Correct. Most of that was pure politics. However, the Republicans did at least co-operate when Clinton tried to scale back the government and reform welfare; they also didn't throw 12-year-old fits and filibuster court nominations.
A little intellectual honesty would be nice here.
P.S. To the moderators, my GP comment is hardly off-topic; please don't mod down just because you disagree (see sig).
Have you been living under a rock?
Nothing this President supports will gender a reasoned response from the Dems.
Their one consistent position is: oppose Bush at all costs.
This is about power, not policy or reason.
Google:...that's my way of [pause] 'sticking it to the man'. Evil lackey: But, you ARE the man. Google: right Evil lackey: Soooo, you're sticking it to yourself. Google: maybe
Agreed. When I take my car to the shop, I give the mechanic a vague 'fuzzy' sort of description of what is wrong, and trust him to figure out the rest.
What I don't do is insist that the mechanic follow my own diagnosis of the problem.
As long as users insist on instructing the technician rather than being good little users and just answer questions and do what they are told with their machines, I'm all for the burden resting on the technician. However, most users know just enough to believe somehow that the technicion's job is to validate their own diagnosis when they would never do the same to the refridgerator repairman or the auto mechanic.
Technically, you are correct.
In fact, you are wrong.
If my memory serves me, World War II was the last war in which Congress directly declared the United States at war. The Korean, Vietnam, Gulf 1, Afganistan, and Gulf 2 wars were all fought without this declaration. The Korean war, was offically a "police" action, and in various instances, Congress has given the President the authority to wage war at his discression.
If you think we are not at war now, you must have been living in a cave for the last few year. More, Osama has been living in a cave, and I'm pretty sure he believes this is war, even if you don't.
I fail to see how open source solves the problem where a business lacks innovation.
Harvesting the innovation of others via open source is hardly beneficial innovative. This does not distinguish a company from anyone else. By the very definition of open source, everyone gets to benefit from this sort of "innovation", including my competitors. Where is the value added?
The problem is not lack of innovation, but lack of innovation that is exclusive to my business. I can leverage open source. Fine. But innovation must then come from another quarter.
1) By heatedly disputed, I meant that many scientific philosophers to not believe you can put science into a "testable, tested, and validated" box. The very assertion that ID must meet this criteria to be science (which it does) is based on a wrong premise in the first place.
2) Fallacy of attacking the person rather than the content of the argument.
3) This was in response to the wrong claim that religion's domination in the US is unique...hardly worthless. Elaborating on your rather crude analogy, those men lacking the aforementioned item are indeed incomplete, are they not?
P.S. I've enjoyed crossing swords with you. However, it is clear we aren't swaying each other much.:-)
First, the assertion that science has a definition identifiable by a finite set of demarcation criteria is heatedly disputed by scientific philosophers. There are many counterexamples of scientific theories (Newton's laws of motion) that failed these artificial criteria in their development.
Second, the assertion that 'ID makes no testable claims' is common but incorrect. Here is ONE example: A key identifier of design is complexity combined with an independent specification or pattern (for the mathematics behind this, see Dembski's, The Design Inference). One pattern is that the exact same conditions necessary for life correspond to those needed for an ideal observation platform of the universe. A falsifiable test would be the existence of a system that could sustain life and was not suited for observation of external systems.
Third, my "most everyone" includes, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sieks, Janes... My claim might be incorrect if you ignored the most populace continent, Asia.
The controversial part of ID is that it flies in the face of Carl Sagan's materialism. That hits a real nerve. The idea that a person can not (or should not) rely on faith is just as unfalsifiable as pure faith itself.
First, the assertion that science has a definition identifiable by a finite set of demarcation criteria is heatedly disputed by scientific philosophers. There are many counterexamples of scientific theories (Newton's laws of motion) that failed these artificial criteria in their development.
Second, the assertion that 'ID makes no testable claims' is common but incorrect.
Here is ONE example: A key identifier of design is complexity combined with an independent specification or pattern (for the mathematics behind this, see Dembski's, The Design Inference). One pattern is that the exact same conditions necessary for life correspond to those needed for an ideal observation platform of the universe. A falsifiable test would be the existence of a system that could sustain life and was not suited for observation of external systems.
Third, my "most everyone" includes, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sieks, Janes... My claim might be incorrect if you ignored the most populace continent, Asia.
