This principle is complemented by its cousin, the "Change" principle. Which states that if something changes, we change our views accordingly.
In other words - if suddenly magic starts working, scientists will study it, deduce its laws, and start using it regularly. But so far it doesn't work.
Evolution is observable. It is not instantaneous, but its results can be made evident in years. It can certainly be observed without relying on "experts".
Here are some observations:
= Genetics =
a) We know that genes exist. We have lots of indirect evidence about them - but if you don't have a powerful enough microscope, you still can tell that children usually "carry on" characteristics from their parents, from the color of their skin to the shape of their nose.
b) We also know that mutations exist. A couple of perfectly "normal" parents can get an "anomalous" offspring just by chance. Usually this ends up badly - genetic illnesses, etc. Often mutations have no consequence, since they happen in "garbage genes" (genes that we don't use in any way). But every once in a while a mutation is "beneficial" in some way - for example, a plant might just happen to be more resilient to certain bug than their parents, by chance.
= Natural selection =
c) We know that artificial selection exists. It's done routinely by farmers, who chose the cows that grow the most meat to procreate, or the fastest horses, if they are into racing. Or the gardeners who picks the prettiest roses, and so on.
d) We also know that natural selection exists. We know that the strongest lions have children, but the weaker ones don't. And this pattern repeats with all animals. The ones with the best chance of getting offspring, are the ones that (usually) do. We know nature does c), by choosing the best candidates available for breeding, just like a gardener.
= The age of Earth =
e) We know for a fact that geological processes happen terribly slowly for our scale of time, exceptions made for volcanoes and earthquakes. If you have ever built a sand castle in the beach, and it was destroyed by the sea, you have just witnessed erosion - at high speed. If the coast you were at happened to have cliffs, you probably saw how the water was doing the same thing to it - only a tad more slowly. If you went back to the same cliff after some years, and compared pictures from when you were a child, you can probably see that a big boulder here and there has moved maybe half a meter, and that's it.
f) We know that the Earth is *ancient*. Again, there is plenty of indirect evidence, but if you don't want to "trust the experts", just drive to a hilly region. You have probably seen the wavy patterns of the strata in the rock do when driving along a road carved through a mountain. Have you noticed how "wavy" they are? Rocks are rigid - if you apply pressure to them, they break. Taking into account e), How many years do you think it took to curve them like that?
= Conclusion =
Science never says "this is how the world works". It says "according to what we know until now, this is the most reasonable explanation". And so far, given b), d) and f), evolution is the most reasonable explanation.
The article uses local expressions every time it mentions the *bad thing that happened*.
If I'm reading it correctly, it seems the problem is that they "took a policeman to lunch". Does this mean that they literally invited him to eat in a restaurant? Am I understanding it right?
If that's the case, why is it newsworthy? Is it not legal to have lunch with people? And even if it's not legal - How much does a single meal cost in the UK? Are we arguing about 30 pounds?
Semicolons are never on the next line. I don't know where you get that idea from. Maybe you are referring to the opening bracket (see my comment below). But even in that case, it's not a case of "the program meaning two different things" (as it happens in Javascript in certain cases). It's a case of "the program will not compile if you don't put the opening bracket in the same line".
> A long period of Community service and a requirement to do a meaningful race relations awareness course and, perhaps, a ban from social networks and alcohol would have been more than sufficient.
No, because in the UK, young people doing community service get super powers.
Slashdot Mirror
That is not a *release*. That's a *release candidate*. That's what RC mean.
No, it was and still is the interface.
You want to install QuickTime? Well, install iTunes and safari too!
At least, that's how it used to be, back when I cared about windows.
I'd be pretty happy with just the boots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd1m5_n9P9w
That's how you spell "Troll" in Elvish.
I don't think elves had a word for "patent".
> Can you give me a case where an interrogation would be required?
Internet Explorer 6.
They did IE6. They deserve everything.
In Spain, we already have enough beaches. What we need is more industries.
"Creationism, since it's one of the tenets of Christianity"
Nope.
"There's no reason they won't change."
Of course. It's called the "It Works" Principle.
This principle is complemented by its cousin, the "Change" principle. Which states that if something changes, we change our views accordingly.
In other words - if suddenly magic starts working, scientists will study it, deduce its laws, and start using it regularly. But so far it doesn't work.
Evolution is observable. It is not instantaneous, but its results can be made evident in years. It can certainly be observed without relying on "experts".
