I was actually wondering why, if it were just a matter of being a plasma torch, why lightsabers wouldn't interpenetrate instead of clashing with cool sound effects. Does this mean that we should rename them magnetoplasma sabers?
I would not see Apple as being a Monopoly of MP3 players and online music, even with their large market share of these markets. Also, the media content industry is so huge, it would be hard to see how Apple could use such a monoopoly to leverage a much larger industry.
Having read the Dick novel "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep", which "Blade Runner" is based on, and Neuromancer, I have to say that other than they are futuristic sci-fi, they are absolutely nothing alike.
I have no problem with creationism being taught in a philosophy class. I also believe that it is possible some god created everything 100, or 6,000 or so years ago, so that it looked like evolution happened.
However, that's not the issue here. The issue is not that creationism is right or wrong, it's that intelligent design isn't science. Intelligent design is unfalsifable, and as such, has no predictive power. Natural selection as put forward by Darwin can be falsified, thus, it is a "theory", which intelligent design is not. Natural selection puts forward that an occasional random mutation enables an organism to outproduce other organisms for that niche, preserving it's DNA and not others. Intelligent design doesn't predict anything (that we could test), but it looks like an explanation. Criticism of the lead theory is not in itself a prediction or explanation.
Creation science/intelligent design has never been proposed as an explanation of any phenomenon in a credible, peer-reviewed scientific journal, at least in modern times.
I have a real beef, for that matter, with blasphemers who, for instance, take medication, because I can assure you, all of it was tested on foreign animal flesh (god forbid, monkeys), which is of course not the same stuff as our human stuff, other than it does most of the same things and works in most of the same ways.
The creationists were very clever to start talking about evolution being "just a theory". It is a theory, but so is Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics explains almost all (but not quite) of what we can experience, but it doesn't constitute absolute truth. However, other than relativity and quantum mechanics, we don't have a contravening theory, of any kind. We haven't reverted to Ptolemic astronomy, even though it seems more common sensical (the sun does look like it turns on the earth, it squares with our intuition for the world to be flat). Common sense isn't an expanation, though Occam's Razor is. Occam's Razor would say that creation science multiplies entities needlessly, as we have a credible explanation that doesn't require an outside agent.
Show me evidence, or better yet, a peer reviewed journal article showing these so-called "holes in evolutionary theory". Otherwise, stop your jibber-jabbering arguments from ignorance.
there may be "true believer" syndrome among some evolutionary scientists. However, if they falsified data, or twisted interpretations, they would quickly be shunned, just as creation "scientists" are. The fact of the matter is, no creation scientist has ever published evidence in a peer-reviewed journal (and they've resorted to trickery to try, as well). So they wage a PR campaign instead. PR is not science.
By the way, what are all these "good points" I've heard so much about?
If I understand correctly, the compound would belong to Brigham Young University (a private college). If he recieved government grants, they may be part patent holder on this when it goes through. also, the medication (if and when it would be developed) may be its own patent, with the end producer of the medication liscencing all the component patents. Is my understanding of patent law correct here, or am I mistaken?
Also, a cure would have several economic insentives for ngo's and governmental organizations (UNICEF?) over a treatment. A cure is cheaper than a treatment (presumably) bc it is a one-time, not continual reapplication. Also, a cure is an easier sell, I would think, for a lot of people than a treatment. Finally, a cure is prophylactic in a way that a treatment may not be, so there may be less total patients to treat in order to make progress.
God I hope that this is it. I am tentative but optimistic.
you're talking about 4 watts from each phone max, and the egg could only absorb at most 25% (90 degrees) from each, giving you, at most, 2 watts from 2 phones. The purpose of the radio, I will bet, is to provide maximum inteference so as to force the phone's wattage output to the max. Both phones will communicate to the tower, and there shouldn't be any magical phone interference effect bc cell phones operate on hundreds of channels, and two channels per call, so that what my phone output channel is your phone input channel, and vice versa. i dont think that 2 watts will cook an egg in, er, "three minutes", Emiril.