The controversial part of ID is that it flies in the face of Carl Sagan's materialism. That hits a real nerve. The idea that a person can not (or should not) rely on faith is just as unfalsifiable as pure faith itself.
There are two primary branches in the study of Intelligent Design; one primarily deals with design on an astronomic level. The one you mentioned, the formation of life, focuses on biological systems, often at the cellular level.
However, unlike creationism or evolution, ID is a science of detection and not a theory for the process or mechanism by which life formed. It merely indicates, and rather convincingly, that life is not random.
Opponents of ID have tried to dismiss it by claiming it promotes a particular philosophy. Many creationists have taken ID and done just that, lending credence to the straw-man (Disclaimer: I am a creationist).
So, you are correct. ID leaves the door open for anyone to insert their favorite deity in the role of Designer. Assertions that ID is discriminatory and offensive puzzle me, as ID has the least potential to offend; most everyone believes in a Creator/Designer in some form or another.
The idea that Intelligent Design is a philosophical argument and not science, is an unfortunate but common misconception.
Some creationists have incorrectly spun ID in a religious light, giving it a bad name. I am a Christian, and am disappointed that many of my fellow believers use ID as "evidence" for a Biblical God. In fact, Intelligent Design makes no such claims. It only indicates the high probability of the physical world being a "designed" system.
Intelligent Design is all about developing mathematical models and statistical probabilities for identifying "designed" systems. The same techniques used for signal analysis and pattern matching are applied to the physical world. That's it.
My biggest problem with AJAX is its paucity of tool support. I want a debugger smart enough to jump from JavaScript code in the browser to Java/.NET running on the server and back.
I can launch an all-Java client interfacing with an all-Java server from inside my IDE and step through every bit of code seamlessly. I can't do that with a JavaScript client.
Slashdot Mirror
...Iran's bid for Westinghouse is 5.5 billion
Correct. Most of that was pure politics.
However, the Republicans did at least co-operate when Clinton tried to scale back the government and reform welfare; they also didn't throw 12-year-old fits and filibuster court nominations.
A little intellectual honesty would be nice here.
P.S.
To the moderators, my GP comment is hardly off-topic; please don't mod down just because you disagree (see sig).
Have you been living under a rock?
Nothing this President supports will gender a reasoned response from the Dems.
Their one consistent position is: oppose Bush at all costs.
This is about power, not policy or reason.
No, read the summary.
It's dubbed Honda Accord ADAS.
Not, duped.
It won't even install on XP SP1. It seems to require SP2.
...I'll bet a little "profit sharing" with Brussels would mysteriously throw Microsoft into compliance.
Google: ...that's my way of [pause] 'sticking it to the man'.
Evil lackey: But, you ARE the man.
Google: right
Evil lackey: Soooo, you're sticking it to yourself.
Google: maybe
The thing I like least about the GPL (especially GPL3), is that it's more of a political manifesto than a software license.
Agreed. When I take my car to the shop, I give the mechanic a vague 'fuzzy' sort of description of what is wrong, and trust him to figure out the rest.
What I don't do is insist that the mechanic follow my own diagnosis of the problem.
As long as users insist on instructing the technician rather than being good little users and just answer questions and do what they are told with their machines, I'm all for the burden resting on the technician. However, most users know just enough to believe somehow that the technicion's job is to validate their own diagnosis when they would never do the same to the refridgerator repairman or the auto mechanic.
I think the impetus for the design of this magnetic connector is that it won't catch on to anything.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Technically, you are correct. In fact, you are wrong. If my memory serves me, World War II was the last war in which Congress directly declared the United States at war. The Korean, Vietnam, Gulf 1, Afganistan, and Gulf 2 wars were all fought without this declaration. The Korean war, was offically a "police" action, and in various instances, Congress has given the President the authority to wage war at his discression. If you think we are not at war now, you must have been living in a cave for the last few year. More, Osama has been living in a cave, and I'm pretty sure he believes this is war, even if you don't.
Exactly. Leveraging the open source stuff is a great boon, but that in and of itself does not make me innovative.
Harvesting the innovation of others via open source is hardly beneficial innovative. This does not distinguish a company from anyone else. By the very definition of open source, everyone gets to benefit from this sort of "innovation", including my competitors. Where is the value added?
The problem is not lack of innovation, but lack of innovation that is exclusive to my business. I can leverage open source. Fine. But innovation must then come from another quarter.
It may be bad for HAM,
but its good for spam.
