I don't get it. I only read through briefly, but two issues stand out:
The text says that Newton's and Einstein's theories don't predict black holes, but we already knew that; they don't apply for sufficiently large gravitational fields.
It seems to me this guy has a beef with current theories about black holes, not about the holes themselves.
Physics isn't my field though, so I could be misinterpreting it.
For me, it makes data semantic-free so that it can be passed between systems, and changes on the transmitting end don't fuck up the receiving end. Plus, it's readable.
I have. I did. As for "swallowing WHO's opinion", I'm not. I just think that their trust-worthiness is a bit better than your opinion based on a few cancer studies.
> who are pro-government-provided healthcare
Really? Care to show me where it says that?
> Well then why don't you provide alternate data
Why? I'm not questioning your data about cancer, I'm just saying it's a (very) narrow point of view.
> And don't quote unrelated stats like lifespan... americans live dangerous somewhat accident-prone lives
OK, this is just stupid. Not only are you basing an opinion on ignorance, you're trying to filter out counter-arguments you don't like.
Besides, you're saying that because US citizens have a slightly higher chance of surviving cancer, USA has the best health care system. Please excuse me if I'm not impressed.
> trying to extend the Mandelbrot set to 3D is ill-defined
Depends what you want to achieve. This could be said for all 4D objects that you want to project in a 3D space. Most fractal programs (that support quaternions) solve this by projecting three variables and varying the fourth through time.
> It's an expensive way of going about things since you're doing all your training twice
I strongly disagree. It feels like you have to learn things more than once, because for each programming environment you will have to learn the *implementation* of said theories.
Looks nice. I've just started poking around in Wordpress, but I might check out this one next. My question to you (and anybody else who might read this) now is: Do you have any suggestion for a CMS that does version management (like MediaWiki, but perhaps with better interface)?
It's a slight relief that I'm not the only one who's had problem with CMS:es. I've tried Joomla, Drupal and Movable Type. All three got the better of me.
> Evolution is not the origin of all modern science
Correct, but it is the common denominator of all modern Biology. And yes, most of those fields existed before Evolution theory came along. But still, progress in those fields would have stopped a long time ago - or not exist at all in the case of Genetics - without the theory.
> Natural Selection makes absolute perfect sense, and a man would be a fool to not believe it
The irony here is that many ID'ers accept evolution, but not natural selection. The aforementioned Michael Behe for instance believes that humans and apes share a common ancestor, but that the evolutionary process was guided by an "intelligent designer" and not by natural selection.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that would actually be a variation of intelligent design.
Regardless, it seems to me people here are confusing the everyday use of the word evolution with the actual theory.
I don't get it. I only read through briefly, but two issues stand out:
Physics isn't my field though, so I could be misinterpreting it.
For me, it makes data semantic-free so that it can be passed between systems, and changes on the transmitting end don't fuck up the receiving end. Plus, it's readable.
First of all, I never said anything about the EU.
Secondly, you're still number 16. Quite a far way from number one, as you claim.
Thirdly:
> (17) Cuba (the have government healthcare; why aren't they higher?)
I never said anything about private contra government health care.
But nice try trying to make a straw man argument.
> Look at the data and draw you own conclusions.
I have. I did. As for "swallowing WHO's opinion", I'm not. I just think that their trust-worthiness is a bit better than your opinion based on a few cancer studies.
> who are pro-government-provided healthcare
Really? Care to show me where it says that?
> Well then why don't you provide alternate data
Why? I'm not questioning your data about cancer, I'm just saying it's a (very) narrow point of view.
> And don't quote unrelated stats like lifespan ... americans live dangerous somewhat accident-prone lives
OK, this is just stupid. Not only are you basing an opinion on ignorance, you're trying to filter out counter-arguments you don't like.
Yeah, because the World Health Organization bases its studies on opinion. *snark*
Besides, you're saying that because US citizens have a slightly higher chance of surviving cancer, USA has the best health care system. Please excuse me if I'm not impressed.
> why people say the U.S. has the best healthcare in the world
Then why is USA ranked 37th in the world, whereas UK is ranked 18th?
> trying to extend the Mandelbrot set to 3D is ill-defined
Depends what you want to achieve. This could be said for all 4D objects that you want to project in a 3D space. Most fractal programs (that support quaternions) solve this by projecting three variables and varying the fourth through time.
> Rush tactics are barely used in pro-matches
Yes and no. Players often apply the *threat* of a rush, forcing the opponent to build more defences.
> There is no such thing as rushing in CoH
Yes, because you start with two machine gun nests in your base, making rushes impossible. CoH sucks.
> So what, exactly, does this do again?
My guess: Nothing on its own, but it's a tiny piece of legislation to add to other tiny pieces, and slowly the mole-hill becomes a mountain.
> It's an expensive way of going about things since you're doing all your training twice I strongly disagree. It feels like you have to learn things more than once, because for each programming environment you will have to learn the *implementation* of said theories.
> Those all are legal.
Except in galleries and museums, of course.
> Government Security
But it's not, it's Google security.
> When he turns it into a buffalo, he'll have something.
Wow, ignorant and condescending. Less bible studies and more high school biology for you, I think.
> The only thing I found a bit annoying was that it didn't integrate well with the STL.
Is there anything that does? Boost has some alternatives to STL classes, and I'm sure Qt has as well.
STL has a nice API, but that's about it.
Very interesting. Thanks for the link.
Looks nice. I've just started poking around in Wordpress, but I might check out this one next. My question to you (and anybody else who might read this) now is: Do you have any suggestion for a CMS that does version management (like MediaWiki, but perhaps with better interface)?
It's a slight relief that I'm not the only one who's had problem with CMS:es. I've tried Joomla, Drupal and Movable Type. All three got the better of me.
> ...will there be enough spectrum to support all this?
Should be. By then all devises should use polarization modulation (google it).
> so you don't believe God exists
I didn't say that.
> Evolution is not the origin of all modern science
Correct, but it is the common denominator of all modern Biology. And yes, most of those fields existed before Evolution theory came along. But still, progress in those fields would have stopped a long time ago - or not exist at all in the case of Genetics - without the theory.
> Actually if you are referring to the biblical God, how can you not believe that he is an enormous dick.
There's your answer: I do not believe in the biblical God.
> Did I say that I was a fundamentalist, or that I agreed with that opinion?
Sorry, the question was rhetorical, not aimed at you. Bad wording.
> Well, fundamentalists would try to argue that "evil" created it and God simply allowed it to happen.
Fundamentalists also claim that only God can create life. So which way is it?
> Natural Selection makes absolute perfect sense, and a man would be a fool to not believe it
The irony here is that many ID'ers accept evolution, but not natural selection. The aforementioned Michael Behe for instance believes that humans and apes share a common ancestor, but that the evolutionary process was guided by an "intelligent designer" and not by natural selection.