would go hungry if everyone started with a PAIR at the same time.
You can't just "start up" the food chain like that. Ever do a "rabbit and foxes" related rates problem in diff eq? The stable state is impossible to achieve with a deficit of prey in the initial conditions.
The birth, death, and assimilation of nations and cultures. The lineages of language and writing forms. Breedign of domesticated animals. Erosion of landmass, and tectonic activity.
Genetic algorithms.
The world is ever changing. Those who do not see that have deluded themselves. I find the idea of shoving a bunch of animals onto a boat quite ludicrous compared to the obvious fluid nature of reality, of which evolution is a obvious conclusion.
This is basically an FPGA married to a RISC processor. So if you have a bit of RISC code that can be simulated using the FPGA portion, and you have enough spare cells to add it, and it takes 10 clock cycles for the FPGA "user instruction" to dispatch, but it takes 200 to do it outright in the original RISC instructions, then you're experiencing a 20 to 1 speed increase for that bit. You speed up the function without overclocking. Actually what you've done is "trade off".
He could have posted clearer, if he wasn't trying for first post.
Linux + Windows in one purchase price, I'd actually consider paying for it.
But they list digital zoom as a "plus"...
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 1
like as if it made a difference quality-wise. 16x!!! (in small print "combined optical and digital zoom). That's BS.
Sure. It's nice to have a zoom feature. But since it's essentially free, they should list it as a bullet point and not try to impress you with an absurdly high potential zoom ratio.
Anime Music Videos, demoscene compo-paks, and other nicities are often found on P2P networks too... it's all those people trading their WaReZ and illegal MP3Z and DVD rips on it that are giving it a bad name.
Yaaddaa yadda yyadda. Everything can be used for ill or good.
very simple example of 15 servers in 3U. Many vendors are also offering a "dual dual" system in 1U... that is a two dual CPU motherboards that fit in one case.
BTW, I was quite surprised to hear about the part about CostCo's success with it's farier treatment of employees. I much prefer shopping at CostCo than I do at Sam's Club. (At the very least, the free samples of various food they hand out make shopping less monotonous) Coincidence? I think not.
Do yourself a favor, slashdot, and get a membership. It's worth it.
you cannot claim to have conclusive evidence of anything when billions of people around the world, looking at the exact same evidence, draw the opposite conclusion
Wait a minute... which ones? It seems to me all of them come to differing and mutually exclusive conclusions. Most acknowledged atheists look at this and deduce that the truth must be the intersection, namely THE EMPTY SET. Unless religion and dieties are somehow a socially-local phenomenon. Which is interesting in and of itself (which means atheists are also correct as far as they are concerned).
So I guess it really doesn't matter at all, then, what anyone thinks.:-)
1) I can say "M$ is dumb" and no one will mod me down flamebait.
2) I can't say "Christianity is dumb", I'll get modded into the floor.
Statements 1 and 2 are opinions. Statements 1 and 2 are opinions often held by nerdish people. So why the double standard? Does everyone assume that it's not okay to put down peoples beliefs that have nothing to do with technology?
In this case the fields intersect. I don't think I should be modded down for expressing my opinion, especially in this case.
And just cause I'm cussing. Fuck, I always cuss. It's because I'm tired of people who write: Holy S*** and FU in their posts. As if the slashdot regex matching police were going to come and get them.
Slashdot Mirror
7 lions, 7 gazelle. Same problem.
20 lions, 20 gazelle. Same problem.
A lion can eat a gazelle a day.
Of course, the whole "not eating" part isn't mentioned. Seems kind of important to note, in retrospect, don't you think?
The purpose of natural science is to determine the "best model" for the world, wherein this best model is best at predicting events in the past and future yet unknown, while also valuing the simplest of all equivalent choices to a certain degree.
Who cares if you're in the Matrix, if you can't get out? You'd better learn the rules of the game. Hence, science and philosophy.
because you couldn't even begin to explain how lions subsisted on plants with their digestive systems and teeth wholly unsuited for consuming it. So what, did they start out with those attributes and then slowly evolve into carnivores, all at the same time?
Oh wait, I thought evolution was bunk.
I debated adding this additional point... Thanks. I didn't want to beat it to death.
means to base an argument on a assumption that is entangled with the conclusion.
The evidence is abundantly clear that in the last 6,000 years the world has seen dramatic climatic change due to a waning ice age. Moreover tectonic action has moved continents around and exposed land to various conditions (aquatic, stormy, dry, etc.) over much longer periods of time which some choose to explain by "flood" of more recent time.
The use of erosion evidence to support the flood conclusion presupposes that these natural processes cannot be the more likely explanation. Rather, that the earth really is 6,000 years young, and the land could not have seen these changes in that period of time, which they have derived from the Bible. But the truth of the Bible is the conclusion of the flood argument. That is, if evidence can be found of a flood, then you have "demonstrated" that the Bible must also be true.
But that is a circular argument. That the Bible holds the absolute truth was presupposed, hence "begging the question".
A lot of LCD for your money. No fancy designs, just a straight OEM ship.
Buy two, and place them side by side. Ownage.
