What? It's a fact simply because authoritative sources say so? I have submitted my argument that evolution is theory and not fact, and you have merely responded with contradictions put fourth by authoritative sources. You have yet to submit a counter argument. By definition, the theory of evolution is a theory. No number of authoritative sources may change this fact. Most simply argue that it must be fact since they believe in it's truth so strongly. But that does not change the fact that is only a theory. At best we may be able to prove that it is possible that life on earth evolved from a few simple organisms. It is unlikely we will ever be able gather data which will prove all life on earth evolved in such a manner.
Furthermore, "Species undergoing mutation in the presence of a sufficient quantity of natural selection will evolve into a form better adapted to their environment" is a fact since it can be mathematically proven. I was not referring to animal species, or plant species, merely the generic term species to represent a unique mathematical quantity.
Look, a fact is something you know for certain. Usually statements of observation can only be stated as facts when they are in the form "the temperature of the cylinder was measured to be 27 degrees celsius". Saying "the temperature of the cylinder is 27 degrees celsius" is a theory, supported by the above fact.
Consider the following examples:
Fact: There exist a large fossil record which shows species changing incrementally over time.
Fact: Bacterial species have been observed to change characteristics over time.
Fact: Species undergoing mutation in the presence of a sufficient quantity of natural selection will evolve into a form better adapted to their environment.
Theory: All life on earth has evolved from a single spontaneously generated cell over the course of billions of years.
Fact: No amount of quotations from authoritative sources will change the truth of my argument.
Now you seem to have misread my comment as well. I did not say that creationism merited equal time, nor did I mean it. What I said was that the sticker on the books was an answer to the criticisms of parents who felt that the book should give equal time to creationism. The nether sticker itself or the book give equal time to creationism. The sticker merely says that evolution is a scientific theory that students, whatever their beliefs, should consider. The sticker it trying to clarify that the book is teaching science, instead of teaching religion.
The sticker does not "prey on on the ignorant who don't understand the scientific meaning of the term theory." The sticker's use of the word theory is appropriate, and is not derogatory. Just because Stephen J. Gould from Discover want's to be able to say that evolution is a fact because of the term theory's supposed vernacular is unpalatable doesn't mean that it's wrong to say evolution is a theory.
The school system did not single out evolution, the parents of students did. People found the corse material to be offensive, and therefore singled it out. The school merely responded to their criticism in the most even handed way possible.
Would you be happier if the school instead decided that evolution was a religious issue, and opted not to teach it at all? They aren't allowed to teach religion, and religion is defined by those who practice it, like the 2000 parents who protested the teaching of evolution.
It is ironic that court deemed the school's statement that evolution falls within the realm of science to be religious in nature. How much less religious could you get?
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
It sounds more like the school board is trying to encourage students to approach the theory of evolution with an open mind, not "denigrating the theory of evolution" as was stated in the court case. I think this sticker was meant to quiet the complaints of the 2000 parents who complained that the text books described evolution as the origin of life with-ought giving equal time to creationism. The sticker says "evolution is an important theory and students should approach it with an open mind", in answer to these parents criticisms.
I don't think this label really does promote creationism. All it says is that evolution is being taught as a theory, not a fact. Even if it does promote creationism, I don't see how it violates the separation of church and state. Evolution delves into issues that some people consider to be spiritual, and as such, is in a way "teaching religion". This label is merely a disclaimer saying that that is not the school board's intent, and that students should not take it that way.
I seriously hope that this ruling is overturned by a higher court.
What do they mean when they say the image is sharper? Are they referring to contrast ratio? Because that's not what most people mean when they hear the word sharp. CRT's definitely don't have as good resolution (potentially) as flat panels, so flat panels win there. And flat panels are lighter, and smaller. Moreover, LCD's don't suffer from the annoying electric hum that gives me a headache whenever I'm watching a CRT.
I don't mind them trying to play up the consumer appeal of flat panel displays market hype, but they should at least provide some justification for saying that CRT's are better. I know that CRT's win out in contrast ratio, but that's a pretty small part of the overall picture in terms of image quality. I, for one, will never buy another CRT.