According to Fromkin and Rodman, (who list English as SVO, Irish as VSO), "the most frequent word orders in languages of the world are SVO, VSO, and SOV" (p. 532). They list more obscure languages as examples of OVS, OSV, and VOS, and I know that somewhere Larry Trask (historical linguist of Basque) lists these types as exceedingly rare.
English is VSO when you ask a question, but the interrogative is a marked case, and the standard sentence form is what the typoligst (linguists who classify languages) would look at first, so it would be more accurate to say that English is a SVO language. As Fromkin and Rodman say, "The correlations between language type and the word order of syntactic categories are preferred word orders, and for the most part are violable tendencies. Different languages follow them to a greater and lesser degree" (p. 533)
Agree with the lay intuition of delayed pain reaction, but your conclusion about what the brains "knows" is absolutely incorrect. Pain afferents are actually distinct from sensory nerves, so there is no issue with someone confusing pain with other sensation. Why some people don't exhibit pain immediately after trauma is bc the brain has descending inputs into pain afferents that can shut pain off before it reaches the brain.
Yes, HM is interesting for psych/cognitive people bc he apparently can exhibit certain proecdural learning and other kinds of highly implicit learning (he can learn to fear certain objects or people just as we can) even if he can declaratively recognize those new objects or people. On a star-tracing task, he gets better and better at it, yet insists that it is the first time he's every done it. It's startling enough of a dissassociation for us to suspect that these different types of memory are quantitiatively, and not just qualitatively distinct.
no correlation, hum? does that mean it has a p-value of +.05? does good grammar--"IQ and SAT has..." "correlate" with intelligence? is the data set parametric? what measurements are we using?
note the repeated usage of "no correlation" without any data whatsoever.
which school of thought? where is this school of thought that thinks IQ and SAT are the end all and be all of genius? where is this strawperson?
yes, we might be moving beyond a single "q" factor for intelligence, but don't you think we should look at the evidence first, rather than asserting the recieved wisdom, which in this of all cases should be questioned?
Slashdot Mirror
I was actually wondering why, if it were just a matter of being a plasma torch, why lightsabers wouldn't interpenetrate instead of clashing with cool sound effects. Does this mean that we should rename them magnetoplasma sabers?
I would not see Apple as being a Monopoly of MP3 players and online music, even with their large market share of these markets. Also, the media content industry is so huge, it would be hard to see how Apple could use such a monoopoly to leverage a much larger industry.
Having read the Dick novel "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep", which "Blade Runner" is based on, and Neuromancer, I have to say that other than they are futuristic sci-fi, they are absolutely nothing alike.
I have no problem with creationism being taught in a philosophy class. I also believe that it is possible some god created everything 100, or 6,000 or so years ago, so that it looked like evolution happened. However, that's not the issue here. The issue is not that creationism is right or wrong, it's that intelligent design isn't science. Intelligent design is unfalsifable, and as such, has no predictive power. Natural selection as put forward by Darwin can be falsified, thus, it is a "theory", which intelligent design is not. Natural selection puts forward that an occasional random mutation enables an organism to outproduce other organisms for that niche, preserving it's DNA and not others. Intelligent design doesn't predict anything (that we could test), but it looks like an explanation. Criticism of the lead theory is not in itself a prediction or explanation. Creation science/intelligent design has never been proposed as an explanation of any phenomenon in a credible, peer-reviewed scientific journal, at least in modern times. I have a real beef, for that matter, with blasphemers who, for instance, take medication, because I can assure you, all of it was tested on foreign animal flesh (god forbid, monkeys), which is of course not the same stuff as our human stuff, other than it does most of the same things and works in most of the same ways. The creationists were very clever to start talking about evolution being "just a theory". It is a theory, but so is Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics explains almost all (but not quite) of what we can experience, but it doesn't constitute absolute truth. However, other than relativity and quantum mechanics, we don't have a contravening theory, of any kind. We haven't reverted to Ptolemic astronomy, even though it seems more common sensical (the sun does look like it turns on the earth, it squares with our intuition for the world to be flat). Common sense isn't an expanation, though Occam's Razor is. Occam's Razor would say that creation science multiplies entities needlessly, as we have a credible explanation that doesn't require an outside agent. Show me evidence, or better yet, a peer reviewed journal article showing these so-called "holes in evolutionary theory". Otherwise, stop your jibber-jabbering arguments from ignorance.