Here are some observations:
= Genetics =
a) We know that genes exist. We have lots of indirect evidence about them - but if you don't have a powerful enough microscope, you still can tell that children usually "carry on" characteristics from their parents, from the color of their skin to the shape of their nose.
b) We also know that mutations exist. A couple of perfectly "normal" parents can get an "anomalous" offspring just by chance. Usually this ends up badly - genetic illnesses, etc. Often mutations have no consequence, since they happen in "garbage genes" (genes that we don't use in any way). But every once in a while a mutation is "beneficial" in some way - for example, a plant might just happen to be more resilient to certain bug than their parents, by chance.
= Natural selection =
c) We know that artificial selection exists. It's done routinely by farmers, who chose the cows that grow the most meat to procreate, or the fastest horses, if they are into racing. Or the gardeners who picks the prettiest roses, and so on.
d) We also know that natural selection exists. We know that the strongest lions have children, but the weaker ones don't. And this pattern repeats with all animals. The ones with the best chance of getting offspring, are the ones that (usually) do. We know nature does c), by choosing the best candidates available for breeding, just like a gardener.
= The age of Earth =
e) We know for a fact that geological processes happen terribly slowly for our scale of time, exceptions made for volcanoes and earthquakes. If you have ever built a sand castle in the beach, and it was destroyed by the sea, you have just witnessed erosion - at high speed. If the coast you were at happened to have cliffs, you probably saw how the water was doing the same thing to it - only a tad more slowly. If you went back to the same cliff after some years, and compared pictures from when you were a child, you can probably see that a big boulder here and there has moved maybe half a meter, and that's it.
f) We know that the Earth is *ancient*. Again, there is plenty of indirect evidence, but if you don't want to "trust the experts", just drive to a hilly region. You have probably seen the wavy patterns of the strata in the rock do when driving along a road carved through a mountain. Have you noticed how "wavy" they are? Rocks are rigid - if you apply pressure to them, they break. Taking into account e), How many years do you think it took to curve them like that?
= Conclusion =
Science never says "this is how the world works". It says "according to what we know until now, this is the most reasonable explanation". And so far, given b), d) and f), evolution is the most reasonable explanation.
"Jesus is central to Christianity. Christ IS Christianity."
In theory.
That's as true as saying that Star Trek is just a long story about people in pajamas.
Kickstart it.
That's what all the cool dudes are doing.
Oh, that's a bit different. I thought that it was a random police officer.
The article uses local expressions every time it mentions the *bad thing that happened*.
If I'm reading it correctly, it seems the problem is that they "took a policeman to lunch". Does this mean that they literally invited him to eat in a restaurant? Am I understanding it right?
If that's the case, why is it newsworthy? Is it not legal to have lunch with people? And even if it's not legal - How much does a single meal cost in the UK? Are we arguing about 30 pounds?
Lisp has only two parentheses: the opening one and the closing one.
In 1995, mobile phones were expensive and clunky bricks used only by a minority.
Now ... well, the figure above is pretty much meaningless if it doesn't include them.
The backup gem( https://github.com/meskyanichi/backup ) + an dedicated server + some cron processes.
Semicolons are never on the next line. I don't know where you get that idea from. Maybe you are referring to the opening bracket (see my comment below). But even in that case, it's not a case of "the program meaning two different things" (as it happens in Javascript in certain cases). It's a case of "the program will not compile if you don't put the opening bracket in the same line".
I don't understand. What do you mean by "putting login in the Case"? And what do other languages have to do with this?
You will probably be a lot more comfortable using a switch statement. I think they are more idiomatic than if - elseif -elses:
switch {
case a==b:
f1()
case c==d:
f2()
default:
f3()
}
> That the meaning of the statement(s) change if the semicolon is on a new-line or on the same line.
I don't know what you mean. In Go, semicolons are clearly stated *not* supposed to be used to end lines. There is no ambiguity there.
It forces you to write the opening { on the same line. You can't write code like this:
foo(blah blah blah)
{
other foos
}
You *have* to write it like this:
foo(blah blah blah) {
other foos
}
For the record, I see this as an advantage, not an issue. But other people differ.
> A long period of Community service and a requirement to do a meaningful race relations awareness course and, perhaps, a ban from social networks and alcohol would have been more than sufficient.
No, because in the UK, young people doing community service get super powers.