At the moment, evolution cannot falsified either since it has never been observed to ocurr.
Evolutionary theory makes predictions. In order for evolution to remain a contendor, there are other testable things which must hold true. So far, each prediction that has been tested has supported the theory. Evolution is a falsifiable theory that has yet to be falsified.
Truly, how much bigger is a 20" diagonal screen laptop than one of the existing 17" widescreen models? Let's see... The HDTV format has a native aspect ratio of 16:9. Applying pythagoris to arithmetic yields that such a screen would be 0.93 inches wide for every inch of diagonal resolution. Thus a 17" screen is about 15.75" wide and a 20" screen of the same ratio would be about 18.5" wide, a gain of about 2.75" or 1.375" on either side of the keyboard.
Remember that area increases with the square of distance. So even though you're increasing the heigth and width by mere inches, the respective areas are about 100 in^2 and 140 in^2 (if I've done my math correctly). That's a 30% increase in the amount of space taken up by the monitor, and subsequently, the laptop.
I have a Dell Inspiron 8500 which has an optimal resolution of 1680x1050. I had to hack the XFree86.config file to get the screen working at that resolution in Linux (using something I found on the internet, not figured out myself), but once I did that it worked fine.
Jack Thompson's love of media attention has likely removed his private citizen status. As a public figure, he would have to prove malice in a libel case, which is extremely difficult.
I found it interesting that eight out of twelve succesfully completed the "Find out if the computer is online" task.
I doubt they checked the status of the machine or the network, they probably just opened up a web browser and went to a site with dynamic information (say, a newspaper). That's how I usually do it, under Windows or Linux.
The difference between us and "all species that have ever existed" is our adaptability. Short of the atmosphere being stripped away, there's nothing natural environmentally speaking that would kill the ENTIRE human race. Hell, even if the atmosphere did get ripped away, we'd probably build a few bio-domes in time for someone to survive.
Our ability to build and innovate depends on the considerable infrastructure that we've built up over several centuries. If we lose some of the fundamental aspects of this infrastructure - the ability to mass produce food, for example - then our ability to adapt is considerabley hampered.
A great comment on evolution, the age of the earth, and the variety of species is that to many significant figures, all species are dead. That is, if you sum up all of the species that have ever existed on this planet, only a tiny minority of those are currently alive. We've been around as a species for some 200,000 years. That's nothing on a geological/evolutionary time scale. We haven't been around long enough to declare our resiliency. All species will one day become extinct, including us. We may indeed be fragile compared to other species; it's too soon to tell.
The evidence for these is that life on earth has survived for BILLIONS of years.
Sure, but not necessarily us. The Earth itself will be fine and life will survive. However, the Earth might be in a condition that we won't survive. You're assuming that the Earth's environment will stabilize back to where it is now (or was pre-Industrial Revolution). There is no reason for this to happen.
No, but I have been denied due process, discrimated against at work, been DENIED positions, been objectified as a source of income and security, been judged on my appearance... All because I am an intellegent overweight white male who generally makes good money.
To use a favorite phrase of so many women, GET OVER IT.
You're assuming that the reason you experienced all of this is due to the characteristics you listed. I'm wondering if it's because you're obnoxious.
Re:Let's head off the most common arguments right
on
Equal Time For Creationism
·
· Score: 2, Informative
What you are talking about is data that supports the theory. But data can never prove the theory correct; that is inherently impossible. Theories never become facts, they can only be disproved by facts or supported by facts. So that you and I are the result of an evolutionary process is a theory, albiet a theory well supported by the facts.
That evoluation occurrs is a demonstrable fact, but that things which exist now (such as you, me, and that tree outside) are a result of an evolutionary process is a theory.
Programming paradigm. It's the most appropriate word to describe the different families of programming styles/languages: procedural, functional, object-oriented, imperative, logic and such. It's commonly accepted; I've seen it in places ranging from textbooks to CS papers to Stroustrup's C++ book.
No, writing from academia still gets peer-reviewed and hand-waving like this would get shot down. This is the bullshit that gets printed in technology magazines that want to sell copies and get pageviews.
