Some non-nexus phones are google branded. For example, I have a samsung moment, and it says "Google" on the outside in permanent lettering. So some android phones are additionally google branded
Still, it's pretty stupid to equate android with google branding.
But that's the trick of it. The people they disagree with AREN'T "evolutionists" it's everybody who isn't them.
Sure, just like how everyone else disagrees with everyone who disagrees with them.
They have their own belief which, were it true, invalidates not only evolution, but every other creation story and 3 or 4 other branches of science.
Yes, we've established that they're in error.. again. Nevertheless, because they *intend* their criticism to be of evolution, that *means* the set of people they disagree with are appropriately called... evolutionists. There's simply no reasonable alternative.
So I guess that is the term I want them to use. "Scientists, heathens and ancient historians". Because their belief goes contrary to entire swaths of all three.
Kind of a mouthful, don't you think? Do you really think that everyone should have to list every group that they, by implication, disagree with, every single time they want to refer to people who disagree with them? Do you hold everyone to this standard, or just to groups that hurt your feelings really bad?
Note how you've changed the topic to "Look at all I know about quantum physics and how well-substantiated it is" rather than "are the definitions of 'physicist' and 'quantum mechanics' (or 'biologist' and 'evolution') different?" The question isn't whether one coincides with the other (which they do), but whether the meanings are the same, and by extension, whether "evolutionist" is the most appropriate term that evolution's critics should refer to those who disagree with them.
Unfortunately, there's a tendency to say, "hey, those people don't get to use the literal meanings of words because they're so offensively wrong", which I find ridiculous.
Well luckily my integrity was never endangered by temptation here, due to there being perfectly valid reasons for not answering "yes".
Unfortunately, your only reason seems to be, "I [justifiably] don't like IDers, therefore I will deny them even the ability to accurately refer to the class of people who disagree with them."
The reasonable alternative is not labeling people who accept evolution and then pretending they're the only other option.
The term "evolutionist" doesn't do this. Other things that IDers do might be doing this, but not the term "evolutionist". Again, you're still not answering the question of what brief appellation they should be using that actually *means* what they're referring to, rather than simply coinciding with it. It's one thing to criticize someone's arguments; it's quite another to define them out of existence and take away every term they could use to voice their opinion.
If they disagree with evolution, that *means* the people who they disagree with are... um, evolution... ists. It simply doesn't matter how invalid their position is; everyone, even the bad people, has the right to accurately reference the class of people who disagree with them. Since the belief they criticize is "evolution", the most appropriate term is "evolutionist", and that holds true no matter how good the science opposing them is, or what other nefarious things they might be doing.
(I note you still haven't given them alternative, which makes your position all the more undirected and kafkaesque. When someone tells me, "don't user term X", but doesn't tell me what term I should use instead, their goal quite clearly isn't good communication.)
What? Are you implying that not all ID'ers aren't creationists now?
No, I'm saying that whatever wrong IDers may have committed, they need to be able to use an accurate, concise appellation to refer to the set of people who disagree with them, and "evolutionist" fills that role. It doesn't matter that it hurts your feelings, or that they're wrong, or that they're not doing science, etc. etc. etc. "Evolutionist" is the most accurate term for those whom they disagree with, and by denying them the right to use this term, you're effectively trying to make it impossible to voice their opinion.
I'm sorry that for some people, the term might give them the wrong idea, but you can say that about anything. (See the sibling exchanges.)
I'm not saying that "evolutionist" doesn't technically describe the people they want it to. I'm saying that by accepting it as a valid term you're inadvertently giving credence to the legitimacy of their position.
And I'm saying that when you make a fuss about this, you're letting your dislike of the group cloud your judgment. Everyone should use accurate terms to designate what they want to refer to, even if they're evil, and such clear communication -- gasp! -- benefits those evil people.
There is no reasonable alternative to the term "evolutionist" that IDers should use, and criticizing them for it is just petty.
I have a legitimate problem with them creating a term to indicate a divide which does not meaningfully exist.
"Evolutionist" indicates "person who endorses evolution" not "there's a big divide in academic science between people who believe evolution happened and those who don't".
The people who study evolution are called "biologists".
No, "biologist" denotes, at its narrowest, someone who studies biology professionally. The fact that there are *other* characteristics that are typical of biologists does not mean it has a different definition. (Nor that people you disagree with can't use clear terminology.) What about biologists who just study orca feeding behaviors?
