But would you agree that, if there are weaknesses in the theory, discussion of the weaknesses should be swept under the rug because it's your favorite theory?
What weaknesses? The theory of evolution stands on a firmer basis than many parts of mathematics. The Axiom of Choice is simply not as concretely justified as the idea that living organisms evolve through the process of natural selection of random mutations.
Evolution is not just a good theory. It is a great theory. And it is a great theory because evolution is what, with overwhelming probability, what actually happened in the past.
Absolutely. The root cause of the entire Proposition 8 debacle was the naive and frankly dangerous way in which Californians make changes to their constitution. Constitutions are vitally important legal documents, any changes to which should be carefully debated, reviewed, revised and audited before being made.
Even in countries that have referendums to change constitutions, both upper and lower houses of parliament, as well as the head of state and possibly the supreme court, must all sign off on any proposed amendment before it is sent for a general popular vote. Even then, many countries require a 60% majority in order for the amendment to be passed. In Germany, they don't even have referendums! In California, you need only find, persuade or trick 8% of the population into signing any old rag of a proposition, and it will be placed right there on a statewide ballot.
The result is predictable. Demagoguery, emotion and populism rule at the Californian ballot box. Forget Proposition 8. Look at Proposition 2! Rules on poultry production?! I don't care what side of that debate you are on. A state constitution is not an appropriate place for any such legislation. But that's where it ended up.
Such an outcome scrawled all over the pages of the Californian constitution makes me question just how serious Californians are about the legitimacy of their state and its rights. I ask, in all seriousness, whether such a state as this, which allows such capricious changes to its core laws, should be considered as a legitimate political entity? I note that the state cannot even balance its books, a task which is practically fundamental to the existence of any political body.
In short, should Californians really be left to govern themselves anymore?
Many people who voted yes on 8 do not hate homosexuals.
I think that this is in fact true. However, I also think that most racists do not in fact hate people of another colour. They just consider them a lesser form of human life, unworthy of the rights that other enjoy. You don't have to be a member of the KKK to be a racist, and you don't have to be an evangelical preacher to be a bigot.
There is a difference between being computer illiterate, and being willfully computer illiterate. This woman is in the second category. Yes, she didn't figure out here problem. But the sad reality is that she did not even try.
Most of the people that I work with (and these are college-educated people, mind you), don't know what a browser is (they refer to Internet Explorer as "the internet"). And no, I'm not joking (I wish I was).
So true. When I installed firefox on the family PC, there was uproar. "The Internet isn't working!" I mean, I had even made sure to copy their bookmarks, etc. To no avail. They still use internet explorer.
That's not the worst of it though. One morning, I awoke to them screaming out my name. I was convinced the house was on fire! I ran downstairs to find them cowering in apprehension, staring wild eyed at the computer screen. "What's wrong with it?!". I looked at the screen. It was the Redhat 9 login prompt.
Turns out when I set up a dual boot on the computer the night before, I forgot to edit LILO (or was it GRUB) to autoboot into the windows partition instead of the linux one. They had turned on the PC only to be confronted with the standard linux boot messages scrawl, culminating in the Redhat login screen. Apparently this had been quite the ordeal. They were visibly shaken, and remained so until long after I managed to boot back into windows.
To some people, computers are scary, and linux is downright terrifying. I don't understand why exactly, but that is the way it is. This woman is obviously just such a person who, when confronted with the Ubuntu login screen, probably never got past it.
- She doesn't know that OpenOffice.org can handle her needs for "Microsoft Word" just fine
I have to call you, and many, many others on this statement. Sure, OpenOffice does handle standard word documents without too much trouble. But time and again I have encountered heavily customised word documents with tick boxes, mixed colum formatting, etc, etc, which Openoffice simply cannot display with fidelity. And by fidelity, I mean make sure the danm funding form fits on one page and not bleed it over onto the second.
Sure, you may think these documents are obscure. Trouble is they aren't. They are typically, ancient Word 97 produced affairs, devised by a "self educated" whiz somewhere in the accounting department with too much time on their hands . Universities are saturated with these documents, as is any small or medium sized company that has ever had such a "whiz" in their employ. They're sort of like one of those custom Access programs written by a non-programmer that slowly grow and mutate. It suffices to say that Open Office, while it does not choke, simply cannot cope under the strain of displaying them.
The essential problem here is that people feel they NEED to use MS Word or an equivalent program for absolutely everything. I have been sent emails containing nothing but an MS Word attachment in which is contained... the "letter" I was being sent. It's crazy. If I am ever in a position where I am accepting or grading papers, or summaries, or memos, or whatever, each and every single submission will be required to be a simple TXT file. They're perfectly adequate for just about everything except diagrams, and if they need to use those they can be submitted as attachments.
