sbaker:Which means that there is only a 20% chance that the study that shows that "80% of studies are wrong" is right. Which means that we have no idea what the probability of error is without doing a lot more studies on the subject.
Which means we'll just have to commission a bunch of "scientists" to study the matter further.
Ain't life grand as a "scientist" at the teat of the government sow? It's a win-win proposition, no matter whether you're wrong or you're right.
What ever happened to demonstrating competence in a field? Forget multiple choice and true/false. Ask your students to actually solve applied math problems or actually write some code (or pseudo code). Maybe you can't do as much testing that way and maybe you can't shorten the time it takes to grade the papers but at least you will be testing something worthwhile.
Sorry for the rant but after having survived more than a decade of "education" that consisted primarily of memorize foo and the regurgitate, I'm fairly traumatized by the horror that is the educational system...
Look, obviously you're too insightful to be allowed to take part in this conversation.
And it's equally obvious that the original poster, "Dont tempt me" - who is too damned lazy to perform the most important aspect of his job, which, in this case, is to grade his students' math exams - has found for himself the perfect career path, that of public school educrat.
In twenty years, or thereabouts, he'll be raking in $250,000 per annum as some poor town's Superintendent of Schools.
So be happy for the guy.
And in the meantime, go take your Ritalin, like a good little plebe...
I'm a big fan of the GPL, and of course I'm opposed to software patents, but to divine from the two the need to tax everybody for everything just smacks of totalitarianism. Who then decides how this money gets doled out to the artists, for one thing? And how does this model work for movies, when they cost millions of dollars to produce? I just don't see it.
The moral of the story: NEVER underestimate a marxist's capacity for self-immolation.
PS: If you are at all interested in this sort of thing, I cannot recommend highly enough the work of the pseudonymous author "Spengler", at the Asia Times:
I'm a big fan of the GPL, and of course I'm opposed to software patents, but to divine from the two the need to tax everybody for everything just smacks of totalitarianism. Who then decides how this money gets doled out to the artists, for one thing? And how does this model work for movies, when they cost millions of dollars to produce? I just don't see it.
The moral of the story: NEVER underestimate a marxist's capacity for self-immolation.
PS: If you are at all interested in this sort of thing, I cannot recommend highly enough the work of the pseudonymous author "Spengler", at the Asia Times:
1) Does the fact that DEC successfully sued M$FT for theft of intellectual property mean anything to you? The resolution of that suit [or threat of a suit - I forget the details, and I'm too damned lazy to Google them] was that M$FT would port Windows NT to Alpha. Unfortunately for DEC, NT on Alpha never grabbed much "mindshare", and withered on the vine.
[By the way, Alpha's greatest opportunity was lost when DEC missed the chance to become the supplier of the successor to the 68000-series in the Macintosh. It makes you wonder how that whole sordid soap opera might have played out had DEC instead capitalized on the opportunity.]
2) When you write "that NT is somehow a descendent of VMS [is] like saying that... feces is a descendent of filet mignon", I am very tempted to reply quod erat demonstrandum.
...or at least ironic, if the only operating system that gained a foothold on Itanium proved to be...
[drumroll please]
...VMS?!?
I mean, talk about a soap opera:
1) David Cutler leaves DEC for M$FT, where he unveils a VMS++, dubbed "Windows NT".
2) DEC invents Alpha, but the only way they can garner any OS support for it is by porting their own VMS and positioning Alpha as a replacement for VAX.
3) DEC sues M$FT to port "Windows NT/VMS++" to Alpha.
4) Intel & HP enter into a partnership to build a next generation super-chip.
5) Compaq purchases DEC.
6) Compaq sues Intel for theft of much of the intellectual property that went into Alpha.
7) Intel settles with Compaq by purchasing the manufacturing rights to Alpha.
8) HP purchases Compaq.
9) HP cancels Alpha and announces that the new upgrade path for VMS customers is Itanium.
10) M$FT announces an end to support for "Windows NT/VMS++" on Itanium, but then backtracks, and agrees to partial support.
Who knows what the moral of this story is?
Maybe: Hardware comes and hardware goes, but software is forever?
Why would MySQL decide to work directly with a company that has deemed the GPL as unconstitutional?
Maybe because MySQL doesn't have a dog in this fight?
