Assuming they produce viable offspring, isn't that one of the primary definitions for a single species?
It is one of the definitions, yes, but not the only one. And while it's true that inviable offspring show that there are two separate species, two separate species will not necessarily produce inviable offspring.
Darwin's finches in the galapagos are commonly used as an example of an evolutionary speciation event, but they are able to interbreed and produce viable offspring. What counts in this case is their reproductive isolation: they don't normally interbreed.
Reproductive isolation can result from differences in appearance, geographic location, breeding rituals, or other factors. These factors may then result in the separation of species.
It all seems like a bit of a crock to me, but the definition of species appears to be a hard problem.
one could argue Microsoft products are shoddy because they support a mind blowing number of hardware configurations.
Let me get this straight: because MS has to work with some many hardware configurations, they can't code proper support for alternate keyboard layouts? That's one of the biggest BS arguments on the web - right up there with "os x doesn't have viruses because it doesn't have much marketshare".
What am I talking about?
I type on a Dvorak keyboard, but not everyone who uses my machines does. Most people use Qwerty. I also like to have my own user account - with a password to keep it my own. So what keyboard layout do I need to use to type my password or the password of anyone else on the machine?
Does it default to Qwerty? No. Does it default to whatever keyboard layout I've selected in my account? No. MS had to choose the option that made the least amount of sense: you have to type your password in using the layout of the user who was most recently logged in.
This is stupid for a couple of reasons: (a) I can't tell which layout I need to use because you can't see the characters in your password as you type them and there's no other place to enter text and (b) not everyone knows Dvorak, so this option doesn't work if any of those people need a password. This doesn't even address the usability issues that arise from trying to use Dvorak once you're logged in. In OS X, it's easy to switch back and forth between Dvorak and Qwerty. In XP, there is no way to switch back and forth for all applications - it's only on an application-by-application basis.
That's I hate MS: their products get in the way and I find myself cursing their software whenever I use it, be it Windows, Word, Excel, Visual Studio, Powerpoint, or anything else.
Assuming that Mac shipments would have been flat year-over-year, these percentage increases imply that about 200,000 Windows users purchased Macs in both the second and third fiscal quarters
That's a rather big assumption, given what he wrote earlier:
Mac unit shipments rose 35 per cent, three times the PC market growth rate.
So if we assume that a third of the growth was not from switchers (which is far more likely than no growth at all), then there were probably ~265,000 switchers. And if more new computer owners are attracted to Macs than to PCs, this number could be even lower.
You don't understand: for all you've said, you still haven't answered the poster's original claim (You're confusing microevolution with macroevolution. I want to know who on gods green earth OBSERVED monkeys turning into humans.).
You infer that said poster believes in the Bible from the phrase gods green earth. This is a common idiomatic expression that has nothing to do with the poster's beliefs. See also: "God dammit" and "Thank God!" (the title of this thread).
From the poster's comment about observing evolution and his use of the word "god" (which may or may not be a false premise), you conclude that the the poster uses his discretion in asserting when to apply the observation argument.
This is where the ad-hominem attack happens. Look carefully: the poster presents a claim and you dismiss it because [he] is talking out his ass - you dismiss his argument because you think he's an idiot.
Furthermore, the OP's desire to see evolution tested by means of observation is perfectly valid science. Whether or not he chooses to apply this principle uniformly to all his beliefs is completely irrelevant to its validity in this instance.
Next you state as a premise We have empirical evidence to support the theory of evolution. This is the very point the OP was calling into doubt. And now you're using it to refute him! THAT's a circular argument.
A proper (read useful) response to the OP's comment would have been to provide links/references to this empirical evidence rather than dismiss it based on whatever else you think he believes.
There's no need to get so heated. Insults aren't necessary (and you should really reread your last sentence: it doesn't seem to make sense).
I want to know who on gods green earth OBSERVED monkeys turning into humans.
As opposed the highly probably theory of Noah's ark being beached and somehow the Kangaroos and Koalas all flew to Australia, and only Australia. Get real.
Get some logic. Just because the other side is wrong doesn't mean that you're right. This is borderline ad hominem as well. +1 Funny for 2 logical fallacies in one sentence (I guess).
The motive is transparent by virtue of the fact that no one is asking for similar disclaimers for other theories, such as atomic theory, gravitational theory or germ theory.
You're forgetting the major underlying difference: while atomic theory, gravitational theory, and germ theory can be tested, evolutionary theory cannot. If we were unable to observe and test gravity, there would be reason to support disclaimers for that as well. When a new species has been observed to have evolved, you can remove the stickers (we're discussing only macro-evolution).
If that weren't enough, a look at the groups behind the disclaimers should remove all doubt of motive.
Oh, and an ad hominem argument is very nice as well. "Examine what is said, not who speaks."
iWork is rumored to be the name of the suite consisting of the new word processing program called Pages and the existing slideshow program Keynote, similar to the iLife suite.
I have been quite impressed with Word on OSX, and indeed the rest of the available Office suite.
The problem is that Word on OS X isn't mac-like; it's still very much a windows program. What bothers me most of all is that it uses windows shortcuts instead of mac shortcuts to skip over words and skip to the ends of lines.
The fact that it's a carbon app is another strike against it.
