Monsanto is also suing farmers who have not signed their licensing agreement, but who were caught with the genetically engineered plants growing on their farm. In the Canadian case, it appears that the engineered plants may have ended up there by accident (due to the wind blowing pollen from neighbouring farms, etc.), but the court held that the farmer was liable anyway. Basically, they held that Monsanto had an absolute right to control who grows these plants, regardless of whether they have signed any agreement with Monsanto, and regardless of whether the farmer knows that the plants growing on his farm have been engineered by Monsanto.
If the community thinks the way you do, Linux will fail to ever overtake Windows. The vast majority of people need a computer that runs like an appliance: no need to understand the technical details of how it works in order to use it. If Linux cannot satisfy this need, Linux will not be a dominant desktop operating system.
Actually, this isn't true although the phone companies would like you to believe that it is. If you strip off ALL optional services, you can get a basic phone line here in New Jersey for about $17/mo., including taxes.
Darwin has been dead for over a hundred years. Why would you think anything he had to say is relevant to a present-day scientific debate? There has been a hundred years of scientific progress since Darwin. It isn't really even his theory anymore. 'Darwinian' evolution in its true sense is long dead, replaced by more modern models of how evolution operates. These models are based on the evidence provided by genetics, etc.
Besides that, though, we do find transitional forms embedded in the earth. There is no lack of them, given how rare it is for a dead creature to become fossilized.
Entropy always increases, except when you add sunlight and meteor dust. Then an ape will eventually become a man.
This argument is provably false, and the fact that creationists keep using it is one of the best proofs that creationism is not a science. A scientist does not continue using an argument that is known to be false. I am a physicist. Physics does not say that entropy always increases. Entropy must increase only when you have a closed system: no energy or matter goes in or out. So yes, when you add sunlight the entropy on Earth decreases. If this argument had any validity all life would be impossible. The process of growing from an embroyo to an infant to an adult human involves continuous decrease in entropy, fueled by energy entering the system. The people who told you the argument based on entropy are lying to you, which is neither scientific nor Christian.
Mutations are rare and usually sterile, except for sometimes, when a fish with leg-type fins will be able to reproduce to create other fish with leg-type fins.
Pretty much. You do know that there are fish with leg-type fins still alive today. And they can breathe air for short periods of time--long enough to flop from a pool that is drying up to a larger body of water.
Evolution is slow, with minor changes each time, but all the minor stages between Ape and Human died out for some reason.
Yeah, so? Why would that be a surprise? Most of the species that have existed on the Earth are extinct. Our last living relatives (that we know of) seem to have died out less than 13000 years ago. Too bad they couldn't have stuck around a bit longer to prove to you that they existed.
Actually, they could. In general, it's perfectly fair to say that 'both creation and evolution are possible answers to the unanswered question of our existence'. These stickers, however, were on science books, for use in a science class. Creationism is not a valid scientific theory, and as such a sticker claiming that both creation and evolution are possible answers has no place on a science textbook.
The wording of the actual stickers in this case, however, were much more neutral than this. The problem with them seems to have been that independent of what they said, they were put on the books with the motivation to support a particular religious view. The government is not allowed to do this.
Of course, all of the physics we teach children in high school is a century out of date and has been disproven. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's not the right thing to teach at that stage, although I tend to agree that it would be preferable to teach a more modern theory of evolution.
Science books are notoriously bad at explaining how science actually works. Contrary to what you might think, 'laws' are often less certain than theories. A theory is a logical and/or mathematical explanation for a set of observed facts. A law on the other hand is usually a simple empirical relation that models the observed facts without actually explaining them. I'm mostly familiar with the history of physics. As far as I know physicists stopped making 'laws' over a hundred years ago. Most of the 'laws' of physics are simple approximations that are either not perfectly accurate or apply only to special cases (Hooke's Law, Ohm's Law, the Law of Universal Gravitation, Newton's Laws). Others were empirical observations that are now explained much better by newer theories (some of the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example). Note that the term 'theory' in science does not in any way imply doubtfulness the way it does in common usage.
