"evolution" (small 'e') is not a theory. It's a fact. I can demonstrate with a small program. Works every time. We use evolutionary techniques in technology (and in basic science) on a regular basis.
Big E Evolution -- the idea that humans arose from other animals -- is a theory. A high confidence one, in that there's lots of evidence for it, no evidence against it thus far, the process itself (evolution) is known to operate at many scales, and in that it is both testable (we do that all the time), makes predictions, and therefore can be falsified if indeed it is wrong.
There are more contributions to be made to the survival of the species than reproduction. This is why ant colonies have non-reproducing members. From a human POV, homosexuals have contributed to us many times, many ways, from sheltering the development of other people's children to breaking Nazi codes, contributing to charities, and bringing social acceptability to relationship modes other than man+woman.
Survival of the fittest is, obviously, affected by anything that changes who survives. Homosexuals have such effects, that is, they help others survive, therefore they are evolutionary players.
No. It doesn't. It works on a story of a creator. There's no evidence for one; there's no way to test to see if there is one; there's no way to test to see if there isn't one (it's not falsifiable); there are no predictions re effects upon reality that arise from the idea; etc. Theism is in no way qualified as a theory. Theism is speculation, no more than that, in terms of its value in quantifying reality.
A reasonable atheist will simply inform you of the complete lack of evidence to back up the speculation, and, if you fail to do so, as all other theists from day one have failed, will assign no value whatsoever to your speculation.
Of course, not all atheists are reasonable. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Just as theists vary from really nice people who you'd like to play cards with, to people who fly into buildings and set their wives on fire.
Yes, they certainly are. Atheists don't have or hold a belief in a god or gods. That's all. From there, they vary enormously.
Big bang was the atheist answer to God for nearly a century.
No. Big bang is a scientific theory, currently the best performing one there is (that could change, and that's fine), that has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism or "God", any more than big bang would be offered, or taken, as "the answer" to Santa Claus or any other made-up story character.
Those theories don't answer the question of "is there a creator?" any better than a theology.
First of all, those theories are not attempting to find such an answer. They are attempting to describe how the reality around us, as is, developed as far back as we have evidence for, albeit extremely indirect, diffuse evidence. Nowhere in actual cosmology, which is what we're talking about here, does the issue of god or gods arise. It's a physics question, not a question of superstition.
Secondly, it's a pointless, valueless question. It's on exactly the same level as "is there a Santa Claus?" There's zero evidence for such a thing, despite thousands of yeas of looking for same, so, other than writing fiction or cult-building, there's no reason to assume there is one, and therefore no reason to worry about whether there is one (or several.) When you concern yourself with it, you're simply self-identifying as a cultist or an intellectual lightweight.
The day theists have evidence, they've changed the game, and everyone -- including atheists -- will be utterly fascinated to examine that evidence. Until then, theists are in a boat that isn't so much intellectually leaky, as sunken.
All you need to know is that i gave yo mama lots and lots of thrust.
With my penis.
Well, inasmuch as that would make you a necrophiliac that specializes in humping vases full of ash, I'm thinking, maybe I don't need to know. But hey, carry on. After all, Tom Lehrer proudly announced he "majored in animal husbandry. Until they caught him at it."
...you'd think that if high energy in a closed, conical microwave cavity produced thrust, someone would have noticed before this. We've done a lot of work with microwaves.
Hell, Asians are some of the most racist people in the world; plenty of Japanese and Korean people think their nationality is the best, and everyone else is subhuman. (And once again, the Chinese compare favorably here.)
Although, I tell you what: You get HTTP_REFERER augmented or replaced with a YES-NO flag that tells me if the browser is making a request from within my site or without, and I'd stop requiring HTTP_REFERER entirely.
Or, have the browsers submit a blank HTTP_REFERER for anywhere but where you are. So if you hit me from elsewhere.com, I get a blank, but if you hit me from mysite.com, I get "mysite.com."
See, I don't care where you've been at all. What I care about is where you are.