I am fine with them using "evolutionary biologists" if they are discussing the specific subset of biology...
But they're not. They're criticizing everyone who endorses mainstream evolution, whether or not their work is in biology. What more accurate term is there than "evolutionist"?
but to use "evolutionist" implies that modern biological science and evolution are not intrinsically intertwined which is fallacious.
Because they're not -- they're *ex*trinsically intertwined via empirical studies and inferences thereon. It required this empirical work to recognize the connection, not hunting through a dictionary.
There's a difference between saying that evolution *explains* biology, and saying that the term "biology" *means* evolution (among other things). They really have different intensions. Again, did biologists not exist before the 19th century?
First, do you understand why "quantum physics is a reasonable belief" does not substantiate the position that "the word physicist means someone who explicitly endorses quantum mechanics"?
Second, does a person studying optics or geology, but who has never looked at the quantum-specific physics equations, and doesn't ever think about the issue, count as a physicist? (If you feel that by saying yes, you're "giving the creationists a weapon", you're already on the wrong track.)
Yes, I "get" that they are in error to reject evolution. You don't have to keep reminding me. That doesn't mean you get to make them use contorted circumlocutions just to identify their arguments, or that allowing them to use the standard meaning of "evolutionist" is some kind of major concession.
I think you're falling into a sort of anti-halo trap, where you can't do anything remotely pleasant to them just because you disagree. I almost think you're about to deny them the use of English altogether because "that just makes it easier for them to communicate", and I wouldn't want to grant such a concession to the anti-science crowd, would I?
Dismissing them as "evolutionists" is used strategically in order to separate them from a position of respect and authority on the subject.
Nope, it's a devious way to correctly denote the set of people with whom one disagrees in this context.
Sheesh, how did clear designation of what you mean become an evil strategy?
Also, "non-creationist" doesn't work because they're only disagreeing with a subset of non-creationists (and they don't claim to be creationists, but whatever). "Non-intelligent designer" doesn't work either because it's non-standard, bulky, and doesn't denote a specific positive belief.
The term creationists should use is "biologist". That is what I am saying.
And I just explained why that doesn't work, no matter how popular or correct the theory of evolution is. You haven't replied to that.
Furthermore, you are requiring IDers, in order to make an argument at all, to claim that they are not biologists, effectively defining away the existence of their position. ("Hey, aren't you admitting, by your very own terminology, that you're not biologists? Haw haw!")
While *current* biologists do almost universally agree with the theory of evolution, the term "biologist" does not *mean* "someone who endorses the modern theory of evolution", because those are different concepts and it required a crucial inferential connection to recognize that one who studies one should also be the other. (Was Gregor Mendel a biologist? Aristotle?)
Sorry, all I got out of that was, "No, I've never even thought about the issue of what the proper term IDers should use for proponents of the theory of evolution, nor recognized that there is a need for me to provide them with an alternative, so I'm just going to rant about how IDers aren't doing real science as if that were actually relevant to my refusal to allow them the ability to voice their thoughts."
Look, all you have to tell me is what you think they should be using instead. I told you why "biologist" doesn't work: because it doesn't denote the same thing as "evolutionist", even though the sets coincide very closely.
But please don't tell them that they can't can't use "evolutionists" to refer to people with a specific belief about evolution, without giving them an alternate, short appellation that they should be using which denotes the same portion of conceptspace.
It's good to criticize ID advocates. But I really hate when people try to deny them even a *term* for those they disagree with, which you do when you say that there's no such thing as "evolutionists".
They can't use the term "biologists" because there are people (though not many) who study biology but agree with the IDers. Claiming that they have to refer to their opponents as "biologists" is like saying you can't have different terms for "physicist" and "proponent of the theory of quantum mechanics".
It's an attempt to deny, not just the validity of someone's arguments, but their ability to express them. Which is really petty.
What's that supposed to mean? No, I'm not from Lousiana, but yes that should be on a GED test. It should be one of the mathematical tasks you should be capable of, and tested for, in order to get a GED.
It would it only be a problem if that were the hardest math problem it gave you.