- She probably wouldn't know that Firefox can handle all of her browsing needs even where another OS is specified (under most circumstances)
One word. Flash. This is not a settled issue on any Linux system to this day. Sure it can work, but not on every system. The situtation with flash in Linux closely resembles that of video drivers about five years ago, when it was still necessary in many instances to edit xfree86 conf files or the like. With the ever growing domination of youtube, a browser without guaranteed out of the box flash is seriously deficient. Not even Ubuntu has this.
This study has nothing to do with correlation, or at least it shouldn't. It's a standard expieriment. At least, if would be if they had any controls, which they probably didn't.
Actually, using "Eire" typically means that you are referring to the entire island, as you're more than likely a staunch Irish nationalist. "Ireland" really does refer to the Republic, both in Ireland itself and internationally. "Northern Ireland" is used for the Six counties both in that state, and internationally.
In fact only people in Northern Ireland ever really need to make a distinction between Ireland and Northern Ireland. They will use "The Republic" or "The South", when referring to the Republic. I have never heard anyone from there use "Eire" to refer to the Republic. Unionists simply wouldn't use Irish and Nationalists simply wouldn't make a distinction between parts of the island.
So in short, nobody calls The Republic of Ireland, "Eire" unless they are speaking or writing in Irish. If you're speaking or writing in English, Ireland is the correct name for the country.
We have free movement but we certainly do not have a common language. It's not as easy to move from Ireland to Poland as it is to move from New York to California.(Having said this, many hundreds of thousands of Poles did in fact do just that in the opposite direction over the last few years, working in both Ireland and the UK.)
By contrast, movement from Ireland to England, because of a common language and to a large extent culture, is extremely common and is in fact a staple aspect of traditional, and probably now contemporary Irish life.
eBook readers? smart phones? netbooks? I mean, come on, people! If you're in to tech you surely know there are alternatives to big, clunky desktop computers and dead trees.
And if you're into technology you should also surely know that none of these devices should ever be taken into The John!
No, he's pointing out the pretty basic fact that mass and weight are measures of two different things.
Now, that's actually quite a tricky question.
Yes, indeed we can separate mass and weight. Mass can be defined through inertia, that is, by measure how difficult it is to move a piece of material. I believe this is done with some kind of spring balance on th ISS for example. Weight is simply the force of gravity upon an object, which changes depending on the strength of the local gravitational field.
But here's the catch. Weight and mass are always linearly related. One is always a multiple of the other no matter where you are or what type of material you are talking about. We can imagine a material that is hard to move, but that isn't affected by gravity at all, and such a material does not seem to break any theoretical laws. But, no such material exists. All matter, no matter what it is made of, has the same (up to a constant) inertial mass as it has gravitational mass. (For anyone who has played LittleBigPlanet, our universe has no Pink Floaty material.)
In fact, when it comes right down to it, our only real way of measuring mass is to compare the weight of an object with the weight of the standard kilogram mass. If even our most fundamental definition of mass itself relies on weight, then it is understandable that confusion can still exist in the minds of many as to the distinction between mass and weight.
So one can still ask the question, and many do, as to whether weight and mass are really measures of two different things, or simply two related variables which measure the same underlying property of a piece of matter. To say that one object is heavier than another in the same local gravity field is to say that it has more mass, and vice versa. Weight and mass are seemingly inextricably linked, linearly, and it is not so easy to make a distinction between them than you might think.
Many years of experience with adventure games, and games in general, have taught me that there is a simple scale for puzzles and conundrums in video games.
1: Easy 2: Normal 3: Hard 4: Rubiks Cube
Easy is for tutorials and first person shooters. Medium is your standard fare throughout the game. Hard is for final levels and bonus challenges.
Rubiks cube is seldom encountered, as to place it in the game would probably result in at least 2 points being knocked off the games score owing to frustration. They are increasingly rare nowadays as no professional development team would seriously contemplate including them, except in an optional "master quest" section or the like.
The solution is to legalize pot, not smoke it and yell at the top of my lungs and say how dumb the laws are (they are...) How do I legalize pot? Work with the system and get it legalized.
The article claims that India is "82% Out of serivce". Something that I've always been curious about through is smaller inter country links and Internet connectivity. That is to say, if minor yet not insignificant links exist between Indian Telecoms and Pakistani Telecoms, and also between Pakistani Telecoms and Iranian Telecoms, and so on and so on... Then is it still possible due to the capabilities of packet switching, that computers in India could still communicate with ones in the US via a very, very long and convoluted path through many, many local connections?
Would any Slashdot Internet guru's have insight into the capabilities of the global packet switched network in the event of major single data connections going down? Is the network really as robust as we think?
