Technology facilitates life. Crime is a subset of life. We can either cut our noses off to spite our faces by ditching technology so that crime doesn't get the same boons as non-criminal activity, or we can use technology AND work out why there are so many folks out there being criminals, having both technology and lower crime.
So you don't drive a car, as they require keys. Why is your car assuming you're a car thief? It's disgusting! Activation allows Microsoft to ensure their R&D is getting paid back for the immense amounts of cash spent on development. Without that, then we don't get any more software, and everyone loses. WGA? That, again, is a measure to protect those who've legally bought a legit copy of Windows. If you see someone looking out for legit users and get scared, you're clearly not operating from a basis of sound logic, but reactionary victimhood.
It makes sense, as it cuts down on the possible confusion it causes for end users. Desktop Windows is not for servers. It's not optimised for it. Want to do that? Then get a version of Windows with everything needed to do just that.
If that evidence is found, the theory of evolution will change. It will always exist. Until that evidence is found, evolution as we know it is the only answer. There is nothing that can happen to falsify the theory of evolution - it, as the organisms it describes, will evolve.
How can it be falsified? If you're asking that question, you've completely misunderstood what science is about. You can't falsify knowledge. If you can come up with something that demonstrates evolution as we know it to be wrong, it will be incorporated into the theory that describes how organisms come to be. If you have enough evidence that stands up to rigorous experimentation that shows it's all down to God, then fair enough - Evolution is then said to be the work of God. You can't stop there from being a theory that describes how organisms come to be, and that's exactly what you're asking for. You seem to be unable to seperate the idea of describing where organisms come from with the knowledge we've learned about just that.
Evolution does only deal with the changes of one generation to the next, as that's what evolution means. It's a seperate theory, as it's something completely different. In the Bible it wraps both of these two ideas into one (things are created, and they're created distinctly), but science needs to split different issues into different theories.
When the ID/creationists claim something can't be made in a single step, it's taken into consideration. Often scientists can show that the intermediate steps needed to get from A to G have their own benefits over their predecessors, in which case the ID/creationists who raised the question are right, but then the scientists show that the theory as it currently stands covers that case.
So it seems your real issue isn't with evolution, but the scientific method. You can't falsify the scientific method, which seems to be what you want to know how to do before you will engage in any science. Fascinating.
Detrimental random mutations, such as making a bug glow a colour its predators can see more easily, are picked off by nature itself ("survival of the fittest", with "fittest" meaning "most suited", as in "fit for a purpose"). Using the analogy of bits and bytes is not good for one thing, as DNA is not a blueprint, but a recipe. Richard Dawkins also explained that - the level of abstraction between our genotype and phenotype is far more substantial than DNA itself. Evolution in biology doesn't deal with entire features appearing at once, but gradually, with each gradual step having some benefit, no matter how slight, to the organism. We're not talking about suddenly having a kid who's 8-feet-tall and can fly, but one who's slightly stronger which gives him the edge when hunting something needed for survival, or who has a slightly improved immune system. DNA is essentially a feedback loop, with one gene changing how others work, where one switched gene can affect hundreds more. It's trial and error, but not in a random sense. Once a bad mutation has appeared, it's quickly removed, and the good ones are spread more widely than the benign ones, so you have a system where good genes are spread more than benign ones, and benign ones are spread more than malign ones.
Wow. That's incredible. You sound like the guy wondering where his life-forms are in his peanut butter.
Evolution is a cumulative construction derived from the most successful, or least harmful, traits of the progenitors. Single-celled lifeforms had offspring that vary slightly. If those new offspring are even slightly more successful than their counterparts (who are also varied, but differently), then their traits go through to the next generation, as they reproduce more successfully. Repeat for a few billion years, and you end up with us. It's not difficult to understand.
Evolution is nothing BUT tremendous labour. It didn't happen overnight. A chimp didn't give birth to a walking, talking, human being any more than an amoeba produced an allosaur.
We've demonstrated in the lab that a species can seperate and cease to be able to inter-breed, based solely on thier environment changing. The same species of fruit fly, split into two groups, one fed on starch and the other glucose, after many generations become two different species. They can't breed together, they both act and look differently.
So to sum up, it's not difficult. I grasped the concept when I was a kid.