You are wrong. This technology reduces the resistivity of silicon, allowing for smaller transistors, and therefore, more transistors per chip. This means that clock rates overall may be increased. It is true that intel already uses a version of this technology, but that's hardly relevant, since IBM does as well.
Speaking of misunderstanding numbers, you should not that the US ranked 28th of 40 in terms of education quality / dollars spent. This isn't in any way the same as saying that US student's ranked 28th of 40, since we spend more per student than the average country.
Moreover, it's hard to say how this comparison was made, since it does not say how they quantified quality, or what metric they used to compare currency spent here to the currency spent elsewhere. Obviously, exchange rates would not make a good comparison, since they are so volatile and have more to do with a countries debt and trade deficits than they have to do with the actual purchasing power of the money in the country where it was spent.
Well, some may say that the use of biometric information information will lower the risk of identity theft by making it more technically difficult to achieve.
As far as anonymity goes, all I'm saying is that if you're a part of the real world, you are not anonymous. If you don't mind living in a cabin in montana, then this identification system shouldn't bother you there. You shouldn't expect to be able to work for a government lab or make large financial transactions anonymously, because all the people you deal with are going to know who you are.
No, this is not the "why worry if you've got nothing to hide" argument. I never said anything remotely like that. Forget about RTFA, at least read my fucking comment before you reply to it.
This system is about cutting costs by implementing a unified biometric standard. It's about increasing the connivence of government workers by simplifying clearance and access issues.
This does not give the government any new capabilities. It simply makes it easier to do what they've always done. If you're worried about abuses, keep that in mind when you're voting for candidates for public office. Continuing advances in technology make these kinds kinds of systems inevitable. In the end, they will make our lives easier, but we must make sure these technologies are not abused.
I think the question you should be asking yourself is: "Has this negatively effected my life?". I mean, why is it bad that your social security card makes it easy to identify yourself? Why would it be worse if your biometric information made it easier to identify yourself? Are you afraid that the government will be able to track you down? Everything you do leaves a paper trail behind, if you live in the real world. And if you don't then you won't have a problem, since you won't ever need to use your biometric data. How is this a bad thing?
Isn't that a valid criticism of most open source soft ware as well? I mean, there are really good open source applications, but a lot of open source programmers seem to forget that there is a user, and just focus on what the computer is doing.
Is this website for real? If software patents get passed, the EVIL AMERICAN CORPORATIONS WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD, the sun will turn eternally black and Jesus Christ himself will eat your baby!!!
Come on, isn't this a bit alarmist. It might be better to say "we have some concerns about the potential effect of software patents on the industry". I don't think it's at all reasonable to tell people that the evil "patent mafia" and "american corporations" will take over the world. As if there is a group of impovrished, and unscrupulous lawyers sitting around saying, "gee, if only there were software patents, then we'd be able to make some money".
Well, lets put it this way. It doesn't take a genius to figure out you can fit three points perfectly to quadratic equation. So . . . how did they calculate their "change from baseline" using a "robust" model that was non-linear. I mean, you can not fit a curved line to two points and say that it's the only curved line that could pass through those points, but that's what they say in this report.
Moreover, how can anyone say that a model based on only 2 data points is robust? I think it's safe to say that they didn't derive their curve from theory. This is a shaky analytical fit at best.
All I can say is it's a good thing safety systems engineers don't use this technique to establish the performance of automobiles. "well, we looked at a couple similar cars, and they didn't explode, so I'm 99% certain this one won't either". I think the main reason these people are "99%" sure that Bush should've gotten 130 - 260 thousand fewer votes in Florida is because that's they way they hoped it would be.
Obviously it is more accurate to make projections based on past elections and demographics. Voters simply can't be trusted to vote for their proper candidate, and this is the only way to ensure that everyones opinion is represented.
