I mean really, since when has the greater population of drivers ever exhibited "skills"? Technology is not replacing anything, it's just adding fail-safes for what's missing... that means lower interest rates for me, which I'm in favor of.
I'm just waiting for those add-ons that prevent drivers from doing rude stuff: Maybe lock the steering to prevent sudden, unsafe lane changes especially in the absence of at least 5 seconds of turn signalling; Lock the brakes to prevent pulling out from an intersection into on-coming traffic; and Providing electrical shocks whenever they are trying to drive and talk on their cell phones!
Not exactly. Einstein was all over quantum physics and was one of the biggest contributors in the early days. You are right that he never accepted the probablistic aspects of quantum **MECHANICS**. In other words, he didn't like the math. There are a lot of people in the field who still agree with Einstein. i.e that probabilty is just a convenient way of predicting the outcome of quantum events, but does not reflect what is **REALLY** going on at the quantum level...
True, but hydrogen is "distilled" from dihydrogen monoxide in the first place, so the net is less than zero. Also, dihydrogen monoxide is only a greenhouse gas in vapor form.
To all of you people who are speculating that IBM has to give PPC IP to Apple who would then pass it on to Intel... You seem to be forgetting one important fact: IBM does not have sole ownership of that IP. It's shared between IBM and Freescale (formerly Motorola).
Really, it's just a silly proposal. Both Freescale and IBM have many, more lucrative, sockets for PPCs than Apple. Apple doesn't have enough clout to cause either IBM or Freescale to give away the farm to the competition...
Seriously, folks... We don't even have accurate models of a single neuron at a molecular level yet.
Furthermore, if Roger Penrose and others are correct, we would need to build models of the microtubuli, complete with quantum entanglement...
The brain-as-a-computer problem is not about how many serial operations per second can be achieved; it's about how many operations simultaneously in parallel...
Ironic, don't you think? Apple is not happy with the mindshare they get from IBM, so they want to move to Intel where they will be a much smaller piece of a much larger pie? I can't see Jobs being happier with Intel...
The good news is that if this happens, Apple can finally catch up in that software arena that Windows currently dominates... I'm speaking of course, of malware...
Let me get this straight. Someone thinks it's a good idea for Microsoft to exploit their own security vulnerabilities in order to poke around on other people's computers looking for someone else exploiting Microsoft security vulnerabilities???
Actually, this is exactly the point that was trying to be made... It's a matter of faith on both sides. If this were no so, there would be no dispute...
So who do they think it was, aliens?
Ummm... you seem to have switched gears over to the origins of life. If you think the theory of evolution is established for the origins of life, you're very confused...
Why not aliens? Why not God, for that matter? Just because these may not be necessary explanatory features, doesn't rule them out as possibilities. Why do the outspoken advocates of evolution always want to dismiss God? The truth is, most Christians support the theory of evolution and find nothing contradictory about it and their belief in God...
Bring up a testable hypothesis that better fits the available evidence, and we'll talk.
You don't want to go there. The theory of evolution offers very few testable hypotheses. Being the best explanation that explains the available evidence is not the same thing as testable. Most of the tested elements of the theory that I am aware of are actually misleading because they are examples of artificial selection or gene manipulation.
"These "educators" need to understand the principle of Occam's Razor."
The irony is probably lost, but both sides of the argument try to use Occam's Razor to make their point...
Evolutionists: Is it more probable that life as we know it evolved through naturally occuring and somewhat understood processes or is it more likely that a superbeing poofed it all into existence?
Creationists: Is it more likely that the incredibly intricate jigsaw puzzle we call life was designed and assembled with intelligence or that over a long period of time a lot of pieces simply fell into place, at random?
Wanna know the really ironic part?
Occam proposed the Razor originally to eliminate these kinds of arguments. Occam believed that science could never prove or disprove God... He must be turning uneasily in his grave to see how his concept has been polluted...
"People like Richard Dawkins have written whole books on the topics."
Dawkins is a big part of the problem. In The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins starts out by professing his atheism, then goes on to demonstrate that evolution proves the non-existence of God. If you want to convince open-minded Christians (not the Creationists, you'll never convince them, but they are actually a minority)..., the science needs to be presented in a less confrontational manner.
For the record, The Blind Watchmaker is a travesty of scientific thought... It's horrible!
The first step to fixing the problem is finding better spokes-persons.
Sorry, I find it very difficult to get worked up by any of this anymore.
Any truely objective observer will note that the most vocal supporters of teaching evolution in schools also have an atheistic agenda. Is it any wonder that writers like Dawkins draw all of the Creationists with their theistic agendas out of the woodwork like cockroaches? There are crackpots on both sides, each with their own non-scientific agendas, and they tend to be the most vocal.
Truth be told, if textbooks were written with objective science in mind, neither side would be happy with the results.
