I wish MS would stop putting those "Linux is Just a Theory" stickers on school computers!
Oh, so that's what the little hologram says. They should've made it bigger so we can read it. Or is this a subliminal thing?
Actually, if you read the judge's ruling in that case, they'd have to prove that they weren't putting the stickers on primarily for marketing purposes if they wanted to continue applying them.
I've always thought the holo stickers were a bit of a two-edged sword; after all, if it was "designed for Windows", what else could it have been designed for?
The missing words being "GNAA" and "sodomy". The same speil from a "real" company would actually be interesting to link to. Or read at an office party.
how they'll stop Richard Branson from inspiring, say, Prince William's kids from trying it is an interesting SF story
I think they'd be hard-pressed even to shoot down Richard Shatner (who's already booked a flight), but given how many of their troops are in Virgin aircraft at any instant, severely pissing off Mr Branson by doing anything like that would probably be a very bad idea.
...diversity is not a blanket evolutionary advantage.
It costs gene-space (and hence reduces the efficiency of homeostatic processes) to implement. It potentially interferes with existing, functional forms and processes. It takes energy to sustain non-helpful changes (consider so-far-useless mutations as Henry Kissinger's "useless eaters"). Driving one form of diversity through a population by definition eclipses some others. Replacing an existing population so that a variation or collection of same can thrive is very expensive for a species - way too expensive, in practice, to be realistic (think about Microsoft; in OSes and office suites, they're their own biggest competitor; since they need to grow to survive, they're about to become extinct). And so on ad nauseum.
/ME remembers an "instant asshole, just add alcohol" tee-shirt and cringes. (-:
I think the saying which sums up the approach you're aiming for is "live your life so that you could safely sell the family parrot to the town gossip".
...we should put a big scope like Hubble in orbit around Saturn. That way we'd get really good close-ups of rings, planet and moons, plus a nice long baseline for the "real" astronomers.
...lives on the LinuxAus server. Lots more than Linus, too. LA's current El Presidente in a VR suit. One of Linus and Tove's daughters in the head. Runes inside the suit. Rusty waving a laptop in a threatening manner. (-:
Suit stitched by my wife, her sister and a Chilean friend named Cecilia. Suit was balanced and padded to make the posture and waddle work right. Big sell job to get Linus into the suit by Tony Breeds-Taurima, LA Committee candidate and LCA2005 organiser (as well as LCA2003 organiser, PLUG secretary and president at various times). Intro/distraction by Rusty Russell.
See also the adjacent page-set with a gigabyte of random CC photos, mostly flowers of various kinds.
If you searched, you'd probably get lots more Linus and LCA pix. Many geeks, many cameras.
Ring species, unfortunately, do not involve any divergence based on new information - it's a form of degeneration and you can in fact breed all of the participants back together by simply working your way around the ring ("chording" it) in small enough steps.
I don't have on-line access to Nature but a precis of the Myxococcus article would be helpful if you can paste one. The odds are very much in favour of the "novel" behaviour being latent or otherwise not based on true diversification.
The nested heirarchies are not a prediction of evolution. If development turns over species as thoroughly as it has to in order to assure that new species replace the old, any vestiges of nesting would be very tenuous. Also against the nesting argument you have situations like the well-worn "macrobats/microbats" matrix, which is usually hand-waved as "parallel evolution", in turn a serious piece of question-begging if ever I saw one.
If creationism had been true we would have not seen reconcilable nested hierarchies with different traces.
This assertion has always puzzled me. Do you have time to explain why not? Surely, if a process or structure works in one place a designer would use it in many places, perhaps tweaked a little to better address the other tasks?
Even diversification within 'created kinds' would require the same sort of changes one would need for macroevolution, which hurts their arguments against evolutionary mechanics.
With one showstopper exception, specifically that degeneration into subspecies requires no new information.
To say that there never will be any evidence to support evolution (neglecting the completely ignorant statement that there currently is no such evidence) is not a statement about reality
It's a statement that the evidence so far accumulated is mutually exclusive of real evidence being discovered for evolution.
The massive body of evidence to which you refer by implication is not real. It is an accumulation based on false axioms. Just recently, geological isochrons - a keystone of long-ages dating systems - were called into serious question by evolutionists. It's not the first time that's happened to isochrons, and it's a long, long way from the first field that's happened in.
I've only glanced at the finches one so far, but that doesn't inspire confidence
Short story: the finches aren't evolving as so many people have claimed for so long.
Environmental pressures force them away from the norm, then when the pressure goes away, so does the variation. It's the exact opposite of evolution, it's species-wide homeostasis in the face of precisely the kind of pressure most likely to cause evolution in the classical sense.