For comparison, the Fundamentals of Engineering exam (a prerequisite for being a licensed Professional Engineer) tests you on absolute value inequalities. (i.e. problems like, "Solve for x in |x-5| > 6") That doesn't mean you only need Algebra I to pass.
So how would you block an ad that's text-only, hosted on the same domain as the site you're viewing, and links directly to the product's site without any obnoxiousness in the URL?
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't see how it's possible to have an ad-blocker that does this unless it clips out *all* external links.
Yes and no. It looks like most of these will fund training for technical schools which are, as the/. crowd already knows, basically worthless for actually being productive in IT, and probably won't help you get a job. (The stories of people who went into debt to go to one of these schools, hoping to get an IT job but becoming just as unemployable anyway.
What's worse, as those who get e.g. "Cisco certification" know, it can tell employers that, "This applicant knows enough to destroy your system, but not enough to get anything done."
The best that can happen is that this will just become some "checkoff requirement" -- doesn't help you with your job, but doesn't hurt either, just wastes time.
More money down the shithole. If it's welfare, it's welfare for the worthless colleges that keep rooking the unemployed.
The GP was saying that the mouse also allows you to rest your hands on it. Imagine if you had to hover your hand over the mousepad without touching it while "holding" an invisible mouse. Then you have this new device. But hovering your hand above a surface is tiring.
And I don't understand your comparison to keyboards. My hands rest on the desk or the keyboard. When they're not moving as part of a motion to hit the keys, they resk on the keyboard/desk in a sort of home position. No hovering involved.
Having to hold your hand in front of you with nothing to rest on for hours will get real tiring, real fast.
Maybe you missed the sarcasm, but you made a good point: CR seems to be the only one with any rigor in their reviews, the others just perpetuate information cascades. I hope you get modded up for that, since no one else has said that.
Then again, didn't CR only mention this *after* it became a big issue? Don't they still rate it higher than the others, even as they "don't recommend" it?
Slashdot Mirror
Some non-nexus phones are google branded. For example, I have a samsung moment, and it says "Google" on the outside in permanent lettering. So some android phones are additionally google branded
Still, it's pretty stupid to equate android with google branding.
But that's the trick of it. The people they disagree with AREN'T "evolutionists" it's everybody who isn't them.
Sure, just like how everyone else disagrees with everyone who disagrees with them.
They have their own belief which, were it true, invalidates not only evolution, but every other creation story and 3 or 4 other branches of science.
Yes, we've established that they're in error .. again. Nevertheless, because they *intend* their criticism to be of evolution, that *means* the set of people they disagree with are appropriately called ... evolutionists. There's simply no reasonable alternative.
So I guess that is the term I want them to use. "Scientists, heathens and ancient historians". Because their belief goes contrary to entire swaths of all three.
Kind of a mouthful, don't you think? Do you really think that everyone should have to list every group that they, by implication, disagree with, every single time they want to refer to people who disagree with them? Do you hold everyone to this standard, or just to groups that hurt your feelings really bad?
Note how you've changed the topic to "Look at all I know about quantum physics and how well-substantiated it is" rather than "are the definitions of 'physicist' and 'quantum mechanics' (or 'biologist' and 'evolution') different?" The question isn't whether one coincides with the other (which they do), but whether the meanings are the same, and by extension, whether "evolutionist" is the most appropriate term that evolution's critics should refer to those who disagree with them.
Unfortunately, there's a tendency to say, "hey, those people don't get to use the literal meanings of words because they're so offensively wrong", which I find ridiculous.
Well luckily my integrity was never endangered by temptation here, due to there being perfectly valid reasons for not answering "yes".
Unfortunately, your only reason seems to be, "I [justifiably] don't like IDers, therefore I will deny them even the ability to accurately refer to the class of people who disagree with them."
The reasonable alternative is not labeling people who accept evolution and then pretending they're the only other option.
The term "evolutionist" doesn't do this. Other things that IDers do might be doing this, but not the term "evolutionist". Again, you're still not answering the question of what brief appellation they should be using that actually *means* what they're referring to, rather than simply coinciding with it. It's one thing to criticize someone's arguments; it's quite another to define them out of existence and take away every term they could use to voice their opinion.
If they disagree with evolution, that *means* the people who they disagree with are ... um, evolution ... ists. It simply doesn't matter how invalid their position is; everyone, even the bad people, has the right to accurately reference the class of people who disagree with them. Since the belief they criticize is "evolution", the most appropriate term is "evolutionist", and that holds true no matter how good the science opposing them is, or what other nefarious things they might be doing.