Segments were a horrible chapter in uP history. From flat memory we went to the horrors of segments, then eventually, back again, thank goodness.
If those people at Motorola had the silicon skills of those at Intel, IBM might have gone with the 68000 and up, and we'd be years ahead of where we are now. Instead, we got slammed with the 8088 and up, and good grief, what a freaking nightmare.
Segments. Ugh. Someone oughta be shot over that. Also whoever invented pantyhose, while I'm making a list.:)
Why, just the other day I had ten guys with shovels on one group, and ten guys without shovels in another for a control group, and I ran an experiment on groundbreaking. Amazingly, the guys with shovels consistently did better. I expect to publish in Nature shortly, as soon as they it through peer review. I controlled for sleep, nutrition, and recent sexual activity. Because it is, after all, dirty work.
Here's the thing. Individual users (very) rarely hit tons of pages all at one time. If those pages involve server time -- say they involve DB lookups -- it doesn't take long before a big spider can do some real pipe-choking.
Google *should* obey the crawl-delay directive; there's no decent excuse whatsoever to not do so. A site that is perfectly adequate for it's legit users can be brought to its knees by a crawler that doesn't obey crawl-delay.
Google should fix this -- it's straight-up broken. The assumption that a site pays for enough bandwidth to work properly under normal load plus a ridiculous waterfall of almost-parallel accesses is abusive.
The only ads that bother me are pop ups, and I don't ever serve those. I don't block ads myself, though I like to think I'm pretty quick to knock off a pop-up. Don't like pop-up menus either, come to that... if I didn't click on it, I don't want it to react. Hover menus are stupid, IMHO.
I actually think it's useful that they offer me things that I might actually want. Much more interesting than ads for things I'm not even remotely interested in. If I go look at monitors on Amazon, I see banners with monitors, swingarms, etc. for several days. Fine with me.
You know, if I put something in the commons one way or another, I try to be explicit about it, like my SDR software . I actually mean it to be free. But I do like earning an income, even it's its very small, from my web operations, and should an ad catch the eye of a visitor, and they click on it... that's fine with me. They don't have to click on an ad, and the content has value if you're into SDRs. If you're not into SDRs, I can't imagine why you'd be there anyway, lol.
I guess I feel that earning isn't evil, and particularly not so if the surfer gets something of real value. Contrariwise, I serve a lot of pages where no one clicks on anything, and in that case, I took a risk and I knew the bounds of it. Making sure images can't be deep mined defines what my risk is a little better, that's all. You want the image, you'll have to come get it.
I used to have a moderately heavy GIF animation on one of my sites, thing was *really* subject to deep mining. It was a trace of a diamond rotating, refraction and reflection zipping away. (here now) So I wrote a CGI that moved it every few hours, and put a note under it that basically said, if you want to use the image, save it, put it on your own site, and bless ya, but don't link to it here. You had to see the log of image misses to really understand how many people ignored the gift of the image, and just ate up my bandwidth.
One guy went so far as to watch the site with his *own* CGI, and follow the image around. So I wrote the appropriate apache esoterica, and when a request for that image came in from his site, I served him up his own... special... version. About 24 hours later, I looked, and he'd finally moved the animation to his own storage and was serving it himself.
Guys? You work at a company where they hire guys to work with?
You need to talk to the HR department. Best working conditions are one guy, surrounded by ladies to keep him motivated. For every guy employee, there should be a female intern, a female secretary, and a female cow-orker. Dress code and best hiring practices should ensure they are hawt hawt hawt. Anything else is just... inhumane.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure do.
2/3rds of the US population lives within this zone.
The claim is that no 4th amendment right exist anywhere within the united states where the border is nearer than 100 miles.
So, for instance, where I live, which is about 60 miles south of Canada, no 4th amendment rights.
But not according to the constitution. It's more unauthorized law from the "SCOTUS says SCOTUS can say whatever it wants because SCOTUS says so" crew.
No, no. You're thinking, no doubt, of the "Manny Whirleds" theory, in which whirled peas is the dominant physical reality.
