Good god, that means it's as reliable as my sex life. Like with REAL people, rather than me just ummm... actually... no, that's fine. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
Aside from a creationist perspective, you need some kind of abiogenic beginning, and this research helps us understand how this might take place.
In case you missed the posts farther down, I did finally get him to acknowledge that his "theory" is that God did it. The most amusing part is that he goes on to complain that there's no objective proof against his claim.
No. I'm saying Redi and Pasteur have already proven that life does not spontaneously generate.
Then where did the first living organism come from? They only demonstrated (remember that scientists don't prove anything, only mathematicians do that) that insects, specifically flies in the case of Pasteur, if I remember correctly, don't spontaneously grow from dead meat. Before Pasteur, bacteria and viruses were practically unknown, never mind the biochemistry behind them.
Apparently they can't be bothered to pick up a textbook and learn that Redi and Pasteur proved it doesn't work like that a couple hundred years ago.
It's call the law of biogenesis.
Stop spending tax dollars trying to prove your Theory when there is already a scientific law disproving it.
If you want to spend your own money on it fine, just stop spending mine on your junk 'science.'
Would you mind stating what "it" you're referring to? Are you trying to say that it's physically impossible for glycine to form outside of a living organism?
Even if they could get through all that mess, how could they prove I actually attended the game?
I dunno, by seeing you there? In theory, SEC officials would be watching the crowd at the stadium, not following Twitter trying to figure out which one of the 100,000 people in the stadium is "hugefan123". It's a pretty absurd policy, but proving that you're at the game is probably the easiest part of the whole thing.
I mention this all the time I hear the disclaimer that I'm not legally allowed to disseminate any accounting of the game.
So fans can't discuss games? Is the NFL going to sue bloggers?
I always interpreted that disclaimer as "these accounts, etc." In other words, you're not allowed to retransmit the broadcast or post transcripts, which is a perfectly valid application of copyright law. Whether or not that's how the leagues want it to be, and whether or not a court would agree with them, I have no idea.
And my question is, what are you going to do when the people making those decision are the government, so there is no longer anybody to turn to to challenge their decisions?
In theory, there is somebody to challenge government decisions, and they're called voters. Of course, in theory, the free market solves everything...
From a certain perspective, it makes sense though. There's a limit to how many wires you can run in to everyone's homes. Having a different company close off and/or tear up your street every month to place new wires isn't feasible either. Because of these limitations, it's pretty much impossible to have anything close to a free market in telecommunications service. Whether or not governments handled it well in the first place is definitely debatable, but like other infrastructure elements such as roads and sewers, a certain amount of government control is the only reasonable outcome.
Do you judge liberalism by the likes of Michael Moore? No? Then why judge conservatism by the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh?
I'm pretty sure that was the point. If you judge a group by the loud and obnoxious extremists, you greatly mischaracterize the majority of the group. Not all conservatives or Republicans are insane or drug-addled, and not all liberals or Democrats are annoying, whiny asshats.
if you run across Joe Sixpack and he identifies himself as a Republican, ask him what he thinks about "government regulation".
Then ask him why he thinks what he does. See if he has an answer other than "because Fox News says so".
Of course, it should also be noted that there are plenty of Democrats whose only reason would be "because Republicans are evil". Blind allegiance without rational thought is in no way monopolized by any one group.
How much public transportation would $20 billion have bought? Or, if you prefer, how much MBTA and/or Massport expansion would $20 billion have bought (since I'm sure it'd be just a bit less)? I'm lucky to live right on one of the bus routes that goes to Alewife if I ever have to go into Boston during the day. A few extra bus and commuter rail lines to the suburbs might help if you can convince enough Massholes to give up their daily GTA reenactments.
Gee....I wonder how the US government got along before there was an IRS.
By having a group with a different name do the same thing? You think there was some legendary time when the government magically operated without collecting taxes?
A patent troll with a PoC is still a patent troll.
I've always thought that not actually creating and/or selling any products that use the patents your company owns was part of the definition of patent troll.
According to dictionary.com, the only definition that says "natural consequence of" is from a medical dictionary. The normal English definition is existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute. One of the definitions even lists "intrinsic" as a synonym.
However, we're still unable to detect Earth-size planets in other star systems, as most of the planets we've detected are Jupiter-sized or more, but they are detecting progressively smaller planets.
You're a bit behind on that. Planets that are well within one order of magnitude of the size of Earth have been discovered. This one may be less than twice the size of Earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Good god, that means it's as reliable as my sex life. Like with REAL people, rather than me just ummm... actually... no, that's fine. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
What kind of uptime are you getting?
NAT is a bona fide security feature, not just a consequence of having a LAN.
What security does it provide that a REJECT ALL firewall rule wouldn't?
Aside from a creationist perspective, you need some kind of abiogenic beginning, and this research helps us understand how this might take place.
In case you missed the posts farther down, I did finally get him to acknowledge that his "theory" is that God did it. The most amusing part is that he goes on to complain that there's no objective proof against his claim.