MySQL 4.1 Downloads
The software available in MySQL Network and the MySQL Community Edition is available under the "dual licensing" model. Under this model, users may choose to use MySQL products under the free software/open source GNU General Public License (commonly known as the "GPL") or under a commercial license.
They use an applet and encrypt the password information before it leaves the local PC.
Being an old Novell MCNI/MCNE/etc, I was innundated, inculcated, and imbued by the overarching mantra: PASSWORDS NEVER TRAVEL THE WIRE!!! ONLY HASHES OF PASSWORDS TRAVEL THE WIRE!!!
This in fact causes a performance hit, but it actually turns out that it is not responsible for the majority of the hit. Most of the degradation in Mach was due to other overhead, such as checks for memory access rights. This costly functionality was needed in order to meet the design goal of transparency across distributed systems without compromising security.
For a fork() to occur, a port access right must first be checked. Then there is mapping between user- and kernel-threads. Those are the significant Mach bottlenecks. Linux has a much faster model for threading and scheduling (that 2.6+ scheduler is great!).
The most interesting parts for me were the fork() times and IPC benchmarks. 0SX was considerably slower in these areas. Is this an nptl issue?
Boy, I'd give my left - ah - ear hair maybe? pinkie fingernail clippings? whatever - if Avie Tevanian and/or some of the FreeBSD committee members would get on here and talk about the Carnegie-Mellon/Utah/Whosesoever's microkernel and the FreeBSD threading layer and all the cool stuff that I've always wished I knew more about ever since I cut my teeth on a NeXTstation with Interface Builder and the ObjectiveC compiler.
Stares off into the distance, bats eyelids, and releases big, wistful, teenie-bopper groupie sigh...
What is the mechanism by which genes fade? I suggest that you take a basic biology class. Mitochrondrial DNA tests indicate that Neanderthals were an entirely seperate species with no interbreeding.Here's more on MtDNA highlight the discovery of Eve who lived 200,000 years ago.
What is the mechanism by which a child species loses the ability to breed with its parent species? [Mathematically, this kind of differentiation has the topology of a totally order set. Oh, and don't be a semantics nazi who quibbles that "by definition, a child species is not a separate species until it is incapable of breeding with its parent."] Remember, we're talking sexual species here, so if you believe in differentiation via mutation, then you'll need at least one breeding pair with compatible mutations, i.e. before you can get a child species, you'll need at least one male and one female with compatible mutations. Differentiation via incest, anyone?
Along the same lines, what is the mechanism by which two sibling species become incapable of breeding with one another? [Mathematically, this kind of differentiation has the topology of a partially order set, which Comp Sci guys tend to call a "tree"]. This time you'll need a male/female pair A with compatible mutations, and a male/female pair B with compatible mutations, and you'll need pair A's mutation to be incompatible with pair B's mutation, and, finally, you'll need both of those mutations to be incompatible with the code of the non-mutated parent species.
Care to venture a guess as to the odds of such a thing happening over the course of, say, 10,000 years? 25,000 years? 100,000 years?
From TFA: The algorithm discovers the patterns by repeatedly aligning sentences and looking for overlapping parts.
If you take just a single string [of length n] and rotate it against itself in a search for matches, then you've got to do n^2 byte comparisons just to find all singleton matches, and then gosh only knows how many comparions thereafter to find all contiguous stretches of matches.
But if you were to take some set of embedded strings, and rotate them against a second set of global strings [where, in a worst case scenario, the set of embedded strings would consist of the set of all substrings of the set of global strings], then you would need to perform a staggeringly large [for all intents and purposes, infinite] number of byte comparisons.
What did they do to shorten the total number of comparisons? [I've got some ideas of my own in that regard, but I'm curious as to their approach.]
PS: Many languages are read backwards, and I assume they re-oriented those languages before feeding them to the algorithm [it would be damned impressive if the algorithm could learn the forwards grammar by reading backwards].
Yo, Eric Schmidt*, let me tell you about this little debacle called "Iridium", wherein a once proud US technology titan, name of "Motorola" [you might have heard of 'em - back in the day, they had this bitchin' little CPU called the 68000 series], thought they could dominate [maybe even monopolize] the US communications bidness, by launching a whole mess of satellites into geosynchrynous orbit; invested billions of dollars in the thing, which, at one point, was widely believed to have been the largest privately financed infrastructure expenditure in the history of mankind.
Care to venture a guess as to the return on their investment? A big fat goose egg, that's what. Actually even less than that, if you factor in the fees that the bankruptcy lawyers must have charged them.
