Well then they're fucked then aren't they because as we all know most people do not make any choice between going and buying a record and downloading it.
There are a few huge rivers in Siberia with massive catchment areas and they are, apparently, dumping a lot more fresh water into the sea than they used to.
Iraq is nothing more than a mechanism to channel the wealth of both American and Iraqi citizens into the pockets of American companies. So as far as the political leadership are concerned it's a good thing because the companies can now afford to provide more extravagent perks for politicians.
The problem is that it's not illegal for them to be buying Alcohol or Cigarettes but it is illegal for people to sell those things to them so it's not the kids committing a crime but the shops or the people they have talked into buying the stuff for them.
It is a failure of society in so much as these kids parents should be making their kids take part in more productive activities than hanging around on street corners trying to get drunk and it's only a failure of the police insomuch as they don't have sufficient policemen/women and resources to police every shopping arcade throughout every night.
The police will take the kids names and attempt to disperse them but I don't think loitering is actually in crime in the UK and the time and effort required to process it as a crime would probably be prohibitive. The police can now issue ASBOS against persistant trouble makers or nuisances but these aren't a magic bullet and there are always more kids in search of places to hang around.
I'm not sure whether loitering is exactly illegal but the police do have various powers to stop people congregating in groups of more than about 3 and will generally ask groups causing the kind of nuisance this device is designed for to "Move On". The problem is the group just moves somewhere else and makes a nuisance of it's self there instead.
I don't know what it's like in the US but in the UK most housing estates have small rows of shops, usually a group of convienence store, off licence and chip shop/takeaway. You can pretty much guarantee that by around 8pm there will be a group of kids hanging around outside these shops, usually trying to get people to buy them cigarettes and alcohol.
A lot of the time these groups probably aren't causing any trouble but some of the time they will be vandalising things, harassing people walking past or to and from the shops, arguing and fighting with each other and in a lot of cases taking drugs. Generally groups of teenagers are quite loud and noticable anyway and because people know that these groups do behave illegally and cause them problems some of the time they anticipate they will be doing those things whenever they see them.
Being able to turn on this device for short periods, long enough to make the group outside your shop seems like a good idea but will most probably lead to some vandalism of your premises by disgruntled teenagers. I don't see why shopkeepers would need the device on all the time - just long enough to cause the problem to go elsewhere.
Re:If KDE is so advanced, why gnome?
on
KDE 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 1
The trouble with your idea is that different people have different ideas about what constitutes better. Gnome think their system is better whilst KDE, Enlightenment etc think there's are better.
The great thing is they are probably all right once you realise they are motivated by different goals. What this means for the rest of us is that rather than having only one system to choose from doing things in only one way we can choose one which does things the way we think is mostly better for us.
On a completely unrelated topic, why does Internet Explorer insist on refreshing pages when you press the "back button" and wiping out all the information you typed in forms. Is there any way to stop that ( if you are at work and unable to upgrade to a proper browser ).
Not so sure about that, I think a lot of American immigrants from the British Isles came from Scotland & Ireland to avoid the various famines and lack of food in those places. I don't think the Scottish & Irish people who didn't emigrate are as fat as Americans now.
I don't know about this, I used to be very active up until my early 20's and since then I have been very lazy although occasionaly I can become very active again for short periods if necessary I prefer being lazy.
I think the good Dr has been a rather unfortunate here, by the sounds of it his researchers are entirely to blame. However he is ultimately responsible for the actions of his staff and this is why he has taken the decision to resign from his public appointments.
I wish more public figures acted with this level of integrity. We are seeing situations arise increasingly frequently where it turns out that no blame at all attaches it's self to public figures no matter what they or there staff/departments may have been engaged in and I hope the actions of this Dr can be a lesson to the next government minister who discovers his department has been acting illegally and realises that the excuse they didn't really bother to keep up to date with what their department was doing is not good enough.
I don't know where you live exactly but where I live, in Birmingham, there are hundreds of buildings, parks, squares, bus stations, railway stations etc which have been built with EU funds which in total I am sure comes to way way more than the couple of million being spent here.
