No, the problem is that they question science, and then don't really bother to understand it more fully (if they did, they would easily understand ID/creationism are bullshit).
yet you couln't put just one simple example in your message.
I didn't need examples: you can RTFM.
However you can read many brief examples in an answer I gave to one of your fellows a couple of minutes ago. If you take the time to dig in the scientific literature (not that I expect you to do so) you'll find many interesting things.
Evolution and intelligent design are simply philosophies, not science. Neither should be taught in science, nor is the teaching of interspecial evolution absolutely essential to learning anything in biology.
Evolution is an inevitable consequence when you have the following ingredients:
- A genome that replicates with less-than-100% fidelity.
- A phenotype that is dependent from the genotype
- A fitness that is dependent from the phenotype
Create such a system, and you'll see it evolve. It's facts: it has been simulated thousands of times in computers, for example. Life is such a system: therefore it will evolve.
They do not present proofs. They present theories that they think may be true.
Wrong. Look at genome comparison data. There is extensive proof of evolution in them.
For example, most Metazoa share Hox genes that shape their bodies. Evolution within Arthropoda is well shown by analyzing their genomes, that show the corresponding shuffling and mutation of Hox genes.
Even stronger evidence comes from large-scale synteny of chromosomes. If you look at our chromosomes and that of great apes, you can easily *see* in the band pattern (and in the genome sequence) that our chromosomes are just like that of great apes, a bit reshuffled. Such a shuffling can be tracked down in more distant vertebrates.
Moreover all genomes sequenced so far show pseudogenes: i.e. sequences recognizable as genes by their sequence, but that are mutated such a way they're no more expressed. They're "fossils": pieces of information that were actually useful in the past, but that have been discarded. On the other hand, gene duplication can be easily showed to have given form to many useful genes, and it is known many genomes have been shaped by genome duplication.
People believe in evolution because it appears that most scientists believe in it and since they must be smarter than the average person, it must be true.
I'm a molecular biology Ph.D., I don't "believe" in evolution. I see it in action.
As a non-native English speaker that has some grasp of English grammar and orthography, I can say grammar sloppines on/. (or everywhere else) is not only confusing but really annoying. Orthography errors just sound more than sloppy. They sound stupid.
I don't know how can you cope with this. It seems to me here in Italy we pay much more attention to grammar and words (That's perhaps we had low alphabetization levels until 50 years ago, so correct language skills are still highly respected). Typos occur, but bad orthography and grammar are often touted as symptoms of absolute ignorance.
I can't suggest anything for Linux, except that CodeWarrior also makes a Linux IDE. I don't recommend developing software using cheap command line text editors or gcc compilers, unless you love being counter productive and frustrated.
Funny. So I must assume all free software developers for un*x (that use GCC and text editors 99% of the time) are counter productive and frustrated?
I'm going to ask what kind of quirks and pitfalls the specific subject of the study should we take care. By the way, I'm NOT going to pursue a PhD in interface design. My friend is going. I'm a PhD student, but in biophysics.
You didn't understand. She will conduct the study, but that's not she will judge what's more usable and what's not. This would not be a usability study, it would be a -1,Flamebait article. She plans instead to put categories like WinXP-proficient people,MacOSX-proficient people and total computer noobs (if any still exists) in front of Unix desktop enviroments and see their reactions and if and how they can be proficient with them. She's using them to understand them and for obvious curiosity, and I gave her info to help her tailor the study.
I think we should go for defaults instead. I feel the distro closest to vanilla desktop settings are Gentoo and Debian, we'll probably run one of these two, but if you have advices please tell me.
I'm sorry if I looked like a troll, but I didn't want to. I am really naive about this. I simply have never used these programs, and I'd like to know what's their advantage.
It seems we live in two different planets. I've NEVER used calendaring in mail apps, and I became aware of it just because I read about linux software compared with Outlook/Exchange always whining about this feature. I work in a biochemistry research group, when we have to meet we simply say to each other "let's meet friday at 11.00" or we get emails.
So take me as a totally n00b coming from the stone age and explain me:
- How do you manage "a multi-departmental shareholders meeting with over 12,000 people in 70+ countries all in different time zones."? How in the hell can you have a meeting with 12.000 people? Is everyone talking at these meetings? I simply can't understand what are you talking about.
- "This is not an uncommon occurance although 100 people is more the norm for project or department meetings." - Same problem as above, although perhaps on a more manageable scale.
- Regardless of all this, what's you can manage with Exchange you can't manage with a mailing list?
