Are you saying that the claim "Washing the inside of your knee will reduce inflammation." is an ideological statement? What ideology is it from? Have advocates of such procedures attacked their opponents as infidels? Do they base their views on a deeper theory, such as the humourists did?
What is the range of a jet ski? Can someone just cruise from Vigo, Spain, to just outside of Boston? So the terrorists will have to start from the US. Also, how stable is a jet ski in open ocean? We wouldn't the terrorists to capsize and drown, would we?
And even a Coast Guard cutter could easily deal with a jet ski.
Fallacy of composition. The fact that it's easy to simultaneously attack a few such generators does not mean that someone could conduct simultaneous attacks on many of them. Think about land-based power generation. How hard would it be to take out a single substation? But the grid as a whole is not so vulnerable.
And whose navy? The Chinese? Can they even cross the Formosa Strait? The Russians? Oh yeah, they could hit the Alaska coast from Vladisvostok. Submarines might be a problem, though
And what percentage of this capacity could be threatened at any one time? What would the pirates do if we refused their demands? How many humans could they take hostage? If it's only the windmill itself, I suspect we might just fire a missile at it ourselves.
I had trouble with a fresh install of 5.0 (it was my first distro) with a file in the X configuration that was in the wrong directory. I was firtunate to have had some previous experience with Unix.
Is X really a GUI in the sense of having a look? Would Mac fans accept the claim that Pre-OS-X GUIs looked worse than X? My understanding is that OS X uses X, if so, that pretty much just leaves Microsoft Windows as a non-X windowing system.
Science as an abstraction has nothing to fear; poor teaching won't alter the facts of biology. It's not a matter of hating critical thinking. It's a matter of trust. You (justifiably IMHO) accuse our educational system of spreading propaganda, but you seem to trust that same system to teach critical thinking. Even if they could teach critical thinking, could our students learn it? Against what background of knowledge could students think critically of evolution? If they are susceptible to being taught incorrect biology, are they not at least as susceptible to being taught invalid methods of cognition?
You would like students to question authority, but are schools the best way to achieve this? And what would you exclude, if anything, from skepticism?
As for being a religion, no I am not a fundamentalist evolutionist, but whatever errors (if any) of the theory of evolution, are they likely to be discovered by high-school students?
Does it matter what the proponents of this move are really concerned with?
As they may be the ones who implement it, yes.
I am sorry, but just exactly is wrong with teaching critical thinking?
You may believe that the proponents of this language are using it to get falsehoods taught, but the wording calls for teaching critical thinking.
If the schools could teach actual critical thinking, nothing. But given that this applies to evolution only, I remain unconvinced.
Apparently a lot of people posting on slashdot don't believe that the theory of evolution will stand up to critical thinking. Once again, it doesn't matter what the people who proposed this wording intend, the wording explicitly calls for teaching critical thinking. How can that be bad?
No, we don't believe that students can stand up to what their teachers may style "critical thinking" about evolution.
The creationist view (no matter which if any religious viewpoint it comes from) at least puts forth some sort of answer to that question, though it is necessarily not a scientific answer
Then does it belong in a science class?
"An intelligent designer who is not bound by the scientific laws of space/time/physics created matter and proceeded to create the universe and the earth and all that is in them. As the designer exists outside of the laws we know and understand, he is able to do these things in a way which is beyond our understanding."
a) how are you using the term "universe"? Wouldn't this creator be part of the universe?
b) within our current understanding, questions of the origin of our spacetime and the matter therein may be speculative, but that could change. There is a difference between being currently inexplicable and being transcendental.
There are other ways for F=ma to fail besides due to special relativistic effects. What about cases where the object changes mass in other ways, such as a balloon losing air or a rocket expelling fuel?
Slashdot Mirror
We have drone aircraft that can recon/bomb.
Are you saying that the claim "Washing the inside of your knee will reduce inflammation." is an ideological statement? What ideology is it from? Have advocates of such procedures attacked their opponents as infidels? Do they base their views on a deeper theory, such as the humourists did?
Did they take into account that the non-joggers might have been (on average) more overweight than the joggers?
What is the range of a jet ski? Can someone just cruise from Vigo, Spain, to just outside of Boston? So the terrorists will have to start from the US. Also, how stable is a jet ski in open ocean? We wouldn't the terrorists to capsize and drown, would we?