If you're really worried about the science that your kids are exposed to in school, I recommend that you pick up an average middle school or high school textbook on natural sciences. Ignore everything to do with evolution. Instead, check out the sections on cosmology, genetics, biology, physics, environment,... Trust me, the theory of evolution is the least of your worries!
...evolutionary theory, a theory that has been shown to explain the origins of life time and time again...
Well, first, evolutionary theory does not explain the origins of life... that would be the theory of abiogenesis. Evolutionary theory is something else entirely.
Second, evolutionary theory has not shown anything. Most people are very confused about what the theories (plural) of evolution actually tell us.
Don't get me wrong. Evolution is a fact; it happens. The theories of evolution have a powerful explanatory appeal, however they do not demonstrate anything.
If you think that scientific evidence from observed cases of evolution or reconstructed evolutionary events are going to convince the Creationists that they are misguided - it is you who are misguided. In fact, there is nothing logically unsound by the Creationist arguments for intelligent design. Since actual evolutionary history cannot be reconstructed, it is pointless to engage in these sorts of discussions...
... and yet, we persist. Ironically, in spite of all the passion from both sides, if it were possible to know the unknowable, it would have absolutely no impact on anyone's life... If we knew that we came to be as a result of a chemical process, or were placed here by God, or are the results of some alien science project... what possible difference could it make!?
Shakespear once wrote, "there's nothing new under the sun"... but he actually stole that line from Moses. Who knows where Moses heard it?
I don't think one can truely know the origins of an idea.
BTW... why do they call it Longhorn? I get the "long" part... I've been hearing about it for about the last 4 years...
Much as it pains me to admit it, I read two of his Tek books and found them quite enjoyable... He's no Herbert or Heinlein, but he's better than most of the SciFi pulp writers out there...
The Mythbusters did a scale model first, approximately the size of the one from the web site, except with more reflectors, which should have made it more effective than the one at the web site. I don't know what the guy at the web site did to calibrate the angle of each of his mirrors, but the Mythbusters took great pains to get the angles just right.
It's a hoax. A fresnel array (and what this guy built is a fresnel array not a parabola) of this size cannot generate the heat to burn anything. BTW, one of the experiments done by the Mythbusters was essentially the same thing. They explained why this approach doesn't work and their explanation was essentially correct. You can't focus a significant amount of light from flat mirrors on a focal point. Most of the radiant energy is wasted.
Frankly, I think the correlation is without merit.
I have two kids; each with their own computers; each with unlimited internet access; one in the Honor Society and the other in the Junior Honor Society. Of course, neither of them use their computers to play games and they have both been instructed NOT to believe everything they read on the internet. It's less about the tool and more about how one uses the tool. A hammer can be used to destroy a house, or it can be used to build a house...
Slashdot Mirror
I mean really, since when has the greater population of drivers ever exhibited "skills"? Technology is not replacing anything, it's just adding fail-safes for what's missing... that means lower interest rates for me, which I'm in favor of.
I'm just waiting for those add-ons that prevent drivers from doing rude stuff: Maybe lock the steering to prevent sudden, unsafe lane changes especially in the absence of at least 5 seconds of turn signalling; Lock the brakes to prevent pulling out from an intersection into on-coming traffic; and Providing electrical shocks whenever they are trying to drive and talk on their cell phones!
Not exactly. Einstein was all over quantum physics and was one of the biggest contributors in the early days. You are right that he never accepted the probablistic aspects of quantum **MECHANICS**. In other words, he didn't like the math. There are a lot of people in the field who still agree with Einstein. i.e that probabilty is just a convenient way of predicting the outcome of quantum events, but does not reflect what is **REALLY** going on at the quantum level...
True, but hydrogen is "distilled" from dihydrogen monoxide in the first place, so the net is less than zero. Also, dihydrogen monoxide is only a greenhouse gas in vapor form.
Microsoft could just buy Apple...
To all of you people who are speculating that IBM has to give PPC IP to Apple who would then pass it on to Intel... You seem to be forgetting one important fact: IBM does not have sole ownership of that IP. It's shared between IBM and Freescale (formerly Motorola).
Really, it's just a silly proposal. Both Freescale and IBM have many, more lucrative, sockets for PPCs than Apple. Apple doesn't have enough clout to cause either IBM or Freescale to give away the farm to the competition...
Seriously, folks... We don't even have accurate models of a single neuron at a molecular level yet.
Furthermore, if Roger Penrose and others are correct, we would need to build models of the microtubuli, complete with quantum entanglement...
The brain-as-a-computer problem is not about how many serial operations per second can be achieved; it's about how many operations simultaneously in parallel...
Ironic, don't you think? Apple is not happy with the mindshare they get from IBM, so they want to move to Intel where they will be a much smaller piece of a much larger pie? I can't see Jobs being happier with Intel...
The good news is that if this happens, Apple can finally catch up in that software arena that Windows currently dominates... I'm speaking of course, of malware...