512 K ????
You know everyone needs at least 640K?
1) By heatedly disputed, I meant that many scientific philosophers to not believe you can put science into a "testable, tested, and validated" box. The very assertion that ID must meet this criteria to be science (which it does) is based on a wrong premise in the first place.
:-)
2) Fallacy of attacking the person rather than the content of the argument.
3) This was in response to the wrong claim that religion's domination in the US is unique...hardly worthless. Elaborating on your rather crude analogy, those men lacking the aforementioned item are indeed incomplete, are they not?
P.S.
I've enjoyed crossing swords with you. However, it is clear we aren't swaying each other much.
First, the assertion that science has a definition identifiable by a finite set of demarcation criteria is heatedly disputed by scientific philosophers. There are many counterexamples of scientific theories (Newton's laws of motion) that failed these artificial criteria in their development.
Second, the assertion that 'ID makes no testable claims' is common but incorrect.
Here is ONE example: A key identifier of design is complexity combined with an independent specification or pattern (for the mathematics behind this, see Dembski's, The Design Inference). One pattern is that the exact same conditions necessary for life correspond to those needed for an ideal observation platform of the universe. A falsifiable test would be the existence of a system that could sustain life and was not suited for observation of external systems.
Third, my "most everyone" includes, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sieks, Janes... My claim might be incorrect if you ignored the most populace continent, Asia.
The controversial part of ID is that it flies in the face of Carl Sagan's materialism. That hits a real nerve. The idea that a person can not (or should not) rely on faith is just as unfalsifiable as pure faith itself.
First, the assertion that science has a definition identifiable by a finite set of demarcation criteria is heatedly disputed by scientific philosophers. There are many counterexamples of scientific theories (Newton's laws of motion) that failed these artificial criteria in their development. Second, the assertion that 'ID makes no testable claims' is common but incorrect. Here is ONE example: A key identifier of design is complexity combined with an independent specification or pattern (for the mathematics behind this, see Dembski's, The Design Inference). One pattern is that the exact same conditions necessary for life correspond to those needed for an ideal observation platform of the universe. A falsifiable test would be the existence of a system that could sustain life and was not suited for observation of external systems. Third, my "most everyone" includes, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sieks, Janes... My claim might be incorrect if you ignored the most populace continent, Asia. The controversial part of ID is that it flies in the face of Carl Sagan's materialism. That hits a real nerve. The idea that a person can not (or should not) rely on faith is just as unfalsifiable as pure faith itself.
There are two primary branches in the study of Intelligent Design; one primarily deals with design on an astronomic level.
The one you mentioned, the formation of life, focuses on biological systems, often at the cellular level.
However, unlike creationism or evolution, ID is a science of detection and not a theory for the process or mechanism by which life formed. It merely indicates, and rather convincingly, that life is not random.
Opponents of ID have tried to dismiss it by claiming it promotes a particular philosophy. Many creationists have taken ID and done just that, lending credence to the straw-man (Disclaimer: I am a creationist).
So, you are correct. ID leaves the door open for anyone to insert their favorite deity in the role of Designer. Assertions that ID is discriminatory and offensive puzzle me, as ID has the least potential to offend; most everyone believes in a Creator/Designer in some form or another.
The idea that Intelligent Design is a philosophical argument and not science, is an unfortunate but common misconception.
Some creationists have incorrectly spun ID in a religious light, giving it a bad name. I am a Christian, and am disappointed that many of my fellow believers use ID as "evidence" for a Biblical God. In fact, Intelligent Design makes no such claims. It only indicates the high probability of the physical world being a "designed" system.
Intelligent Design is all about developing mathematical models and statistical probabilities for identifying "designed" systems. The same techniques used for signal analysis and pattern matching are applied to the physical world.
That's it.
My biggest problem with AJAX is its paucity of tool support.
I want a debugger smart enough to jump from JavaScript code in the browser to Java/.NET running on the server and back.
I can launch an all-Java client interfacing with an all-Java server from inside my IDE and step through every bit of code seamlessly. I can't do that with a JavaScript client.
...the gap between the "luser" and people like me and my co-workers is going to get smaller.
So, you are getting dumber? Maybe you have this problem.
In all fairness, Google claims that these blocked links would be inaccessible anyway. However, I think this contributes to the deception in that someone in China won't even know what news is being blocked. Insidious.
...unless the Chinese communists need help.
...samy is their hero.