Slashdot Mirror
What weaknesses? The theory of evolution stands on a firmer basis than many parts of mathematics. The Axiom of Choice is simply not as concretely justified as the idea that living organisms evolve through the process of natural selection of random mutations.
Evolution is not just a good theory. It is a great theory. And it is a great theory because evolution is what, with overwhelming probability, what actually happened in the past.
I'll tell you one thing though. Whatever it is, he's certainly made of different stuff to every other politician in power at the present time.
He becomes president the moment he's given the codes to the bomb and they start working. Not before, not after.
Absolutely. The root cause of the entire Proposition 8 debacle was the naive and frankly dangerous way in which Californians make changes to their constitution. Constitutions are vitally important legal documents, any changes to which should be carefully debated, reviewed, revised and audited before being made.
Even in countries that have referendums to change constitutions, both upper and lower houses of parliament, as well as the head of state and possibly the supreme court, must all sign off on any proposed amendment before it is sent for a general popular vote. Even then, many countries require a 60% majority in order for the amendment to be passed. In Germany, they don't even have referendums! In California, you need only find, persuade or trick 8% of the population into signing any old rag of a proposition, and it will be placed right there on a statewide ballot.
The result is predictable. Demagoguery, emotion and populism rule at the Californian ballot box. Forget Proposition 8. Look at Proposition 2! Rules on poultry production?! I don't care what side of that debate you are on. A state constitution is not an appropriate place for any such legislation. But that's where it ended up.
Such an outcome scrawled all over the pages of the Californian constitution makes me question just how serious Californians are about the legitimacy of their state and its rights. I ask, in all seriousness, whether such a state as this, which allows such capricious changes to its core laws, should be considered as a legitimate political entity? I note that the state cannot even balance its books, a task which is practically fundamental to the existence of any political body.
In short, should Californians really be left to govern themselves anymore?
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
I think that this is in fact true. However, I also think that most racists do not in fact hate people of another colour. They just consider them a lesser form of human life, unworthy of the rights that other enjoy. You don't have to be a member of the KKK to be a racist, and you don't have to be an evangelical preacher to be a bigot.
There is a difference between being computer illiterate, and being willfully computer illiterate. This woman is in the second category. Yes, she didn't figure out here problem. But the sad reality is that she did not even try.
So true. When I installed firefox on the family PC, there was uproar. "The Internet isn't working!" I mean, I had even made sure to copy their bookmarks, etc. To no avail. They still use internet explorer.
That's not the worst of it though. One morning, I awoke to them screaming out my name. I was convinced the house was on fire! I ran downstairs to find them cowering in apprehension, staring wild eyed at the computer screen. "What's wrong with it?!". I looked at the screen. It was the Redhat 9 login prompt.
Turns out when I set up a dual boot on the computer the night before, I forgot to edit LILO (or was it GRUB) to autoboot into the windows partition instead of the linux one. They had turned on the PC only to be confronted with the standard linux boot messages scrawl, culminating in the Redhat login screen. Apparently this had been quite the ordeal. They were visibly shaken, and remained so until long after I managed to boot back into windows.
To some people, computers are scary, and linux is downright terrifying. I don't understand why exactly, but that is the way it is. This woman is obviously just such a person who, when confronted with the Ubuntu login screen, probably never got past it.
I have to call you, and many, many others on this statement. Sure, OpenOffice does handle standard word documents without too much trouble. But time and again I have encountered heavily customised word documents with tick boxes, mixed colum formatting, etc, etc, which Openoffice simply cannot display with fidelity. And by fidelity, I mean make sure the danm funding form fits on one page and not bleed it over onto the second.
Sure, you may think these documents are obscure. Trouble is they aren't. They are typically, ancient Word 97 produced affairs, devised by a "self educated" whiz somewhere in the accounting department with too much time on their hands . Universities are saturated with these documents, as is any small or medium sized company that has ever had such a "whiz" in their employ. They're sort of like one of those custom Access programs written by a non-programmer that slowly grow and mutate. It suffices to say that Open Office, while it does not choke, simply cannot cope under the strain of displaying them.
The essential problem here is that people feel they NEED to use MS Word or an equivalent program for absolutely everything. I have been sent emails containing nothing but an MS Word attachment in which is contained... the "letter" I was being sent. It's crazy. If I am ever in a position where I am accepting or grading papers, or summaries, or memos, or whatever, each and every single submission will be required to be a simple TXT file. They're perfectly adequate for just about everything except diagrams, and if they need to use those they can be submitted as attachments.
One word. Flash. This is not a settled issue on any Linux system to this day. Sure it can work, but not on every system. The situtation with flash in Linux closely resembles that of video drivers about five years ago, when it was still necessary in many instances to edit xfree86 conf files or the like. With the ever growing domination of youtube, a browser without guaranteed out of the box flash is seriously deficient. Not even Ubuntu has this.