"evolution" (small 'e') is not a theory. It's a fact. I can demonstrate with a small program. Works every time. We use evolutionary techniques in technology (and in basic science) on a regular basis.
Big E Evolution -- the idea that humans arose from other animals -- is a theory. A high confidence one, in that there's lots of evidence for it, no evidence against it thus far, the process itself (evolution) is known to operate at many scales, and in that it is both testable (we do that all the time), makes predictions, and therefore can be falsified if indeed it is wrong.
There are more contributions to be made to the survival of the species than reproduction. This is why ant colonies have non-reproducing members. From a human POV, homosexuals have contributed to us many times, many ways, from sheltering the development of other people's children to breaking Nazi codes, contributing to charities, and bringing social acceptability to relationship modes other than man+woman.
Survival of the fittest is, obviously, affected by anything that changes who survives. Homosexuals have such effects, that is, they help others survive, therefore they are evolutionary players.
Agreed. It's because the voters are victims, or frauds.
No. It doesn't. It works on a story of a creator. There's no evidence for one; there's no way to test to see if there is one; there's no way to test to see if there isn't one (it's not falsifiable); there are no predictions re effects upon reality that arise from the idea; etc. Theism is in no way qualified as a theory. Theism is speculation, no more than that, in terms of its value in quantifying reality.
A reasonable atheist will simply inform you of the complete lack of evidence to back up the speculation, and, if you fail to do so, as all other theists from day one have failed, will assign no value whatsoever to your speculation.
Of course, not all atheists are reasonable. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Just as theists vary from really nice people who you'd like to play cards with, to people who fly into buildings and set their wives on fire.
Yes, they certainly are. Atheists don't have or hold a belief in a god or gods. That's all. From there, they vary enormously.
No. Big bang is a scientific theory, currently the best performing one there is (that could change, and that's fine), that has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism or "God", any more than big bang would be offered, or taken, as "the answer" to Santa Claus or any other made-up story character.
First of all, those theories are not attempting to find such an answer. They are attempting to describe how the reality around us, as is, developed as far back as we have evidence for, albeit extremely indirect, diffuse evidence. Nowhere in actual cosmology, which is what we're talking about here, does the issue of god or gods arise. It's a physics question, not a question of superstition.
Secondly, it's a pointless, valueless question. It's on exactly the same level as "is there a Santa Claus?" There's zero evidence for such a thing, despite thousands of yeas of looking for same, so, other than writing fiction or cult-building, there's no reason to assume there is one, and therefore no reason to worry about whether there is one (or several.) When you concern yourself with it, you're simply self-identifying as a cultist or an intellectual lightweight.
The day theists have evidence, they've changed the game, and everyone -- including atheists -- will be utterly fascinated to examine that evidence. Until then, theists are in a boat that isn't so much intellectually leaky, as sunken.
Here you go.
Well, inasmuch as that would make you a necrophiliac that specializes in humping vases full of ash, I'm thinking, maybe I don't need to know. But hey, carry on. After all, Tom Lehrer proudly announced he "majored in animal husbandry. Until they caught him at it."
That effect would not last long. If it produces continuous low thrust in atmosphere, that can't be it.
More likely, as one of the groups that looked at this observed, is that all that RF (2kw) is simply interfering with the instrumentation.
...you'd think that if high energy in a closed, conical microwave cavity produced thrust, someone would have noticed before this. We've done a lot of work with microwaves.
Well, rook, buddy, two wongs don't make a light!
Although, I tell you what: You get HTTP_REFERER augmented or replaced with a YES-NO flag that tells me if the browser is making a request from within my site or without, and I'd stop requiring HTTP_REFERER entirely.
Or, have the browsers submit a blank HTTP_REFERER for anywhere but where you are. So if you hit me from elsewhere.com, I get a blank, but if you hit me from mysite.com, I get "mysite.com."
See, I don't care where you've been at all. What I care about is where you are.
Are we talking about Korea's leader again?