I would have preferred to see Feersum Endjin in place of Consider Phlebas because whilst both of them are great books I think Feersum Endjin is an amazingly great book.
"...logically comes from ideas/observations like the anthropic principle, irreducible complexity, information theory, and so on"
OK, so which of these are observations then and have you ( or ID theorists in general ) observed anything which is actually irreduciably complex ?
The basis of ID is not that you have observed anything which is irreduciably complex or observed anything in nature which leads to the idea of an intelligent designer but the idea that God or a deity of somekind must have been responsible and if you look hard enough you will find proof that this is the case.
Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is our current best understanding of how evolution works. Anything which can scientifically help explain how evolution works will then become a part of the theory of evolution, maybe adding to the existing work or replacing existing parts or existing in tandem with other explanations for the same observed effect until one is proved to be the better explanation.
If something is no use whatsoever in explaining how evolution works why would you want to teach that rather than things which are useful ?
Evolution is a fact, organisms evolve - we can see it happening, it happens every day and has happened for millions of years. It is a fact in the same way that gravity is a fact and that it's a fact that water is wet.
The theory of evolution attempts to explain how evolution occurs and is a theory not a fact.
I think you have the things the wrong way around here. I have never come across anyone saying that Evolution contradicts religion except for fundamentalist religious types who think it interferes with their own beliefs or agenda.
Also I am not aware of Evolution ever being used as a "weapon against Christianity". Christianity and every other religion have no basis in reality for any of their beliefs so it's hard to see how anything in the real world could be used as a weapon against them. It is similar to saying that Evolution can be used as weapon against Narnia. Clearly one is real and the other is imaginary so there can be no conflict.
I'm not sure how you are defining dissent, it seems to me that the theory of Evolution ( being a scientific theory ) is subject to review or amendment upon the arrival of any dissenting views which are crediable additions or replacements for the existing evolutionary theory. A problem for adherents to ID and other religiously motivated ideas is that they do not have the level of credibility necessary to affect established theories such as the theory of evolution. I don't mean credibility here in the sense of a popularity contest but in the sense of having observational evidence, scientific papers published, confirmed experimental predictions etc.
ID is not an alternative theory to the current theory of evolution because it is not properly defined, is not actually a theory, can present no evidence, has virtually no scientific papers published, cannot be falfisied and is inherently useless to the advancement of knowledge.
On the one hand you say that the Bible is the source of all knowledge and has never been wrong about anything and on the other you say that it may have been some Aliens or some other God responsible for creation when the bible clearly states that there is only one God and he is responsible for all creation.
Back in the real world there is no need to 'debunk' ID since it is a stupid idea and will remain a stupid idea until it can find some credible evidence to support it's stupid claims.
I always thought that Roman Catholics were Christians.
ID doesn't logically come from anywhere except ideas about how best to force ludicrous religious beliefs down the throats of a new generation.
All those 'observations' you mention look more like other scientific theories to me rather than observations of anything.
Certainly if ID came about because of a direct observation in nature of something which is 'irreduciably complex' and was an attempt to explain that then it may have some credibility.
Instead ID starts from the basis that God must have designed everything, God works in much the same engineers and humans in general do and that if that was the case then he must have created something, somewhere which could not be explained by any natural processes. Obviously science has yet to find such a creation.
And how do you intend to show that there are no irreducibly complex structures in nature ? Maybe when you have examined every single one and found none of them irreduciably complex there will be some you have missed 8 miles down at the bottom of the ocean.
Maybe it would be easier to find one of the irreduciably complex structures.
Actually, although I have no idea what Lamarks theory says, there does seem to be some evidence that environmental factors can determine whether genes are turned on or off and these changes are then propogated into off spring. This was from a recent Horizon program on the BBC.
Slashdot Mirror
Well then they're fucked then aren't they because as we all know most people do not make any choice between going and buying a record and downloading it.
And people say the US medical system is better than the NHS !