And, that doesn't take into account the dramatic improvement in reliability and speed (both access and interface) that the newer drives exhibit. Do you think CPUs have kept up with this?
Processors speeds have increased exponentially. Disk speeds most certainly have not. As processors have gotten significantly faster, disk speeds have, by comparison, been standing still. This means it is relatively more expensive to go to a disk now than it was in the past.
Ha, I just watched that episode on DVD a few days ago. The funny thing is, they used that technique (unironically) earlier in the episode when the head producer throws his name plate at the Harvard guy.
That is also extremely unlikely. One, as I said, galaxies are mostly empty space, so the chances of two stars getting close enough to start orbiting each other is very small. Two, the chances that they would get close enough in such a way that they would achieve a stable orbit is also unlikely.
When astronomers talk about galaxies "colliding," they're not talking about one-car-hitting-another-car collisions. A galaxy, like the rest of the universe, is mostly empty space. Individual stars don't collide with each other. Rather, they "collide" by exerting gravitational pull on each other.
In this light, it's odd how few game commentators seem to understand just how profitable Nintendo really is. With a net margin of over 20%, Nintendo is a financial rock star. Just by way of comparison, General Electric, that monster global conglomerate whose executives write the books about corporate leadership that other Fortune 500 execs read, clocks in with a net margin of 11%. Nintendo's business engine is so efficient that even though they sell far less than Sony, they make, bottom line, about as much as all of Sony.
Computers don't comprehend code, they just run it. Comprehension is an entirely different act than execution. While we build up our comprehension one line (or word) at a time, we're still using our recollection of all previously related code to understand what this new piece of code does. And then, once we think we understand what's going on, I think we often mentally throw out the code itself, and just remember what it does.
If he was damaged, it would be obvious in him like it is in most of my kids.
Well, it should have been obvious to you, since I assume you're trained to spot that sort of thing immediately. For those of us without that training, it still might not have been obvious.
Regardless, I don't think it was there in any capacity.
Is there any one thing, in particular, that cannot be understood without school? I'd be very interested in knowing about something like this: it would be an astonishing and novel empirical fact about the nature of human learning.
Of course not. But unless you're truly brilliant (and very few people are), you still need to learn that material somewhere, and the best resources to do that are in universitites. Generally, the "best resources" are experts in the field, and they generally teach in colleges and universities. Note that I'm talking explicitly about graduate level work in the sciences.
P.S. Most of science predates the Ph.D -- including Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein.
False. Maxwell did not have a Ph.D., but he did attend Edinburough University, graduate from Trinity College, and went on to be a college professor. (Source) In other words, he was an academic. Einstein had a Ph.D.
Slashdot Mirror
At the moment, evolution cannot falsified either since it has never been observed to ocurr.
Evolutionary theory makes predictions. In order for evolution to remain a contendor, there are other testable things which must hold true. So far, each prediction that has been tested has supported the theory. Evolution is a falsifiable theory that has yet to be falsified.
Truly, how much bigger is a 20" diagonal screen laptop than one of the existing 17" widescreen models? Let's see... The HDTV format has a native aspect ratio of 16:9. Applying pythagoris to arithmetic yields that such a screen would be 0.93 inches wide for every inch of diagonal resolution. Thus a 17" screen is about 15.75" wide and a 20" screen of the same ratio would be about 18.5" wide, a gain of about 2.75" or 1.375" on either side of the keyboard.
Remember that area increases with the square of distance. So even though you're increasing the heigth and width by mere inches, the respective areas are about 100 in^2 and 140 in^2 (if I've done my math correctly). That's a 30% increase in the amount of space taken up by the monitor, and subsequently, the laptop.
I have a Dell Inspiron 8500 which has an optimal resolution of 1680x1050. I had to hack the XFree86.config file to get the screen working at that resolution in Linux (using something I found on the internet, not figured out myself), but once I did that it worked fine.
Jack Thompson's love of media attention has likely removed his private citizen status. As a public figure, he would have to prove malice in a libel case, which is extremely difficult.
My honest response is that I don't know, but using my limited knowledge, I can make a guess.
At the time of the impact, the Earth was very young. It didn't have an atmosphere yet. No atmosphere, no water. So, probably not.
