Now, see, I'm going to have to argue (for completeness sake if for no other reason) that ID was designed. (Somehow I couldn't bring myself to say that it was intelligently designed.)
The inability of carbon to go beyond a certain date (although not for the reasons you suggested) is why I used X instead of carbon. Each isotope has a range over which it is useful/valid. Where these ranges overlap, they can (and do) cross-check each other.
The best argument in favor of an ID-type theory I've ever heard was made by Nick Bostrom. Granted, this probably isn't what the Dover Board had in mind...
(Yes, I prefer Bostrom's argument over the FSM, but that's just me, I guess.)
To play science's advocate:), here's my explanation of where your argument falls apart:
We can use radioactive dating to date when many of these specimens stopped absorbing element X (where X might be carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, or some other element).
If this is due to a single flood we would expect all organisms bigger than Y to be at the same level, as the rocks would not have let them settle below a certain point.
We would expect to find broken pieces of the bigger organisms (chipped teeth, hairs, etc.) to be found with the smaller organisms.
I will give you credit for coming up with a new argument, however. (New to me, at least.) And since you were only playing devil's advocate I'll give you 8/10 for creativity.:)
To further back up my comments about who was and who was not performing due diligence:
Witold Walczak, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the families, noted in his cross-examination of Geesey that the policy was adopted over the objections of Dover High School's science teachers.
"The only people in the school district with a scientific background were opposed to intelligent design... and you ignored them?" he asked.
Evolution has made many predictions that could have been disproven, but each time we look, we usually strengthen it and not weaken it. Of course, evolution isn't a single theory (just like GR or string theory isn't really a single theory anymore), so we might disprove this version of it or that version of it, but that just guides us to make minor corrections (cosmological constant, anyone?) and to make it a better theory.
ID doesn't have that ability, to the best of my knowledge. I don't want to touch FSM for fear of starting a religious war, however.:)
Are quarks 100% of what scientists think they are. Is general relativity? Is string theory?!?
General relativity might be the best comparison here. We are unable to perform controlled experiments warping time and space. We can only measure what is already warped. Similarly, evolution is usually studied by what has already evolved. Actually, we can and have done controlled experiments on evolution, but no doubt this will bring up the whole micro- versus macro- evolution debate, which of course becomes a debate of semantics and one therefore not worth having. I'll admit that I'm not aware of any controlled experiments that have evolved new species (as opposed to sub-species) - although others might be aware of some. Additionally, I perform controlled experiments all the time using evolution to create new virtual species. Currently, I have a whole population of virtual hippocampi (CA3 region only) that are raring to cogitate.
Of those theories, string theory is the weakest. However, it has much more support (both scholastically and scientifically) than ID, in that it has intrinsic features that can be disproven. Naturally, it is very much a work in progress, and will hopefully result in interesting break-throughs. Of course, it shouldn't be taught at the high-school level yet, but not for the same reasons that ID shouldn't. I'd have no problems with it being mentioned; however, which is part of what was prescribed against here.
Furthermore, the federal judge in question was not ruling off of his own understanding of what is and what is not science. Unlike the board that proposed these changes, he heard from many, many scientists before making his decision. In fact, that was part of the problem. If you followed the case, you'd know that one of the board members admitted to ignored the advice of those who did know what they were talking about, in lieu of what they themselves personally believed. As the judge stated, it is the board that was being activist, and not the judge.
(Since he posted as Anonymous Coward - for whatever reason - his response will likely be hidden to many. Which, of course, is why you should browse at -1 when moderating.)
Don't forget Scopes and Scopes II (Hawkins County, TN) on the other side and the GA decision on our side. At least we've tied the score, though. (No doubt, others can come up with even more "points" for either side.)
There are intelligent ways to do this very quickly; however, it's still O(n), or O(2^x), where n is the number of digits. Let's assume that you have an infinite number of 64-bit registers, and each register can subtract one in constant time (for a fixed size register, this is a trivial statement). If you have n binary digits, then you'll require n/64 registers to store 2^x. Two carry the subtraction from each register will require O(n/64) time, and O(n/64) is synonymous with O(n), by definition of O().
The same logic applies if you're dealing with RAM instead of registers.
Also, I should point out that by similar reasoning you can see that assigning the registers (or RAM) to hold 2^x will require O(n) even before the subtraction takes place.
