I don't believe in the 'religion of evolution.' I believe in the scientific theory of evolution (and don't go all 'It's just a theory' on me, if you are scientifically literate at all, you understand the difference between the common definition and the scientific definition). I also believe in other things, like a God who created the universe.
Please do not compare things like gravity, that are observable and measurable, to evolution, it is not scientific. We need to apply the same scientific standards to evolution not give it a pass.
Evolution is observable. Evolution is observable every time there is a mutation in a species that sticks around because it either has positive survival benefits or neutral survival benefits (in which case, it sticking around was chance, rather than natural selection, but there is a difference between evolution and natural selection). Hell, evolution would be observable if a member of a species developed a mutation and passed it on (and it propagated) despite having negative survival benefits. That's evolution, too.
Please show the fossil record for the mutations of any species, any at all, from one animal to another. This would be all over the news if it existed. Darwin predicted there should be thousands for any single animal. There are only nodes on the tree chart without the evidence of the branch connections.
I don't need to show fossil records. Fossil records would actually be harder to show than actual animals because of the previously mentioned relative rarity of an animal becoming fossilized and thus the extreme difficulty of finding every individual animal in an evolutionary track. Remember, a mother never (or at least extremely rarely) gives birth to an animal of a different species, the lines aren't drawn that hard in the sand. So, you can't just find 2 fossils, you would need a very large number of generations, all connected directly, parent to child, to show it with ONLY the fossil record. Fossil record is NOT the biggest evidence here.
As far as actual animals, let's go with a simple one, that I can be reasonably sure you've heard of, first. It's not evolution of one species to another, but it's evolution. It's an obvious trait that has developed and become more common throughout a species. If it keeps propagating like it has, it will likely either become a new species or completely change a trait so that the old species basically doesn't exist anyway. MRSA. Staph has developed a resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics over the course of a relatively short time. How would that have happened without evolution?
I know, I know, you're screaming about needing to see one species evolve into another (even though THAT is not required to prove evolution, all that is required is a mutation that becomes dominant over time, such as MRSA or elephants losing their tusks, or fish becoming immune to some toxic waste). I just wanted to give you an example that you'd likely heard of there.
How about http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread572409/pg1 ? King demoiselle recently evolved into three different species. Midas cichlid evolving into other species within the past century. There have been a number of instances where speciation has occured in the laboratory, apple maggot flies for example. New species of plants have been observed (O. gigas, is an example) . Pasterniani's experiments with corn.
Then there are the Central European blackcap and Galapagos ground finch, which have undergone natural speciation which scientists have been able to observe. There have been other birds whose names I don't remember and I believe a species of lizard. It's happened.
There is the cell. It's been around for 3.5 billion years, as per evolutionists. It has factories in it such as a DNA sequencer, molecular folder, transport mechanisms, along with the programming data to run everythin
So, in order to prove gravity, you are requiring us to show you where every object in the entire universe drops towards planets/items with greater mass at particular speeds? Not just showing that occurs and showing how it is consistent every time we look at it, but show you every single object in the universe? Because that's about as likely as what you're asking (approximately, not exactly).
If every single creature that EVER existed on the planet left a fossil (which is what you just said you required), then human beings couldn't exist because the earth would just be a massive mass of fossils. If you know anything about how fossils form, you know that not every creature that dies leaves one. Most that die, don't.
However, like with gravity, consistent rules have been shown regarding evolution. Evolution has been shown to happen, we have SEEN species that have evolved into other species over time. That has happened. Likely within your lifetime. Now, we haven't seen every species evolve into every other species, but that's because we have a limited amount of time (and a limited amount of fossils) we are working with here. We have never seen ANYTHING that indicates that evolution is wrong. All we ask is ONE shred of evidence that evolution is wrong. If it exists, then evolution is proven wrong. But no matter how many times we look and no matter how many fossils are discovered, there is never any evidence AGAINST evolution. And there is always increasing evidence FOR evolution.
There is a reason I put 'prove' in quotes in my original post. And that is because it is because if we applied the standard of proof you are attempting to apply to evolution to ANYTHING, then it could not be proven. Do you believe that every human being alive has a heart? Because, by your standards, it hasn't been proven. Not every single human being has been cut open or somehow otherwise shown that they have a heart. Without that, how can you know everyone has a heart? By your standards, we don't. It's a 'religion' to believe that every human being has a heart (or a brain, or a lung, or any other organ), by your standards. If that's your level of proof required for something, then you are a moron who doesn't deserve to have any say in what is taught as 'science' because you just don't get it.
To presume that ten cubits was exact and that the circumference was incorrect mathematically is not logical, but as it serves your purposes you choose to stick to that version in which a conflict exists between the Bible and math or science when it does not.
I think you miss the point. So, you are saying that the bible is NOT the inerrant word of God, because the humans involved in its creation selectively edited the truth for convenience's sake. If we allow that people quoted in or writing the bible were editing the truth, then how much of a stretch is it to believe that the whole "World created in seven days." thing was a rounding error by the authors?
Not arguing for a "Bible is the literal, infallible word of God" (as I think a literal interpretation Bible is idiotic and absolutely wrong, regardless of your religious beliefs) point here, but your argument is just stupid.
If the circumference of a circle is 30, the diameter is 10, if you round to the nearest whole number.
