When you attempt to use the theory of evolution as the means by which life came into being, you have no choice but to suggest that it was random chance
Wrong. We have no choice but to suggest that nobody knows exactly how it works. The
essence of scientific reasoning is the ability to say "we don't know", and not jump into
the intellectual cowardice of superstition.
THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS ONLY APPLIES TO CLOSED SYSTEMS
Well, not exactly. LTD2 always applies to a closed system, but may not apply
to some open systems. Does it apply to the earth? I would say yes, since
there is a steady inflow of energy from the sun, and energy tends to shake up
existing structures. Heat up ice (more structured) and you get water(less structured).
Heat up water, and you get stream: again more entropy. There are always more ways
for matter to be unstructured than
structured, so the odds will always favor entropy
(randomness) over structure.
This still has nothing to do with using superstition to explain the mysteries of nature.
YES, there are events in evolutionary biology that are hard to explain probabilistically. NO, trying to explain them with superstition is not science, and doesn't belong in science class.
That still has nothing to do with the obsession on
the part of fundies to fill in the blanks with
superstition.
One of the founding principals of science is
the ability to honestly say "I don't know", without
resorting to the intellectual cowardice of
the supernatural.
His education consists of a Master's in Music. How that qualifies him as a professor of computer science is beyond me, especially since his "research" papers read more like social science than computer science.
Are you nuts? If it were almost always obvious what is fair, there would be no civil disputes. In fact civil disputes (over property, payment, trade, social customs, etc. ) have been raging since the time of Babylon. Numerous wars have been fought over unresolved disputes. Without a higher authority (e.g. government) to appeal to, the winner of such a dispute will always be the one with the greatest might (spears, guns, henchmen, etc.) available.
One characteristic of geeks: they generally take things (especially themselves) WAY TOO seriously!
Napoleon was a comedy, and a well-written one, too. I thought it was quite sympathetic to the outsiders (whether they were "geeks", "nerds" or "losers" is subject to augument). They real jerks of the film were clearly the straw-brained jock and his cheerleader girlfried.
You don't need to be "unbiased" to do good science. For one thing, how do you measure "bias"? If something is unmeasurable, then it is irrelevant to science. All that matters is: 1. does the stated experiment really measure the
the phenomenon being studied? 2. are proper protocols (eg double-blind) being
followed? 3. MOST IMPORTANT: has it been replicated by
other expermenters having no conflict
of interest? ( EG, two sets of experiments, both
funded by the Tobacco Institute, wouldn't
qualify.) This is particularly important with
positive results. In the case of Randi's "Uri Geller" experiments, for example, all of these conditions were met, and the results showed unequivocally that Geller is a fraud. In this sort of situation, "debunking" is entirely appropriate.
That's not quite true either. In addition to GM corn, Monsanto also makes a
powerful herbicide called "Roundup". Farmers use it all over the world
to kill weeds. Unfortunately, it also kills corn, so it can only be
used after harvest.
To solve this, Monsanto developed a GM strain of corn that
is immune to Roundup, so the whole field can be sprayed with
the herbicide, and only the weeds will die. It is this "Roundup Resistant Corn" (RRC)
seed that Schmeiser's neighbour bought.
Schmeiser knew that the Monsanto GM corn was specially engineered
to be Roundup-Resistant, and he thought it would be useful. He also figured that there was no need for him to pay for it. His plan was
ingenious:
1. Wait for some of the RRC seeds to blow from his neighbour's land onto his property.
2. use Roundup to kill all of his natural corn in the adjacent property
3. harvest whatever was still alive, since it had to be Roundup-Resistant
4. take the RRC to his greenhouse, and carefully nuture it
5. when the RRC in his greenhouse reproduces, use it to plant his fields
Apparently, this worked great, and pretty soon Schmeiser had several fields
planted exclusively with RRC, and for free.
Now Monsanto argued that this was unfair, since having whole fields of Roundup-Resistant
Corn could never happen by accident. Schmeiser argued that since the whole process
began accidentally, whatever happened after that was none of Monsanto's business.
The courts eventually ruled in Monsanto's favour, since Schmeiser could not have pulled
this off without the use of Roundup herbicide, a Monsanto product.
The "anti-circumvention" clause of the DMCA was created specifically to combat the manufacture and sale of the (then common) satellite-signal piracy devices like the "Mikobu II". And it is absolutely illegal to use one, whether you created it yourself or not.
So, this must also apply to DVD-decrypting software as well.
About two months ago, an auditor from the Canadian department of Revenue and Taxation
got caught the same way, saying that he had never heard of the Nigerian scam. He
even billed all his overseas calls to the government, and wasn't fired.