Yeah, I've heard what he's been doing in those 78 years and frankly someone like that doesn't deserve any understanding or lee way from me !
Who was the factory selling those 7Hz tones to ? I wouldn't have thought there would have been a very big market.
There are a few huge rivers in Siberia with massive catchment areas and they are, apparently, dumping a lot more fresh water into the sea than they used to.
Iraq is nothing more than a mechanism to channel the wealth of both American and Iraqi citizens into the pockets of American companies. So as far as the political leadership are concerned it's a good thing because the companies can now afford to provide more extravagent perks for politicians.
The problem is that it's not illegal for them to be buying Alcohol or Cigarettes but it is illegal for people to sell those things to them so it's not the kids committing a crime but the shops or the people they have talked into buying the stuff for them.
It is a failure of society in so much as these kids parents should be making their kids take part in more productive activities than hanging around on street corners trying to get drunk and it's only a failure of the police insomuch as they don't have sufficient policemen/women and resources to police every shopping arcade throughout every night.
The police will take the kids names and attempt to disperse them but I don't think loitering is actually in crime in the UK and the time and effort required to process it as a crime would probably be prohibitive. The police can now issue ASBOS against persistant trouble makers or nuisances but these aren't a magic bullet and there are always more kids in search of places to hang around.
I'm not sure whether loitering is exactly illegal but the police do have various powers to stop people congregating in groups of more than about 3 and will generally ask groups causing the kind of nuisance this device is designed for to "Move On". The problem is the group just moves somewhere else and makes a nuisance of it's self there instead.
I don't know what it's like in the US but in the UK most housing estates have small rows of shops, usually a group of convienence store, off licence and chip shop/takeaway. You can pretty much guarantee that by around 8pm there will be a group of kids hanging around outside these shops, usually trying to get people to buy them cigarettes and alcohol.
A lot of the time these groups probably aren't causing any trouble but some of the time they will be vandalising things, harassing people walking past or to and from the shops, arguing and fighting with each other and in a lot of cases taking drugs. Generally groups of teenagers are quite loud and noticable anyway and because people know that these groups do behave illegally and cause them problems some of the time they anticipate they will be doing those things whenever they see them.
Being able to turn on this device for short periods, long enough to make the group outside your shop seems like a good idea but will most probably lead to some vandalism of your premises by disgruntled teenagers. I don't see why shopkeepers would need the device on all the time - just long enough to cause the problem to go elsewhere.
The trouble with your idea is that different people have different ideas about what constitutes better. Gnome think their system is better whilst KDE, Enlightenment etc think there's are better.
The great thing is they are probably all right once you realise they are motivated by different goals. What this means for the rest of us is that rather than having only one system to choose from doing things in only one way we can choose one which does things the way we think is mostly better for us.
No.
On a completely unrelated topic, why does Internet Explorer insist on refreshing pages when you press the "back button" and wiping out all the information you typed in forms. Is there any way to stop that ( if you are at work and unable to upgrade to a proper browser ).
Not so sure about that, I think a lot of American immigrants from the British Isles came from Scotland & Ireland to avoid the various famines and lack of food in those places. I don't think the Scottish & Irish people who didn't emigrate are as fat as Americans now.
I don't know about this, I used to be very active up until my early 20's and since then I have been very lazy although occasionaly I can become very active again for short periods if necessary I prefer being lazy.
I think the good Dr has been a rather unfortunate here, by the sounds of it his researchers are entirely to blame. However he is ultimately responsible for the actions of his staff and this is why he has taken the decision to resign from his public appointments.
I wish more public figures acted with this level of integrity. We are seeing situations arise increasingly frequently where it turns out that no blame at all attaches it's self to public figures no matter what they or there staff/departments may have been engaged in and I hope the actions of this Dr can be a lesson to the next government minister who discovers his department has been acting illegally and realises that the excuse they didn't really bother to keep up to date with what their department was doing is not good enough.