*It's a real testament to Novell engineering that this moron didn't drive them into bankruptcy, as well...
Anyone who dooms their children to twelve* years in government schools is guilty of gross negligence, bordering on purposeful, intended cruelty - maybe even sadism.
I wouldn't put a dog in a government school, much less an innocent, defenseless human child.
And, quite frankly, the so-called "private" schools aren't much better: The only way to be absolutely certain what it is that your child is being taught is to teach your child yourself.
*And it's up to 13 years for the children of most absentee parents, since they [the parents] are more than willing to take advantage of the "K" in "K-12".
The documentation and source code are (or were) revenue generating portions of the business.
I can understand charging for access to source code, but the idea that a customer should have pay to learn how to use a product he has been sold is, to me, obscene.
I've often thought that one of the reasons Java took off like wildfire was because Sun gave away not only the runtime environment & the compiler, but also the API:
By glancing at a few "Hello World!" tutorials and then perusing the API, you could [and, to this day, still can] teach yourself Java in about a day.
Nowadays everyone does it (compare MSDN), but circa 1995, it was a pretty revolutionary idea - back then, everybody else required you to purchase a 750 page 10 lb $100 hardcover treatise just to be able to teach yourself the syntax that would produce "Hello World!".
And the idea that you would sell a product to a customer and then refuse to demonstrate to that customer how to use the product you just sold him strikes me as not only a monstrously awful business model, but, quite frankly, more than a little sadistic.
Seriously, if M$FT can patent the scroll wheel on the iPod [before Apple even gets around to doing it], then surely there must be some opportunity for patenting a "method for transmitting verbal and other auditory and visual communication through the locus of a digital entertainment center" or how-the-hell-ever the patent lawyers would have you phrase it.
Sony has millions of people playing their online games, just like Yahoo, you'd figure they'd see integration of VoIP into games at this point in the VoIP gold rush as a logical first step into the market.
Two points:
1) As someone who has used serious, professional quality VOIP [to the point of accompanying VOIP engineers during lengthy on-site visits], let me be the first to say that VOIP quality
IS TEH SUX0RS. You could shoot your foe, take off your headset, walk over to the fridge, throw a pan of grits on the stove, pop your Natalie Portman video in the VCR, take the dog for a walk - whatever - and still get back before you heard your enemy's death throes.
2) In this arena, anything Sony can do, M$FT can do like a million times better. In fact, if Steve B or Bill G were to notice your post, I wouldn't be surprised if they acted on your idea immediately.
Oh, I almost forgot:
3) Get your lazy ass to the USPTO and patent this thing like YESTERDAY. Cite your/. post as prior art, or whatever.
Let's see how your lawyers fare when soldiers use guns on them.
Lawyers only work when everyone agrees to abide by the lawers and judges. People generally only agree to this because some "soldiers" somewhere are willing to enforce what the lawyers and judges say. I only care about lawyers and judges because of the guys with guns behind them.
People in the US in particular seem to forget that the only real way to enforce anything is with force.
One of the great ironies of history is that Lincoln maintained, in 1856, that "The ballot is greater than the bullet," [and then, about four years later, proceeded to murder several hundred thousand constitutionalists in the epic anti-constitutionalist crusade that would prove himself, probably unintentionally, to be a hypocrit in this very regard], whereas Mao said that "All power emanates from the barrel of a gun."
Anyway, the supreme irony is that Mao - likely the greatest mass murderer in the history of our species [at least in absolute terms: Pol Pot would surely best him in relative terms] - was more honest about this question than was Lincoln.
Of course, "Honest" Abe was a lawyer, so draw your own conclusions.
PS: As a post-script, let me state for the record that there are alternative approaches to these questions, and that Lincoln may very well have felt a personal attraction to those alternatives, but that his professional approach to the great questions of his day was absolutely monstrous, as is, to this day, his terrible legacy.
I've spent the last few days doing some very important searching - we're thinking about launching a new product in a rather arcane field, and I wanted to be absolutely certain who the potential competition might be - hence I decided to search both Google & Yahoo!.
Guess what? Yahoo! search beats Google search, hands down. Not even close.
Two thoughts:
1) While everybody was oohing and ahhing about Google's IPO, Yahoo! very quietly went about purchasing some excellent search engine/caching outfits, like Inktomi and AllTheWeb, and, owing to the great dot-com bust, paid only pennies on the dollar in acquiring some outstanding talent and intellectual property.