This study has nothing to do with correlation, or at least it shouldn't. It's a standard expieriment. At least, if would be if they had any controls, which they probably didn't.
But not as we know it.
Actually, using "Eire" typically means that you are referring to the entire island, as you're more than likely a staunch Irish nationalist. "Ireland" really does refer to the Republic, both in Ireland itself and internationally. "Northern Ireland" is used for the Six counties both in that state, and internationally.
In fact only people in Northern Ireland ever really need to make a distinction between Ireland and Northern Ireland. They will use "The Republic" or "The South", when referring to the Republic. I have never heard anyone from there use "Eire" to refer to the Republic. Unionists simply wouldn't use Irish and Nationalists simply wouldn't make a distinction between parts of the island.
So in short, nobody calls The Republic of Ireland, "Eire" unless they are speaking or writing in Irish. If you're speaking or writing in English, Ireland is the correct name for the country.
We have free movement but we certainly do not have a common language. It's not as easy to move from Ireland to Poland as it is to move from New York to California.(Having said this, many hundreds of thousands of Poles did in fact do just that in the opposite direction over the last few years, working in both Ireland and the UK.)
By contrast, movement from Ireland to England, because of a common language and to a large extent culture, is extremely common and is in fact a staple aspect of traditional, and probably now contemporary Irish life.
s/Ireland/America/g
s/Dell/GM/g
Wrong page. Look again.
Note that you are not the first person in this thread to make this mistake.
The population is actually closer to 4 million, and what we mostly do is build and sell houses to each other with other peoples money. Or at least, that used to be the idea.
Free movement of goods, money and companies is guaranteed. Free movement of people is certainly not.
And if you're into technology you should also surely know that none of these devices should ever be taken into The John!
Now, that's actually quite a tricky question.
Yes, indeed we can separate mass and weight. Mass can be defined through inertia, that is, by measure how difficult it is to move a piece of material. I believe this is done with some kind of spring balance on th ISS for example. Weight is simply the force of gravity upon an object, which changes depending on the strength of the local gravitational field.
But here's the catch. Weight and mass are always linearly related. One is always a multiple of the other no matter where you are or what type of material you are talking about. We can imagine a material that is hard to move, but that isn't affected by gravity at all, and such a material does not seem to break any theoretical laws. But, no such material exists. All matter, no matter what it is made of, has the same (up to a constant) inertial mass as it has gravitational mass. (For anyone who has played LittleBigPlanet, our universe has no Pink Floaty material.)
In fact, when it comes right down to it, our only real way of measuring mass is to compare the weight of an object with the weight of the standard kilogram mass. If even our most fundamental definition of mass itself relies on weight, then it is understandable that confusion can still exist in the minds of many as to the distinction between mass and weight.
So one can still ask the question, and many do, as to whether weight and mass are really measures of two different things, or simply two related variables which measure the same underlying property of a piece of matter. To say that one object is heavier than another in the same local gravity field is to say that it has more mass, and vice versa. Weight and mass are seemingly inextricably linked, linearly, and it is not so easy to make a distinction between them than you might think.
$cat US_Ammendment_04.txt | grep "privacy"
$
However
$ cat South_African_Constitution_chap_02_Article_14.txt
14. Privacy
Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have
1. their person or home searched;
2. their property searched;
3. their possessions seized; or
4. the privacy of their communications infringed.
The US constitution, being almost 250 years old, has sadly become out of date.
Many years of experience with adventure games, and games in general, have taught me that there is a simple scale for puzzles and conundrums in video games.
1: Easy
2: Normal
3: Hard
4: Rubiks Cube
Easy is for tutorials and first person shooters.
Medium is your standard fare throughout the game.
Hard is for final levels and bonus challenges.
Rubiks cube is seldom encountered, as to place it in the game would probably result in at least 2 points being knocked off the games score owing to frustration. They are increasingly rare nowadays as no professional development team would seriously contemplate including them, except in an optional "master quest" section or the like.
Now, if only they had the ethical standards to match their technical ones.
You stop being one when you turn 14.
Like slavery!
And lets not forget that notorious incident with The Boss in Groznyj Grad. Truly a black mark in American history.
The article claims that India is "82% Out of serivce". Something that I've always been curious about through is smaller inter country links and Internet connectivity. That is to say, if minor yet not insignificant links exist between Indian Telecoms and Pakistani Telecoms, and also between Pakistani Telecoms and Iranian Telecoms, and so on and so on... Then is it still possible due to the capabilities of packet switching, that computers in India could still communicate with ones in the US via a very, very long and convoluted path through many, many local connections?
Would any Slashdot Internet guru's have insight into the capabilities of the global packet switched network in the event of major single data connections going down? Is the network really as robust as we think?