(I note you still haven't given them alternative, which makes your position all the more undirected and kafkaesque. When someone tells me, "don't user term X", but doesn't tell me what term I should use instead, their goal quite clearly isn't good communication.)
What? Are you implying that not all ID'ers aren't creationists now?
No, I'm saying that whatever wrong IDers may have committed, they need to be able to use an accurate, concise appellation to refer to the set of people who disagree with them, and "evolutionist" fills that role. It doesn't matter that it hurts your feelings, or that they're wrong, or that they're not doing science, etc. etc. etc. "Evolutionist" is the most accurate term for those whom they disagree with, and by denying them the right to use this term, you're effectively trying to make it impossible to voice their opinion.
I'm sorry that for some people, the term might give them the wrong idea, but you can say that about anything. (See the sibling exchanges.)
I'm not saying that "evolutionist" doesn't technically describe the people they want it to. I'm saying that by accepting it as a valid term you're inadvertently giving credence to the legitimacy of their position.
And I'm saying that when you make a fuss about this, you're letting your dislike of the group cloud your judgment. Everyone should use accurate terms to designate what they want to refer to, even if they're evil, and such clear communication -- gasp! -- benefits those evil people.
There is no reasonable alternative to the term "evolutionist" that IDers should use, and criticizing them for it is just petty.
I have a legitimate problem with them creating a term to indicate a divide which does not meaningfully exist.
"Evolutionist" indicates "person who endorses evolution" not "there's a big divide in academic science between people who believe evolution happened and those who don't".
The people who study evolution are called "biologists".
No, "biologist" denotes, at its narrowest, someone who studies biology professionally. The fact that there are *other* characteristics that are typical of biologists does not mean it has a different definition. (Nor that people you disagree with can't use clear terminology.) What about biologists who just study orca feeding behaviors?
I am fine with them using "evolutionary biologists" if they are discussing the specific subset of biology ...
But they're not. They're criticizing everyone who endorses mainstream evolution, whether or not their work is in biology. What more accurate term is there than "evolutionist"?
but to use "evolutionist" implies that modern biological science and evolution are not intrinsically intertwined which is fallacious.
Because they're not -- they're *ex*trinsically intertwined via empirical studies and inferences thereon. It required this empirical work to recognize the connection, not hunting through a dictionary.
There's a difference between saying that evolution *explains* biology, and saying that the term "biology" *means* evolution (among other things). They really have different intensions. Again, did biologists not exist before the 19th century?
First, do you understand why "quantum physics is a reasonable belief" does not substantiate the position that "the word physicist means someone who explicitly endorses quantum mechanics"?
Second, does a person studying optics or geology, but who has never looked at the quantum-specific physics equations, and doesn't ever think about the issue, count as a physicist? (If you feel that by saying yes, you're "giving the creationists a weapon", you're already on the wrong track.)
Yes, I "get" that they are in error to reject evolution. You don't have to keep reminding me. That doesn't mean you get to make them use contorted circumlocutions just to identify their arguments, or that allowing them to use the standard meaning of "evolutionist" is some kind of major concession.
I think you're falling into a sort of anti-halo trap, where you can't do anything remotely pleasant to them just because you disagree. I almost think you're about to deny them the use of English altogether because "that just makes it easier for them to communicate", and I wouldn't want to grant such a concession to the anti-science crowd, would I?
Dismissing them as "evolutionists" is used strategically in order to separate them from a position of respect and authority on the subject.
Nope, it's a devious way to correctly denote the set of people with whom one disagrees in this context.
Sheesh, how did clear designation of what you mean become an evil strategy?
Also, "non-creationist" doesn't work because they're only disagreeing with a subset of non-creationists (and they don't claim to be creationists, but whatever). "Non-intelligent designer" doesn't work either because it's non-standard, bulky, and doesn't denote a specific positive belief.
The term creationists should use is "biologist". That is what I am saying.
And I just explained why that doesn't work, no matter how popular or correct the theory of evolution is. You haven't replied to that.
Furthermore, you are requiring IDers, in order to make an argument at all, to claim that they are not biologists, effectively defining away the existence of their position. ("Hey, aren't you admitting, by your very own terminology, that you're not biologists? Haw haw!")