If you want to just represent this as 111...111, it will obviously require O(n) or O(2^x) time, since there are O(2^x) digits. To represent it as FFF..FFF (or 3FF..FFF, etc., depending on the situation), will require O(n/16) time which is still O(n) or O(2^x), by definition of O().
Converting to base 10 is also only O(n), but would be slightly slower, of course.
Consider this as a radical compression scheme. Rather than storing every single digit, you store a simple formula for arriving at the number. In this case, that formula is 2^x-1. All you need to store is x, which requires O(lg n) bytes to store where n is the number of digits in the original number.
What strikes me as somewhat amusing is that calculating 2^x-1, for an arbitrarily large x, requires O(2^x) amount of time. Of course, since 2^x is less than 10 million here, and it's actually quite a small bit of work O(2^x) times, it's no big deal.
Check out the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005. Its goal appears to be to threaten and endanger species. It was initiated by Richard Pombo (R-Cal), who is well known for his support of miners and loggers as well as his fight against the spotted owl.
Or, if you don't like the House version, how about Collaboration and Recovery of Endangered Species Act (S. 2110) in the Senate, initiated by Mike Crapo (R-ID). The Republicans definitely seem to be consistent.
You (and implictly the submitter) are assuming longer == more content. Typically, better writers can say more with less words.
You are assuming that in this case "fewer words" necessarily means "more concise" rather than possibly "less information".
I'm not sure what part of my argument leads you to assume that I am assuming what you claim I am assuming. However, I think that last sentence bolsters my point that more words does not necessarily lead to more clarity. Surely, fewer words can just mean less information. My point was just that good writers can make a point concisely. Admittedly, this is more by definition (of a good writer) than anything else.
I would not be surprised if the Wikipedia articles had more information than the Encylopedia articles. However, I doubt that number of "content units" tightly correlates with the number of words. So, the fact that 4/2.6
You (and implictly the submitter) are assuming longer == more content. Typically, better writers can say more with less words. Of course, more credentialed != better.
This is exactly what happened when Marquette Dental School Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Denis Lynch learned of a student blog that made one negative comment about a professor (who was not named), a negative comment about 25% of the year-two dental school class (with nobody named) and talked about going out on a few occasions and drinking too much.
Pay careful attention to the phrases "who was not named" and "with nobody named". So, the question of the GP remains: whose character, precisely, did he defame?
Slashdot Mirror
Now, see, I'm going to have to argue (for completeness sake if for no other reason) that ID was designed. (Somehow I couldn't bring myself to say that it was intelligently designed.)
Ah, but that'd no longer bring the server down, would it? :)
Also, it would help to discourage this festering practice of RTFA. When did slashdotters start doing that?
The inability of carbon to go beyond a certain date (although not for the reasons you suggested) is why I used X instead of carbon. Each isotope has a range over which it is useful/valid. Where these ranges overlap, they can (and do) cross-check each other.
The best argument in favor of an ID-type theory I've ever heard was made by Nick Bostrom. Granted, this probably isn't what the Dover Board had in mind...
(Yes, I prefer Bostrom's argument over the FSM, but that's just me, I guess.)
To play science's advocate :), here's my explanation of where your argument falls apart:
I will give you credit for coming up with a new argument, however. (New to me, at least.) And since you were only playing devil's advocate I'll give you 8/10 for creativity. :)
Evolution has made many predictions that could have been disproven, but each time we look, we usually strengthen it and not weaken it. Of course, evolution isn't a single theory (just like GR or string theory isn't really a single theory anymore), so we might disprove this version of it or that version of it, but that just guides us to make minor corrections (cosmological constant, anyone?) and to make it a better theory.
ID doesn't have that ability, to the best of my knowledge. I don't want to touch FSM for fear of starting a religious war, however. :)
P.S. I think you misread my previous statement.
Are quarks 100% of what scientists think they are. Is general relativity? Is string theory?!?
General relativity might be the best comparison here. We are unable to perform controlled experiments warping time and space. We can only measure what is already warped. Similarly, evolution is usually studied by what has already evolved. Actually, we can and have done controlled experiments on evolution, but no doubt this will bring up the whole micro- versus macro- evolution debate, which of course becomes a debate of semantics and one therefore not worth having. I'll admit that I'm not aware of any controlled experiments that have evolved new species (as opposed to sub-species) - although others might be aware of some. Additionally, I perform controlled experiments all the time using evolution to create new virtual species. Currently, I have a whole population of virtual hippocampi (CA3 region only) that are raring to cogitate.