2) I think Google's been reading too many of their own press releases, and has been resting on their laurels for a few years now. And it doesn't help matters that their CEO, Eric Schmidt, is the same fella who damn near drove Novell to bankruptcy.
There is no theory of the existence of an intelligent creator. Many people have the belief in one, but belief is not a theory.
Is there equally no theory of the non-existence of an intelligent creator, and are the many people who believe in its non-existence also embracing beliefs rather than theories?
Slashdot Mirror
Down in these parts, we had what were called "Icees" [compare e.g. The Great Pop vs. Soda Controversy].
So which is the oldest: Icee, Slurpee, or Slush Puppy?
nxtr: 80 percent of all studies are wrong...
sbaker: Which means that there is only a 20% chance that the study that shows that "80% of studies are wrong" is right. Which means that we have no idea what the probability of error is without doing a lot more studies on the subject.
Which means we'll just have to commission a bunch of "scientists" to study the matter further.
Ain't life grand as a "scientist" at the teat of the government sow? It's a win-win proposition, no matter whether you're wrong or you're right.
What ever happened to demonstrating competence in a field? Forget multiple choice and true/false. Ask your students to actually solve applied math problems or actually write some code (or pseudo code). Maybe you can't do as much testing that way and maybe you can't shorten the time it takes to grade the papers but at least you will be testing something worthwhile.
Sorry for the rant but after having survived more than a decade of "education" that consisted primarily of memorize foo and the regurgitate, I'm fairly traumatized by the horror that is the educational system...
Look, obviously you're too insightful to be allowed to take part in this conversation.
And it's equally obvious that the original poster, "Dont tempt me" - who is too damned lazy to perform the most important aspect of his job, which, in this case, is to grade his students' math exams - has found for himself the perfect career path, that of public school educrat.
In twenty years, or thereabouts, he'll be raking in $250,000 per annum as some poor town's Superintendent of Schools.
So be happy for the guy.
And in the meantime, go take your Ritalin, like a good little plebe...
IGN Purchased By News Corp.
I'm a big fan of the GPL, and of course I'm opposed to software patents, but to divine from the two the need to tax everybody for everything just smacks of totalitarianism. Who then decides how this money gets doled out to the artists, for one thing? And how does this model work for movies, when they cost millions of dollars to produce? I just don't see it.
The moral of the story: NEVER underestimate a marxist's capacity for self-immolation.
PS: If you are at all interested in this sort of thing, I cannot recommend highly enough the work of the pseudonymous author "Spengler", at the Asia Times:
I'm a big fan of the GPL, and of course I'm opposed to software patents, but to divine from the two the need to tax everybody for everything just smacks of totalitarianism. Who then decides how this money gets doled out to the artists, for one thing? And how does this model work for movies, when they cost millions of dollars to produce? I just don't see it.
The moral of the story: NEVER underestimate a marxist's capacity for self-immolation.
PS: If you are at all interested in this sort of thing, I cannot recommend highly enough the work of the pseudonymous author "Spengler", at the Asia Times:
1) Does the fact that DEC successfully sued M$FT for theft of intellectual property mean anything to you? The resolution of that suit [or threat of a suit - I forget the details, and I'm too damned lazy to Google them] was that M$FT would port Windows NT to Alpha. Unfortunately for DEC, NT on Alpha never grabbed much "mindshare", and withered on the vine.
[By the way, Alpha's greatest opportunity was lost when DEC missed the chance to become the supplier of the successor to the 68000-series in the Macintosh. It makes you wonder how that whole sordid soap opera might have played out had DEC instead capitalized on the opportunity.]
2) When you write "that NT is somehow a descendent of VMS [is] like saying that... feces is a descendent of filet mignon", I am very tempted to reply quod erat demonstrandum.
[drumroll please]
I mean, talk about a soap opera:
Who knows what the moral of this story is?Maybe: Hardware comes and hardware goes, but software is forever?
Why would MySQL decide to work directly with a company that has deemed the GPL as unconstitutional?
Maybe because MySQL doesn't have a dog in this fight?
They use an applet and encrypt the password information before it leaves the local PC.
Being an old Novell MCNI/MCNE/etc, I was innundated, inculcated, and imbued by the overarching mantra: PASSWORDS NEVER TRAVEL THE WIRE!!! ONLY HASHES OF PASSWORDS TRAVEL THE WIRE!!!