If the people who defend this theory (read: any scientist) get given fantastic evidence that challenges the theory, it will be taken on board. Unfortunately, the only criticism/challenges put to the theory can be summed up as "but it's so complicated it has to be designed by a creator", which as Dawkins frequently points out, raises an even more ridiculous notion - who created the creator? Should scientists waste their time and resources repeatedly pointing out that every single "challenger" of evolution has no evidence, only the text of an old, factually-inaccurate and self-contradicting book? Or should they give the people claiming such ridiculous notions exactly the contempt they deserve? You can't challenge a robust, decent, time-tested, evidence-supported theory with bullshit, evidence-devoid assertions. Scientists laugh at that, as it's not science in any sense of the word.
Scientists are passionate about the truth. Not their truth, not someone else's truth, but the truth in general. To scientists, there is only truth. If anyone can show how evolution is wrong, if they can back it up with evidence, it's taken into consideration and applied to the theory. If they're pulling it out of their ass/bible (delete as necessary), then it will be laughed out of the room. So yes, they do get upset. Just as you'd get upset if you were playing football with your friends and thousands of people ran on the pitch with tennis rackets, screaming at you for not having a net.
Evolution, in the Darwinian natural sense, is accumulative, not completely random. Richard Dawkins explains it very well in "The Blind Watch Maker". Wikipedia's content is just like evolution. Articles are first created (and as we know, the theory of evolution does not cover actual creation of life, but how it changes), and are slowly perfected, with each "edit" being a mutation/new trait in the gene pool which is carried on to the next generation. The parts of the article which are not altered are analogous to genes which are not affecting the "organism" of the article as severely (either positively or negatively) as the change which was effected. As an article reaches its most suitable state, where further edits are not required, you have an article that is completely correct, with no "genes" (edits) that need removing/adding.
The notion of n monkeys typing randomly is used to illustrate the absurdity of evolution. It would be a great illustration if it were not intrinsically flawed from its very conception. A better analogy would be, again as Richard Dawkins again demonstrated in said documentary/book, that each change the monkeys made that took their current works of Shakespeare away from the actual works of Shakespeare were ignored, or favoured less, than changes which improved the similarity of the monkeys' work with that of Shakespeare.
So, in a nutshell, it's similar to evolution as you clearly don't understand evolution enough to ask that question:)
That's perfectly understandable, but it would have been nice for them to actually say there will be a proper, native SDK instead of saying "Web 2.0 is the SDK!". The "incessant whining" is completely understandable as well, as the device has great potential, and it appeared almost stillborn, with no word from Stevus Christ (j/k) to its future.
The PATRIOT act has nothing to do with some guy risking the lives of everyone he passes from New York to Los Angeles. His freedom to undertake a whimsical, meaningless, empty, contrived, arbitrary, pointless endeavour should not trump the freedom of those around him to stay alive, as staying alive is a bit more important than driving your father's money down the highway. The reason I don't like the PATRIOT act is the same reason I don't like people endangering others. It's because they have a propensity to harm indiscriminately, or at least to harm the innocent. The PATRIOT act will hurt a lot more people than it'll catch, and Alex Roy is very lucky to have not killed someone, who, statistically at least, thinks driving like an ass down the road at 150mph. Unless Alex Roy sought permission from everyone he would affect, which is his right to do, then he has no business guessing that those he passes don't care their lives are being risked. And if he feels he doesn't need to, then he's some sort of grade-A cunt.
The big difference between US and German roads is the relative speed of traffic. That's what's dangerous - when you have massive differences in speed of vehicles sharing the same road. One guy doing 150mph on a road where people are expecting it, at least as a possibility is far safer than doing it on a road where people are expecting folks to drive at 80mph tops (or 65, or whatever it is on that particular stretch). Speed limits on highways are taxes? So the difference between crashing at 70mph and 150mph is negligible? German roads are also engineered with the high speeds in mind - the slight banking on corners, etc.
I would have thought someone with a family would know better than to endanger them, but I guess you learn something new every day.