My answer is the evidence shows God did it.
Wow. Just wow.
So your answer is "God did it." Thanks for the clarification.
No. I'm saying Redi and Pasteur have already proven that life does not spontaneously generate.
Then where did the first living organism come from? They only demonstrated (remember that scientists don't prove anything, only mathematicians do that) that insects, specifically flies in the case of Pasteur, if I remember correctly, don't spontaneously grow from dead meat. Before Pasteur, bacteria and viruses were practically unknown, never mind the biochemistry behind them.
That's true, but is this really being added to criminal law, or are they just increasing the allowed awards/punishments in civil suits?
Seriously...
Apparently they can't be bothered to pick up a textbook and learn that Redi and Pasteur proved it doesn't work like that a couple hundred years ago. It's call the law of biogenesis. Stop spending tax dollars trying to prove your Theory when there is already a scientific law disproving it. If you want to spend your own money on it fine, just stop spending mine on your junk 'science.'
Would you mind stating what "it" you're referring to? Are you trying to say that it's physically impossible for glycine to form outside of a living organism?
The posts near the beginning about "5 GB is bigger than my entire mp3 collection anyway" are particularly amusing.
Even if they could get through all that mess, how could they prove I actually attended the game?
I dunno, by seeing you there? In theory, SEC officials would be watching the crowd at the stadium, not following Twitter trying to figure out which one of the 100,000 people in the stadium is "hugefan123". It's a pretty absurd policy, but proving that you're at the game is probably the easiest part of the whole thing.
I mention this all the time I hear the disclaimer that I'm not legally allowed to disseminate any accounting of the game.
So fans can't discuss games? Is the NFL going to sue bloggers?
I always interpreted that disclaimer as "these accounts, etc." In other words, you're not allowed to retransmit the broadcast or post transcripts, which is a perfectly valid application of copyright law. Whether or not that's how the leagues want it to be, and whether or not a court would agree with them, I have no idea.
And my question is, what are you going to do when the people making those decision are the government, so there is no longer anybody to turn to to challenge their decisions?
In theory, there is somebody to challenge government decisions, and they're called voters. Of course, in theory, the free market solves everything...
From a certain perspective, it makes sense though. There's a limit to how many wires you can run in to everyone's homes. Having a different company close off and/or tear up your street every month to place new wires isn't feasible either. Because of these limitations, it's pretty much impossible to have anything close to a free market in telecommunications service. Whether or not governments handled it well in the first place is definitely debatable, but like other infrastructure elements such as roads and sewers, a certain amount of government control is the only reasonable outcome.
take medicine knowing it's been inspected by the FDA
I'm pretty sure Limbaugh is quite appreciative of the FDA.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Do you judge liberalism by the likes of Michael Moore? No? Then why judge conservatism by the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh?
I'm pretty sure that was the point. If you judge a group by the loud and obnoxious extremists, you greatly mischaracterize the majority of the group. Not all conservatives or Republicans are insane or drug-addled, and not all liberals or Democrats are annoying, whiny asshats.
if you run across Joe Sixpack and he identifies himself as a Republican, ask him what he thinks about "government regulation".
Then ask him why he thinks what he does. See if he has an answer other than "because Fox News says so".
Of course, it should also be noted that there are plenty of Democrats whose only reason would be "because Republicans are evil". Blind allegiance without rational thought is in no way monopolized by any one group.
How much public transportation would $20 billion have bought? Or, if you prefer, how much MBTA and/or Massport expansion would $20 billion have bought (since I'm sure it'd be just a bit less)? I'm lucky to live right on one of the bus routes that goes to Alewife if I ever have to go into Boston during the day. A few extra bus and commuter rail lines to the suburbs might help if you can convince enough Massholes to give up their daily GTA reenactments.
The Big Dig numbers you quote are rather distorted by inflation and included interest costs.
I think the fact that you have to adjust for inflation is a good indication that something went wrong.
Comcast's management also has other things in common with squirrels.
They always have nuts in their mouths?
Gee....I wonder how the US government got along before there was an IRS.
By having a group with a different name do the same thing? You think there was some legendary time when the government magically operated without collecting taxes?
A patent troll with a PoC is still a patent troll.
I've always thought that not actually creating and/or selling any products that use the patents your company owns was part of the definition of patent troll.
Yeah, whatever. His spelling and attention span are way too good to be Slashdot editors.
However, current attempts to make a Punch To The Face look like a Hug From A Friend or Sex With A Girl have been unsuccessful.
It's not like anyone here would know how to ACK those connection attempts anyway.
According to dictionary.com, the only definition that says "natural consequence of" is from a medical dictionary. The normal English definition is existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute. One of the definitions even lists "intrinsic" as a synonym.
However, we're still unable to detect Earth-size planets in other star systems, as most of the planets we've detected are Jupiter-sized or more, but they are detecting progressively smaller planets.
You're a bit behind on that. Planets that are well within one order of magnitude of the size of Earth have been discovered. This one may be less than twice the size of Earth.