Actually, hydrogen is rarely made from water electrolyses. It is usually made by reforming hydrocarbons using steam and catalysts. When this is done to methane, and the resulting hydrogen is reacted in a fuel cell, it is actually more energy efficient than burning the natural gas in a turbine.
The idea is that we'll use this technique to get the hydrogen infrastructure in place. Once petroleum and natural gas are too expensive to use as a power source, we'll be able to transition to an all-electrical system, because hydrogen is easy to produce from electricity.
This is very much more green than burning gasoline, since the extra demand for electricity will hopefully be picked by wind generation or some other renewable source. Even if we do use coal, it'll be better because we won't need to worry about what's going on in the middle ease, since we'll be able to meet all our energy needs domestically.
I think he was asking for a source for the statement that crime rates are higher here. Incarceration rates are pretty cut and dry. What percentage of the population is in prison right now? Everyone knows that we have a high incarceration rate, just ask Amnesty International.
Crime rates, on the other hand, are a bit more difficult to quantify. What constitutes a crime? Different countries have different levels of crimes which are not necessarily compatible. One of the methods I've seen is to just count murders, in which case, yes the US is pretty high. But other crimes also exert a high cost to society and it would be unresonable to ignore them.
Even "nonviolent" crimes like drug dealing have a pretty large impact on society. If you don't believe that nonviolent offenders should go to jail, you should ask an Enron employee what they think.
Your key mistake here is your use of the word "needs". The data I've seen indicates that the G5 draws an equivalent amount of power as comparable Intel and AMD systems. Also, the G5's in the x-servs are air cooled. I think they mostly liquid cool the dual 2.5 Ghz G5 just to keep the noise down.
I'm sick and tired of democrats complaining about deficit spending. Clinton balanced the budget because there was an economic boom which caused the government to take in a whole lot more in taxes. At the end of clintons term, the internet bubble bursted, and the huge loss of jobs cut into the government revenue.
When this happens there are two options:
1) Cut spending and raise taxes to decrease the deficit
2) Incense spending and lower taxes, increasing the deficit
Which do you suppose works better for improving the economy? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Bush did the right thing, and that any good president should do the same thing.
You don't understand. Republicans don't want pork barrel spending. They don't want federal highway funding. The don't want federal funding for education. They don't want federal funding for health care. The don't want federal funding for social security. These things only take decisions out of the hands of state and local governments.
Lest see an example. Some state, say, Idaho is happy with a drinking age of, say, 18 (you can tell that this is completely hypothetical). The federal government, on the other hand, would only be happy with a drinking age of 21. So the federal government may, for example, withhold federal highway funds from the state of Idaho. Of course, Idaho could chose to deny the funds and keep its drinking age, but they'd be required by law to continue maintaining those highways which, as you so astutely pointed out, they can not afford. To make matters worse, the federal government will still tax them to pay for the highway, even though none of those funds go to the state of Idaho. So as it turns out, Idaho has little choice but to raise the drinking age to 21.
This is a pretty mild example, but it is easy to see how the same principle can apply to a broad range of situations. Health care, well fare, and education are just a few of many possible issues.
It's important to understand that while in the northeast people have fairly homogenous views on these issues, as you move across the country people have radically different views.
I and at least five other atheists and agnostics I know all voted for Bush. I don't know why it hasn't occurred to democrats, but not all people support heavy taxation for the wealthy, or huge social programs. More over, not everyone is stupid enough to believe that Bush policies have led to the (relatively small) loss of jobs. I mean, you hear a lot of liberal arts majors complaining that they can't find a job, but how is that any different than it's always been. The job marked has been improving, and that's all there is to it, there's no reason to vote for Kerry there.
I think that a lot of democrats need to take a reality pill and realize that more people voted republican because more people wanted to vote republican. More of this country is not on the eastern seaboard than is, and a lot of us don't have the same beliefs and values that democrats seem to *think* we have.