You've missed the point. Alex Roy was giving up the freedom of others to not be smeared down a freeway for his own freedom. Alex Roy was the guy giving up freedoms, only they weren't his to give up. Just as murderers don't have the right to kill people (even if it's their dream), people don't have the right to endanger others for their own indulgences. The PATRIOT act and talk of a "police state" has nothing to do with this. Nothing at all. People are upset about the PATRIOT act and the "police state" punishing those who are not hurting anyone else. Alex Roy endangered everyone he was near during his stunt.
I doubt you'll find anyone on slashdot who doesn't get a case of tight-underwear when they read about a tricked-out BMW with thousands of dollars worth of ridiculously cool technology (and a spotter plane). Most people are upset that he risked innocent people in his attempt. I think the whole thing is ridiculously cool, if it was in a movie. In real life it's pretty unacceptable behaviour in society to selfishly endanger others in that society for your own desires.
I think Alex Roy is a classy guy - he has a wicked sense of humour, an undisputed appreciation for technology, and has the money and contacts to put some seriously exciting vehicular inanity into action. Willing to risk others' lives for it, though, is a bit disappointing.
Nice try:) Let me guess - you or someone in your family worked for a large US car company in Detroit, and you now feel bitter about superior cars from across the pond.
I know you get Adobe software on Macs, I also know that the latest games are only available for Windows. That means if you want to do both, you have to get Windows. The games available for Linux and Macs is a tiny subset of the games available on Windows.
Most of this vista "bashing" (I prefer the word "criticism", personally), is pretty much unfounded. It's a good OS. It's quick, responsive, and uses system resources wisely to increase performance. The various versions of Vista are there to let people pay for what they want, instead of making everyone buy every feature, even if their computer can't make use of it. FUD is not funny, regardles who is spreading it and what they're FUD-ing about. Surely, as technologists, we should be focussing on the truth, instead of jumping on a bandwagon and repeating unfounded claims as if they were true. It doesn't help anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Technology facilitates life. Crime is a subset of life. We can either cut our noses off to spite our faces by ditching technology so that crime doesn't get the same boons as non-criminal activity, or we can use technology AND work out why there are so many folks out there being criminals, having both technology and lower crime.
So you don't drive a car, as they require keys. Why is your car assuming you're a car thief? It's disgusting! Activation allows Microsoft to ensure their R&D is getting paid back for the immense amounts of cash spent on development. Without that, then we don't get any more software, and everyone loses. WGA? That, again, is a measure to protect those who've legally bought a legit copy of Windows. If you see someone looking out for legit users and get scared, you're clearly not operating from a basis of sound logic, but reactionary victimhood.
It makes sense, as it cuts down on the possible confusion it causes for end users. Desktop Windows is not for servers. It's not optimised for it. Want to do that? Then get a version of Windows with everything needed to do just that.
If that evidence is found, the theory of evolution will change. It will always exist. Until that evidence is found, evolution as we know it is the only answer. There is nothing that can happen to falsify the theory of evolution - it, as the organisms it describes, will evolve.
How can it be falsified? If you're asking that question, you've completely misunderstood what science is about. You can't falsify knowledge. If you can come up with something that demonstrates evolution as we know it to be wrong, it will be incorporated into the theory that describes how organisms come to be. If you have enough evidence that stands up to rigorous experimentation that shows it's all down to God, then fair enough - Evolution is then said to be the work of God. You can't stop there from being a theory that describes how organisms come to be, and that's exactly what you're asking for. You seem to be unable to seperate the idea of describing where organisms come from with the knowledge we've learned about just that.
Evolution does only deal with the changes of one generation to the next, as that's what evolution means. It's a seperate theory, as it's something completely different. In the Bible it wraps both of these two ideas into one (things are created, and they're created distinctly), but science needs to split different issues into different theories.
When the ID/creationists claim something can't be made in a single step, it's taken into consideration. Often scientists can show that the intermediate steps needed to get from A to G have their own benefits over their predecessors, in which case the ID/creationists who raised the question are right, but then the scientists show that the theory as it currently stands covers that case.
So it seems your real issue isn't with evolution, but the scientific method. You can't falsify the scientific method, which seems to be what you want to know how to do before you will engage in any science. Fascinating.
