Ostensibly, an equal number of particles will pop into existence on the other side of the spacecraft and impart some of their momentum to the craft in the opposite direction. This would result in a net zero vector force... without some way to manipulate the quantum vacuum.
Well... as I understand it, the theory goes that some aspect of DHT's binding to the dermal papilla of the hair follicle stimulates an autoimmune response. This autoimmune response damages/shrinks the follicle, causing progressive damage, and eventually baldness.
"Easter is termed a moveable feast because it is not fixed in relation to the civil calendar. Easter falls at some point between late March and late April each year (early April to early May in Eastern Christianity), following the cycle of the moon. After several centuries of disagreement, all churches accepted the computation of the Alexandrian Church (now the Coptic Church) that Easter is the first Sunday after the first fourteenth day of the moon (the Paschal Full Moon) that is on or after the ecclesiastical vernal equinox.
Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover not only for much of its symbolism but also for its position in the calendar. The Last Supper shared by Jesus and his disciples before his crucifixion is generally thought of as a Passover meal, based on the chronology in the Synoptic Gospels..."
I think that reason that these two groups will never get along is that there are a large amount of people in either camp that are zealots about their beliefs. Each are secure in their worldview and don't want it to be threatened in the slightest.
There are ignorant people on either side, and there are honest people on either side. But we would all do well to remember that these are fallible, flawed people participating in this discussion. Attempt to be one of the least flawed, and be willing to accept that you may be wrong and all of us will be better for it.
but this article doesn't make much of an "argument" for ID. It simply uses the complexity of insect flight as an example of the complexity we observe in life everywhere. In fact, the closest thing to an "argument" this blurb makes, is insinuating (in the last sentence) that this represents a designed system.
This isn't a scientific article at all, nor does it (IMO) claim to be. It appears to be a little blurb designed to grab the attention of laymen, and get them interested in the topic. I can see why many posters above have expressed the opinion that the original article is flamebait.
If some scientists (like this researcher) are so adamant that ID is not a scientific theory, then why is it mentioned in a science article as if it has been disproved. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a concept/theory have to be scientifically sound if you are going to disprove it using the scientific method?
My father has had his credit messed up pretty badly. AOL kept billing him for service for several months after he cancelled, and my dad, assuming he was in the right, just ignored them. Well now they've gone and filed with a collections agency and he's going to have to fight a lot more battles than if he'd just taken care of it in the first place.
From the article:
"Michael McGuire, an analyst at research firm GartnerG2, says Hollywood is getting the message that fighting new technology may not necessarily be the best answer."
Notice how the only technology the entertainment industry doesn't want to squash is one that will save them money (bandwidth).
Just thought I'd point out the selfishness...
Slashdot Mirror
Ostensibly, an equal number of particles will pop into existence on the other side of the spacecraft and impart some of their momentum to the craft in the opposite direction. This would result in a net zero vector force... without some way to manipulate the quantum vacuum.
Ack... daily? How long does that take you?
Well... as I understand it, the theory goes that some aspect of DHT's binding to the dermal papilla of the hair follicle stimulates an autoimmune response. This autoimmune response damages/shrinks the follicle, causing progressive damage, and eventually baldness.
"Easter is termed a moveable feast because it is not fixed in relation to the civil calendar. Easter falls at some point between late March and late April each year (early April to early May in Eastern Christianity), following the cycle of the moon. After several centuries of disagreement, all churches accepted the computation of the Alexandrian Church (now the Coptic Church) that Easter is the first Sunday after the first fourteenth day of the moon (the Paschal Full Moon) that is on or after the ecclesiastical vernal equinox. Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover not only for much of its symbolism but also for its position in the calendar. The Last Supper shared by Jesus and his disciples before his crucifixion is generally thought of as a Passover meal, based on the chronology in the Synoptic Gospels..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasterWikipedia
Just because the date (and what it commemorates) is meaningless to you, is it really necessary to cast all those who do care about it as irrational?
This is a good point. Getting the government MORE involved in an issue usually just muddies the waters, so to speak.
I think that reason that these two groups will never get along is that there are a large amount of people in either camp that are zealots about their beliefs. Each are secure in their worldview and don't want it to be threatened in the slightest. There are ignorant people on either side, and there are honest people on either side. But we would all do well to remember that these are fallible, flawed people participating in this discussion. Attempt to be one of the least flawed, and be willing to accept that you may be wrong and all of us will be better for it.
but this article doesn't make much of an "argument" for ID. It simply uses the complexity of insect flight as an example of the complexity we observe in life everywhere. In fact, the closest thing to an "argument" this blurb makes, is insinuating (in the last sentence) that this represents a designed system.
This isn't a scientific article at all, nor does it (IMO) claim to be. It appears to be a little blurb designed to grab the attention of laymen, and get them interested in the topic. I can see why many posters above have expressed the opinion that the original article is flamebait.
If some scientists (like this researcher) are so adamant that ID is not a scientific theory, then why is it mentioned in a science article as if it has been disproved. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a concept/theory have to be scientifically sound if you are going to disprove it using the scientific method?
This is so true.
My father has had his credit messed up pretty badly. AOL kept billing him for service for several months after he cancelled, and my dad, assuming he was in the right, just ignored them. Well now they've gone and filed with a collections agency and he's going to have to fight a lot more battles than if he'd just taken care of it in the first place.
From the article: "Michael McGuire, an analyst at research firm GartnerG2, says Hollywood is getting the message that fighting new technology may not necessarily be the best answer."
Notice how the only technology the entertainment industry doesn't want to squash is one that will save them money (bandwidth).
Just thought I'd point out the selfishness...