To 1 decimal place, it's 9.5. To two, it's 9.55. To three, it's 9.549.
If you don't round, it goes to an infinite number of decimal places. So, in ANY writing that gives you the diameter of a circle with a circumference of 10, THERE IS ROUNDING. Therefore, ANY writing that gives you that information is giving you an INCORRECT version of pi, if you calculated pi directly from that. How many decimal places did the Bible need to go to to satisfy you? 1? 2? 3? 100000000000000000? It makes sense to just go with the nearest whole number, particularly with the accuracy of measurement they had back then.
I tend to have to make this point a lot on the internet, but just because an argument supports your side when looked at shallowly, that doesn't make it a GOOD argument. If you are right (and I tend to agree with your overall point here), then there are actual GOOD arguments that make your case for you. The more you use stupid, shallow arguments that don't stand up to a single bit of scrutiny by anyone with a modicum of intelligence and common sense, the harder it is for people like ME who actually at least TRY to use valid arguments to make our point.
The fossils are there. Go to your local museum and you'll see some of them. Darwin would be very impressed with the level of fossils we have now. Most animals that die are not fossilized. Really, it's a huge minority that get fossilized. It's impressive that we have as many as we do.
The only way to 'prove' to a lot of people who give the argument that you do that a specific creature evolved from another specific creature is to have a PERFECT fossil record that contains every individual between the first creature and the second. That will NEVER happen because of the physical reality that fossils are not common.
Interesting fact, if we DID have the fossil record from one individual to another, you would never see an instance where a mother could be classified as a different species from her child if you just looked at the two of them. The child would be slightly different from its mother. In fact, there is debate as to what species some of the fossils we have did belong to because of this. 'Species' when looking at fossil record just means that "this fossil is different enough from this fossil, that in order to classify them we give them a separate name." In reality, it wasn't like a monkey's ancestor had a human child, there were a TON of mutations that occurred in between, with each likely being minor changes that eventually diverged enough to become called a new species.
And to touch on ANOTHER point you said:
What is the average time for a mutation? It's a silly question because it's basically one generation, once you get into organisms with a large number of cells/genes. And, really, it's less than that. Every human zygote, for example, averages at over 120 mutations. Most of them do nothing, of course, but they are still mutations. And yes, there ARE thousands of mutations within any species (that has a large enough set of genes; single-celled organisms, for example, will have less total mutations than cardinals), most just aren't noticeable.
Now, maybe you meant what is the average time for a mutation that has a noticeable effect? The reason why THAT isn't an easy answer is because it varies and has varied so much. First, the larger a genome, the more likely there will be mutations. The more DNA pairs something has, the more likely it is that there will be mutations. The shorter the time from birth to reproduction in an individual of a species, the shorter the time between mutations. The more children an individual of a species has (either at once OR over the course of a lifetime), the greater the chance of a noticeable mutation. Add in the fact that some mutations would be noticeable with just a single change and others would require a large number of changes to be noticeable (and thus are less likely to occur because of randomness). Take all that, determine how those things actually affect the rates, apply that to every species that EVER lived on the planet, and you have the average time to a noticeable mutation. Now do you see why people 'avoid the question like the plague?' It's because it is too complicated to answer based on our current knowledge.
I don't support ridiculously long sentences for literally victimless crimes like marijuana possession
Victimless? How would you know if the person carrying that isn't going to A) Sell it to someone or B) Not have obtained it by stealing money or whatever from people to obtain it. You know with that level of intelligence, you'd fit right in with the rest of them.
A) If selling it is still a crime, then convict him of that.
B) Convict him of stealing money or whatever from people then.
It's like the "high driving" complaints. Making drugs legal does not suddenly make OTHER things legal. Driving while intoxicated: still illegal. Theft: still illegal. Assault: still illegal.
I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure if you are in an accident and you are drunk and the other person is not, you are at fault (unless there is a VERY good reason to believe otherwise). At least that's how most juries would likely rule it.
So if someone was in an accident that killed someone, they might be found at fault if drunk and NOT at fault if sober.
On the other hand, here in Australia, it's quite different. When I was on a Sys Admins list, every person who piped up with "wtf, I've just found kiddie porn on this computer I'm supposed to fix" was told by people with past experience to go to the cops and just hand it over wholesale (without doing Anything else to it). They all came back to the list with "well, that was easy, the cops just sighed and took my statement."
That's actually different than this situation. Of course the cops aren't going to charge you if you are fixing a computer you don't own and find child porn on it and report it. That would be like the cops arresting you because you were in someone else's house fixing the sink and noticed some obviously illegal dealings going on.
While this issue is not MUCH better than if the cops arrested you in the situations I mentioned above, in this situation it was HIS computer, so it's not QUITE as bad.
So, you say that searching for "Alfaques camping" shouldn't turn up results about Auschwitz. Now if you search for "Alfaques" all bets are off, and it might be whatever, like the article about biggest incident in that place or the like. But if you search for "Alfaques camping", you really specifically searched for Alfaques camping website (which comes up first).
And your complain is exactly what?
I just don't get why you are being modded down.
This is exactly the same as what Sir_Sri said above, only Sir_Sri tried to use it to argue against Google's ranking system because it did exactly what he wanted it to?