Relativity is a theory with extremely strong evidence (facts) supporting it. Evolution is an observed fact. There are several 'theories of evolution' which explain the details and mechanisms of the observed process of evolution. The current preferred theory is not actually really Darwin's theory at all but draws heavily on the hundred years of progress in biology and genetics since Darwin's time.
Testability is really a fundamental requirement for an idea to become a scientific theory. It is not sufficient for an idea to simply not have been proven wrong yet. Such a definition would allow all kinds of crackpot ideas to be considered scientific 'theories'. What keeps string theory going is that it does make some predictions, albeit ones that we will not be able to test anytime soon. There is also good reason to hope that we will eventually be able to make testable predictions based on string theory.
No, it's not. The evidence that macroevolution occurs is substantial, and there is no debate among scientists, despite what the proponents of 'creationism' would have you believe.
I wondered about that too, but after reading some of the other comments on here, it seems that the issue is more a matter of motivation: the wording on the stickers is indeed very carefully chosen to be neutral, but it was a purely religious motivation that caused the school board to put the stickers on the books, so their presence on the books is a violation of separation of church and state regardless of what the stickers actually say.
There are actually lasers with very broad bandwidth that can be considered 'white' lasers. I don't think they are used for laser light shows, though. I've never heard of them being used outside a research environment. As another poster pointed out, there are ways of getting red, green, and blue light out of a single laser cavity. That's more likely what they are using.
If you're going to raster scan the lasers, spreading their power across a whole projection screen, you need that much power to get a bright enough image. This is one of the problems with laser displays: if the lasers are bright enough to form a good image on a screen, they are powerful enough to burn through it if the raster scan system jams. Of course, laser displays and light shows have interlocks that shut off the laser if the raster scan stops for any reason...
Lasers of class III and above can damage your eye before you can blink. Class II lasers can damage your eye if you force yourself to stare into the beam. Class I lasers won't damage your eye.
Ability for travellers to self-police. If some guy is driving 60mph+ over the speed limit, likely you could have people report this driver.. Enough complaints and an officer will know where to respond.
No need for this. If you exceed the speed limit by more than 5mph, your car will automatically notify the authorities through the network, and you'll receive a ticket in the mail--complete with the exact speed, time of day, and location.
Unfortunately, you can't get around basic physics. While speed may not be the most common cause of accidents, it is undeniable that if an accident occurs, a car doing 100mph will cause a lot more damage than one doing 60mph.
Good. I hope you got lots of points on your license. Actually, after reading your message, I think your license should probably be revoked, since it is clear that you learned nothing from whatever penalty you did receive. Driving at high speed on the highway shoulder is extremely dangerous. It doesn't matter how many high speed driving courses you have taken, or whether you maintain your own vehicle. Anyone who thinks they can do something like this just shouldn't be on the road.
The next time you get behind the wheel, stop and think before you kill someone. Getting where you're going a few minutes faster is just not worth the risk.
There is no obvious way to turn off plug-ins once they are installed
This one is just uneducated. Tools -> Extensions. Wait... that's, um, more obvious than IE. Oh well, someone wasn't wearing their glasses.
Yes, someone isn't wearing their glasses, and apparently it's you.:) He is talking about plugins, like Flash, not extensions. In Firefox on Windows, Flash does not show up in Tools->Extensions, and there is no obvious way to disable the Flash plugin.
Nobody cares. They could put a clause in there that says you promise to strip naked and dance in front of the computer while the software is installing and people would still buy it. Nobody cares what the EULA says. Nobody reads it.
How do you know that the plain language summary accurately reflects all the terms and conditions of the real EULA?
Fundamentally, a summary of a legal agreement is worthless. The only text of a legal agreement that you can rely on is the actual text you will be agreeing to.
I live in a Wal-Mart-free country, but what's the issue here? Returning unsuitable merchandise is OK just about everywhere, and any store pretending otherwise hasn't got a legal leg to stand on. They can put up all the in-store signs they like, but that doesn't override my right to a refund.