When I was 7, I played VIC20 software tapes on my tape deck. It was really fun, it was the first electronic music I heard indeed.
Later I remember I played.exe files in some kind of wave editor. It was cool, but not as cool as VIC20 tapes. I used it for some kind of electronic-noise project I had when I was in high school, I think.
Billions of people for hundreds of years and thousands of court decisions agree that the right to distribute a musical work belongs only to its creator. A few million people in the last decade disagree or at least don't care.
Billions of people for thousands of years agreed on slavery. "Hey, everyone thinks another way!" it's not a logical argument, sorry.
Second, music is not expensive. A teenager only has to work less than 15 minutes at minimum wage to buy a song on iTunes, and only about 3 hours for a CD.
The problem is not that it is expensive or not. I don't care that much about it, that's not the main problem. The problem is: I think it's a natural right to share every kind of information (not only music, but everything) with my neighbour. The law doesn't allow me to exercise this natural right.
Pretty soon all the new seeds will only be able to be planted in one field with a tractor, fertilizer, and irrigation sold by the same company, and you won't be able to sell any of your harvest.
Pretty soon everyone will do his own seeds and sharing it with is neighbours. You can produce a high quality record without a major contract, trust me. Record companies were only needed because redistribution was needed, and they provided it. Now redistribution is possible without them. That's why they become useless.
You aren't destroying artists, you are destroying the incentive to produce non-DRM recordings.
If you don't share your information with your neighbours, you're just as evil as DRM-pushing companies. You both work (or refuse to work) for the same aim, that is keeping information proprietary.
Slashdot Mirror
???
The Wedge Strategy
Thanks for putting it in my attention. It's one of the scariest things I've ever read.
No, the problem is that they question science, and then don't really bother to understand it more fully (if they did, they would easily understand ID/creationism are bullshit).
But evolution THEORY is that somewhere along the line there were MAJOR DNA changes, there is no proof of this happening
No to both claims. Evolution could be in principle fully explained by a sequence of minor DNA changes. In practices there is evidence of major DNA changes in the past. See http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/21bio/zfish/post er/gd.html , for example,
or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9729879&dopt=Abstract , or http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/6/577 (Just a couple of examples googled in 30'').
yet you couln't put just one simple example in your message.
I didn't need examples: you can RTFM.
However you can read many brief examples in an answer I gave to one of your fellows a couple of minutes ago. If you take the time to dig in the scientific literature (not that I expect you to do so) you'll find many interesting things.
Evolution and intelligent design are simply philosophies, not science. Neither should be taught in science, nor is the teaching of interspecial evolution absolutely essential to learning anything in biology.
Evolution is an inevitable consequence when you have the following ingredients:
- A genome that replicates with less-than-100% fidelity.
- A phenotype that is dependent from the genotype
- A fitness that is dependent from the phenotype
Create such a system, and you'll see it evolve. It's facts: it has been simulated thousands of times in computers, for example. Life is such a system: therefore it will evolve.
They do not present proofs. They present theories that they think may be true.
Wrong. Look at genome comparison data. There is extensive proof of evolution in them.
For example, most Metazoa share Hox genes that shape their bodies. Evolution within Arthropoda is well shown by analyzing their genomes, that show the corresponding shuffling and mutation of Hox genes.
Even stronger evidence comes from large-scale synteny of chromosomes. If you look at our chromosomes and that of great apes, you can easily *see* in the band pattern (and in the genome sequence) that our chromosomes are just like that of great apes, a bit reshuffled. Such a shuffling can be tracked down in more distant vertebrates.
Moreover all genomes sequenced so far show pseudogenes: i.e. sequences recognizable as genes by their sequence, but that are mutated such a way they're no more expressed. They're "fossils": pieces of information that were actually useful in the past, but that have been discarded. On the other hand, gene duplication can be easily showed to have given form to many useful genes, and it is known many genomes have been shaped by genome duplication.
People believe in evolution because it appears that most scientists believe in it and since they must be smarter than the average person, it must be true.
I'm a molecular biology Ph.D., I don't "believe" in evolution. I see it in action.
If evolution is scientifically sound, can't you present sufficient evidence in the classroom to prove it?
Yes. Any molecular biology textbook is full of factual proofs of evolution.
One for film cameras and one for digital
There won't be film cameras anymore in the future, I think. Nikon already went all digital, IIRC.
Seems that, to think of the children, we forgot to think of the adults.
there should be no reason for anyone to post "BTW, What on earth is (X)" type comments.