The article (particularly the title of the article) was "PC-inspired," assuming you mean what I think you mean (that it was putting a spin on things to make it look related to the man-made climate change debate occurring today).
All the paper actually says (when you get down to it) is that the droughts during the end of the Mayan civilization (which are often cited as one of the causes of the collapse of said civilization) represented up to a 40% reduction in precipitation and were likely caused by a reduction in the number and intensity of tropical storms.
"Climate change" in this case is exactly that. A change in the climate. Not a change caused by man...just a change.
FTA:
"It could be reasonably effective, but maybe too general and affect too many different types of opioids as well as heroin," Janda said.
So, basically, they don't know yet. Which, if any, other opioids/opiates it affects is a big key because you don't want A)heroin users just moving to oxycontin
or b)a former heroin user 20 years in the future unable to get effective treatment for their pain because it blocks all opioids/opiates (particularly if it is "end of life" style pain where they are just being made comfortable)
If someone is able to hack into YOUR SERVERS... it's YOUR problem... not the hackers. YOU left the vuln... he exploited it.
It's not the, "I left my front door open, you came in uninvited, and now I'm installing an alarm system"
it is, "I own a company, it's in a building, the public comes to it... someone found I left a door open
that wasn't marked and now I have to install a lock, sign and alarm system, even though,
I SHOULD HAVE ALREADY."
The hacker didn't CREATE the situation that allowed his access. He just FOUND it.
-AI
Actually, from looking at what happened AND what the poster you quoted said (specifically that the guy likely tripped something that meant they had to spend man--hours trying to track him down) a better analogy is this:
There is a building (let's say it's owned by a business to make the analogy closer) with an alarm system and a lock on all the doors, but they are both crap. Someone got through this somehow (either picking the lock/disabling the alarm system or just going around them both somehow) and copied down all the records being stored in that building. He then took this data home and was later prosecuted for breaking and entering, despite the fact that he had previously done the same with another business and when he pointed out the security issues, they paid him for "consulting."
I think that you miss the point. Nobody is trying to stop them from making a profit. This isn't about us trying to make them poor, it's about people being fed up with companies acting more like parasites trying to squeeze more revenue from their product their predecessors did and is worth paying.
I don't think it's about trying to squeeze more revenue than their predecessors did.
They already likely get more (at least on major game releases).
The big point is that although, yes, you could trade games with friends or resell them some other way, reselling of games was NOT a big market in the past. Think back to when you had an NES. How many used games did you own? How many games did you buy new? I'm willing to bet the 2nd number was a good bit larger than the first (and if trading with friends, you each bought one new game...you might not have ended up with the game you bought, but you bought a game). Nowadays, there are a LOT of people out there who have 5-6 used games for every new game they buy. There are some gamers out there who don't buy new games. They might have 30-40 games and maybe ONE was purchased new.
These are the type of people this activity is meant to stop the most.
Unlike most products, there is not really much risk in purchasing a used game, either, at least not anymore. It used to be that if I purchased a used game at GameStop, it would often not last as long as the new one, or even have scratches on it from the start. Nowadays, if that's the case, they give me a different one for free (or my money back). And used games seem to last as long as new games.
If I buy a used car, it's going to need more maintenance. If I buy used clothing, it's going to have some wear and tear already (and thus not last as long). It's not as much of an issue with games. Which is another reason the used games market is targeted more than other markets, besides those mentioned in the article.
Now, is this the best model for fixing the problem? Likely not. But they're going to try various methods until someone stumbles upon one that actually works. But this isn't them trying to squeeze every penny out of their customers, this is just them trying to give you a reason to purchase games new. Without things like this, at the moment there isn't much incentive (unless you make a conscious philosophical choice to do so).
People like you and I have been doing it for most of our learning careers, so it makes it easier. Well, I didn't do it in all of my classes, it actually depended on the class. I was good at picking up early in a class what type of notes-taking I needed to do.
But i'm guessing if someone switched from taking copious notes in all of their classes while the teacher is lecturing to not taking many notes in classes...they would struggle at first. They would get some rough grades at first.
But, long term, it would help them.
He never said it was mostly a winning personality.
He said that most of them see themselves more as a personality on TV than a professional ball thrower. Which, when it comes down to it, is all a pitcher is, for example.
Metrics by themselves don't lead to improved business outcomes.
But if used properly, they can. Lazy management doesn't use metrics properly. Good management does.
You shouldn't look at metrics blindly and say "see, this is a problem, get rid of this guy."
You SHOULD look at metrics, see what doesn't look 'right' and say "Okay, this might be a problem, let me investigate."
Metrics, when used properly, are a tool to find out what you need to look into without having to be intimately familiar with what is going on in a department (particularly when it is someone managing an area they do not have technical expertise in). They are just indicators of what's going on, no GOOD manager thinks they tell the whole story.
Average tickets per user guarantees you lose the best people first.
Since they always end up with the non-trival problems which take non-trivial time to resolve.
Good way to fuck the company though, and since they are firing you anyway.....
You're thinking of average tickets per "IT guy" not average tickets per user.
