Evolution is a theory which happens to be supported by evidence. Nobody practicing the scientific method would claim to "believe in" evolution - they very well might say that it is the hypothesis that best fits the facts, but none of them would accept it as fact.
Robert F. Kennedy pronounced grandiose space exploration plans without any idea how to accomplish them? That's a pretty weird thing for an Attorney General to do.
Did you ever hear of genetic algorithms? They are based exactly on this "misconception" and are commonly used in technology to correctly solve problems and create artifacts of lasting value.
That is a fatally flawed analogy. Genetic algorithms are either "creative" in nature - in which case the value of their product is entirely subjective - or they are analytical, in which case a set of concrete criteria and/or metrics for success must exist before the system can even be written. The Wikipedia process is neither of these, since it isn't intended to be creative and generate new information, nor does the system measure its own accuracy vis-a-vis and verified, trusted factual source for the topics covered within. And even if it can be fairly compared to a genetic algorithm, it has a nasty tendency to fall into local minima (i.e. popular yet misguided memes sneaking in as fact), and it is not very resistent to noise.
AMD and ATI to ask shareholders for merger approval
By Gary Niger: Friday 21 July 2006, 13:53
ACCORDING to an extraordinarily reliable source, AMD and ATI will on Monday pitch their shareholders with the proposition that the two companies merge.
It's an interesting idea - AMD doesn't quite have the shekels in the bank to buy ATI outright. The deal, subject to shareholder approval, may still founder.
If the deal goes through, Nvidia and its SNAP partnership with AMD will definitely be reconsidered and Nvidia will all of a sudden become a super underdog compared to the new juggernaut. It may also stop the endless bickering between ATI and Nvidia that's entertained the world+dog for some years now.
AMD will be glad to get its hands on ATI's very profitable handheld division. The firm needs good chipsets and will also benefit from a great consumer digital chip segment. It will also like the integrated graphics business and will now get a piece of this action.
Why was this modded troll? Ask any sysop, or anyone who runs a server. My SSH logs were packed with root attempts from Asian subnets, until I blocked the entire region. Hack attempts dropped to almost nothing.
You haven't provided any observable facts, merely your repeated assertion that "redneck isn't racist." So here's your big chance: find me a [i]single instance[/i] in the mainstream media where anyone non-white is referred to as a "redneck." Because, of course, if "redneck" doesn't apply exclusively to white people, as you claim, then we should find all kinds of ethnicities described with that word, right?
A racial epithet is a term used to describe an ethnic category with a negative connotation. Hence both "redneck" and "nigger" are racial epithets. I doubt you would have used the word "redneck" in your original post were this not the case. Yet you seem to want to arbitrarily label one word as racist and not the other - apparently because it suits your argument.
But whatever you do, don't criticize the government in your blog, say anything that someone else might find "hateful," question the historical details of the Holocaust, or commit any other anti-Canadian thought crimes. Then you'll wind up in prison.
Okay, getting off topic here, but is it absolutely necessary to dilute the definition of terrorism to "something that's bad?" Terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." War is a state of armed conflict, generally to achieve a political objective. There's a difference, so let's not sling the word "terrorism" around just because it sounds dramatic.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, it took only one post for someone to take a story about Korea and turn it into an anti-American rant! Well done, Slashdot.
Evolution is a theory which happens to be supported by evidence. Nobody practicing the scientific method would claim to "believe in" evolution - they very well might say that it is the hypothesis that best fits the facts, but none of them would accept it as fact.
Isn't that like "Jews for Jesus," "Rock Against Drugs," or "McDonald's New Healthy Menu?"
The top-of-the-line ThinkPads weren't made in China then, nor are they now.
Robert F. Kennedy pronounced grandiose space exploration plans without any idea how to accomplish them? That's a pretty weird thing for an Attorney General to do.
These guys sound like NASA.
To be fair, NASA doesn't pronounce grandiose plans without any idea of how to accomplish them. That's more of a George Bush thing.
