No! I noticed that the New York Times is saying that these documents show that the death toll is around 100,000. They do no such thing. They simply report this number of deaths. This is not the same as determining that this number has been killed, since these documents didn't set out to report all deaths. There have been very few comprehensive studies on the actual death toll, but it is much higher (see http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf).
Well, a paper by Hess, Shanks, and Hutjens called "Accelerated Calf Growing Program" says that "ad libum" means "to appetite," which I assume means you give as much of the food/drink to the cows as they are willing to consume. So perhaps the questioner means that they made new folders whenever they got hungry instead of eating? Or that they made folders until their folder-making appetite was sated?
Okay. I don't think that discussion in a philosophy department is necessarily an indication that it should be discussed in a philosophy department. It seems to that ID has managed to thrust itself into public discourse because a certain kind of Christianity has the ability to be loud. As a result of their exposure to the media, it is more likely to be on students' and instructors' minds. It doesn't follow, however, that ID is sufficiently robust to merit philosophical discussion.
Like gravity, evolution is not a scientific theory. It's a fact, and a number of scientific theories explain its mechanisms. ID is a facade for the insertion of religious propaganda into popular discourse, specifically in public schools. I'm curious if ID gets its alleged huge amount of philosophical discussion among philosophers in philosophical journals as opposed to undergraduate classes.
Are you serious? What criteria are we to use to decide that a philosophy department is "#1 in the country." Paul Boghossian, chair of the heavily analytic NYU philosophy department, recently claimed on an episode of Democracy Now! that the NYU philosophy department is ranked #1 in the country. I know of a significant number of philosophy majors who find both departments laughable and consider a place like the New School to be excellent. You risk being dismissed "right off the bat" for not considering philosophical topics outside of the standard range of the University of Michigan classroom.
Second, intelligent design is clearly a poor argument. I briefly debated Dembski last year and ate him alive (yum). He has developed this bizaare concept of irreducible complexity (forgive me, now it is called "specified complexity") where he argues that certain systems contain too much information to have been developed by evolution. To do this, he must either grossly overestimate the amount of information in an organism or grossly underestimate the power of evolution. That math has already been covered by biologists - Game of Life, anyone? It's cute that with all his fancy degrees, he can't write a paper good enough to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. When I pressed him for a testable hypothesis, he just squirmed a little more and apologized for appearing to avoid my question.
I seriously question your credibility. You claim to be a philosophy major (or phd candidate, but I doubt that) but clearly have no idea what constitutes a rational argument. Are you familiar with intelligent design at all?
Other than the word "utilize," the thing I hate the most is the phrase "to beg the question" used incorrectly. To beg the question is a logical fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed by the premise. It does not mean "forces me to ask" or "makes me want to ask."
Is this really news? I mean, Microsoft is putting something in Windows that might pose a security risk. There's this program people use at work called The Internet. The IT people call it Internet Explorer. And I have geek friends who can list more Windows vulnerabilities than they can recite digits of pi. I believe, in news speak, this kind of story is called an evergreen.
How hard is it going to be to patch RSS vulnerabilities? It might take Microsoft a couple of years, but how bad is an overflow issue?
In other news, Sears is being sued for failing to conduct background checks on the purchasers of air conditioners. It seems foreign assassins have been dropping them out of windows and killing unsuspecting Americans.
Failing to prevent? I mean, come on. This only makes sense if Google signed a contract with the advertisers saying they would implement measures to prevent this.
I don't know exactly what this "hedge" is. Open-source software has been translated by locals for a long time already. It seems that something even more important to these locals would be the price and reliability of their machines. GNU/Linux might be the better system for them to run, given limited resources.
Well, there are sites such as fastseduction.com that provide guides that are based upon the premise that lust and love are remarkably similar and can be installed in people by using using certain patterns of behavior. Click, whirr, anyone?
Here we have another example of the danger of focusing on one entity to provide a product or service. Microsoft has the same issue. One security hole in IE can create all sorts of problems for the majority of the population.
Similarly, people have focused on Google as a search engine (for similar reasons - it is "user-friendly") and as a a result we are beginning to see the problems inherent in this approach.
Exactly!
It's like U.S. Army Manuals. They are very bland, general procedures for any platoon to follow to do things that a Green Beret team could do fluidly and efficiently without even thinking about it. They aren't written for the elite though, they are written for the common man.
"What are the basic things I should do in this particular situation?"
The idea is to write something that someone of an IQ of 100 can understand and implement without causing too many problems. Someone in another thread made a comment about how this might cause increased security risk because people will know the defenses against any possible attack. This is obviously not true. Any cracker will know anyway what the basic defenses are, and a good system admin will be flexible enough that this will not be a problem.
