It isn't based on direct observation (if it takes a million years, how can something be observable within the timeframe of modern science)
It is observable. Evolution is the accumulation of genetic changes that specializes species. It does not necesarily take a million years. If you want to observe huge changes like growing a 3rd arm, yes you'll probably need a million years to observe. But small adaptationary changes accumulate - these have been observed.
it isn't testable (how and what do you test?), its not predictive (when are we going to see us evolve - that third arm would be helpful)
It is testable. I can make a statement that says, "if Evolution is true, then 1 Million years later, that and that will happen". 1 Million years later, an observer can read my statement and see if it is right or not.
It is also predictive. It says "Evolved species will fit their environment better". You just have to give it enough time and observe.
and finally you cannot prove or disprove evolution.
You surely can. If it is verified to be false (see "verifiable") then it is disproved. If you can observe a predicted evolution, then it is proved.
I am not really thrilled with all this bashing on ID/Creationism when Evolution has it's own holes to fill.
Evolution may have a few small holes, but Creationism has significantly more and bigger holes.
Due to the Creator being omniscient and omnipotent, it is *inherently* unverifiable, unobservable, unpredictable, unprovable and undisprovable - because anything can be attributed to, "Argh, the Creator made it this way".
For evolution, you can give it 9999999 years and you'll eventually be able to prove or disprove it with observations and tests.
For ID, no matter how much time you give it, it cannot be tested.
I'll accept ID being taught along with Evolution the day when the the theory of ID is corrected to say the Creator is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. I doubt that day will ever come, tho.
I personally think that evolution should be taught next to ID - both displayed as theories as to our beginnings and leave the heavy duty classes and such to advanced classes (i.e. don't put that crap in science class).
I too think they should be taught alongside, but in PHILOSOPHY classes NOT science classes. Science classes are reserved for teachings that are testable, provable and disprovable.
No matter which side you are looking from, all anybody ever does is point and scream at the other party and declare how invalid the other theory is - when in fact their own theory is just as full of holes. We just need to sit back and realize that we really don't have a clue as to how we got here that can be realized with science.
All theories are full of holes. Otherwise they'd be called "facts" not theories. Having holes or not is not a criteria whether a teaching should be included in a science class. But being verifiable and observable is. As far as I understand it, Evolution belongs to the science class but ID does not.
FYI: According to this article I'm a Bible Thumping Extremist Christian... In reality I'm the one that sits quietly in the back keeping to himself - not judging anybody but pissed off at the stupidity and inability of people to get along.
According to this reply you may think I'm a Godless athiest but in reality I'm a Christian and go to the Church on Sundays. I'm not saying one is correct and the other isn't - but merely trying to classify what belongs to the science class and what doesn't.
This is not Godel's theorem. Godel's theorem says, given a fixed set of axioms, not all true statements can be logically derived from them.
It is meaningless when applied to general science, because as we make observations and do experiments, we expand the set of fundamental rules.
Although I'm a Christian, I believe that science classes should not teach anything that is unverifiable in finite time. As I understand it, evolution is verifiable but ID is not.
I must not be the only one who thinks it takes a little more than "Couple eyelid flutters, a little bouncing and a come-hither look" to make us not know it isn't real.
Conservatively, with Moore's law I estimate it's going to take some 1000 years for this technology to reach this point.
You don't know shit on how I use my computer, so I don't think you have a fucking right to advise me whether it is smart or dumb.
Now.
Anything you think is smart or dumb under one situation can be completely opposite in another environment, or usage pattern.
In normal usage I never see Firefox go up eating most of my memory. It only happens when I'm away. Interesting isn't it. I normally exit Firefox when I stop browsing, but in the occasions that it is forgotten and I'd be away for a while (say, a weekend trip), I want SOMETHING to deal with the memory leak for me.
Plus - it's not automatic - it's totally manually-controlled if I can specify exactly what the binary name is and the situation where it should be killed - I'd do it myself manually anyway.
Any logical being can conclude that force-closing the app and losing all the tabs is better than having to reboot the machine.
It went on to take up to 60% of my system memory WITHOUT ME DOING ANY SURFING. It just went up all by itself.
My machine becomes unresponsive and I had to kill -9 Firefox.
Pretty sad isn't it.
Is there a way to configure the kernel, or does it exist an app, so it'll automatically kill a running program with a specified name when memory usage goes up to such and such?
What makes the Crusoe i386 more "standard" than the XScale (which is in the ARM family)? I think the XScale is more "standard" since virtually all PDA use it.