How much of an emerging market is Africa? Is Swahili a real barrier to entry for a potential African Consumer? Really what I ma asking is is there a market that MS is missing out on in Africa by not having Swahili? If so this is a major blow to them, if not, then I'm not sure this makes much difference at all.
There isn't much of one. All Tanzanians and Kenyans speak English. Kids are required to use it in school starting around age 10. If you can get over their pronunciation, communication isn't a problem.
The official language in Tanzania is Swahili, so a translation there makes some sense. But the official language in Kenya is English, so it seems a bit silly. It's also considered cool to speak English (and uncool to speak Swahili) in Kenya, unlike Tanzania.
As an additional note, the signs BP gas stations in Kenya say "welcome" in English, while the ones in Tanzania say "welcome" in Swahili.
...why does the President support off-shoring American jobs?
Because off-shoring jobs doesn't hurt the economy; it helps it.
Edward Prescott, "who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize for economics", weighed in (Google cache) recently on the issue:
Prescott also gave Bush the nod on another controversial campaign issue, dismissing Kerry's claims that outsourcing of jobs is damaging the economy.
"All the rich countries are economically integrated," he said, citing a jump in productivity and wealth in Western Europe after Germany, France and neighboring nations formed the Common Market after World War II.
Oh, and he also said, "The idea that you can increase taxes and stimulate the economy is pretty damn stupid."
Slashdot Mirror
It is one of the definitions, yes, but not the only one. And while it's true that inviable offspring show that there are two separate species, two separate species will not necessarily produce inviable offspring.
Darwin's finches in the galapagos are commonly used as an example of an evolutionary speciation event, but they are able to interbreed and produce viable offspring. What counts in this case is their reproductive isolation: they don't normally interbreed.
Reproductive isolation can result from differences in appearance, geographic location, breeding rituals, or other factors. These factors may then result in the separation of species.
It all seems like a bit of a crock to me, but the definition of species appears to be a hard problem.Let me get this straight: because MS has to work with some many hardware configurations, they can't code proper support for alternate keyboard layouts? That's one of the biggest BS arguments on the web - right up there with "os x doesn't have viruses because it doesn't have much marketshare".
What am I talking about?
I type on a Dvorak keyboard, but not everyone who uses my machines does. Most people use Qwerty. I also like to have my own user account - with a password to keep it my own. So what keyboard layout do I need to use to type my password or the password of anyone else on the machine?
Does it default to Qwerty? No. Does it default to whatever keyboard layout I've selected in my account? No. MS had to choose the option that made the least amount of sense: you have to type your password in using the layout of the user who was most recently logged in.
This is stupid for a couple of reasons: (a) I can't tell which layout I need to use because you can't see the characters in your password as you type them and there's no other place to enter text and (b) not everyone knows Dvorak, so this option doesn't work if any of those people need a password. This doesn't even address the usability issues that arise from trying to use Dvorak once you're logged in. In OS X, it's easy to switch back and forth between Dvorak and Qwerty. In XP, there is no way to switch back and forth for all applications - it's only on an application-by-application basis.
That's I hate MS: their products get in the way and I find myself cursing their software whenever I use it, be it Windows, Word, Excel, Visual Studio, Powerpoint, or anything else.
This "article" is nothing more than speculation.
--
matt
<insert sig here>
You don't understand: for all you've said, you still haven't answered the poster's original claim (You're confusing microevolution with macroevolution. I want to know who on gods green earth OBSERVED monkeys turning into humans.).
You infer that said poster believes in the Bible from the phrase gods green earth. This is a common idiomatic expression that has nothing to do with the poster's beliefs. See also: "God dammit" and "Thank God!" (the title of this thread).
From the poster's comment about observing evolution and his use of the word "god" (which may or may not be a false premise), you conclude that the the poster uses his discretion in asserting when to apply the observation argument.
This is where the ad-hominem attack happens. Look carefully: the poster presents a claim and you dismiss it because [he] is talking out his ass - you dismiss his argument because you think he's an idiot.
Furthermore, the OP's desire to see evolution tested by means of observation is perfectly valid science. Whether or not he chooses to apply this principle uniformly to all his beliefs is completely irrelevant to its validity in this instance.
Next you state as a premise We have empirical evidence to support the theory of evolution. This is the very point the OP was calling into doubt. And now you're using it to refute him! THAT's a circular argument.
A proper (read useful) response to the OP's comment would have been to provide links/references to this empirical evidence rather than dismiss it based on whatever else you think he believes.
There's no need to get so heated. Insults aren't necessary (and you should really reread your last sentence: it doesn't seem to make sense).
iWork '05 Rules! (I hope)
The fact that it's a carbon app is another strike against it.
The official language in Tanzania is Swahili, so a translation there makes some sense. But the official language in Kenya is English, so it seems a bit silly. It's also considered cool to speak English (and uncool to speak Swahili) in Kenya, unlike Tanzania.
As an additional note, the signs BP gas stations in Kenya say "welcome" in English, while the ones in Tanzania say "welcome" in Swahili.
Edward Prescott, "who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize for economics", weighed in (Google cache) recently on the issue:
Oh, and he also said, "The idea that you can increase taxes and stimulate the economy is pretty damn stupid."