Slashdot Mirror
What? It's a fact simply because authoritative sources say so? I have submitted my argument that evolution is theory and not fact, and you have merely responded with contradictions put fourth by authoritative sources. You have yet to submit a counter argument. By definition, the theory of evolution is a theory. No number of authoritative sources may change this fact. Most simply argue that it must be fact since they believe in it's truth so strongly. But that does not change the fact that is only a theory. At best we may be able to prove that it is possible that life on earth evolved from a few simple organisms. It is unlikely we will ever be able gather data which will prove all life on earth evolved in such a manner.
Furthermore, "Species undergoing mutation in the presence of a sufficient quantity of natural selection will evolve into a form better adapted to their environment" is a fact since it can be mathematically proven. I was not referring to animal species, or plant species, merely the generic term species to represent a unique mathematical quantity.
Look, a fact is something you know for certain. Usually statements of observation can only be stated as facts when they are in the form "the temperature of the cylinder was measured to be 27 degrees celsius". Saying "the temperature of the cylinder is 27 degrees celsius" is a theory, supported by the above fact.
Consider the following examples:
Fact: There exist a large fossil record which shows species changing incrementally over time.
Fact: Bacterial species have been observed to change characteristics over time.
Fact: Species undergoing mutation in the presence of a sufficient quantity of natural selection will evolve into a form better adapted to their environment.
Theory: All life on earth has evolved from a single spontaneously generated cell over the course of billions of years.
Fact: No amount of quotations from authoritative sources will change the truth of my argument.
Now you seem to have misread my comment as well. I did not say that creationism merited equal time, nor did I mean it. What I said was that the sticker on the books was an answer to the criticisms of parents who felt that the book should give equal time to creationism. The nether sticker itself or the book give equal time to creationism. The sticker merely says that evolution is a scientific theory that students, whatever their beliefs, should consider. The sticker it trying to clarify that the book is teaching science, instead of teaching religion.
The sticker does not "prey on on the ignorant who don't understand the scientific meaning of the term theory." The sticker's use of the word theory is appropriate, and is not derogatory. Just because Stephen J. Gould from Discover want's to be able to say that evolution is a fact because of the term theory's supposed vernacular is unpalatable doesn't mean that it's wrong to say evolution is a theory.
The school system did not single out evolution, the parents of students did. People found the corse material to be offensive, and therefore singled it out. The school merely responded to their criticism in the most even handed way possible.
Would you be happier if the school instead decided that evolution was a religious issue, and opted not to teach it at all? They aren't allowed to teach religion, and religion is defined by those who practice it, like the 2000 parents who protested the teaching of evolution.
It is ironic that court deemed the school's statement that evolution falls within the realm of science to be religious in nature. How much less religious could you get?
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
It sounds more like the school board is trying to encourage students to approach the theory of evolution with an open mind, not "denigrating the theory of evolution" as was stated in the court case. I think this sticker was meant to quiet the complaints of the 2000 parents who complained that the text books described evolution as the origin of life with-ought giving equal time to creationism. The sticker says "evolution is an important theory and students should approach it with an open mind", in answer to these parents criticisms.
I don't think this label really does promote creationism. All it says is that evolution is being taught as a theory, not a fact. Even if it does promote creationism, I don't see how it violates the separation of church and state. Evolution delves into issues that some people consider to be spiritual, and as such, is in a way "teaching religion". This label is merely a disclaimer saying that that is not the school board's intent, and that students should not take it that way.
I seriously hope that this ruling is overturned by a higher court.
I suppose that you must also believe that you can not heat anything using IR. Or perhaps you only lack imagination.
What do they mean when they say the image is sharper? Are they referring to contrast ratio? Because that's not what most people mean when they hear the word sharp. CRT's definitely don't have as good resolution (potentially) as flat panels, so flat panels win there. And flat panels are lighter, and smaller. Moreover, LCD's don't suffer from the annoying electric hum that gives me a headache whenever I'm watching a CRT.
I don't mind them trying to play up the consumer appeal of flat panel displays market hype, but they should at least provide some justification for saying that CRT's are better. I know that CRT's win out in contrast ratio, but that's a pretty small part of the overall picture in terms of image quality. I, for one, will never buy another CRT.