You are forgetting that once a professional pirate makes a copy and sells it,
that (now unprotected) copy is out in the open and ripe for easy digital
copying by everyone else in the world. VHS is irrelevant since analog copies
require considerable effort to distribute, and generally suck.
Digital copies are perfect, and only require clicking "download".
Contrary to popular belief, SS1 is only an aircraft, not a spacecraft.
It is claimed that SS1 reached "space" which "starts" at an altitude
of 100km. Nonsense.
Space does not "begin" at 100km, or at any other altitude.
Achieving space flight is a question of speed, not altitude, and
SS1 didn't come close.
The minimum speed needed to reach orbit is around Mach 22, or almost ten
times faster than SS1 achieved. To get SS1 up to that speed would need
a lot more fuel, and fuel is heavy. The tanks needed to hold that extra fuel
would also be heavy, and would need to be discarded when emtpy.
Beginning to sound a lot like
a multi-stage rocket, isn't it?
Apart from the fuel problem, the engineering problems involved in building a plastic
airplane that can withstand the stresses of Mach-22 flight would be immense. And
then there is the heat of re-entry to deal with. Melted plastic, anyone?
Don't get me wrong: Rutan and company at Scaled Composites are totally cool dudes, and they are building some
awesome aircraft. But SS1 is a far from being a spacecraft.
You are forgetting about the effects of air drag. Objects that have large surface areas relative to their weight
(think parachutes) have large drag and thus reach terminal velocity quickly (e.g. less than 100 km/hr),
while objects with small surface area relative to mass (think anvils) don't.
I'm not sure about carbon-nanotube ribbons, but they certainly sound like something that belongs in the first category.
I would also expect something made out of carbon to burn up if it did reach a high velocity
in the upper atmosphere.
Not true.
Suppose you swing a weight around your
head on the end of a rope,
so the weight is "orbiting" your head.
Now insert a spring scale (like they use to weigh fish)
between the end the rope and the weight.
The force displayed on the
scale is a "centrifugal" force. It is just a
convenient term
representing the net radial force.
It is measurable, and therefore exists.
Just because the use of the term is
unfashionable these days doesn't mean
is "doesn't exist".
Slashdot Mirror
When you attempt to use the theory of evolution as the means by which life came into being, you have no choice but to suggest that it was random chance
Wrong. We have no choice but to suggest that nobody knows exactly how it works. The essence of scientific reasoning is the ability to say "we don't know", and not jump into the intellectual cowardice of superstition.
THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS ONLY APPLIES TO CLOSED SYSTEMS
Well, not exactly. LTD2 always applies to a closed system, but may not apply to some open systems.
Does it apply to the earth? I would say yes, since there is a steady inflow of energy from the sun, and energy tends to shake up existing structures. Heat up ice (more structured) and you get water(less structured). Heat up water, and you get stream: again more entropy. There are always more ways for matter to be unstructured than structured, so the odds will always favor entropy (randomness) over structure.
This still has nothing to do with using superstition to explain the mysteries of nature.
YES, there are events in evolutionary biology that are hard to explain probabilistically.
NO, trying to explain them with superstition is not science, and doesn't belong in science class.
That still has nothing to do with the obsession on the part of fundies to fill in the blanks with superstition.
One of the founding principals of science is the ability to honestly say "I don't know", without resorting to the intellectual cowardice of the supernatural.
he is mostly an ivory tower PhD type
Except he doesn't have a Ph.D.
His education consists of a Master's
in Music. How that qualifies him as
a professor of computer science is
beyond me, especially since his "research"
papers read more like social science than
computer science.
Ah yes! Every geeks dream: a hottie that is a geek herself. Sigh.
Right on.
Where are the lions when you need one?
Are you nuts?
If it were almost always obvious what is fair, there would be no civil disputes.
In fact civil disputes (over property, payment, trade, social customs, etc. )
have been raging since the time of Babylon. Numerous wars have been fought
over unresolved disputes. Without a higher authority (e.g. government) to appeal
to, the winner of such a dispute will always be the one with the greatest
might (spears, guns, henchmen, etc.) available.
Cartman was right about people like you.
One characteristic of geeks: they generally
take things (especially themselves) WAY TOO seriously!
Napoleon was a comedy, and a well-written
one, too. I thought it was quite sympathetic to the outsiders
(whether they were "geeks", "nerds" or "losers" is subject to
augument). They real jerks of the film were clearly the
straw-brained jock and his cheerleader girlfried.
You don't need to be "unbiased" to do good science.
For one thing, how do you measure "bias"? If
something is unmeasurable, then it is irrelevant to science.
All that matters is:
1. does the stated experiment really measure the
the phenomenon being studied?
2. are proper protocols (eg double-blind) being
followed?
3. MOST IMPORTANT: has it been replicated by
other expermenters having no conflict
of interest? ( EG, two sets of experiments, both
funded by the Tobacco Institute, wouldn't
qualify.) This is particularly important with
positive results.
