No, but every time I finish a game I seem to find that I've purchased another three or four in the intervening time. But even without that I must have at least 60 unfinished games. In fact, I've saved about 30 games for when I retire (in 20 years time I guess).
those of us who believe that God created life believe that he created that life to adapt
I'm often amazed by the way religious people often feel that they can speak for all religious people as if religiousness was something completely homogeneous. I'm willing to bet that if we took a poll of people who believe that God created life and asked them what purpose he had in mind when He created it you'd find less than 1% offering "to adapt" in the top three reasons.
Ever since Godzilla (1998) became the highest grossing movie of the year and yet was still considered a flop the definition of 'hit' has changed. Unfortunately I can't figure out what it changed to.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think you'd have to work pretty hard to construe that as referring to representations of your voice traveling over wires to a foreign country.
A little different from what you're used to? You've been programming for years so you'd like something that gives you a different perspective on old problems? But you don't want to go out on a limb - you'd like to use tools that are well documented and well supported with a large user base. The answer is simple: Haskell. Everything else is just the same old same old.
I'm asking for an a priori prediction of which organism is better suited to survival in its habitat. All you're doing is making the trivial observation that if something survived it survived. This is a tautological observation. If the only prediction your theory can make is that things that survived have survived then it's not much of a theory.
You might not be able to write from a wholly neutral point of view but I think you'll find that if you tell people to try to write neutrally they'll write something that's useful to far more people. If the appearance of neutrality isn't maintained then Wikipedia will just degenerate into a flamefest - which remarkably it doesn't. An ideal but unattainable goal can still be a good goal to aspire to.
Fossil C shows a better ability to survive the environment
Are you honestly telling me that by looking at fossils biologists are able to judge which organism is better able to survive in a given environment? Maybe you can cite a paper where a biologist predicts that one organism will survive and another won't followed by another paper showing how the prediction is borne out by the evidence. Good luck searching. In fact, maybe you would just like to give me a reference to a paper in which a biologist shows that one organism is 'fitter' for its environment than another without using the theory of evolution as a hypothesis? The truth is, biologists are far more likely to make deductions about an organism's environment from the fossil than make deductions about fitness knowing the environment - there are countless published papers and books that bear out this point. And either way, they make these deductions assuming the truth of evolution, not as evidence for evolution. I'm not even touching IDist arguments here, you are misrepresenting Darwinians.
We can't even begin to debate evolution on slashdot. Both the evolutionists and the IDists present a grossly misleading picture of evolution. (Of course the Darwinists are always modded up, no matter how little they understand what they are talking about or how ignorant they are of biology.)
It's all fine and dandy in your hypothetical situation. But evolution is a hypothesis to explain things in the real world and it's much more complex there. There are many places in the world where food is available in high treetops and yet giraffes don't exist there. Can you predict where the giraffes will appear and where they won't? Of course there's no point discussing this as any kind of dissent from evolution gets modded down into oblivion as 'flamebait'.
Why is evolution considered a science when ID is not? Evolution fails
the most basic test for being a science: it fails to make falsifiable
predictions. In fact, it doesn't make predictions at all. It doesn't
even make retrodictions - just about the weakest thing we can expect
of a body of belief that we call a science. It simply says that the
fittest will survive. But nobody is ever able to say a priori
what is fit. Instead evolutionists find fossil records that purportedly
show A evolving into B and then declare by fiat that B must
have been fitter than A and hence that B was selected by natural
selection. This operation is completely tautologous. Even in the
simplest of environmental changes it is hard to predict the impact of a
tiny change. So there is no way for anyone to predict what is likely to
be a 'fitter' adaptation. Evolutionists protect their beliefs itself by
surrounding them in tautologous and unfalsifiable hypotheses exactly the
way evolutionists accuse IDists. It seems quite clear that quite different
standards are being used to judge evolution and intelligent design.
That's nothing. RTFA and you'll see what has got to be one of the most tenuous segues I have ever seen in an attempt to stretch the article by another paragraph.
The incident is not the first time Pokémon has been linked to health concerns
why should I spend my free computing power on calculating prime numbers instead of research to cure cancer?
Because, despite the claims of many researchers, you can't actually cure cancer using computing power.
I'm saying this as someone who once worked in computational chemistry and quickly figured out that the whole department was an Emperor's New Clothes type of project. It's very difficult to find proper validation of in silico work. Someone might screen millions of compounds digitally and come up with a shortlist and find that a high proportion of compounds on that list bind to some receptor, or block such binding, without pointing out that (1) a similar proportion from a random selection of compounds might do just as well or (2) that the correlation between receptor binding and effectiveness as a drug can be incredibly small. I was pretty disgusted with the whole business.