I think it's funny that so many here are assuming the company is looking at individual metrics. (with comments such as "With a distribution of 3, it's not really possible to have statistics of meaningful nature." in the parent)
Sometimes companies are looking for things that measure the performance of the entire team in order to determine if the team is functioning as well as it should be (I have gone through this fairly recently where I work). Maybe his company is looking for things like "average time to complete tickets," "average number of tickets per user," or similar numbers. These can be measured for the team and then, where it appears there is a weak point, you can usually figure out if it's an individual on the team causing the issue or the teams as a whole (because, as the parent said, in a group of 3 it should be obvious who is causing the problems if they exist).
Because sometimes, especially while listening to a quiet movie, you PREFER NOT TO BE SUDDENLY BLASTED WITH NOISE!!
It's annoying as hell. I do kind of agree with you though that it doesn't seem like something the government needs to regulate
I'm assuming that's why the government acted so late - they were hoping for a free market solution to the problem. Because really, it's silly that the government needs to do something that industry really can do itself. All the government has to do is normally just make whinings about it, and industry goes and does it pre-emptively to prevent regulation.
In this case, no one cared enough at the stations to actually do it, the government gave up waiting for the free market to do something that's generating tons of complaints, and acted on it.
Speaking of which, here in Canada, it seems the History Channel (Canada) is deliberately doing it. The ads are always MUCH louder than the show. The show's at normal volume with rest of channels I watch (except Discovery has seemed to gone DOWN in volume...), but when it switches to ads, the volume jumps sharply. It goes soft during programming again.
And no, I'm not always watching the show, I just know when the commercials are on because they really are louder.
See, that's the thing. This is the government correcting the advertisers for mistakes the consumer is making. I don't like that.
The government could whine all they want. The consumer could whine all they want. If loud advertisements didn't work (particularly for some types of businesses. Obviously they don't work for all), then the businesses wouldn't use them.
Unfortunately, advertisers have seen that when they advertise loudly, they sell more product. Again, this is probably more true in some industries than others (used cars probably get more benefit than soap, as an example). It's unfortunate, but it's true.
If it wasn't, why would they insist on doing it? If advertisers discovered that their ads actually annoyed people enough that people stopped buying the products of the loudest advertisers, then they'd stop. Their goal is to make money. They do anything they can that will help.
I wouldn't mind that, on one condition.
I'd say, sure, someone gives a takedown notice, the site needs to take it down. However, the site only has to keep it down a set amount of time (a week? a month? I don't know what an appropriate time would be), unless the company giving the takedown notice goes through some process to verify that it is actually infringing. Preferably go through a third-party group that handles all of these. Put the burden on the rights holder to do that. And once a video, etc. has been taken down once, if it goes back up, the "rights holder" can't issue another takedown on that particular video, etc. again unless they go through the court system.
This strikes a balance in that it gives the rights holders a method to immediately get actual infringing content taken away, but also puts the burden of proof on them to keep it down, so unless they want to go through that process and it is an actual infringement case, the best they can do is make the content go away for a short time.
Actually, I know a couple of music business majors. Sure, a lot of them go into recording, etc. But there are a lot of them that are involved in the booking of shows/festivals, setting up that kind of thing, getting advertising for those things, etc.
Music Business majors are involved with the "live" process, as well as the other process. So, even without recordings, they'd still have a place.
I have a HUGE issue with authority, with respect to scientific investigations.
The theory that lies behind science does NOT respect authority. It respects data and findings which can be reproduced. If I, who am not highly skilled in relativistic maths, make a discovery which disproves Einstein's theory, the proper scientific attitude would be that Einstein is disproven - not that some young upstart with no training or relevant qualification MUST be wrong.
I might expect that my discovery would be subject to extensive testing. But Einstein would certainly state (and actually did) that science depends on objective testable truth - NOT authoritative statements...
Actually, the proper scientific attitude would be "some young upstart with no training or relevant qualification is PROBABLY wrong, but if his logic looks sound, we'll need to check his work."
If you make a discovery that disproves Einstein's theory, chances are that you made a mistake since you are not highly skilled in relativistic maths. However, if your premise is sound, then, yes, your work should be checked to see if you actually did make a discovery.
But chances are, again, that you didn't.
The main problem is that many people won't listen to your logic without those credentials. But I can't blame them TOO much because, honestly, most amateur physicists aren't going to have enough of an understanding to even wrap their heads around the subject, much less disprove major theories that those with a more complete understanding haven't been able to disprove.
Yep. That's why I responded to anagama's comment. There are plenty of good reasons to repeal drug laws. But ranting against the DEA for just "any reason" at all (such as this case) hurts the argument because people react badly to that. They can hear 100 good arguments from you, but as soon as there is a bad/unjustified one, they'll promptly ignore all 100 good ones.
Ranting against the DEA for any reason is well justified considering the damage it does to our country. Glenn Greenwald debated Bush's drug czar recently and really laid open the festering wound that is prohibition. The video is here:
Wrong.
The DEA does damage to our country.
Ranting against the DEA for doing bad things is justified and a fine thing to do.
Ranting against the DEA for things like this is NOT justified and just makes the argument look worse.
I'll never understand how people don't get that if your argument is good and your cause is justified, it is only HURT by misleading those you are arguing with/trying to convince. As soon as they find out they were mislead, they are likely to not believe anything you say. (oddly enough, look at the DARE program for an example of this)
I've lived in 3 different southern states for my entire life (including various parts of both Carolinas).