Not a problem. No header, no pages, and off you go to somewhere else. You don't trust me -- then I don't trust you.
Segments were a horrible chapter in uP history. From flat memory we went to the horrors of segments, then eventually, back again, thank goodness.
If those people at Motorola had the silicon skills of those at Intel, IBM might have gone with the 68000 and up, and we'd be years ahead of where we are now. Instead, we got slammed with the 8088 and up, and good grief, what a freaking nightmare.
Segments. Ugh. Someone oughta be shot over that. Also whoever invented pantyhose, while I'm making a list. :)
Why, just the other day I had ten guys with shovels on one group, and ten guys without shovels in another for a control group, and I ran an experiment on groundbreaking. Amazingly, the guys with shovels consistently did better. I expect to publish in Nature shortly, as soon as they it through peer review. I controlled for sleep, nutrition, and recent sexual activity. Because it is, after all, dirty work.
Groundbreaking science lives on. Can you dig it?
Here's the thing. Individual users (very) rarely hit tons of pages all at one time. If those pages involve server time -- say they involve DB lookups -- it doesn't take long before a big spider can do some real pipe-choking.
Google *should* obey the crawl-delay directive; there's no decent excuse whatsoever to not do so. A site that is perfectly adequate for it's legit users can be brought to its knees by a crawler that doesn't obey crawl-delay.
Google should fix this -- it's straight-up broken. The assumption that a site pays for enough bandwidth to work properly under normal load plus a ridiculous waterfall of almost-parallel accesses is abusive.
The only ads that bother me are pop ups, and I don't ever serve those. I don't block ads myself, though I like to think I'm pretty quick to knock off a pop-up. Don't like pop-up menus either, come to that... if I didn't click on it, I don't want it to react. Hover menus are stupid, IMHO.
I actually think it's useful that they offer me things that I might actually want. Much more interesting than ads for things I'm not even remotely interested in. If I go look at monitors on Amazon, I see banners with monitors, swingarms, etc. for several days. Fine with me.
You know, if I put something in the commons one way or another, I try to be explicit about it, like my SDR software . I actually mean it to be free. But I do like earning an income, even it's its very small, from my web operations, and should an ad catch the eye of a visitor, and they click on it... that's fine with me. They don't have to click on an ad, and the content has value if you're into SDRs. If you're not into SDRs, I can't imagine why you'd be there anyway, lol.
I guess I feel that earning isn't evil, and particularly not so if the surfer gets something of real value. Contrariwise, I serve a lot of pages where no one clicks on anything, and in that case, I took a risk and I knew the bounds of it. Making sure images can't be deep mined defines what my risk is a little better, that's all. You want the image, you'll have to come get it.
I used to have a moderately heavy GIF animation on one of my sites, thing was *really* subject to deep mining. It was a trace of a diamond rotating, refraction and reflection zipping away. (here now) So I wrote a CGI that moved it every few hours, and put a note under it that basically said, if you want to use the image, save it, put it on your own site, and bless ya, but don't link to it here. You had to see the log of image misses to really understand how many people ignored the gift of the image, and just ate up my bandwidth.
One guy went so far as to watch the site with his *own* CGI, and follow the image around. So I wrote the appropriate apache esoterica, and when a request for that image came in from his site, I served him up his own... special... version. About 24 hours later, I looked, and he'd finally moved the animation to his own storage and was serving it himself.
Maybe that explains it. This (looks around to double-check) is not Alaska.
Guys? You work at a company where they hire guys to work with?
You need to talk to the HR department. Best working conditions are one guy, surrounded by ladies to keep him motivated. For every guy employee, there should be a female intern, a female secretary, and a female cow-orker. Dress code and best hiring practices should ensure they are hawt hawt hawt. Anything else is just... inhumane.
* PS - Does not apply in San Francisco
It isn't even just a button. Do your search, then sit back and tap the cursor keys on your keyboard, and you'll zip though tons of images in no time.
Google does NOT behave itself. It ignores crawl speed, among other things.
Google does whatever the heck it wants. It's Google.