After a few Google searches I got a list of over 150 software packages. Where do you even start with something like that?
And we wonder why God Almighty invented salesmen.
Oh ye of little faith...
This in fact causes a performance hit, but it actually turns out that it is not responsible for the majority of the hit. Most of the degradation in Mach was due to other overhead, such as checks for memory access rights. This costly functionality was needed in order to meet the design goal of transparency across distributed systems without compromising security.
For a fork() to occur, a port access right must first be checked. Then there is mapping between user- and kernel-threads. Those are the significant Mach bottlenecks. Linux has a much faster model for threading and scheduling (that 2.6+ scheduler is great!).
I wonder what de Raadt thinks of all this.
The most interesting parts for me were the fork() times and IPC benchmarks. 0SX was considerably slower in these areas. Is this an nptl issue?
Boy, I'd give my left - ah - ear hair maybe? pinkie fingernail clippings? whatever - if Avie Tevanian and/or some of the FreeBSD committee members would get on here and talk about the Carnegie-Mellon/Utah/Whosesoever's microkernel and the FreeBSD threading layer and all the cool stuff that I've always wished I knew more about ever since I cut my teeth on a NeXTstation with Interface Builder and the ObjectiveC compiler.
Stares off into the distance, bats eyelids, and releases big, wistful, teenie-bopper groupie sigh...
What is the mechanism by which genes fade? I suggest that you take a basic biology class. Mitochrondrial DNA tests indicate that Neanderthals were an entirely seperate species with no interbreeding.Here's more on MtDNA highlight the discovery of Eve who lived 200,000 years ago.
What is the mechanism by which a child species loses the ability to breed with its parent species? [Mathematically, this kind of differentiation has the topology of a totally order set. Oh, and don't be a semantics nazi who quibbles that "by definition, a child species is not a separate species until it is incapable of breeding with its parent."] Remember, we're talking sexual species here, so if you believe in differentiation via mutation, then you'll need at least one breeding pair with compatible mutations, i.e. before you can get a child species, you'll need at least one male and one female with compatible mutations. Differentiation via incest, anyone?
Along the same lines, what is the mechanism by which two sibling species become incapable of breeding with one another? [Mathematically, this kind of differentiation has the topology of a partially order set, which Comp Sci guys tend to call a "tree"]. This time you'll need a male/female pair A with compatible mutations, and a male/female pair B with compatible mutations, and you'll need pair A's mutation to be incompatible with pair B's mutation, and, finally, you'll need both of those mutations to be incompatible with the code of the non-mutated parent species.
Care to venture a guess as to the odds of such a thing happening over the course of, say, 10,000 years? 25,000 years? 100,000 years?
From TFA: The algorithm discovers the patterns by repeatedly aligning sentences and looking for overlapping parts.
If you take just a single string [of length n] and rotate it against itself in a search for matches, then you've got to do n^2 byte comparisons just to find all singleton matches, and then gosh only knows how many comparions thereafter to find all contiguous stretches of matches.
But if you were to take some set of embedded strings, and rotate them against a second set of global strings [where, in a worst case scenario, the set of embedded strings would consist of the set of all substrings of the set of global strings], then you would need to perform a staggeringly large [for all intents and purposes, infinite] number of byte comparisons.
What did they do to shorten the total number of comparisons? [I've got some ideas of my own in that regard, but I'm curious as to their approach.]
PS: Many languages are read backwards, and I assume they re-oriented those languages before feeding them to the algorithm [it would be damned impressive if the algorithm could learn the forwards grammar by reading backwards].
Yo, Eric Schmidt*, let me tell you about this little debacle called "Iridium", wherein a once proud US technology titan, name of "Motorola" [you might have heard of 'em - back in the day, they had this bitchin' little CPU called the 68000 series], thought they could dominate [maybe even monopolize] the US communications bidness, by launching a whole mess of satellites into geosynchrynous orbit; invested billions of dollars in the thing, which, at one point, was widely believed to have been the largest privately financed infrastructure expenditure in the history of mankind.
Care to venture a guess as to the return on their investment? A big fat goose egg, that's what. Actually even less than that, if you factor in the fees that the bankruptcy lawyers must have charged them.
*It's a real testament to Novell engineering that this moron didn't drive them into bankruptcy, as well...