"You all" is not both singular and plural. You might have a few people who mix it up. But you also have a few people who say "mooses" and "deers." Neither is a standard in those areas just because some people mess it up.
Slashdot Mirror
Please do not compare things like gravity, that are observable and measurable, to evolution, it is not scientific. We need to apply the same scientific standards to evolution not give it a pass.
Evolution is observable. Evolution is observable every time there is a mutation in a species that sticks around because it either has positive survival benefits or neutral survival benefits (in which case, it sticking around was chance, rather than natural selection, but there is a difference between evolution and natural selection). Hell, evolution would be observable if a member of a species developed a mutation and passed it on (and it propagated) despite having negative survival benefits. That's evolution, too.
Please show the fossil record for the mutations of any species, any at all, from one animal to another. This would be all over the news if it existed. Darwin predicted there should be thousands for any single animal. There are only nodes on the tree chart without the evidence of the branch connections.
I don't need to show fossil records. Fossil records would actually be harder to show than actual animals because of the previously mentioned relative rarity of an animal becoming fossilized and thus the extreme difficulty of finding every individual animal in an evolutionary track. Remember, a mother never (or at least extremely rarely) gives birth to an animal of a different species, the lines aren't drawn that hard in the sand. So, you can't just find 2 fossils, you would need a very large number of generations, all connected directly, parent to child, to show it with ONLY the fossil record. Fossil record is NOT the biggest evidence here.
As far as actual animals, let's go with a simple one, that I can be reasonably sure you've heard of, first. It's not evolution of one species to another, but it's evolution. It's an obvious trait that has developed and become more common throughout a species. If it keeps propagating like it has, it will likely either become a new species or completely change a trait so that the old species basically doesn't exist anyway. MRSA. Staph has developed a resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics over the course of a relatively short time. How would that have happened without evolution?
I know, I know, you're screaming about needing to see one species evolve into another (even though THAT is not required to prove evolution, all that is required is a mutation that becomes dominant over time, such as MRSA or elephants losing their tusks, or fish becoming immune to some toxic waste). I just wanted to give you an example that you'd likely heard of there.
How about http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread572409/pg1 ? King demoiselle recently evolved into three different species. Midas cichlid evolving into other species within the past century. There have been a number of instances where speciation has occured in the laboratory, apple maggot flies for example. New species of plants have been observed (O. gigas, is an example) . Pasterniani's experiments with corn.
Then there are the Central European blackcap and Galapagos ground finch, which have undergone natural speciation which scientists have been able to observe. There have been other birds whose names I don't remember and I believe a species of lizard. It's happened.
There is the cell. It's been around for 3.5 billion years, as per evolutionists. It has factories in it such as a DNA sequencer, molecular folder, transport mechanisms, along with the programming data to run everythin
So, in order to prove gravity, you are requiring us to show you where every object in the entire universe drops towards planets/items with greater mass at particular speeds? Not just showing that occurs and showing how it is consistent every time we look at it, but show you every single object in the universe? Because that's about as likely as what you're asking (approximately, not exactly).
If every single creature that EVER existed on the planet left a fossil (which is what you just said you required), then human beings couldn't exist because the earth would just be a massive mass of fossils. If you know anything about how fossils form, you know that not every creature that dies leaves one. Most that die, don't.
However, like with gravity, consistent rules have been shown regarding evolution. Evolution has been shown to happen, we have SEEN species that have evolved into other species over time. That has happened. Likely within your lifetime. Now, we haven't seen every species evolve into every other species, but that's because we have a limited amount of time (and a limited amount of fossils) we are working with here. We have never seen ANYTHING that indicates that evolution is wrong. All we ask is ONE shred of evidence that evolution is wrong. If it exists, then evolution is proven wrong. But no matter how many times we look and no matter how many fossils are discovered, there is never any evidence AGAINST evolution. And there is always increasing evidence FOR evolution.
There is a reason I put 'prove' in quotes in my original post. And that is because it is because if we applied the standard of proof you are attempting to apply to evolution to ANYTHING, then it could not be proven. Do you believe that every human being alive has a heart? Because, by your standards, it hasn't been proven. Not every single human being has been cut open or somehow otherwise shown that they have a heart. Without that, how can you know everyone has a heart? By your standards, we don't. It's a 'religion' to believe that every human being has a heart (or a brain, or a lung, or any other organ), by your standards. If that's your level of proof required for something, then you are a moron who doesn't deserve to have any say in what is taught as 'science' because you just don't get it.
To presume that ten cubits was exact and that the circumference was incorrect mathematically is not logical, but as it serves your purposes you choose to stick to that version in which a conflict exists between the Bible and math or science when it does not.
I think you miss the point. So, you are saying that the bible is NOT the inerrant word of God, because the humans involved in its creation selectively edited the truth for convenience's sake. If we allow that people quoted in or writing the bible were editing the truth, then how much of a stretch is it to believe that the whole "World created in seven days." thing was a rounding error by the authors?
Not arguing for a "Bible is the literal, infallible word of God" (as I think a literal interpretation Bible is idiotic and absolutely wrong, regardless of your religious beliefs) point here, but your argument is just stupid .
If the circumference of a circle is 30, the diameter is 10, if you round to the nearest whole number.
To 1 decimal place, it's 9.5. To two, it's 9.55. To three, it's 9.549.