I never said I was smart. I'm no good with computers. But don't think you're special just because you were born with high intelligence.
I don't claim I was born with high intelligence. Quite the contrary, I believe that everybody's smart in some way - however, people not satisfied with their jobs probably means that they've picked the wrong ones to begin with - where their intelligence cannot be put into good use.
If you find that you have to EARN something, with difficulty, it probably means you're not enjoying it (when you enjoy something, it's not work anymore) - you probably belong to this category. Maybe it's time to do some research and find something more enjoyable.
It's nothing you had to earn.
Let me tell you something about our jobs. It's NOT all about intelligence. It's about intelligence, experience, diligence, the ability to tolerate being called at 3:30 AM plus a lot of other shit. In other words, it's something we have to 'earn' - if 'earning' requires sacrifice and hardship, we have it.
Maybe it's not as physical as your job, but you cannot say that physical jobs are 'more work' than mental ones. In my opinion they're NOT comparable in this aspect.
Please do not make generalizations about a job that you know little about, and the intelligence it requires. I don't know shit about factory jobs I tend not to comment about them, either.
> really really high, for what you actually do, > and for how much experience you have.
If IT jobs are as trivial as you think, go get one - I'm sure you're so smart it won't cost you a left leg.
But please, saying that we're overpaid for what "you actually do, and for how much experience you have", is not only disrespectful, but downright insulting.
> Another key question is, how many of them are > Christians solely to save their own asses from > eternal punishment and to get a cushy place in > paradise?
And there's something wrong with this motivation because...? It makes no observable difference in their action, which is what really matters.
Of course, at the end, real Christians know that entering heaven is a free *GIFT* and nobody is guaranteed a place no matter what we do. We do it in hope to increase the chance of receiving the gift - but we all know at the end, it is not ours to decide.
Slashdot Mirror
It is observable. Evolution is the accumulation of genetic changes that specializes species. It does not necesarily take a million years. If you want to observe huge changes like growing a 3rd arm, yes you'll probably need a million years to observe. But small adaptationary changes accumulate - these have been observed.
It is testable. I can make a statement that says, "if Evolution is true, then 1 Million years later, that and that will happen". 1 Million years later, an observer can read my statement and see if it is right or not.
It is also predictive. It says "Evolved species will fit their environment better". You just have to give it enough time and observe.
You surely can. If it is verified to be false (see "verifiable") then it is disproved. If you can observe a predicted evolution, then it is proved.
Evolution may have a few small holes, but Creationism has significantly more and bigger holes.
Due to the Creator being omniscient and omnipotent, it is *inherently* unverifiable, unobservable, unpredictable, unprovable and undisprovable - because anything can be attributed to, "Argh, the Creator made it this way".
For evolution, you can give it 9999999 years and you'll eventually be able to prove or disprove it with observations and tests.
For ID, no matter how much time you give it, it cannot be tested.
I'll accept ID being taught along with Evolution the day when the the theory of ID is corrected to say the Creator is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. I doubt that day will ever come, tho.
I too think they should be taught alongside, but in PHILOSOPHY classes NOT science classes. Science classes are reserved for teachings that are testable, provable and disprovable.
All theories are full of holes. Otherwise they'd be called "facts" not theories. Having holes or not is not a criteria whether a teaching should be included in a science class. But being verifiable and observable is. As far as I understand it, Evolution belongs to the science class but ID does not.
According to this reply you may think I'm a Godless athiest but in reality I'm a Christian and go to the Church on Sundays. I'm not saying one is correct and the other isn't - but merely trying to classify what belongs to the science class and what doesn't.
This is not Godel's theorem. Godel's theorem says, given a fixed set of axioms, not all true statements can be logically derived from them.
It is meaningless when applied to general science, because as we make observations and do experiments, we expand the set of fundamental rules.
Although I'm a Christian, I believe that science classes should not teach anything that is unverifiable in finite time. As I understand it, evolution is verifiable but ID is not.
Conservatively, with Moore's law I estimate it's going to take some 1000 years for this technology to reach this point.
Looks like it can be one of the applications...
First thing first.
You don't know shit on how I use my computer, so I don't think you have a fucking right to advise me whether it is smart or dumb.
Now.
Anything you think is smart or dumb under one situation can be completely opposite in another environment, or usage pattern.
In normal usage I never see Firefox go up eating most of my memory. It only happens when I'm away. Interesting isn't it. I normally exit Firefox when I stop browsing, but in the occasions that it is forgotten and I'd be away for a while (say, a weekend trip), I want SOMETHING to deal with the memory leak for me.