While *current* biologists do almost universally agree with the theory of evolution, the term "biologist" does not *mean* "someone who endorses the modern theory of evolution", because those are different concepts and it required a crucial inferential connection to recognize that one who studies one should also be the other. (Was Gregor Mendel a biologist? Aristotle?)
Sorry, all I got out of that was, "No, I've never even thought about the issue of what the proper term IDers should use for proponents of the theory of evolution, nor recognized that there is a need for me to provide them with an alternative, so I'm just going to rant about how IDers aren't doing real science as if that were actually relevant to my refusal to allow them the ability to voice their thoughts."
Look, all you have to tell me is what you think they should be using instead. I told you why "biologist" doesn't work: because it doesn't denote the same thing as "evolutionist", even though the sets coincide very closely.
But please don't tell them that they can't can't use "evolutionists" to refer to people with a specific belief about evolution, without giving them an alternate, short appellation that they should be using which denotes the same portion of conceptspace.
It's good to criticize ID advocates. But I really hate when people try to deny them even a *term* for those they disagree with, which you do when you say that there's no such thing as "evolutionists".
They can't use the term "biologists" because there are people (though not many) who study biology but agree with the IDers. Claiming that they have to refer to their opponents as "biologists" is like saying you can't have different terms for "physicist" and "proponent of the theory of quantum mechanics".
It's an attempt to deny, not just the validity of someone's arguments, but their ability to express them. Which is really petty.
What's that supposed to mean? No, I'm not from Lousiana, but yes that should be on a GED test. It should be one of the mathematical tasks you should be capable of, and tested for, in order to get a GED.
It would it only be a problem if that were the hardest math problem it gave you.
For comparison, the Fundamentals of Engineering exam (a prerequisite for being a licensed Professional Engineer) tests you on absolute value inequalities. (i.e. problems like, "Solve for x in |x-5| > 6") That doesn't mean you only need Algebra I to pass.
So how would you block an ad that's text-only, hosted on the same domain as the site you're viewing, and links directly to the product's site without any obnoxiousness in the URL?
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't see how it's possible to have an ad-blocker that does this unless it clips out *all* external links.
Yes and no. It looks like most of these will fund training for technical schools which are, as the /. crowd already knows, basically worthless for actually being productive in IT, and probably won't help you get a job. (The stories of people who went into debt to go to one of these schools, hoping to get an IT job but becoming just as unemployable anyway.
What's worse, as those who get e.g. "Cisco certification" know, it can tell employers that, "This applicant knows enough to destroy your system, but not enough to get anything done."
The best that can happen is that this will just become some "checkoff requirement" -- doesn't help you with your job, but doesn't hurt either, just wastes time.
More money down the shithole. If it's welfare, it's welfare for the worthless colleges that keep rooking the unemployed.
Mainly because you don't count the Boeing and other aerospace plants...
LOL Yeah, when you need to stop the car IMMEDIATELY, just hold the start button for three seconds (while swerving to avoid children).
Um, no, that doesn't count as a safe killswitch.
Isn't this happening on Lexus and Prius models? Not exactly low end of the price range. (The initial story with the cop was in a Lexus.)
Lack of a pulse, for one.
The GP was saying that the mouse also allows you to rest your hands on it. Imagine if you had to hover your hand over the mousepad without touching it while "holding" an invisible mouse. Then you have this new device. But hovering your hand above a surface is tiring.
And I don't understand your comparison to keyboards. My hands rest on the desk or the keyboard. When they're not moving as part of a motion to hit the keys, they resk on the keyboard/desk in a sort of home position. No hovering involved.
Having to hold your hand in front of you with nothing to rest on for hours will get real tiring, real fast.
You spelled douche wrong.
Maybe you missed the sarcasm, but you made a good point: CR seems to be the only one with any rigor in their reviews, the others just perpetuate information cascades. I hope you get modded up for that, since no one else has said that.
Then again, didn't CR only mention this *after* it became a big issue? Don't they still rate it higher than the others, even as they "don't recommend" it?
Yes, especially if you're a serial killer. Then you'll get diabetes and die. I mean, after all that serial...
I wish I could press a button that will kill all the killers.
Thank you folks, I'll be here all weak.