If you don't round, it goes to an infinite number of decimal places. So, in ANY writing that gives you the diameter of a circle with a circumference of 10, THERE IS ROUNDING. Therefore, ANY writing that gives you that information is giving you an INCORRECT version of pi, if you calculated pi directly from that. How many decimal places did the Bible need to go to to satisfy you? 1? 2? 3? 100000000000000000? It makes sense to just go with the nearest whole number, particularly with the accuracy of measurement they had back then.
I tend to have to make this point a lot on the internet, but just because an argument supports your side when looked at shallowly, that doesn't make it a GOOD argument. If you are right (and I tend to agree with your overall point here), then there are actual GOOD arguments that make your case for you. The more you use stupid, shallow arguments that don't stand up to a single bit of scrutiny by anyone with a modicum of intelligence and common sense, the harder it is for people like ME who actually at least TRY to use valid arguments to make our point.
The fossils are there. Go to your local museum and you'll see some of them. Darwin would be very impressed with the level of fossils we have now. Most animals that die are not fossilized. Really, it's a huge minority that get fossilized. It's impressive that we have as many as we do.
The only way to 'prove' to a lot of people who give the argument that you do that a specific creature evolved from another specific creature is to have a PERFECT fossil record that contains every individual between the first creature and the second. That will NEVER happen because of the physical reality that fossils are not common.
Interesting fact, if we DID have the fossil record from one individual to another, you would never see an instance where a mother could be classified as a different species from her child if you just looked at the two of them. The child would be slightly different from its mother. In fact, there is debate as to what species some of the fossils we have did belong to because of this. 'Species' when looking at fossil record just means that "this fossil is different enough from this fossil, that in order to classify them we give them a separate name." In reality, it wasn't like a monkey's ancestor had a human child, there were a TON of mutations that occurred in between, with each likely being minor changes that eventually diverged enough to become called a new species.
And to touch on ANOTHER point you said:
What is the average time for a mutation? It's a silly question because it's basically one generation, once you get into organisms with a large number of cells/genes. And, really, it's less than that. Every human zygote, for example, averages at over 120 mutations. Most of them do nothing, of course, but they are still mutations. And yes, there ARE thousands of mutations within any species (that has a large enough set of genes; single-celled organisms, for example, will have less total mutations than cardinals), most just aren't noticeable.
Now, maybe you meant what is the average time for a mutation that has a noticeable effect? The reason why THAT isn't an easy answer is because it varies and has varied so much. First, the larger a genome, the more likely there will be mutations. The more DNA pairs something has, the more likely it is that there will be mutations. The shorter the time from birth to reproduction in an individual of a species, the shorter the time between mutations. The more children an individual of a species has (either at once OR over the course of a lifetime), the greater the chance of a noticeable mutation. Add in the fact that some mutations would be noticeable with just a single change and others would require a large number of changes to be noticeable (and thus are less likely to occur because of randomness). Take all that, determine how those things actually affect the rates, apply that to every species that EVER lived on the planet, and you have the average time to a noticeable mutation. Now do you see why people 'avoid the question like the plague?' It's because it is too complicated to answer based on our current knowledge.
I don't support ridiculously long sentences for literally victimless crimes like marijuana possession
Victimless? How would you know if the person carrying that isn't going to A) Sell it to someone or B) Not have obtained it by stealing money or whatever from people to obtain it. You know with that level of intelligence, you'd fit right in with the rest of them.
A) If selling it is still a crime, then convict him of that.
B) Convict him of stealing money or whatever from people then.
It's like the "high driving" complaints. Making drugs legal does not suddenly make OTHER things legal. Driving while intoxicated: still illegal. Theft: still illegal. Assault: still illegal.
Whoops, apparently wasn't logged in on this computer when I posted. The above comment (starting with "Yes, laws vary from state to state") is me.
I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure if you are in an accident and you are drunk and the other person is not, you are at fault (unless there is a VERY good reason to believe otherwise). At least that's how most juries would likely rule it. So if someone was in an accident that killed someone, they might be found at fault if drunk and NOT at fault if sober.
On the other hand, here in Australia, it's quite different. When I was on a Sys Admins list, every person who piped up with "wtf, I've just found kiddie porn on this computer I'm supposed to fix" was told by people with past experience to go to the cops and just hand it over wholesale (without doing Anything else to it). They all came back to the list with "well, that was easy, the cops just sighed and took my statement."
That's actually different than this situation. Of course the cops aren't going to charge you if you are fixing a computer you don't own and find child porn on it and report it. That would be like the cops arresting you because you were in someone else's house fixing the sink and noticed some obviously illegal dealings going on.
While this issue is not MUCH better than if the cops arrested you in the situations I mentioned above, in this situation it was HIS computer, so it's not QUITE as bad.
... I don't follow.
So, you say that searching for "Alfaques camping" shouldn't turn up results about Auschwitz. Now if you search for "Alfaques" all bets are off, and it might be whatever, like the article about biggest incident in that place or the like. But if you search for "Alfaques camping", you really specifically searched for Alfaques camping website (which comes up first).
And your complain is exactly what?
I just don't get why you are being modded down. This is exactly the same as what Sir_Sri said above, only Sir_Sri tried to use it to argue against Google's ranking system because it did exactly what he wanted it to?