In the case of Randi's "Uri Geller" experiments, for
example, all of these conditions were met, and
the results showed unequivocally that Geller
is a fraud.
In this sort of situation, "debunking" is entirely appropriate.
I downloaded and tried it.
It sucks.
In addition to GM corn, Monsanto also makes a powerful herbicide called "Roundup". Farmers use it all over the world to kill weeds.
Unfortunately, it also kills corn, so it can only be used after harvest.
To solve this, Monsanto developed a GM strain of corn that is immune to Roundup,
so the whole field can be sprayed with the herbicide, and only the weeds will die.
It is this "Roundup Resistant Corn" (RRC) seed that Schmeiser's neighbour bought.
Schmeiser knew that the Monsanto GM corn was specially engineered to be Roundup-Resistant,
and he thought it would be useful. He also figured that there was no need for him to pay for it.
His plan was ingenious:
1. Wait for some of the RRC seeds to blow from his neighbour's land onto his property.
2. use Roundup to kill all of his natural corn in the adjacent property
3. harvest whatever was still alive, since it had to be Roundup-Resistant
4. take the RRC to his greenhouse, and carefully nuture it
5. when the RRC in his greenhouse reproduces, use it to plant his fields
Apparently, this worked great, and pretty soon Schmeiser had several fields planted exclusively with RRC, and for free.
Now Monsanto argued that this was unfair, since having whole fields of Roundup-Resistant Corn could never happen by accident.
Schmeiser argued that since the whole process began accidentally, whatever happened after that was none of Monsanto's business.
The courts eventually ruled in Monsanto's favour, since Schmeiser could not have pulled this off without the
use of Roundup herbicide, a Monsanto product.
Things are usually more complex than they seem.
And, one that works with encrypted streams (like on satellite TV).
TIVO killer? I don't think so.
The "anti-circumvention" clause of the DMCA was created specifically to combat the manufacture and sale of the (then common) satellite-signal piracy devices like the "Mikobu II". And it is absolutely illegal to use one, whether you created it yourself or not. So, this must also apply to DVD-decrypting software as well.
About two months ago, an auditor from the Canadian department of Revenue and Taxation got caught the same way, saying that he had never heard of the Nigerian scam. He even billed all his overseas calls to the government, and wasn't fired.
You are forgetting that once a professional pirate makes a copy and sells it, that (now unprotected) copy is out in the open and ripe for easy digital copying by everyone else in the world. VHS is irrelevant since analog copies require considerable effort to distribute, and generally suck. Digital copies are perfect, and only require clicking "download".
Contrary to popular belief, SS1 is only an aircraft, not a spacecraft.
It is claimed that SS1 reached "space" which "starts" at an altitude of 100km. Nonsense.
Space does not "begin" at 100km, or at any other altitude. Achieving space flight is a question of speed, not altitude, and SS1 didn't come close. The minimum speed needed to reach orbit is around Mach 22, or almost ten times faster than SS1 achieved. To get SS1 up to that speed would need a lot more fuel, and fuel is heavy. The tanks needed to hold that extra fuel would also be heavy, and would need to be discarded when emtpy.
Beginning to sound a lot like a multi-stage rocket, isn't it?
Apart from the fuel problem, the engineering problems involved in building a plastic airplane that can withstand the stresses of Mach-22 flight would be immense. And then there is the heat of re-entry to deal with. Melted plastic, anyone?
Don't get me wrong: Rutan and company at Scaled Composites are totally cool dudes, and they are building some awesome aircraft. But SS1 is a far from being a spacecraft.
Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics/.
School for kids starts at 3, not 5.
Wow! I don't have to get my kids to school until 8:30! No wonder we can't compete.
You are forgetting about the effects of air drag.
Objects that have large surface areas relative to their weight (think parachutes) have large drag and thus reach terminal velocity quickly (e.g. less than 100 km/hr), while objects with small surface area relative to mass (think anvils) don't.
I'm not sure about carbon-nanotube ribbons, but they certainly sound like something that belongs in the first category.
I would also expect something made out of carbon to burn up if it did reach a high velocity in the upper atmosphere.
Not true.
Suppose you swing a weight around your head on the end of a rope, so the weight is "orbiting" your head. Now insert a spring scale (like they use to weigh fish) between the end the rope and the weight. The force displayed on the scale is a "centrifugal" force.
It is just a convenient term representing the net radial force. It is measurable, and therefore exists.
Just because the use of the term is unfashionable these days doesn't mean is "doesn't exist".
Well said! /.
One of the smartest things I have read on
Two more suggestions: Science News http://www.sciencenews.org/ and New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/
WTF?
The shit-brained Republicans have been in control of both houses for a long time.