I don't know what country you live in, but you've made an assumption that would be false in both countries I have lived in. You don't, as a consumer, have a "right" to a refund. Most stores will accept refunds of merchandise without question, but they are under absolutely no legal obligation to do so. The only legal requirement in many places is that stores must accept returns of defective merchandise. Even then, they may not be required to offer you a cash refund. If the store can replace the defective item you bought with one that is non-defective, they may not be legally required to offer you any other choice.
So, how sure are you that your country's law actually requires stores to accept returns of non-defective merchandise? Most people here seem to believe that stores legally have to accept returns, but they are mistaken. I'm guessing you are probably just mistaken too.
Hear, hear. Worse, the right-click "Block images from..." does not work on Flash ads, whether they are pop-ups or banners. I notice this a lot because I only block ads if they annoy me, and so I find more than three quarters of the ads I would want to block are unblockable.
Yes, I know there is probably some more complicated way of blocking Flash. I don't care. If it takes more effort than a right click menu option it's not really worth the trouble.
They certainly can't advertise Firefox as "no pop-ups EVER" until they get this fixed, though. Most users have no reason to know the difference between a regular pop-up and a flash pop-up.
Slashdot Mirror
Monsanto is also suing farmers who have not signed their licensing agreement, but who were caught with the genetically engineered plants growing on their farm. In the Canadian case, it appears that the engineered plants may have ended up there by accident (due to the wind blowing pollen from neighbouring farms, etc.), but the court held that the farmer was liable anyway. Basically, they held that Monsanto had an absolute right to control who grows these plants, regardless of whether they have signed any agreement with Monsanto, and regardless of whether the farmer knows that the plants growing on his farm have been engineered by Monsanto.
If the community thinks the way you do, Linux will fail to ever overtake Windows. The vast majority of people need a computer that runs like an appliance: no need to understand the technical details of how it works in order to use it. If Linux cannot satisfy this need, Linux will not be a dominant desktop operating system.
Actually, this isn't true although the phone companies would like you to believe that it is. If you strip off ALL optional services, you can get a basic phone line here in New Jersey for about $17/mo., including taxes.
Besides that, though, we do find transitional forms embedded in the earth. There is no lack of them, given how rare it is for a dead creature to become fossilized.
This argument is provably false, and the fact that creationists keep using it is one of the best proofs that creationism is not a science. A scientist does not continue using an argument that is known to be false. I am a physicist. Physics does not say that entropy always increases. Entropy must increase only when you have a closed system: no energy or matter goes in or out. So yes, when you add sunlight the entropy on Earth decreases. If this argument had any validity all life would be impossible. The process of growing from an embroyo to an infant to an adult human involves continuous decrease in entropy, fueled by energy entering the system. The people who told you the argument based on entropy are lying to you, which is neither scientific nor Christian.
Mutations are rare and usually sterile, except for sometimes, when a fish with leg-type fins will be able to reproduce to create other fish with leg-type fins.
Pretty much. You do know that there are fish with leg-type fins still alive today. And they can breathe air for short periods of time--long enough to flop from a pool that is drying up to a larger body of water.
Evolution is slow, with minor changes each time, but all the minor stages between Ape and Human died out for some reason.
Yeah, so? Why would that be a surprise? Most of the species that have existed on the Earth are extinct. Our last living relatives (that we know of) seem to have died out less than 13000 years ago. Too bad they couldn't have stuck around a bit longer to prove to you that they existed.
The wording of the actual stickers in this case, however, were much more neutral than this. The problem with them seems to have been that independent of what they said, they were put on the books with the motivation to support a particular religious view. The government is not allowed to do this.
Of course, all of the physics we teach children in high school is a century out of date and has been disproven. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's not the right thing to teach at that stage, although I tend to agree that it would be preferable to teach a more modern theory of evolution.
Relativity is a theory with extremely strong evidence (facts) supporting it. Evolution is an observed fact. There are several 'theories of evolution' which explain the details and mechanisms of the observed process of evolution. The current preferred theory is not actually really Darwin's theory at all but draws heavily on the hundred years of progress in biology and genetics since Darwin's time.