You are wrong. This technology reduces the resistivity of silicon, allowing for smaller transistors, and therefore, more transistors per chip. This means that clock rates overall may be increased. It is true that intel already uses a version of this technology, but that's hardly relevant, since IBM does as well.
Speaking of misunderstanding numbers, you should not that the US ranked 28th of 40 in terms of education quality / dollars spent. This isn't in any way the same as saying that US student's ranked 28th of 40, since we spend more per student than the average country.
Moreover, it's hard to say how this comparison was made, since it does not say how they quantified quality, or what metric they used to compare currency spent here to the currency spent elsewhere. Obviously, exchange rates would not make a good comparison, since they are so volatile and have more to do with a countries debt and trade deficits than they have to do with the actual purchasing power of the money in the country where it was spent.
Well, some may say that the use of biometric information information will lower the risk of identity theft by making it more technically difficult to achieve.
As far as anonymity goes, all I'm saying is that if you're a part of the real world, you are not anonymous. If you don't mind living in a cabin in montana, then this identification system shouldn't bother you there. You shouldn't expect to be able to work for a government lab or make large financial transactions anonymously, because all the people you deal with are going to know who you are.
No, this is not the "why worry if you've got nothing to hide" argument. I never said anything remotely like that. Forget about RTFA, at least read my fucking comment before you reply to it.
This system is about cutting costs by implementing a unified biometric standard. It's about increasing the connivence of government workers by simplifying clearance and access issues.
This does not give the government any new capabilities. It simply makes it easier to do what they've always done. If you're worried about abuses, keep that in mind when you're voting for candidates for public office. Continuing advances in technology make these kinds kinds of systems inevitable. In the end, they will make our lives easier, but we must make sure these technologies are not abused.
I think the question you should be asking yourself is: "Has this negatively effected my life?". I mean, why is it bad that your social security card makes it easy to identify yourself? Why would it be worse if your biometric information made it easier to identify yourself? Are you afraid that the government will be able to track you down? Everything you do leaves a paper trail behind, if you live in the real world. And if you don't then you won't have a problem, since you won't ever need to use your biometric data. How is this a bad thing?
Isn't that a valid criticism of most open source soft ware as well? I mean, there are really good open source applications, but a lot of open source programmers seem to forget that there is a user, and just focus on what the computer is doing.
Is this website for real? If software patents get passed, the EVIL AMERICAN CORPORATIONS WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD, the sun will turn eternally black and Jesus Christ himself will eat your baby!!!
Come on, isn't this a bit alarmist. It might be better to say "we have some concerns about the potential effect of software patents on the industry". I don't think it's at all reasonable to tell people that the evil "patent mafia" and "american corporations" will take over the world. As if there is a group of impovrished, and unscrupulous lawyers sitting around saying, "gee, if only there were software patents, then we'd be able to make some money".
Well, lets put it this way. It doesn't take a genius to figure out you can fit three points perfectly to quadratic equation. So . . . how did they calculate their "change from baseline" using a "robust" model that was non-linear. I mean, you can not fit a curved line to two points and say that it's the only curved line that could pass through those points, but that's what they say in this report.
Moreover, how can anyone say that a model based on only 2 data points is robust? I think it's safe to say that they didn't derive their curve from theory. This is a shaky analytical fit at best.
All I can say is it's a good thing safety systems engineers don't use this technique to establish the performance of automobiles. "well, we looked at a couple similar cars, and they didn't explode, so I'm 99% certain this one won't either". I think the main reason these people are "99%" sure that Bush should've gotten 130 - 260 thousand fewer votes in Florida is because that's they way they hoped it would be.
Obviously it is more accurate to make projections based on past elections and demographics. Voters simply can't be trusted to vote for their proper candidate, and this is the only way to ensure that everyones opinion is represented.
Actually, hydrogen is rarely made from water electrolyses. It is usually made by reforming hydrocarbons using steam and catalysts. When this is done to methane, and the resulting hydrogen is reacted in a fuel cell, it is actually more energy efficient than burning the natural gas in a turbine.