The article (particularly the title of the article) was "PC-inspired," assuming you mean what I think you mean (that it was putting a spin on things to make it look related to the man-made climate change debate occurring today).
All the paper actually says (when you get down to it) is that the droughts during the end of the Mayan civilization (which are often cited as one of the causes of the collapse of said civilization) represented up to a 40% reduction in precipitation and were likely caused by a reduction in the number and intensity of tropical storms.
"Climate change" in this case is exactly that. A change in the climate. Not a change caused by man...just a change.
FTA:
"It could be reasonably effective, but maybe too general and affect too many different types of opioids as well as heroin," Janda said.
So, basically, they don't know yet. Which, if any, other opioids/opiates it affects is a big key because you don't want A)heroin users just moving to oxycontin or b)a former heroin user 20 years in the future unable to get effective treatment for their pain because it blocks all opioids/opiates (particularly if it is "end of life" style pain where they are just being made comfortable)
If someone is able to hack into YOUR SERVERS... it's YOUR problem... not the hackers. YOU left the vuln... he exploited it.
It's not the, "I left my front door open, you came in uninvited, and now I'm installing an alarm system"
it is, "I own a company, it's in a building, the public comes to it... someone found I left a door open that wasn't marked and now I have to install a lock, sign and alarm system, even though, I SHOULD HAVE ALREADY."
The hacker didn't CREATE the situation that allowed his access. He just FOUND it.
-AI
Actually, from looking at what happened AND what the poster you quoted said (specifically that the guy likely tripped something that meant they had to spend man--hours trying to track him down) a better analogy is this:
There is a building (let's say it's owned by a business to make the analogy closer) with an alarm system and a lock on all the doors, but they are both crap. Someone got through this somehow (either picking the lock/disabling the alarm system or just going around them both somehow) and copied down all the records being stored in that building. He then took this data home and was later prosecuted for breaking and entering, despite the fact that he had previously done the same with another business and when he pointed out the security issues, they paid him for "consulting."
I think that you miss the point. Nobody is trying to stop them from making a profit. This isn't about us trying to make them poor, it's about people being fed up with companies acting more like parasites trying to squeeze more revenue from their product their predecessors did and is worth paying.
I don't think it's about trying to squeeze more revenue than their predecessors did.
They already likely get more (at least on major game releases).
The big point is that although, yes, you could trade games with friends or resell them some other way, reselling of games was NOT a big market in the past. Think back to when you had an NES. How many used games did you own? How many games did you buy new? I'm willing to bet the 2nd number was a good bit larger than the first (and if trading with friends, you each bought one new game...you might not have ended up with the game you bought, but you bought a game). Nowadays, there are a LOT of people out there who have 5-6 used games for every new game they buy. There are some gamers out there who don't buy new games. They might have 30-40 games and maybe ONE was purchased new.
These are the type of people this activity is meant to stop the most.
Unlike most products, there is not really much risk in purchasing a used game, either, at least not anymore. It used to be that if I purchased a used game at GameStop, it would often not last as long as the new one, or even have scratches on it from the start. Nowadays, if that's the case, they give me a different one for free (or my money back). And used games seem to last as long as new games.
If I buy a used car, it's going to need more maintenance. If I buy used clothing, it's going to have some wear and tear already (and thus not last as long). It's not as much of an issue with games. Which is another reason the used games market is targeted more than other markets, besides those mentioned in the article.
Now, is this the best model for fixing the problem? Likely not. But they're going to try various methods until someone stumbles upon one that actually works. But this isn't them trying to squeeze every penny out of their customers, this is just them trying to give you a reason to purchase games new. Without things like this, at the moment there isn't much incentive (unless you make a conscious philosophical choice to do so).
People like you and I have been doing it for most of our learning careers, so it makes it easier. Well, I didn't do it in all of my classes, it actually depended on the class. I was good at picking up early in a class what type of notes-taking I needed to do. But i'm guessing if someone switched from taking copious notes in all of their classes while the teacher is lecturing to not taking many notes in classes...they would struggle at first. They would get some rough grades at first. But, long term, it would help them.
He never said it was mostly a winning personality. He said that most of them see themselves more as a personality on TV than a professional ball thrower. Which, when it comes down to it, is all a pitcher is, for example.
Metrics by themselves don't lead to improved business outcomes.
But if used properly, they can. Lazy management doesn't use metrics properly. Good management does.
You shouldn't look at metrics blindly and say "see, this is a problem, get rid of this guy."
You SHOULD look at metrics, see what doesn't look 'right' and say "Okay, this might be a problem, let me investigate."
Metrics, when used properly, are a tool to find out what you need to look into without having to be intimately familiar with what is going on in a department (particularly when it is someone managing an area they do not have technical expertise in). They are just indicators of what's going on, no GOOD manager thinks they tell the whole story.
Average tickets per user guarantees you lose the best people first. Since they always end up with the non-trival problems which take non-trivial time to resolve.
Good way to fuck the company though, and since they are firing you anyway .....
You're thinking of average tickets per "IT guy" not average tickets per user.