It's obvious that the decline of CDs isn't a result of the appearance of 'manufactured' bands for the simple reason that manufactured bands are nothing new. Since the Rolling Stones were 'manufactured' as a response to the Beatles, and probably well before, record labels have been manufacturing boy bands. Since pop music was first published people have been complaining that it's not an art but a fad. Since the 50s the whole pop music industry was built on music being as much a part of fashion as your clothes.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but every time I finish a game I seem to find that I've purchased another three or four in the intervening time. But even without that I must have at least 60 unfinished games. In fact, I've saved about 30 games for when I retire (in 20 years time I guess).
Is your real name Sisyphus perhaps?
Ever since Godzilla (1998) became the highest grossing movie of the year and yet was still considered a flop the definition of 'hit' has changed. Unfortunately I can't figure out what it changed to.
Golden Sun 2 is also excellent - but I'm a bit lost right near the end...
A little different from what you're used to? You've been programming for years so you'd like something that gives you a different perspective on old problems? But you don't want to go out on a limb - you'd like to use tools that are well documented and well supported with a large user base. The answer is simple: Haskell. Everything else is just the same old same old.
That was easy.
Anyone care to explain why this post is modded flamebait? Is it flamebait to present an unfashionable viewpoint in a civilized manner?
I'm asking for an a priori prediction of which organism is better suited to survival in its habitat. All you're doing is making the trivial observation that if something survived it survived. This is a tautological observation. If the only prediction your theory can make is that things that survived have survived then it's not much of a theory.
You might not be able to write from a wholly neutral point of view but I think you'll find that if you tell people to try to write neutrally they'll write something that's useful to far more people. If the appearance of neutrality isn't maintained then Wikipedia will just degenerate into a flamefest - which remarkably it doesn't. An ideal but unattainable goal can still be a good goal to aspire to.
We can't even begin to debate evolution on slashdot. Both the evolutionists and the IDists present a grossly misleading picture of evolution. (Of course the Darwinists are always modded up, no matter how little they understand what they are talking about or how ignorant they are of biology.)
There's only so much a beginner can do. Maybe you could introduce me?
It's all fine and dandy in your hypothetical situation. But evolution is a hypothesis to explain things in the real world and it's much more complex there. There are many places in the world where food is available in high treetops and yet giraffes don't exist there. Can you predict where the giraffes will appear and where they won't? Of course there's no point discussing this as any kind of dissent from evolution gets modded down into oblivion as 'flamebait'.
Why is evolution considered a science when ID is not? Evolution fails the most basic test for being a science: it fails to make falsifiable predictions. In fact, it doesn't make predictions at all. It doesn't even make retrodictions - just about the weakest thing we can expect of a body of belief that we call a science. It simply says that the fittest will survive. But nobody is ever able to say a priori what is fit. Instead evolutionists find fossil records that purportedly show A evolving into B and then declare by fiat that B must have been fitter than A and hence that B was selected by natural selection. This operation is completely tautologous. Even in the simplest of environmental changes it is hard to predict the impact of a tiny change. So there is no way for anyone to predict what is likely to be a 'fitter' adaptation. Evolutionists protect their beliefs itself by surrounding them in tautologous and unfalsifiable hypotheses exactly the way evolutionists accuse IDists. It seems quite clear that quite different standards are being used to judge evolution and intelligent design.
TANSTAAFL
I wouldn't hire someone who thought "alot" was one word either.
I'm saying this as someone who once worked in computational chemistry and quickly figured out that the whole department was an Emperor's New Clothes type of project. It's very difficult to find proper validation of in silico work. Someone might screen millions of compounds digitally and come up with a shortlist and find that a high proportion of compounds on that list bind to some receptor, or block such binding, without pointing out that (1) a similar proportion from a random selection of compounds might do just as well or (2) that the correlation between receptor binding and effectiveness as a drug can be incredibly small. I was pretty disgusted with the whole business.
If the infrastructure fails there'll be no interference from broadband over power networks. So quit your whining!
It's much better than ham radio for chatting to people around the world. And if voice is important to you, try the phone.
It's obvious that the decline of CDs isn't a result of the appearance of 'manufactured' bands for the simple reason that manufactured bands are nothing new. Since the Rolling Stones were 'manufactured' as a response to the Beatles, and probably well before, record labels have been manufacturing boy bands. Since pop music was first published people have been complaining that it's not an art but a fad. Since the 50s the whole pop music industry was built on music being as much a part of fashion as your clothes.