Let me get this straight. Someone thinks it's a good idea for Microsoft to exploit their own security vulnerabilities in order to poke around on other people's computers looking for someone else exploiting Microsoft security vulnerabilities???
Of course, while a Mac will run cooler, it won't look nearly as cool as a motherboard in a vat of oil...
Sheeesh...
Actually, this is exactly the point that was trying to be made... It's a matter of faith on both sides. If this were no so, there would be no dispute...
Ummm... you seem to have switched gears over to the origins of life. If you think the theory of evolution is established for the origins of life, you're very confused...
Why not aliens? Why not God, for that matter? Just because these may not be necessary explanatory features, doesn't rule them out as possibilities. Why do the outspoken advocates of evolution always want to dismiss God? The truth is, most Christians support the theory of evolution and find nothing contradictory about it and their belief in God...
You don't want to go there. The theory of evolution offers very few testable hypotheses. Being the best explanation that explains the available evidence is not the same thing as testable. Most of the tested elements of the theory that I am aware of are actually misleading because they are examples of artificial selection or gene manipulation.
The irony is probably lost, but both sides of the argument try to use Occam's Razor to make their point...
Wanna know the really ironic part?
Occam proposed the Razor originally to eliminate these kinds of arguments. Occam believed that science could never prove or disprove God... He must be turning uneasily in his grave to see how his concept has been polluted...
SiliconEntity wrote:
Dawkins is a big part of the problem. In The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins starts out by professing his atheism, then goes on to demonstrate that evolution proves the non-existence of God. If you want to convince open-minded Christians (not the Creationists, you'll never convince them, but they are actually a minority)..., the science needs to be presented in a less confrontational manner.
For the record, The Blind Watchmaker is a travesty of scientific thought... It's horrible!
The first step to fixing the problem is finding better spokes-persons.
Sorry, I find it very difficult to get worked up by any of this anymore.
Any truely objective observer will note that the most vocal supporters of teaching evolution in schools also have an atheistic agenda. Is it any wonder that writers like Dawkins draw all of the Creationists with their theistic agendas out of the woodwork like cockroaches? There are crackpots on both sides, each with their own non-scientific agendas, and they tend to be the most vocal.
Truth be told, if textbooks were written with objective science in mind, neither side would be happy with the results.
If you're really worried about the science that your kids are exposed to in school, I recommend that you pick up an average middle school or high school textbook on natural sciences. Ignore everything to do with evolution. Instead, check out the sections on cosmology, genetics, biology, physics, environment,... Trust me, the theory of evolution is the least of your worries!
Well, first, evolutionary theory does not explain the origins of life... that would be the theory of abiogenesis. Evolutionary theory is something else entirely.
Second, evolutionary theory has not shown anything. Most people are very confused about what the theories (plural) of evolution actually tell us.
Don't get me wrong. Evolution is a fact; it happens. The theories of evolution have a powerful explanatory appeal, however they do not demonstrate anything.
If you think that scientific evidence from observed cases of evolution or reconstructed evolutionary events are going to convince the Creationists that they are misguided - it is you who are misguided. In fact, there is nothing logically unsound by the Creationist arguments for intelligent design. Since actual evolutionary history cannot be reconstructed, it is pointless to engage in these sorts of discussions...
Shakespear once wrote, "there's nothing new under the sun"... but he actually stole that line from Moses. Who knows where Moses heard it? I don't think one can truely know the origins of an idea. BTW... why do they call it Longhorn? I get the "long" part... I've been hearing about it for about the last 4 years...
Much as it pains me to admit it, I read two of his Tek books and found them quite enjoyable... He's no Herbert or Heinlein, but he's better than most of the SciFi pulp writers out there...
I can't think of anything more exciting than week after week of thrilling simulations and high tech hijinx...
The Mythbusters did a scale model first, approximately the size of the one from the web site, except with more reflectors, which should have made it more effective than the one at the web site. I don't know what the guy at the web site did to calibrate the angle of each of his mirrors, but the Mythbusters took great pains to get the angles just right.
It's a hoax. A fresnel array (and what this guy built is a fresnel array not a parabola) of this size cannot generate the heat to burn anything. BTW, one of the experiments done by the Mythbusters was essentially the same thing. They explained why this approach doesn't work and their explanation was essentially correct. You can't focus a significant amount of light from flat mirrors on a focal point. Most of the radiant energy is wasted.
Typical intellectual egocentrism.
Criticize cultures and subcultures that are not like your own...
Some people never catch on to this human being stuff...
Frankly, I think the correlation is without merit. I have two kids; each with their own computers; each with unlimited internet access; one in the Honor Society and the other in the Junior Honor Society. Of course, neither of them use their computers to play games and they have both been instructed NOT to believe everything they read on the internet. It's less about the tool and more about how one uses the tool. A hammer can be used to destroy a house, or it can be used to build a house...