And even a Coast Guard cutter could easily deal with a jet ski.
Thanks, I was aware that the X was ten, but I wondered if they might use the X windows system if they were using BSD.
The turbines are also "in the middle of nowhere" with respect to pirates. They would require vessels of some size to get that far across the ocean.
But authority and capacity are not the same, which I believe was the GP's point.
Does that make me a terrorist?
Fallacy of composition. The fact that it's easy to simultaneously attack a few such generators does not mean that someone could conduct simultaneous attacks on many of them. Think about land-based power generation. How hard would it be to take out a single substation? But the grid as a whole is not so vulnerable.
And whose navy? The Chinese? Can they even cross the Formosa Strait? The Russians? Oh yeah, they could hit the Alaska coast from Vladisvostok. Submarines might be a problem, though
And what percentage of this capacity could be threatened at any one time? What would the pirates do if we refused their demands? How many humans could they take hostage? If it's only the windmill itself, I suspect we might just fire a missile at it ourselves.
One way to stop wind is to build a whole bunch of windmills.
I had trouble with a fresh install of 5.0 (it was my first distro) with a file in the X configuration that was in the wrong directory. I was firtunate to have had some previous experience with Unix.
Is X really a GUI in the sense of having a look? Would Mac fans accept the claim that Pre-OS-X GUIs looked worse than X? My understanding is that OS X uses X, if so, that pretty much just leaves Microsoft Windows as a non-X windowing system.
I wasn't suggesting that Microsoft buy AMD.
As opposed to other bastards who need to spell "Yorktown" correctly?
Shouldn't that be "arbeiten" instead of "Arbeit"?
Science as an abstraction has nothing to fear; poor teaching won't alter the facts of biology. It's not a matter of hating critical thinking. It's a matter of trust. You (justifiably IMHO) accuse our educational system of spreading propaganda, but you seem to trust that same system to teach critical thinking. Even if they could teach critical thinking, could our students learn it? Against what background of knowledge could students think critically of evolution? If they are susceptible to being taught incorrect biology, are they not at least as susceptible to being taught invalid methods of cognition?
You would like students to question authority, but are schools the best way to achieve this? And what would you exclude, if anything, from skepticism?
As for being a religion, no I am not a fundamentalist evolutionist, but whatever errors (if any) of the theory of evolution, are they likely to be discovered by high-school students?
Does it matter what the proponents of this move are really concerned with?
As they may be the ones who implement it, yes.
I am sorry, but just exactly is wrong with teaching critical thinking?
You may believe that the proponents of this language are using it to get falsehoods taught, but the wording calls for teaching critical thinking.
If the schools could teach actual critical thinking, nothing. But given that this applies to evolution only, I remain unconvinced.
Apparently a lot of people posting on slashdot don't believe that the theory of evolution will stand up to critical thinking. Once again, it doesn't matter what the people who proposed this wording intend, the wording explicitly calls for teaching critical thinking. How can that be bad?
No, we don't believe that students can stand up to what their teachers may style "critical thinking" about evolution.
As for explicit wording, will it stand up?
And how do statements seek anything? Do the people pushing this want critical thinking, or are they merely attacking science under its guise?
The creationist view (no matter which if any religious viewpoint it comes from) at least puts forth some sort of answer to that question, though it is necessarily not a scientific answer
Then does it belong in a science class?
"An intelligent designer who is not bound by the scientific laws of space/time/physics created matter and proceeded to create the universe and the earth and all that is in them. As the designer exists outside of the laws we know and understand, he is able to do these things in a way which is beyond our understanding."
a) how are you using the term "universe"? Wouldn't this creator be part of the universe?
b) within our current understanding, questions of the origin of our spacetime and the matter therein may be speculative, but that could change. There is a difference between being currently inexplicable and being transcendental.
If m is not constant and v is not zero, then d(mv)/dt != ma.
No, I am not a biologist. But perhaps the burden is on advocates of ID to produce such evidence?
And what are the weaknesses in the theory of evolution?
There are other ways for F=ma to fail besides due to special relativistic effects. What about cases where the object changes mass in other ways, such as a balloon losing air or a rocket expelling fuel?
And how many fossils "should" we have found? What is the probability that a dead organism will become a fossil?
I agree but having a litmus test to see who is qualified to talk about what subject isn't a good idea.
If you claim to be teaching science in school, you better know science.