Hmmm.... I wonder why they hate it so much. It's probably not the irritation at hearing people speak on them in restaurants and such. People seem to feel like they are now tied to their cellphones. They choose to keep the phone on and with them. They choose the type of job and family life that ties them to the phone. They'd be tied to the job/family without the phone, but it gives them more flexibility. A person might be on call at all hours, but couldn't it be that without cell phones two people would do the job of the one person on call, one of the two people always at the office?
Slashdot Mirror
No! I noticed that the New York Times is saying that these documents show that the death toll is around 100,000. They do no such thing. They simply report this number of deaths. This is not the same as determining that this number has been killed, since these documents didn't set out to report all deaths. There have been very few comprehensive studies on the actual death toll, but it is much higher (see http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf).
Well, a paper by Hess, Shanks, and Hutjens called "Accelerated Calf Growing Program" says that "ad libum" means "to appetite," which I assume means you give as much of the food/drink to the cows as they are willing to consume. So perhaps the questioner means that they made new folders whenever they got hungry instead of eating? Or that they made folders until their folder-making appetite was sated?
I for one welcome our new seeing mouse overlords.
Okay. I don't think that discussion in a philosophy department is necessarily an indication that it should be discussed in a philosophy department. It seems to that ID has managed to thrust itself into public discourse because a certain kind of Christianity has the ability to be loud. As a result of their exposure to the media, it is more likely to be on students' and instructors' minds. It doesn't follow, however, that ID is sufficiently robust to merit philosophical discussion.
Like gravity, evolution is not a scientific theory. It's a fact, and a number of scientific theories explain its mechanisms. ID is a facade for the insertion of religious propaganda into popular discourse, specifically in public schools. I'm curious if ID gets its alleged huge amount of philosophical discussion among philosophers in philosophical journals as opposed to undergraduate classes.
Are you serious? What criteria are we to use to decide that a philosophy department is "#1 in the country." Paul Boghossian, chair of the heavily analytic NYU philosophy department, recently claimed on an episode of Democracy Now! that the NYU philosophy department is ranked #1 in the country. I know of a significant number of philosophy majors who find both departments laughable and consider a place like the New School to be excellent. You risk being dismissed "right off the bat" for not considering philosophical topics outside of the standard range of the University of Michigan classroom.
Second, intelligent design is clearly a poor argument. I briefly debated Dembski last year and ate him alive (yum). He has developed this bizaare concept of irreducible complexity (forgive me, now it is called "specified complexity") where he argues that certain systems contain too much information to have been developed by evolution. To do this, he must either grossly overestimate the amount of information in an organism or grossly underestimate the power of evolution. That math has already been covered by biologists - Game of Life, anyone? It's cute that with all his fancy degrees, he can't write a paper good enough to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. When I pressed him for a testable hypothesis, he just squirmed a little more and apologized for appearing to avoid my question.
I seriously question your credibility. You claim to be a philosophy major (or phd candidate, but I doubt that) but clearly have no idea what constitutes a rational argument. Are you familiar with intelligent design at all?
Other than the word "utilize," the thing I hate the most is the phrase "to beg the question" used incorrectly. To beg the question is a logical fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed by the premise. It does not mean "forces me to ask" or "makes me want to ask."
In other news, Sears is being sued for failing to conduct background checks on the purchasers of air conditioners. It seems foreign assassins have been dropping them out of windows and killing unsuspecting Americans.
Failing to prevent? I mean, come on. This only makes sense if Google signed a contract with the advertisers saying they would implement measures to prevent this.
I don't know exactly what this "hedge" is. Open-source software has been translated by locals for a long time already. It seems that something even more important to these locals would be the price and reliability of their machines. GNU/Linux might be the better system for them to run, given limited resources.
Well, there are sites such as fastseduction.com that provide guides that are based upon the premise that lust and love are remarkably similar and can be installed in people by using using certain patterns of behavior. Click, whirr, anyone?
Here we have another example of the danger of focusing on one entity to provide a product or service. Microsoft has the same issue. One security hole in IE can create all sorts of problems for the majority of the population.
Similarly, people have focused on Google as a search engine (for similar reasons - it is "user-friendly") and as a a result we are beginning to see the problems inherent in this approach."What are the basic things I should do in this particular situation?"
The idea is to write something that someone of an IQ of 100 can understand and implement without causing too many problems. Someone in another thread made a comment about how this might cause increased security risk because people will know the defenses against any possible attack. This is obviously not true. Any cracker will know anyway what the basic defenses are, and a good system admin will be flexible enough that this will not be a problem.
Hmmm.... I wonder why they hate it so much. It's probably not the irritation at hearing people speak on them in restaurants and such. People seem to feel like they are now tied to their cellphones. They choose to keep the phone on and with them. They choose the type of job and family life that ties them to the phone. They'd be tied to the job/family without the phone, but it gives them more flexibility. A person might be on call at all hours, but couldn't it be that without cell phones two people would do the job of the one person on call, one of the two people always at the office?