Most of us are just too polite to reply in jest or are worried about our "precious karma"
::cat calls::
I could care less.
Which would you rather such a person be:
Christian, or Athiest?
Next question... who would you rather have in your company if that were the case?
This is basically the same conclusion that Godels theorem comes to: one of those unprovable statements in an axiomatic system. And God is used as sort of this "catch all" that can be twisted to support any conclusion (like those maths "proofs" that demonstrate how 0 = 1 or whatever)
The Bible is full of "axioms" and not everyone agrees on which ones should be treated thus. We have no standard, other than precedence (which can be tainted by those who wish to uphold the status quo).
You can't reasonably expect to apply logic to it, and if you want to stake important decisions on it, well that's your problem.
That is why persons such as myself eschew all of it in favor of simpler systems of belief (or none at all).
The evidence of finding water damage in places that are "obviously dry" is only significant to supporting the flood if you also believe that the Earth's geology and climate hasn't changed since it was created, or not at least until right afterward.
These beliefs tend to appear in concert. This "evidence of the Great Flood" begs the question that the earth is unchanging.
An attribute of which I would stake a King's ransom against.
I'm going to safely assume you are not a zoologist or botanist.
What do you think is the first thing the lions would do when they left the ark?
EAT THE MEASLEY TWO GAZELLES. Oops, no more gazelles.
You can argue it all you want, but the gestation period of any 3 generations of gazelles, zebras, or whatever required to even begin feeding the a single generation of lions or other carnivores would mean a lot of carnivores would go hungry if everyone started with a PAIR at the same time.
You can't just "start up" the food chain like that. Ever do a "rabbit and foxes" related rates problem in diff eq? The stable state is impossible to achieve with a deficit of prey in the initial conditions.
A little thought is dangerous.
in things other than biological processes.
The birth, death, and assimilation of nations and cultures. The lineages of language and writing forms. Breedign of domesticated animals. Erosion of landmass, and tectonic activity.
Genetic algorithms.
The world is ever changing. Those who do not see that have deluded themselves. I find the idea of shoving a bunch of animals onto a boat quite ludicrous compared to the obvious fluid nature of reality, of which evolution is a obvious conclusion.
we're real he-men. We use runga-kutta ALL THE WAY TO DA MOON!!!
This is basically an FPGA married to a RISC processor. So if you have a bit of RISC code that can be simulated using the FPGA portion, and you have enough spare cells to add it, and it takes 10 clock cycles for the FPGA "user instruction" to dispatch, but it takes 200 to do it outright in the original RISC instructions, then you're experiencing a 20 to 1 speed increase for that bit. You speed up the function without overclocking. Actually what you've done is "trade off".
He could have posted clearer, if he wasn't trying for first post.
Linux + Windows in one purchase price, I'd actually consider paying for it.
like as if it made a difference quality-wise. 16x!!! (in small print "combined optical and digital zoom). That's BS.
Sure. It's nice to have a zoom feature. But since it's essentially free, they should list it as a bullet point and not try to impress you with an absurdly high potential zoom ratio.
Pretty much all of them. ::shrugs::
Anime Music Videos, demoscene compo-paks, and other nicities are often found on P2P networks too... it's all those people trading their WaReZ and illegal MP3Z and DVD rips on it that are giving it a bad name.
Yaaddaa yadda yyadda. Everything can be used for ill or good.
Of course it'd be more difficult to explain that to kids... whereas telling them to not use Kazaa is pretty simple.
I'd like to see 'em try that. They could invade anybody they want!
very simple example of 15 servers in 3U. Many vendors are also offering a "dual dual" system in 1U... that is a two dual CPU motherboards that fit in one case.
BTW, I was quite surprised to hear about the part about CostCo's success with it's farier treatment of employees. I much prefer shopping at CostCo than I do at Sam's Club. (At the very least, the free samples of various food they hand out make shopping less monotonous) Coincidence? I think not.
Do yourself a favor, slashdot, and get a membership. It's worth it.
Durrrh... that's exactly what I was thinking. :-)
you cannot claim to have conclusive evidence of anything when billions of people around the world, looking at the exact same evidence, draw the opposite conclusion
:-)
Wait a minute... which ones? It seems to me all of them come to differing and mutually exclusive conclusions. Most acknowledged atheists look at this and deduce that the truth must be the intersection, namely THE EMPTY SET.
Unless religion and dieties are somehow a socially-local phenomenon. Which is interesting in and of itself (which means atheists are also correct as far as they are concerned).
So I guess it really doesn't matter at all, then, what anyone thinks.
1) I can say "M$ is dumb" and no one will mod me down flamebait.
2) I can't say "Christianity is dumb", I'll get modded into the floor.
Statements 1 and 2 are opinions. Statements 1 and 2 are opinions often held by nerdish people. So why the double standard? Does everyone assume that it's not okay to put down peoples beliefs that have nothing to do with technology?
In this case the fields intersect. I don't think I should be modded down for expressing my opinion, especially in this case.
And just cause I'm cussing. Fuck, I always cuss. It's because I'm tired of people who write: Holy S*** and FU in their posts. As if the slashdot regex matching police were going to come and get them.