Plus - it's not automatic - it's totally manually-controlled if I can specify exactly what the binary name is and the situation where it should be killed - I'd do it myself manually anyway.
Any logical being can conclude that force-closing the app and losing all the tabs is better than having to reboot the machine.
is more than Apple's total Revenue
Issue at hand: the "word" isn't really of your own.
I restarted my Firefox 1.0.4 today.
It went on to take up to 60% of my system memory WITHOUT ME DOING ANY SURFING. It just went up all by itself.
My machine becomes unresponsive and I had to kill -9 Firefox.
Pretty sad isn't it.
Is there a way to configure the kernel, or does it exist an app, so it'll automatically kill a running program with a specified name when memory usage goes up to such and such?
Lobbyists.
The reason they rejected increasing the mileage requirements of pickups, SUV and Minivans is "fear for instability in the auto industry".
I call BS. I always believe that the biggest polluter should be the ones most responsible for lowering the pollutants.
Fucking with DST is basically a "let everyone share MY cost!" scam.
Not that it's any different from GMT...
Some on the left, some on the right, too. Your sentence serves no useful purpose.
By the way, the economic sanctions alone had already indirectly not merely killed "tens of thousands", but likely millions.
Top Gear's Clarkson gave Chrysler's CrossFire nothing short of a disappointing review.
:)
I'd rather choose ATI's, thanks
What makes the Crusoe i386 more "standard" than the XScale (which is in the ARM family)? I think the XScale is more "standard" since virtually all PDA use it.
I don't disagree with your assessment of the situation - yes, it is wrong.
And it is pretty irrelevant to the subject of this article, too.
I don't claim I was born with high intelligence. Quite the contrary, I believe that everybody's smart in some way - however, people not satisfied with their jobs probably means that they've picked the wrong ones to begin with - where their intelligence cannot be put into good use.
If you find that you have to EARN something, with difficulty, it probably means you're not enjoying it (when you enjoy something, it's not work anymore) - you probably belong to this category. Maybe it's time to do some research and find something more enjoyable.
Let me tell you something about our jobs. It's NOT all about intelligence. It's about intelligence, experience, diligence, the ability to tolerate being called at 3:30 AM plus a lot of other shit. In other words, it's something we have to 'earn' - if 'earning' requires sacrifice and hardship, we have it.Maybe it's not as physical as your job, but you cannot say that physical jobs are 'more work' than mental ones. In my opinion they're NOT comparable in this aspect.
Please do not make generalizations about a job that you know little about, and the intelligence it requires. I don't know shit about factory jobs I tend not to comment about them, either.
> really really high, for what you actually do,
> and for how much experience you have.
If IT jobs are as trivial as you think, go get one - I'm sure you're so smart it won't cost you a left leg.
But please, saying that we're overpaid for what "you actually do, and for how much experience you have", is not only disrespectful, but downright insulting.
The discretization most likely exists.
However, their experiment did not look close enough to pick out the jaggies.
Someone can write a computer program that behaves the same way as the experiment subjects. Now what can they conclude?
Looks like another example of Cargo Cult science.
You don't understand Godel's...at all :(
You're reading too much into Roger Penrose's books on this topic - fortunately, people found flaws in his theory after reading his books.
Godel's theorems CANNOT be used to prove that the brain is smarter than the computer - in fact, human brains are ALSO governed by the theorem.
Please do a search on "Emperor's New Mind" and "Shadow of the Mind", and challenge yourself to find the known flaws in them.
> It is likely that we'd create many insane
> intelligences in the process
Pull the plug.
> Another key question is, how many of them are
> Christians solely to save their own asses from
> eternal punishment and to get a cushy place in
> paradise?
And there's something wrong with this motivation because...? It makes no observable difference in their action, which is what really matters.
Of course, at the end, real Christians know that entering heaven is a free *GIFT* and nobody is guaranteed a place no matter what we do. We do it in hope to increase the chance of receiving the gift - but we all know at the end, it is not ours to decide.
I bet they're going to redefine "clinically dead" after finding out what is still going on undetected after their "deaths".
How about making the brain itself? Imagine a Beo^H^H^H culture of these buggers, it may eventually THINK for itself :P
Most likely, the MS app will only support "Import".
Any support of exporting to other formats will either be removed or come with a dialog box that says,
"Some advanced formatting feature will be lost. Are you sure?"
Best of all, this dialog cannot be disabled.
You hear it here first!!
To get in line with the US, you need only 95 years.
I guess their plan is to let EU and US leapfrog each other, and the record companies will just laugh their way to the bank.