In fact, as of 2006, there is no reason to post these comments.
As a non-native English speaker that has some grasp of English grammar and orthography, I can say grammar sloppines on /. (or everywhere else) is not only confusing but really annoying. Orthography errors just sound more than sloppy. They sound stupid.
I don't know how can you cope with this. It seems to me here in Italy we pay much more attention to grammar and words (That's perhaps we had low alphabetization levels until 50 years ago, so correct language skills are still highly respected). Typos occur, but bad orthography and grammar are often touted as symptoms of absolute ignorance.
Features can't be bad, right?
Please tell it to Gnome developers.
And I am that /. poster.
I can't suggest anything for Linux, except that CodeWarrior also makes a Linux IDE. I don't recommend developing software using cheap command line text editors or gcc compilers, unless you love being counter productive and frustrated.
Funny. So I must assume all free software developers for un*x (that use GCC and text editors 99% of the time) are counter productive and frustrated?
I'm going to ask what kind of quirks and pitfalls the specific subject of the study should we take care. By the way, I'm NOT going to pursue a PhD in interface design. My friend is going. I'm a PhD student, but in biophysics.
The title of the post says: Unix desktop.
You didn't understand. She will conduct the study, but that's not she will judge what's more usable and what's not. This would not be a usability study, it would be a -1,Flamebait article. She plans instead to put categories like WinXP-proficient people,MacOSX-proficient people and total computer noobs (if any still exists) in front of Unix desktop enviroments and see their reactions and if and how they can be proficient with them. She's using them to understand them and for obvious curiosity, and I gave her info to help her tailor the study.
Well, it would make a comparison useless IMHO.
I think we should go for defaults instead. I feel the distro closest to vanilla desktop settings are Gentoo and Debian, we'll probably run one of these two, but if you have advices please tell me.
You are late, but thanks for advice. ;)
I'm sorry if I looked like a troll, but I didn't want to. I am really naive about this. I simply have never used these programs, and I'd like to know what's their advantage.
It seems we live in two different planets. I've NEVER used calendaring in mail apps, and I became aware of it just because I read about linux software compared with Outlook/Exchange always whining about this feature. I work in a biochemistry research group, when we have to meet we simply say to each other "let's meet friday at 11.00" or we get emails.
So take me as a totally n00b coming from the stone age and explain me:
- How do you manage "a multi-departmental shareholders meeting with over 12,000 people in 70+ countries all in different time zones."? How in the hell can you have a meeting with 12.000 people? Is everyone talking at these meetings? I simply can't understand what are you talking about.
- "This is not an uncommon occurance although 100 people is more the norm for project or department meetings." - Same problem as above, although perhaps on a more manageable scale.
- Regardless of all this, what's you can manage with Exchange you can't manage with a mailing list?
Yes, but by controlling the searchable information, I guess not all of it will be easily available in the Google Reich.
Anyway I'm liking much more the Google Reich than the Microsoft or Apple Reichs. Not that I'm not ready to change my mind...
When I was 7, I played VIC20 software tapes on my tape deck. It was really fun, it was the first electronic music I heard indeed.
Later I remember I played .exe files in some kind of wave editor. It was cool, but not as cool as VIC20 tapes. I used it for some kind of electronic-noise project I had when I was in high school, I think.
Billions of people for hundreds of years and thousands of court decisions agree that the right to distribute a musical work belongs only to its creator. A few million people in the last decade disagree or at least don't care.
Billions of people for thousands of years agreed on slavery. "Hey, everyone thinks another way!" it's not a logical argument, sorry.
Second, music is not expensive. A teenager only has to work less than 15 minutes at minimum wage to buy a song on iTunes, and only about 3 hours for a CD.
The problem is not that it is expensive or not. I don't care that much about it, that's not the main problem. The problem is: I think it's a natural right to share every kind of information (not only music, but everything) with my neighbour. The law doesn't allow me to exercise this natural right.
Pretty soon all the new seeds will only be able to be planted in one field with a tractor, fertilizer, and irrigation sold by the same company, and you won't be able to sell any of your harvest.
Pretty soon everyone will do his own seeds and sharing it with is neighbours. You can produce a high quality record without a major contract, trust me. Record companies were only needed because redistribution was needed, and they provided it. Now redistribution is possible without them. That's why they become useless.
You aren't destroying artists, you are destroying the incentive to produce non-DRM recordings.
If you don't share your information with your neighbours, you're just as evil as DRM-pushing companies. You both work (or refuse to work) for the same aim, that is keeping information proprietary.