I think it's funny that so many here are assuming the company is looking at individual metrics. (with comments such as "With a distribution of 3, it's not really possible to have statistics of meaningful nature." in the parent) Sometimes companies are looking for things that measure the performance of the entire team in order to determine if the team is functioning as well as it should be (I have gone through this fairly recently where I work). Maybe his company is looking for things like "average time to complete tickets," "average number of tickets per user," or similar numbers. These can be measured for the team and then, where it appears there is a weak point, you can usually figure out if it's an individual on the team causing the issue or the teams as a whole (because, as the parent said, in a group of 3 it should be obvious who is causing the problems if they exist).
I'm assuming that's why the government acted so late - they were hoping for a free market solution to the problem. Because really, it's silly that the government needs to do something that industry really can do itself. All the government has to do is normally just make whinings about it, and industry goes and does it pre-emptively to prevent regulation.
In this case, no one cared enough at the stations to actually do it, the government gave up waiting for the free market to do something that's generating tons of complaints, and acted on it.
Speaking of which, here in Canada, it seems the History Channel (Canada) is deliberately doing it. The ads are always MUCH louder than the show. The show's at normal volume with rest of channels I watch (except Discovery has seemed to gone DOWN in volume...), but when it switches to ads, the volume jumps sharply. It goes soft during programming again.
And no, I'm not always watching the show, I just know when the commercials are on because they really are louder.
See, that's the thing. This is the government correcting the advertisers for mistakes the consumer is making. I don't like that.
The government could whine all they want. The consumer could whine all they want. If loud advertisements didn't work (particularly for some types of businesses. Obviously they don't work for all), then the businesses wouldn't use them.
Unfortunately, advertisers have seen that when they advertise loudly, they sell more product. Again, this is probably more true in some industries than others (used cars probably get more benefit than soap, as an example). It's unfortunate, but it's true.
If it wasn't, why would they insist on doing it? If advertisers discovered that their ads actually annoyed people enough that people stopped buying the products of the loudest advertisers, then they'd stop. Their goal is to make money. They do anything they can that will help.
I wouldn't mind that, on one condition. I'd say, sure, someone gives a takedown notice, the site needs to take it down. However, the site only has to keep it down a set amount of time (a week? a month? I don't know what an appropriate time would be), unless the company giving the takedown notice goes through some process to verify that it is actually infringing. Preferably go through a third-party group that handles all of these. Put the burden on the rights holder to do that. And once a video, etc. has been taken down once, if it goes back up, the "rights holder" can't issue another takedown on that particular video, etc. again unless they go through the court system. This strikes a balance in that it gives the rights holders a method to immediately get actual infringing content taken away, but also puts the burden of proof on them to keep it down, so unless they want to go through that process and it is an actual infringement case, the best they can do is make the content go away for a short time.
Actually, I know a couple of music business majors. Sure, a lot of them go into recording, etc. But there are a lot of them that are involved in the booking of shows/festivals, setting up that kind of thing, getting advertising for those things, etc. Music Business majors are involved with the "live" process, as well as the other process. So, even without recordings, they'd still have a place.
I have a HUGE issue with authority, with respect to scientific investigations.
The theory that lies behind science does NOT respect authority. It respects data and findings which can be reproduced. If I, who am not highly skilled in relativistic maths, make a discovery which disproves Einstein's theory, the proper scientific attitude would be that Einstein is disproven - not that some young upstart with no training or relevant qualification MUST be wrong.
I might expect that my discovery would be subject to extensive testing. But Einstein would certainly state (and actually did) that science depends on objective testable truth - NOT authoritative statements...
Actually, the proper scientific attitude would be "some young upstart with no training or relevant qualification is PROBABLY wrong, but if his logic looks sound, we'll need to check his work."
If you make a discovery that disproves Einstein's theory, chances are that you made a mistake since you are not highly skilled in relativistic maths. However, if your premise is sound, then, yes, your work should be checked to see if you actually did make a discovery.
But chances are, again, that you didn't.
The main problem is that many people won't listen to your logic without those credentials. But I can't blame them TOO much because, honestly, most amateur physicists aren't going to have enough of an understanding to even wrap their heads around the subject, much less disprove major theories that those with a more complete understanding haven't been able to disprove.
Yep. That's why I responded to anagama's comment. There are plenty of good reasons to repeal drug laws. But ranting against the DEA for just "any reason" at all (such as this case) hurts the argument because people react badly to that. They can hear 100 good arguments from you, but as soon as there is a bad/unjustified one, they'll promptly ignore all 100 good ones.
Ranting against the DEA for any reason is well justified considering the damage it does to our country. Glenn Greenwald debated Bush's drug czar recently and really laid open the festering wound that is prohibition. The video is here:
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/15/debating_bushs_drug_czar_on_legalization/singleton/
(Glenn Greenwald should run for president)
Wrong. The DEA does damage to our country. Ranting against the DEA for doing bad things is justified and a fine thing to do. Ranting against the DEA for things like this is NOT justified and just makes the argument look worse. I'll never understand how people don't get that if your argument is good and your cause is justified, it is only HURT by misleading those you are arguing with/trying to convince. As soon as they find out they were mislead, they are likely to not believe anything you say. (oddly enough, look at the DARE program for an example of this)
I've lived in 3 different southern states for my entire life (including various parts of both Carolinas). "You all" is not both singular and plural. You might have a few people who mix it up. But you also have a few people who say "mooses" and "deers." Neither is a standard in those areas just because some people mess it up.