Did you ever hear of genetic algorithms? They are based exactly on this "misconception" and are commonly used in technology to correctly solve problems and create artifacts of lasting value.
That is a fatally flawed analogy. Genetic algorithms are either "creative" in nature - in which case the value of their product is entirely subjective - or they are analytical, in which case a set of concrete criteria and/or metrics for success must exist before the system can even be written. The Wikipedia process is neither of these, since it isn't intended to be creative and generate new information, nor does the system measure its own accuracy vis-a-vis and verified, trusted factual source for the topics covered within. And even if it can be fairly compared to a genetic algorithm, it has a nasty tendency to fall into local minima (i.e. popular yet misguided memes sneaking in as fact), and it is not very resistent to noise.
See, posts like this are why we need a "-1, Wrong" mod option.
... except Israel hasn't left the occupied territories.
Well, breaking about two weeks after Slate had an article on it.
If Tang had been developed by NASA, it would serve as a powerful argument against space exploration.
AMD and ATI to ask shareholders for merger approval
By Gary Niger: Friday 21 July 2006, 13:53
ACCORDING to an extraordinarily reliable source, AMD and ATI will on Monday pitch their shareholders with the proposition that the two companies merge.
It's an interesting idea - AMD doesn't quite have the shekels in the bank to buy ATI outright. The deal, subject to shareholder approval, may still founder.
If the deal goes through, Nvidia and its SNAP partnership with AMD will definitely be reconsidered and Nvidia will all of a sudden become a super underdog compared to the new juggernaut. It may also stop the endless bickering between ATI and Nvidia that's entertained the world+dog for some years now.
AMD will be glad to get its hands on ATI's very profitable handheld division. The firm needs good chipsets and will also benefit from a great consumer digital chip segment. It will also like the integrated graphics business and will now get a piece of this action.
Why was this modded troll? Ask any sysop, or anyone who runs a server. My SSH logs were packed with root attempts from Asian subnets, until I blocked the entire region. Hack attempts dropped to almost nothing.
Not all Westerners speak English, nor do all the Westerners who speak English speak it very well.
Still, though, your suspicions about the poster are probably correct.
The argument is whether "redneck" is a racist term - and by pointing out that "all rednecks are whites," you have conceded my point.
You haven't provided any observable facts, merely your repeated assertion that "redneck isn't racist." So here's your big chance: find me a [i]single instance[/i] in the mainstream media where anyone non-white is referred to as a "redneck." Because, of course, if "redneck" doesn't apply exclusively to white people, as you claim, then we should find all kinds of ethnicities described with that word, right?
Go ahead, I'll give you plenty of time.
His point is that "redneck" is only loosly connected to white people
So the term is only loosely racist, then? That's reassuring.
A racial epithet is a term used to describe an ethnic category with a negative connotation. Hence both "redneck" and "nigger" are racial epithets. I doubt you would have used the word "redneck" in your original post were this not the case. Yet you seem to want to arbitrarily label one word as racist and not the other - apparently because it suits your argument.
And yet, I find it extremely unlikely you'd make the same statement with the word "redneck" replaced by "nigger."
I suggest you think about that a bit.
So as long as I don't infringe on the rights of a group, it's okay to use racial epithets to describe them? That's a novel perspective.
"Redneck" is a racially linked epithet used to describe southern or rural white people. It is a stereotype, and it is by definition racist.
Not unless you believe that "Shock and Awe" was designed to somehow coerce the civilian populatiuon of Iraq, which it was not.
But whatever you do, don't criticize the government in your blog, say anything that someone else might find "hateful," question the historical details of the Holocaust, or commit any other anti-Canadian thought crimes. Then you'll wind up in prison.
Okay, getting off topic here, but is it absolutely necessary to dilute the definition of terrorism to "something that's bad?" Terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." War is a state of armed conflict, generally to achieve a political objective. There's a difference, so let's not sling the word "terrorism" around just because it sounds dramatic.
I guess your distaste for racism isn't enough to stop you from using terms like "redneck."