The difference between us and "all species that have ever existed" is our adaptability. Short of the atmosphere being stripped away, there's nothing natural environmentally speaking that would kill the ENTIRE human race. Hell, even if the atmosphere did get ripped away, we'd probably build a few bio-domes in time for someone to survive.
Our ability to build and innovate depends on the considerable infrastructure that we've built up over several centuries. If we lose some of the fundamental aspects of this infrastructure - the ability to mass produce food, for example - then our ability to adapt is considerabley hampered.
A single human is fragile, the human race is not.
A great comment on evolution, the age of the earth, and the variety of species is that to many significant figures, all species are dead. That is, if you sum up all of the species that have ever existed on this planet, only a tiny minority of those are currently alive. We've been around as a species for some 200,000 years. That's nothing on a geological/evolutionary time scale. We haven't been around long enough to declare our resiliency. All species will one day become extinct, including us. We may indeed be fragile compared to other species; it's too soon to tell.
The evidence for these is that life on earth has survived for BILLIONS of years.
Sure, but not necessarily us. The Earth itself will be fine and life will survive. However, the Earth might be in a condition that we won't survive. You're assuming that the Earth's environment will stabilize back to where it is now (or was pre-Industrial Revolution). There is no reason for this to happen.
One of the most important aspects of being an intern is working with people who can teach you something. His situation does not sound like that.
Different kinds of games come out on the PC.
What you are talking about is data that supports the theory. But data can never prove the theory correct; that is inherently impossible. Theories never become facts, they can only be disproved by facts or supported by facts. So that you and I are the result of an evolutionary process is a theory, albiet a theory well supported by the facts.
That evoluation occurrs is a demonstrable fact, but that things which exist now (such as you, me, and that tree outside) are a result of an evolutionary process is a theory.
Programming paradigm. It's the most appropriate word to describe the different families of programming styles/languages: procedural, functional, object-oriented, imperative, logic and such. It's commonly accepted; I've seen it in places ranging from textbooks to CS papers to Stroustrup's C++ book.
No, writing from academia still gets peer-reviewed and hand-waving like this would get shot down. This is the bullshit that gets printed in technology magazines that want to sell copies and get pageviews.
Ha, I just watched that episode on DVD a few days ago. The funny thing is, they used that technique (unironically) earlier in the episode when the head producer throws his name plate at the Harvard guy.
That is also extremely unlikely. One, as I said, galaxies are mostly empty space, so the chances of two stars getting close enough to start orbiting each other is very small. Two, the chances that they would get close enough in such a way that they would achieve a stable orbit is also unlikely.
When astronomers talk about galaxies "colliding," they're not talking about one-car-hitting-another-car collisions. A galaxy, like the rest of the universe, is mostly empty space. Individual stars don't collide with each other. Rather, they "collide" by exerting gravitational pull on each other.
A quote from the article:
Computers don't comprehend code, they just run it. Comprehension is an entirely different act than execution. While we build up our comprehension one line (or word) at a time, we're still using our recollection of all previously related code to understand what this new piece of code does. And then, once we think we understand what's going on, I think we often mentally throw out the code itself, and just remember what it does.
If he was damaged, it would be obvious in him like it is in most of my kids.
Well, it should have been obvious to you, since I assume you're trained to spot that sort of thing immediately. For those of us without that training, it still might not have been obvious.
Regardless, I don't think it was there in any capacity.
Is there any one thing, in particular, that cannot be understood without school? I'd be very interested in knowing about something like this: it would be an astonishing and novel empirical fact about the nature of human learning.
Of course not. But unless you're truly brilliant (and very few people are), you still need to learn that material somewhere, and the best resources to do that are in universitites. Generally, the "best resources" are experts in the field, and they generally teach in colleges and universities. Note that I'm talking explicitly about graduate level work in the sciences.
P.S. Most of science predates the Ph.D -- including Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein.
False. Maxwell did not have a Ph.D., but he did attend Edinburough University, graduate from Trinity College, and went on to be a college professor. (Source) In other words, he was an academic. Einstein had a Ph.D.