"He carried out the report for men's satellite TV channel Bravo."
Because I go to Bravo for all my evolutionary biology needs.
This sounds like a joke, really. The guy in question got a cheque from a tabloid TV channel, nicked HG Well's idea, and laughed all the way to the bank.
Nice work if you can get it.
I have Be's ADSL2+ service, and think that, if you can get it, it's probably what you need.
If there are four of you sharing the line and downloading a lot, then 8Mb really won't be enough.
Be will get you 12-24Mb depending on your location, and don't seem to impose limits on the amount from what I've found -- and given that you're talking about 2-3GB a day, I can't see it being a problem.
Creationism *does* have a place in schools, but in the context of philosophical and religious education, not in the context of science.
It is worse than disingenuous to suggest that both creationism and evolution are theories and should hence be given equal weight. It is also deeply misleading to suggest that it has support from a large section of the scientific community as a scientific theory... you simply need to look at the number of papers published on the topic in peer-reviewed journals to see that.
Creationism is just as valid a theory as that of the Great Green Arkleseizure, and has as much place next to evolution as the Coming of The Great White Handkerchief next to the Big Crunch.
Philosophy and independent critical thought should be taught and actively encouraged in schools but hokum should be kept out of the science classroom.
You don't even need to go to the extreme lengths of chopping off someone's finger...
All you need is some fingerptinting dust and some clear tape. Dust the laptop (paying particular attenstion to the central keys on the keyboard where the index finger is most likely to be used, but try the back too, as that might have been brushed off recently, then picked up firmly using several identifiable fingers), pick up a selection of fingerprints with the tape, et voila.
Unless, of course, you always wear gloves when using your laptop...
Pictures and keymap don't map...
on
Blank Keyboard
·
· Score: 1
The close up picture of they keyboard and the mapping for keyweights don't match up... the area around the 'return' key looks especially screwy.
I was thinking of getting one of these, but am concerned by this. Any thoughts?
There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter
writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and
politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our
presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global
warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the
accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American,
or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring
is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's
no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In
retrospect, this magazine's coverage of socalled evolution has been
hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue
that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the
theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the
unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific
ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it.
Where
were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific
creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived
6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon?
Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their
radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal
articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains
of evidence.
Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent
Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists.
Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat
religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some
unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species,
or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a
superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.
Good
journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to
present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit
theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or
facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that
scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or
best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest
groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as
journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do
otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will
end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an
editorial page is no place for opinions.
Get ready for a new
Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform
policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM
defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of
billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't
hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's
antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous
particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's
not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science
eitherâ"so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is
slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and
balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is
science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.
Unfortunately this is just poor reporting from the BBC -- they ar reporting in the Council of Presidents decision without naming it -- it is still down to the Council and commision (as per the council of presidents original post).
As Benjamin Franklin said 'They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.' I agree with him, and think that the arguments that this sort of thing no longer applies in a post-9/11 world are utter, utter bullshit, and just an indication of how far the wool has been pulled over people's eyes for political ends.
'If he's taking pictures near locks and looks like he might be a Muslim, the homeland security people have no choice.'
I cannot begin to say how much the essence of that statement offends me. If someone 'looks like a criminal' should the police be able to lock them up or stop them doing certain things? The law is there for a reason -- to protect everybody, not the majority.
Also, the suggestion of someone 'looking Muslim' is offensive in itself. How you can tell by looking at someone what their faith is (with the obvious exception of those with very visible outward signs of faith) other than a totally arbitrary judgement based on skin colour is beyond me.
There are radical christian groups who are willing to kill those who conduct abortions and assist in them -- illegal actions, resulting in death as a direct result of religious belief -- so, should anyone who 'looks christian' be banned from taking photographs in cities or states that allow abortion? Something tells me your answer to this would be no, but I await a refutation.
The story has moved on alot since then -- including sevaral moves by telcos to get government agencies banned from such efforts -- the response from philly was this interesting point, not the news of the set-up.
When silicon.com reported some research from Forrester of late, they drew the opposite conclusion, and suggested that the major telcos influence will wane over the next ten years as younger, better, services rise up.
They also have another look at what things will look like down the line.
Why on earth would Apple sue OpenOffice.org to death? I don't buy the 'just because they can' argument, since it simply doesn't make business sense.
If Microsoft has so far restrained itself from suing the OOo developers (though, from what I've heard they've come close), why would Apple do it?
In my view, what Apple should have done is included support for the open standards that OOo, StarOffice (and, i'd guess NeoOffice.org, but i don't know) in iWork. I can understand why they left out spreadsheet functionality -- they realise that it is important to keep MS producing Office for the mac, as it's going to be a long time before there is serious enterprise takeup of open standards, and even those who work in macs core industries (print, design, etc.) need to have office functionality for it to make business sense.
Five years of FUD, but financial success...
He is feeling rattled by Linux though, as the recent FUD he's been spreading about patents shows.
One imagines this will continue for some time to come, since his style may not be popular, but it's certainly effective.
Slashdot Mirror
Glad someone else remembered that. I thought I was going mad.