The idea is that we'll use this technique to get the hydrogen infrastructure in place. Once petroleum and natural gas are too expensive to use as a power source, we'll be able to transition to an all-electrical system, because hydrogen is easy to produce from electricity.
This is very much more green than burning gasoline, since the extra demand for electricity will hopefully be picked by wind generation or some other renewable source. Even if we do use coal, it'll be better because we won't need to worry about what's going on in the middle ease, since we'll be able to meet all our energy needs domestically.
I think he was asking for a source for the statement that crime rates are higher here. Incarceration rates are pretty cut and dry. What percentage of the population is in prison right now? Everyone knows that we have a high incarceration rate, just ask Amnesty International.
Crime rates, on the other hand, are a bit more difficult to quantify. What constitutes a crime? Different countries have different levels of crimes which are not necessarily compatible. One of the methods I've seen is to just count murders, in which case, yes the US is pretty high. But other crimes also exert a high cost to society and it would be unresonable to ignore them.
Even "nonviolent" crimes like drug dealing have a pretty large impact on society. If you don't believe that nonviolent offenders should go to jail, you should ask an Enron employee what they think.
I have a 400 MHz G4 and I don't foresee upgrading it for another 3 years either.
Your key mistake here is your use of the word "needs". The data I've seen indicates that the G5 draws an equivalent amount of power as comparable Intel and AMD systems. Also, the G5's in the x-servs are air cooled. I think they mostly liquid cool the dual 2.5 Ghz G5 just to keep the noise down.
I'm sick and tired of democrats complaining about deficit spending. Clinton balanced the budget because there was an economic boom which caused the government to take in a whole lot more in taxes. At the end of clintons term, the internet bubble bursted, and the huge loss of jobs cut into the government revenue.
When this happens there are two options:
1) Cut spending and raise taxes to decrease the deficit
2) Incense spending and lower taxes, increasing the deficit
Which do you suppose works better for improving the economy? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Bush did the right thing, and that any good president should do the same thing.
You don't understand. Republicans don't want pork barrel spending. They don't want federal highway funding. The don't want federal funding for education. They don't want federal funding for health care. The don't want federal funding for social security. These things only take decisions out of the hands of state and local governments.
Lest see an example. Some state, say, Idaho is happy with a drinking age of, say, 18 (you can tell that this is completely hypothetical). The federal government, on the other hand, would only be happy with a drinking age of 21. So the federal government may, for example, withhold federal highway funds from the state of Idaho. Of course, Idaho could chose to deny the funds and keep its drinking age, but they'd be required by law to continue maintaining those highways which, as you so astutely pointed out, they can not afford. To make matters worse, the federal government will still tax them to pay for the highway, even though none of those funds go to the state of Idaho. So as it turns out, Idaho has little choice but to raise the drinking age to 21.
This is a pretty mild example, but it is easy to see how the same principle can apply to a broad range of situations. Health care, well fare, and education are just a few of many possible issues.
It's important to understand that while in the northeast people have fairly homogenous views on these issues, as you move across the country people have radically different views.
I agree, it's too bad that more people don't subscribe to your well-reasoned and optimistic world view. The world would be a happier place.
By in large red stated don't want subsides from the federal government. They always come with strings attached. You can keep your stupid money.
I and at least five other atheists and agnostics I know all voted for Bush. I don't know why it hasn't occurred to democrats, but not all people support heavy taxation for the wealthy, or huge social programs. More over, not everyone is stupid enough to believe that Bush policies have led to the (relatively small) loss of jobs. I mean, you hear a lot of liberal arts majors complaining that they can't find a job, but how is that any different than it's always been. The job marked has been improving, and that's all there is to it, there's no reason to vote for Kerry there.
I think that a lot of democrats need to take a reality pill and realize that more people voted republican because more people wanted to vote republican. More of this country is not on the eastern seaboard than is, and a lot of us don't have the same beliefs and values that democrats seem to *think* we have.