I don't know where you live exactly but where I live, in Birmingham, there are hundreds of buildings, parks, squares, bus stations, railway stations etc which have been built with EU funds which in total I am sure comes to way way more than the couple of million being spent here.
I would have preferred to see Feersum Endjin in place of Consider Phlebas because whilst both of them are great books I think Feersum Endjin is an amazingly great book.
What he eventually makes are called Toot Sweets
"...logically comes from ideas/observations like the anthropic principle, irreducible complexity, information theory, and so on"
OK, so which of these are observations then and have you ( or ID theorists in general ) observed anything which is actually irreduciably complex ?
The basis of ID is not that you have observed anything which is irreduciably complex or observed anything in nature which leads to the idea of an intelligent designer but the idea that God or a deity of somekind must have been responsible and if you look hard enough you will find proof that this is the case.
Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is our current best understanding of how evolution works. Anything which can scientifically help explain how evolution works will then become a part of the theory of evolution, maybe adding to the existing work or replacing existing parts or existing in tandem with other explanations for the same observed effect until one is proved to be the better explanation.
If something is no use whatsoever in explaining how evolution works why would you want to teach that rather than things which are useful ?
It's not a 'flawed' theory. If it was a perfect explanation it would be a fact not a theory.
Evolution is a fact, organisms evolve - we can see it happening, it happens every day and has happened for millions of years. It is a fact in the same way that gravity is a fact and that it's a fact that water is wet.
The theory of evolution attempts to explain how evolution occurs and is a theory not a fact.
I think you have the things the wrong way around here. I have never come across anyone saying that Evolution contradicts religion except for fundamentalist religious types who think it interferes with their own beliefs or agenda.
Also I am not aware of Evolution ever being used as a "weapon against Christianity". Christianity and every other religion have no basis in reality for any of their beliefs so it's hard to see how anything in the real world could be used as a weapon against them. It is similar to saying that Evolution can be used as weapon against Narnia. Clearly one is real and the other is imaginary so there can be no conflict.
I'm not sure how you are defining dissent, it seems to me that the theory of Evolution ( being a scientific theory ) is subject to review or amendment upon the arrival of any dissenting views which are crediable additions or replacements for the existing evolutionary theory. A problem for adherents to ID and other religiously motivated ideas is that they do not have the level of credibility necessary to affect established theories such as the theory of evolution. I don't mean credibility here in the sense of a popularity contest but in the sense of having observational evidence, scientific papers published, confirmed experimental predictions etc.
ID is not an alternative theory to the current theory of evolution because it is not properly defined, is not actually a theory, can present no evidence, has virtually no scientific papers published, cannot be falfisied and is inherently useless to the advancement of knowledge.
You cretinous muppet.
On the one hand you say that the Bible is the source of all knowledge and has never been wrong about anything and on the other you say that it may have been some Aliens or some other God responsible for creation when the bible clearly states that there is only one God and he is responsible for all creation.
Back in the real world there is no need to 'debunk' ID since it is a stupid idea and will remain a stupid idea until it can find some credible evidence to support it's stupid claims.
I always thought that Roman Catholics were Christians.
ID doesn't logically come from anywhere except ideas about how best to force ludicrous religious beliefs down the throats of a new generation.
All those 'observations' you mention look more like other scientific theories to me rather than observations of anything.
Certainly if ID came about because of a direct observation in nature of something which is 'irreduciably complex' and was an attempt to explain that then it may have some credibility.
Instead ID starts from the basis that God must have designed everything, God works in much the same engineers and humans in general do and that if that was the case then he must have created something, somewhere which could not be explained by any natural processes. Obviously science has yet to find such a creation.
And how do you intend to show that there are no irreducibly complex structures in nature ? Maybe when you have examined every single one and found none of them irreduciably complex there will be some you have missed 8 miles down at the bottom of the ocean.
Maybe it would be easier to find one of the irreduciably complex structures.
Actually, although I have no idea what Lamarks theory says, there does seem to be some evidence that environmental factors can determine whether genes are turned on or off and these changes are then propogated into off spring. This was from a recent Horizon program on the BBC.