"He carried out the report for men's satellite TV channel Bravo." Because I go to Bravo for all my evolutionary biology needs. This sounds like a joke, really. The guy in question got a cheque from a tabloid TV channel, nicked HG Well's idea, and laughed all the way to the bank. Nice work if you can get it.
I have Be's ADSL2+ service, and think that, if you can get it, it's probably what you need. If there are four of you sharing the line and downloading a lot, then 8Mb really won't be enough. Be will get you 12-24Mb depending on your location, and don't seem to impose limits on the amount from what I've found -- and given that you're talking about 2-3GB a day, I can't see it being a problem.
The figures quoted are in terms of GDP per capita. I just forgot to include it in my summary. My bad.
...if you're playing a Paladin, you deserve everything you get.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Creationism *does* have a place in schools, but in the context of philosophical and religious education, not in the context of science.
It is worse than disingenuous to suggest that both creationism and evolution are theories and should hence be given equal weight. It is also deeply misleading to suggest that it has support from a large section of the scientific community as a scientific theory... you simply need to look at the number of papers published on the topic in peer-reviewed journals to see that.
Creationism is just as valid a theory as that of the Great Green Arkleseizure, and has as much place next to evolution as the Coming of The Great White Handkerchief next to the Big Crunch.
Philosophy and independent critical thought should be taught and actively encouraged in schools but hokum should be kept out of the science classroom.
You don't even need to go to the extreme lengths of chopping off someone's finger...
All you need is some fingerptinting dust and some clear tape. Dust the laptop (paying particular attenstion to the central keys on the keyboard where the index finger is most likely to be used, but try the back too, as that might have been brushed off recently, then picked up firmly using several identifiable fingers), pick up a selection of fingerprints with the tape, et voila.
Unless, of course, you always wear gloves when using your laptop...
The close up picture of they keyboard and the mapping for keyweights don't match up... the area around the 'return' key looks especially screwy. I was thinking of getting one of these, but am concerned by this. Any thoughts?
*points at subject*
*waves angrily*
*stamps feet*
*sighs*
*sits down*
*sips martini*
*calms down*
Okay, We Give Up
There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of socalled evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it.
Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.
Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.
Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science eitherâ"so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.
(courtesy of Mr Bob Hates You.)
Because you come here far, far too often.
Why should internet sales be exempt from sales tax?
Just because there's no purely physical end product, that's no reason for it to be exempt of sales tax.
All power to him, I say.
Unfortunately this is just poor reporting from the BBC -- they ar reporting in the Council of Presidents decision without naming it -- it is still down to the Council and commision (as per the council of presidents original post).
As Benjamin Franklin said 'They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.' I agree with him, and think that the arguments that this sort of thing no longer applies in a post-9/11 world are utter, utter bullshit, and just an indication of how far the wool has been pulled over people's eyes for political ends.
'If he's taking pictures near locks and looks like he might be a Muslim, the homeland security people have no choice.'
I cannot begin to say how much the essence of that statement offends me. If someone 'looks like a criminal' should the police be able to lock them up or stop them doing certain things? The law is there for a reason -- to protect everybody, not the majority.
Also, the suggestion of someone 'looking Muslim' is offensive in itself. How you can tell by looking at someone what their faith is (with the obvious exception of those with very visible outward signs of faith) other than a totally arbitrary judgement based on skin colour is beyond me.
There are radical christian groups who are willing to kill those who conduct abortions and assist in them -- illegal actions, resulting in death as a direct result of religious belief -- so, should anyone who 'looks christian' be banned from taking photographs in cities or states that allow abortion? Something tells me your answer to this would be no, but I await a refutation.
</rant>It's not a duplicate.
The story has moved on alot since then -- including sevaral moves by telcos to get government agencies banned from such efforts -- the response from philly was this interesting point, not the news of the set-up.
If you want to see the doodle in full, you can here.
They also have another look at what things will look like down the line.
No, it's my standard one. I only just noticed that it's lost the attribution to Aristotle.
It's being reported that thanks to pro-active action from the porn site in question, the problem is under control...
Why on earth would Apple sue OpenOffice.org to death? I don't buy the 'just because they can' argument, since it simply doesn't make business sense.
If Microsoft has so far restrained itself from suing the OOo developers (though, from what I've heard they've come close), why would Apple do it?
In my view, what Apple should have done is included support for the open standards that OOo, StarOffice (and, i'd guess NeoOffice.org, but i don't know) in iWork. I can understand why they left out spreadsheet functionality -- they realise that it is important to keep MS producing Office for the mac, as it's going to be a long time before there is serious enterprise takeup of open standards, and even those who work in macs core industries (print, design, etc.) need to have office functionality for it to make business sense.
Five years of FUD, but financial success... He is feeling rattled by Linux though, as the recent FUD he's been spreading about patents shows. One imagines this will continue for some time to come, since his style may not be popular, but it's certainly effective.
When it comes to software isn't this just tautology?
I think you miss my point. I'm suggesting fingerprint scanners on devices like this would be the same as having your password written all over them...
Am i the only one to whom the idea of a device you hold having a fingerprint reader for security seems a little... silly?
*applauds* Slightly lacking in subtlety, but i think that's needed.