Of those theories, string theory is the weakest. However, it has much more support (both scholastically and scientifically) than ID, in that it has intrinsic features that can be disproven. Naturally, it is very much a work in progress, and will hopefully result in interesting break-throughs. Of course, it shouldn't be taught at the high-school level yet, but not for the same reasons that ID shouldn't. I'd have no problems with it being mentioned; however, which is part of what was prescribed against here.
Furthermore, the federal judge in question was not ruling off of his own understanding of what is and what is not science. Unlike the board that proposed these changes, he heard from many, many scientists before making his decision. In fact, that was part of the problem. If you followed the case, you'd know that one of the board members admitted to ignored the advice of those who did know what they were talking about, in lieu of what they themselves personally believed. As the judge stated, it is the board that was being activist, and not the judge.
MOD PARENT UP!
(Since he posted as Anonymous Coward - for whatever reason - his response will likely be hidden to many. Which, of course, is why you should browse at -1 when moderating.)Don't forget Scopes and Scopes II (Hawkins County, TN) on the other side and the GA decision on our side. At least we've tied the score, though. (No doubt, others can come up with even more "points" for either side.)
How is evolution less science than quarks, general relativity, or string theory?
I shamefully retract most of my previous comments on the topic.
I was just testing you. You passed! Congratulations!
2^x = 1000...0000 in binary.
2^x-1 = 111...1111.
There are intelligent ways to do this very quickly; however, it's still O(n), or O(2^x), where n is the number of digits. Let's assume that you have an infinite number of 64-bit registers, and each register can subtract one in constant time (for a fixed size register, this is a trivial statement). If you have n binary digits, then you'll require n/64 registers to store 2^x. Two carry the subtraction from each register will require O(n/64) time, and O(n/64) is synonymous with O(n), by definition of O().
The same logic applies if you're dealing with RAM instead of registers.
Also, I should point out that by similar reasoning you can see that assigning the registers (or RAM) to hold 2^x will require O(n) even before the subtraction takes place.
If you want to just represent this as 111...111, it will obviously require O(n) or O(2^x) time, since there are O(2^x) digits. To represent it as FFF..FFF (or 3FF..FFF, etc., depending on the situation), will require O(n/16) time which is still O(n) or O(2^x), by definition of O().
Converting to base 10 is also only O(n), but would be slightly slower, of course.
Consider this as a radical compression scheme. Rather than storing every single digit, you store a simple formula for arriving at the number. In this case, that formula is 2^x-1. All you need to store is x, which requires O(lg n) bytes to store where n is the number of digits in the original number.
What strikes me as somewhat amusing is that calculating 2^x-1, for an arbitrarily large x, requires O(2^x) amount of time. Of course, since 2^x is less than 10 million here, and it's actually quite a small bit of work O(2^x) times, it's no big deal.
Check out the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005. Its goal appears to be to threaten and endanger species. It was initiated by Richard Pombo (R-Cal), who is well known for his support of miners and loggers as well as his fight against the spotted owl.
Other links:Or, if you don't like the House version, how about Collaboration and Recovery of Endangered Species Act (S. 2110) in the Senate, initiated by Mike Crapo (R-ID). The Republicans definitely seem to be consistent.
Other links:I'm not sure what part of my argument leads you to assume that I am assuming what you claim I am assuming. However, I think that last sentence bolsters my point that more words does not necessarily lead to more clarity. Surely, fewer words can just mean less information. My point was just that good writers can make a point concisely. Admittedly, this is more by definition (of a good writer) than anything else.
I would not be surprised if the Wikipedia articles had more information than the Encylopedia articles. However, I doubt that number of "content units" tightly correlates with the number of words. So, the fact that 4/2.6
You (and implictly the submitter) are assuming longer == more content. Typically, better writers can say more with less words. Of course, more credentialed != better.
That's how Brasilians spell it. ;)
I missed the four years part.
Actually, $1.7b is 0.26% of $650b, unless you're making a different comparison than what I think you're making.
Pay careful attention to the phrases "who was not named" and "with nobody named". So, the question of the GP remains: whose character, precisely, did he defame?