there may be "true believer" syndrome among some evolutionary scientists. However, if they falsified data, or twisted interpretations, they would quickly be shunned, just as creation "scientists" are. The fact of the matter is, no creation scientist has ever published evidence in a peer-reviewed journal (and they've resorted to trickery to try, as well). So they wage a PR campaign instead. PR is not science. By the way, what are all these "good points" I've heard so much about?
If I understand correctly, the compound would belong to Brigham Young University (a private college). If he recieved government grants, they may be part patent holder on this when it goes through. also, the medication (if and when it would be developed) may be its own patent, with the end producer of the medication liscencing all the component patents. Is my understanding of patent law correct here, or am I mistaken? Also, a cure would have several economic insentives for ngo's and governmental organizations (UNICEF?) over a treatment. A cure is cheaper than a treatment (presumably) bc it is a one-time, not continual reapplication. Also, a cure is an easier sell, I would think, for a lot of people than a treatment. Finally, a cure is prophylactic in a way that a treatment may not be, so there may be less total patients to treat in order to make progress. God I hope that this is it. I am tentative but optimistic.
you're talking about 4 watts from each phone max, and the egg could only absorb at most 25% (90 degrees) from each, giving you, at most, 2 watts from 2 phones. The purpose of the radio, I will bet, is to provide maximum inteference so as to force the phone's wattage output to the max. Both phones will communicate to the tower, and there shouldn't be any magical phone interference effect bc cell phones operate on hundreds of channels, and two channels per call, so that what my phone output channel is your phone input channel, and vice versa. i dont think that 2 watts will cook an egg in, er, "three minutes", Emiril.
According to Fromkin and Rodman, (who list English as SVO, Irish as VSO), "the most frequent word orders in languages of the world are SVO, VSO, and SOV" (p. 532). They list more obscure languages as examples of OVS, OSV, and VOS, and I know that somewhere Larry Trask (historical linguist of Basque) lists these types as exceedingly rare. English is VSO when you ask a question, but the interrogative is a marked case, and the standard sentence form is what the typoligst (linguists who classify languages) would look at first, so it would be more accurate to say that English is a SVO language. As Fromkin and Rodman say, "The correlations between language type and the word order of syntactic categories are preferred word orders, and for the most part are violable tendencies. Different languages follow them to a greater and lesser degree" (p. 533)
no nitpicking, but it's "moot"
Agree with the lay intuition of delayed pain reaction, but your conclusion about what the brains "knows" is absolutely incorrect. Pain afferents are actually distinct from sensory nerves, so there is no issue with someone confusing pain with other sensation. Why some people don't exhibit pain immediately after trauma is bc the brain has descending inputs into pain afferents that can shut pain off before it reaches the brain.
Yes, HM is interesting for psych/cognitive people bc he apparently can exhibit certain proecdural learning and other kinds of highly implicit learning (he can learn to fear certain objects or people just as we can) even if he can declaratively recognize those new objects or people. On a star-tracing task, he gets better and better at it, yet insists that it is the first time he's every done it. It's startling enough of a dissassociation for us to suspect that these different types of memory are quantitiatively, and not just qualitatively distinct.
no correlation, hum? does that mean it has a p-value of +.05? does good grammar--"IQ and SAT has..." "correlate" with intelligence? is the data set parametric? what measurements are we using? note the repeated usage of "no correlation" without any data whatsoever. which school of thought? where is this school of thought that thinks IQ and SAT are the end all and be all of genius? where is this strawperson? yes, we might be moving beyond a single "q" factor for intelligence, but don't you think we should look at the evidence first, rather than asserting the recieved wisdom, which in this of all cases should be questioned?