"I find your lack of behaviour disturbing"
"I am your father"
"That was before you misbehaved, now I am altering the deal...pray I do not alter it any further."
"I hope so for your sake, your mother is not as forgiving as I am”
I'm thinking this is also about what we consider "alike" or "the same"
Sort of but I'm thinking that it is more about the process vs. result. Convergent evolution is about the end results: there appear to be only a certain number of basic eye designs which work and so evolution tends to converge on one of these solutions no matter where it starts. This result is talking about the fact that given the same starting point and the same environment identical organisms will evolve in the same way i.e. there are not just stable solutions which you arrive at but stable paths along which you travel to get there.
Anyway this is definitely the most interesting bioscience result I've seen in a while so I'll have to quiz my biological colleagues about it when I get the chance!
Throttling netflix at the peer reduces load on those trunks without affecting other services.
I understood that, or at least guessed that this was the reason. However when you are restricting the connection like that yourself you cannot go and claim that it is the fault of the other party. Either you need to admit that the limiting factor is your own internal network or you need to spend some of the large amount of cash that is flowing in from your subscribers to upgrade that network to handle it instead of using it to see whether you can break the record for executive bonuses.
Here in Australia, we are part of Asia.
I'm in no way condoning the OP since I have no idea of the problems Australia faces but your rebuttal argument here is a primary school level one. The bad behaviour of a government in an adjacent continent (geographically Australia is not part of Asia, it's a continent by itself) does not give every nearby government a license to misbehave and even if it did Europe is also adjacent to Asia and by your logic is in the same situation. Besides if you are going to pick an Asian government to compare yourself to why not North Korea? Using your argument this would suggest it is ok to use famine as a carbon reduction strategy.
The moral of this is that if you are going to make an unpopular decision for reasons that you believe are important stand up and be honest about your reasoning. People might disagree but at least we can have an honest debate about the real points. Indeed I thought that open and frank speaking was a well known and widely admired Australian trait?
They are not "wrong" at all, since that concept doesn't apply.
Yes they are wrong and it is easy to prove: just accelerate an electron to a high speed and the prediction of Newton will vary widely from that of Einstein. Hence Newton's laws are wrong as a fundamental model of the universe. As you say the aim of science is to come up with a mathematical model that predicts the behaviour of a system and under those precise criteria Newton is wrong and his model was most definitely proven wrong.
Scientific laws are never right or wrong. That implies an absolute truth.
The absolute truth that scientific laws are trying to describe is "what will happen if we do X". In this sense they absolutely can be wrong. Newton's laws most definitely DO NOT work 100% even in the realm to which they are applied. They work 99.99...% which is usually "good enough" for most things but not always e.g. GR corrections to GPS satellite clocks, police radar guns etc.
However if you used relativity it would always be right for any situation we have managed to encounter or create. The only reason not to do so is that the maths is more complex hence we use laws we know to be wrong as approximations to our best understanding of the truth. Indeed we do this a lot in physics the only difference is that at one point we did not realize that Newton's laws were an approximation.
Ultimately it remains to be seen whether any scientific law we come up with can actually be "right" and I suspect that we will never really know even if we do come up with a perfect model to describe the universe. But we definitely can know when we come up with a wrong one.
8 galaxies and 255 stars aren't so impressive if you consider it was generated by procedural generation.
Except that at the time almost nobody was doing this and they actually used the built in BBC Micro random number generator which is why it took so long to get the game ported to other platforms!
What was really impressive was one of the sequels, Frontier: Elite. This game was really ahead of its time, as it contained not just star systems, but real planets you could land on, seamlessly, with cities, some vegetation, atmosphere, clouds...
Who's the best game programmer?
Easy: Braben and Bell who wrote 'Elite'. This game was so far ahead of its time it was simply unbelievable. It was one of (if not the) first true 3D game and contained 8 galaxies of 255 stars on a machine with 32kB of memory. It also introduced true "sandbox" gameplay. It might not stand up to today's standards and the sequels, while great games, were nowhere near as revolutionary, although it remains to be seen how Elite: Dangerous turns out - I have my fingers crossed!
So, no matter how you spin it, there is no way that you can deny that they were true Elite programmers!
Einstein and Edison were school dropouts.
I have no clue which alternate reality you have come from but in this one Einstein was most definitely NOT a school dropout, for details see Wikipedia. The worst that can be said about his education is that he initially failed to meet the required standard in the general entrance exam for the Zurich Polytechnic (although he excelled in the physics and maths portion) and had to go to a secondary school elsewhere for a few years before being admitted (at the age of 17) to the Polytechnic where he graduated with a maths and physics teaching diploma.
Lisp Users: Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.