Testability is really a fundamental requirement for an idea to become a scientific theory. It is not sufficient for an idea to simply not have been proven wrong yet. Such a definition would allow all kinds of crackpot ideas to be considered scientific 'theories'. What keeps string theory going is that it does make some predictions, albeit ones that we will not be able to test anytime soon. There is also good reason to hope that we will eventually be able to make testable predictions based on string theory.
No, it's not. The evidence that macroevolution occurs is substantial, and there is no debate among scientists, despite what the proponents of 'creationism' would have you believe.
I wondered about that too, but after reading some of the other comments on here, it seems that the issue is more a matter of motivation: the wording on the stickers is indeed very carefully chosen to be neutral, but it was a purely religious motivation that caused the school board to put the stickers on the books, so their presence on the books is a violation of separation of church and state regardless of what the stickers actually say.
One with dye that reflects UV or IR, of course. What color that dye would appear to the human eye is completely arbitrary.
There are actually lasers with very broad bandwidth that can be considered 'white' lasers. I don't think they are used for laser light shows, though. I've never heard of them being used outside a research environment. As another poster pointed out, there are ways of getting red, green, and blue light out of a single laser cavity. That's more likely what they are using.
UV lasers are even harder to make than blue ones.
If you're going to raster scan the lasers, spreading their power across a whole projection screen, you need that much power to get a bright enough image. This is one of the problems with laser displays: if the lasers are bright enough to form a good image on a screen, they are powerful enough to burn through it if the raster scan system jams. Of course, laser displays and light shows have interlocks that shut off the laser if the raster scan stops for any reason...
Lasers of class III and above can damage your eye before you can blink. Class II lasers can damage your eye if you force yourself to stare into the beam. Class I lasers won't damage your eye.
No need for this. If you exceed the speed limit by more than 5mph, your car will automatically notify the authorities through the network, and you'll receive a ticket in the mail--complete with the exact speed, time of day, and location.
Unfortunately, you can't get around basic physics. While speed may not be the most common cause of accidents, it is undeniable that if an accident occurs, a car doing 100mph will cause a lot more damage than one doing 60mph.
The next time you get behind the wheel, stop and think before you kill someone. Getting where you're going a few minutes faster is just not worth the risk.
There is no obvious way to turn off plug-ins once they are installed
This one is just uneducated. Tools -> Extensions. Wait... that's, um, more obvious than IE. Oh well, someone wasn't wearing their glasses.
Yes, someone isn't wearing their glasses, and apparently it's you. :) He is talking about plugins, like Flash, not extensions. In Firefox on Windows, Flash does not show up in Tools->Extensions, and there is no obvious way to disable the Flash plugin.
Nobody cares. They could put a clause in there that says you promise to strip naked and dance in front of the computer while the software is installing and people would still buy it. Nobody cares what the EULA says. Nobody reads it.
Fundamentally, a summary of a legal agreement is worthless. The only text of a legal agreement that you can rely on is the actual text you will be agreeing to.
I don't know what country you live in, but you've made an assumption that would be false in both countries I have lived in. You don't, as a consumer, have a "right" to a refund. Most stores will accept refunds of merchandise without question, but they are under absolutely no legal obligation to do so. The only legal requirement in many places is that stores must accept returns of defective merchandise. Even then, they may not be required to offer you a cash refund. If the store can replace the defective item you bought with one that is non-defective, they may not be legally required to offer you any other choice.
So, how sure are you that your country's law actually requires stores to accept returns of non-defective merchandise? Most people here seem to believe that stores legally have to accept returns, but they are mistaken. I'm guessing you are probably just mistaken too.
Yes, I know there is probably some more complicated way of blocking Flash. I don't care. If it takes more effort than a right click menu option it's not really worth the trouble.
They certainly can't advertise Firefox as "no pop-ups EVER" until they get this fixed, though. Most users have no reason to know the difference between a regular pop-up and a flash pop-up.
It would be pretty stupid if you could sue someone for libel for publishing things that are true, wouldn't it?