Slashdot Mirror
He says, Grinning, ducking, running.
Actually, if you read the judge's ruling in that case, they'd have to prove that they weren't putting the stickers on primarily for marketing purposes if they wanted to continue applying them.
I've always thought the holo stickers were a bit of a two-edged sword; after all, if it was "designed for Windows", what else could it have been designed for?
..."the left team"? (-:
Anyway, computers didn't evolve, they were progressively created. Hugh Ross must be fairly happy about that.
Plus endless vertical market apps which do one or two weird things, so won't yet run under WINE.
The missing words being "GNAA" and "sodomy". The same speil from a "real" company would actually be interesting to link to. Or read at an office party.
...and threaten to get a job running the US FAA if they refuse.
"She lives for others. You can tell which others by their 'hunted' look." (-:
I try to care for others but not be a busybody.
Good point. (-:
...diversity is not a blanket evolutionary advantage.
It costs gene-space (and hence reduces the efficiency of homeostatic processes) to implement. It potentially interferes with existing, functional forms and processes. It takes energy to sustain non-helpful changes (consider so-far-useless mutations as Henry Kissinger's "useless eaters"). Driving one form of diversity through a population by definition eclipses some others. Replacing an existing population so that a variation or collection of same can thrive is very expensive for a species - way too expensive, in practice, to be realistic (think about Microsoft; in OSes and office suites, they're their own biggest competitor; since they need to grow to survive, they're about to become extinct). And so on ad nauseum.
Can't see it getting past any boring committees though.
I think the saying which sums up the approach you're aiming for is "live your life so that you could safely sell the family parrot to the town gossip".
...we should put a big scope like Hubble in orbit around Saturn. That way we'd get really good close-ups of rings, planet and moons, plus a nice long baseline for the "real" astronomers.
...the GP stood on there. And excellent points by Doc, sans the invective. Is it possible to mod _some_ of a post up? (-:
...include not working so well at 3-4 atmospheres of nitro-methane and -200C ambient.
Also, if they had insufficient bandwidth to send sound, how are they going to cope with (say) a 4Mpx colour image?
Not to mention the fuss that arises when it turns out that somebody left the lens cap on.
On top of this, the final stage wouldn't need much of a heatsink.
Needs to learn to write valid HTML (-:
Use your imagination, add more of your own reasons.
...lives on the LinuxAus server. Lots more than Linus, too. LA's current El Presidente in a VR suit. One of Linus and Tove's daughters in the head. Runes inside the suit. Rusty waving a laptop in a threatening manner. (-:
Suit stitched by my wife, her sister and a Chilean friend named Cecilia. Suit was balanced and padded to make the posture and waddle work right. Big sell job to get Linus into the suit by Tony Breeds-Taurima, LA Committee candidate and LCA2005 organiser (as well as LCA2003 organiser, PLUG secretary and president at various times). Intro/distraction by Rusty Russell.
See also the adjacent page-set with a gigabyte of random CC photos, mostly flowers of various kinds.
If you searched, you'd probably get lots more Linus and LCA pix. Many geeks, many cameras.
...needs shooting. Link.
I don't have on-line access to Nature but a precis of the Myxococcus article would be helpful if you can paste one. The odds are very much in favour of the "novel" behaviour being latent or otherwise not based on true diversification.
The nested heirarchies are not a prediction of evolution. If development turns over species as thoroughly as it has to in order to assure that new species replace the old, any vestiges of nesting would be very tenuous. Also against the nesting argument you have situations like the well-worn "macrobats/microbats" matrix, which is usually hand-waved as "parallel evolution", in turn a serious piece of question-begging if ever I saw one.
This assertion has always puzzled me. Do you have time to explain why not? Surely, if a process or structure works in one place a designer would use it in many places, perhaps tweaked a little to better address the other tasks?
With one showstopper exception, specifically that degeneration into subspecies requires no new information.
The massive body of evidence to which you refer by implication is not real. It is an accumulation based on false axioms. Just recently, geological isochrons - a keystone of long-ages dating systems - were called into serious question by evolutionists. It's not the first time that's happened to isochrons, and it's a long, long way from the first field that's happened in.
When you have mathematicians and biologists calling each other liars and heretics at the tops of their voices in a formal conference, you know you have a problem with your theory - but your religion (Materialism) prevents you from accepting that.
BOC if things happen much too fast, your pet theory breaks just as badly as if they happen too slowly or not at all, no?
Environmental pressures force them away from the norm, then when the pressure goes away, so does the variation. It's the exact opposite of evolution, it's species-wide homeostasis in the face of precisely the kind of pressure most likely to cause evolution in the classical sense.