Detrimental random mutations, such as making a bug glow a colour its predators can see more easily, are picked off by nature itself ("survival of the fittest", with "fittest" meaning "most suited", as in "fit for a purpose"). Using the analogy of bits and bytes is not good for one thing, as DNA is not a blueprint, but a recipe. Richard Dawkins also explained that - the level of abstraction between our genotype and phenotype is far more substantial than DNA itself. Evolution in biology doesn't deal with entire features appearing at once, but gradually, with each gradual step having some benefit, no matter how slight, to the organism. We're not talking about suddenly having a kid who's 8-feet-tall and can fly, but one who's slightly stronger which gives him the edge when hunting something needed for survival, or who has a slightly improved immune system. DNA is essentially a feedback loop, with one gene changing how others work, where one switched gene can affect hundreds more. It's trial and error, but not in a random sense. Once a bad mutation has appeared, it's quickly removed, and the good ones are spread more widely than the benign ones, so you have a system where good genes are spread more than benign ones, and benign ones are spread more than malign ones.
That's not OS X running on the iPhone and iPod Touch - it's a seperate OS they decided to call OS X for marketing purposes. Don't fall for the hype :)
Wow. That's incredible. You sound like the guy wondering where his life-forms are in his peanut butter.
Evolution is a cumulative construction derived from the most successful, or least harmful, traits of the progenitors. Single-celled lifeforms had offspring that vary slightly. If those new offspring are even slightly more successful than their counterparts (who are also varied, but differently), then their traits go through to the next generation, as they reproduce more successfully. Repeat for a few billion years, and you end up with us. It's not difficult to understand.
Evolution is nothing BUT tremendous labour. It didn't happen overnight. A chimp didn't give birth to a walking, talking, human being any more than an amoeba produced an allosaur.
We've demonstrated in the lab that a species can seperate and cease to be able to inter-breed, based solely on thier environment changing. The same species of fruit fly, split into two groups, one fed on starch and the other glucose, after many generations become two different species. They can't breed together, they both act and look differently.
So to sum up, it's not difficult. I grasped the concept when I was a kid.
If the people who defend this theory (read: any scientist) get given fantastic evidence that challenges the theory, it will be taken on board. Unfortunately, the only criticism/challenges put to the theory can be summed up as "but it's so complicated it has to be designed by a creator", which as Dawkins frequently points out, raises an even more ridiculous notion - who created the creator? Should scientists waste their time and resources repeatedly pointing out that every single "challenger" of evolution has no evidence, only the text of an old, factually-inaccurate and self-contradicting book? Or should they give the people claiming such ridiculous notions exactly the contempt they deserve? You can't challenge a robust, decent, time-tested, evidence-supported theory with bullshit, evidence-devoid assertions. Scientists laugh at that, as it's not science in any sense of the word.
Scientists are passionate about the truth. Not their truth, not someone else's truth, but the truth in general. To scientists, there is only truth. If anyone can show how evolution is wrong, if they can back it up with evidence, it's taken into consideration and applied to the theory. If they're pulling it out of their ass/bible (delete as necessary), then it will be laughed out of the room. So yes, they do get upset. Just as you'd get upset if you were playing football with your friends and thousands of people ran on the pitch with tennis rackets, screaming at you for not having a net.
Evolution, in the Darwinian natural sense, is accumulative, not completely random. Richard Dawkins explains it very well in "The Blind Watch Maker". Wikipedia's content is just like evolution. Articles are first created (and as we know, the theory of evolution does not cover actual creation of life, but how it changes), and are slowly perfected, with each "edit" being a mutation/new trait in the gene pool which is carried on to the next generation. The parts of the article which are not altered are analogous to genes which are not affecting the "organism" of the article as severely (either positively or negatively) as the change which was effected. As an article reaches its most suitable state, where further edits are not required, you have an article that is completely correct, with no "genes" (edits) that need removing/adding.
:)
The notion of n monkeys typing randomly is used to illustrate the absurdity of evolution. It would be a great illustration if it were not intrinsically flawed from its very conception. A better analogy would be, again as Richard Dawkins again demonstrated in said documentary/book, that each change the monkeys made that took their current works of Shakespeare away from the actual works of Shakespeare were ignored, or favoured less, than changes which improved the similarity of the monkeys' work with that of Shakespeare.
So, in a nutshell, it's similar to evolution as you clearly don't understand evolution enough to ask that question
No, it mainly IS Americans who have a problem with evolution, compared to other developed nations.