Anyone who dooms their children to twelve* years in government schools is guilty of gross negligence, bordering on purposeful, intended cruelty - maybe even sadism.
I wouldn't put a dog in a government school, much less an innocent, defenseless human child.
And, quite frankly, the so-called "private" schools aren't much better: The only way to be absolutely certain what it is that your child is being taught is to teach your child yourself.
*And it's up to 13 years for the children of most absentee parents, since they [the parents] are more than willing to take advantage of the "K" in "K-12".
The documentation and source code are (or were) revenue generating portions of the business.
I can understand charging for access to source code, but the idea that a customer should have pay to learn how to use a product he has been sold is, to me, obscene.
I've often thought that one of the reasons Java took off like wildfire was because Sun gave away not only the runtime environment & the compiler, but also the API:
By glancing at a few "Hello World!" tutorials and then perusing the API, you could [and, to this day, still can] teach yourself Java in about a day.Nowadays everyone does it (compare MSDN), but circa 1995, it was a pretty revolutionary idea - back then, everybody else required you to purchase a 750 page 10 lb $100 hardcover treatise just to be able to teach yourself the syntax that would produce "Hello World!".
And the idea that you would sell a product to a customer and then refuse to demonstrate to that customer how to use the product you just sold him strikes me as not only a monstrously awful business model, but, quite frankly, more than a little sadistic.
Seriously, if M$FT can patent the scroll wheel on the iPod [before Apple even gets around to doing it], then surely there must be some opportunity for patenting a "method for transmitting verbal and other auditory and visual communication through the locus of a digital entertainment center" or how-the-hell-ever the patent lawyers would have you phrase it.
Sony has millions of people playing their online games, just like Yahoo, you'd figure they'd see integration of VoIP into games at this point in the VoIP gold rush as a logical first step into the market.
Two points:
Oh, I almost forgot:Let's see how your lawyers fare when soldiers use guns on them.
Lawyers only work when everyone agrees to abide by the lawers and judges. People generally only agree to this because some "soldiers" somewhere are willing to enforce what the lawyers and judges say. I only care about lawyers and judges because of the guys with guns behind them.
People in the US in particular seem to forget that the only real way to enforce anything is with force.
One of the great ironies of history is that Lincoln maintained, in 1856, that "The ballot is greater than the bullet," [and then, about four years later, proceeded to murder several hundred thousand constitutionalists in the epic anti-constitutionalist crusade that would prove himself, probably unintentionally, to be a hypocrit in this very regard], whereas Mao said that "All power emanates from the barrel of a gun."
Anyway, the supreme irony is that Mao - likely the greatest mass murderer in the history of our species [at least in absolute terms: Pol Pot would surely best him in relative terms] - was more honest about this question than was Lincoln.
Of course, "Honest" Abe was a lawyer, so draw your own conclusions.
PS: As a post-script, let me state for the record that there are alternative approaches to these questions, and that Lincoln may very well have felt a personal attraction to those alternatives, but that his professional approach to the great questions of his day was absolutely monstrous, as is, to this day, his terrible legacy.
I've spent the last few days doing some very important searching - we're thinking about launching a new product in a rather arcane field, and I wanted to be absolutely certain who the potential competition might be - hence I decided to search both Google & Yahoo!.
Guess what? Yahoo! search beats Google search, hands down. Not even close.
Two thoughts:
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious, but, for the sake of discussion, let's assume the latter.
Then it's your position that an assertion of the form
constitutes a "theory", but an assertion of the form constitutes a "belief"?If you could find a little time in your busy day, perhaps you could enlighten me further as to this difference between "theory" and "belief".
Thanks!
Scientist can't teach that "There is evidence in favor of the theory of the existence of an Intelligent Creator" because there is no such theory.
There isn't even a hypothesis of an intelligent creator, all you can say is there is a conjecture.
Science has rules about what is science, including a falsifiable hypothesis. Things in a science class need to follow those rules to be science.
Tell me about this "science" thing: It seems that it must follow a certain set of "rules"; just what are they, anyhow?
And would you also tell me what this "science" thing views to be the difference between a "conjecture" and an "hypothesis"?
Thanks!
There is no theory of the existence of an intelligent creator. Many people have the belief in one, but belief is not a theory.
Is there equally no theory of the non-existence of an intelligent creator, and are the many people who believe in its non-existence also embracing beliefs rather than theories?