That's perfectly understandable, but it would have been nice for them to actually say there will be a proper, native SDK instead of saying "Web 2.0 is the SDK!". The "incessant whining" is completely understandable as well, as the device has great potential, and it appeared almost stillborn, with no word from Stevus Christ (j/k) to its future.
It's Apple that has to trust the application, not the user.
The lack of an SDK had nothing to do with AT&T, btw.
The PATRIOT act has nothing to do with some guy risking the lives of everyone he passes from New York to Los Angeles. His freedom to undertake a whimsical, meaningless, empty, contrived, arbitrary, pointless endeavour should not trump the freedom of those around him to stay alive, as staying alive is a bit more important than driving your father's money down the highway. The reason I don't like the PATRIOT act is the same reason I don't like people endangering others. It's because they have a propensity to harm indiscriminately, or at least to harm the innocent. The PATRIOT act will hurt a lot more people than it'll catch, and Alex Roy is very lucky to have not killed someone, who, statistically at least, thinks driving like an ass down the road at 150mph. Unless Alex Roy sought permission from everyone he would affect, which is his right to do, then he has no business guessing that those he passes don't care their lives are being risked. And if he feels he doesn't need to, then he's some sort of grade-A cunt.
That would be much cooler, but this is pretty cool in itself :)
The big difference between US and German roads is the relative speed of traffic. That's what's dangerous - when you have massive differences in speed of vehicles sharing the same road. One guy doing 150mph on a road where people are expecting it, at least as a possibility is far safer than doing it on a road where people are expecting folks to drive at 80mph tops (or 65, or whatever it is on that particular stretch). Speed limits on highways are taxes? So the difference between crashing at 70mph and 150mph is negligible? German roads are also engineered with the high speeds in mind - the slight banking on corners, etc.
I would have thought someone with a family would know better than to endanger them, but I guess you learn something new every day.
You've missed the point. Alex Roy was giving up the freedom of others to not be smeared down a freeway for his own freedom. Alex Roy was the guy giving up freedoms, only they weren't his to give up. Just as murderers don't have the right to kill people (even if it's their dream), people don't have the right to endanger others for their own indulgences. The PATRIOT act and talk of a "police state" has nothing to do with this. Nothing at all. People are upset about the PATRIOT act and the "police state" punishing those who are not hurting anyone else. Alex Roy endangered everyone he was near during his stunt.
I doubt you'll find anyone on slashdot who doesn't get a case of tight-underwear when they read about a tricked-out BMW with thousands of dollars worth of ridiculously cool technology (and a spotter plane). Most people are upset that he risked innocent people in his attempt. I think the whole thing is ridiculously cool, if it was in a movie. In real life it's pretty unacceptable behaviour in society to selfishly endanger others in that society for your own desires.
I think Alex Roy is a classy guy - he has a wicked sense of humour, an undisputed appreciation for technology, and has the money and contacts to put some seriously exciting vehicular inanity into action. Willing to risk others' lives for it, though, is a bit disappointing.
Nice try :) Let me guess - you or someone in your family worked for a large US car company in Detroit, and you now feel bitter about superior cars from across the pond.
I just brained 3 nuns with a notebook that's running Ubuntu. Lowest power usage I've seen in a nun-beater yet.
Then lobby to get the speed limit increased. Violating a law is not the best way to protest it. It's not time for that yet.
I know you get Adobe software on Macs, I also know that the latest games are only available for Windows. That means if you want to do both, you have to get Windows. The games available for Linux and Macs is a tiny subset of the games available on Windows.
Really? You play the latest games that don't run on Linux and you use Dreamweaver CS3, Photoshop CS3 and Flash CS3? Great!
Most of this vista "bashing" (I prefer the word "criticism", personally), is pretty much unfounded. It's a good OS. It's quick, responsive, and uses system resources wisely to increase performance. The various versions of Vista are there to let people pay for what they want, instead of making everyone buy every feature, even if their computer can't make use of it. FUD is not funny, regardles who is spreading it and what they're FUD-ing about. Surely, as technologists, we should be focussing on the truth, instead of jumping on a bandwagon and repeating unfounded claims as if they were true. It doesn't help anyone.