I would like to select both "Novice" and "Good enough to criticize everyone else."
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
RTFSummary. It's a voluntary activation by the driver. If you want to speed deliberately, just don't turn it on.
Opt-in, just the way we want it.
Our 2007 manual Civic won't engage cruise control unless the car is in 4th or 5th. In 4th, you can't drive much slower than about 50kph/30mph, and then only if there's no uphills.
the use of violence and intimidation, intended to cause fear, in the pursuit of political aims. Note the lack of any definition of targets.
Not terrorism: n
Just about every fucking thing that's reported as such by the US media.
The word is misused as much as "literally" these days. So much so that I can't even.
Thanks! Done and done.
Now I can change my gmail "display name" to be something other than my stupid, mandated Google+ name!
The real question, here, is whether or not I'll be able to decouple my gmail from the unused google+ profile that I had to create. I hate that I cannot have my real name on my email without having it spread all over the internet simultaneously.
Jesus Christ, American! You've got guns, and it's not stopping your government from oppressing you.
Pick up some of your goddamn arsenal and do what you keep telling us you're going to do! Put up or shut up!
Probably not. The native habitat for lionfish is the Indo-Pacific oceans. They are not threatened in those locations. They are invasive in the Caribbean especially.
In the Caribbean, they have no natural predators. Additionally, they are voracious eaters, and scarf up hundreds of immature reef fish each day. The quantity of native reef fish has dropped precipitously in the Caribbean due to invasive lionfish. Being able to _actually_ eliminate them from the Caribbean would be a fantastic coup, and allow the reefs to regenerate back to something of their former glory.
As a side note, though, how many people actually pay attention to what the extremists in Greenpeace tell them to do? Have you stopped driving your car? Eating beef? Shut down your nuclear power plants?
20TB of music and movies? How many of those could be downloaded again tomorrow? My guess is "most." The only thing that's really "mine" on my computers, and not backed up, is my own pictures. I upload those to image sharing sites on the internet. Most docs are done on Google Docs for portability reasons, and other things I've created are already on Dropbox.
I experienced a catastrophic hard drive failure a year or so ago. After replacing the hard drive, and about one day of downloading and installing the programs I needed, I was up and running again. It took 24 hours to download enough of the series that I was watching to pick up where I left off again. And if I ever get a hankering for watching something I've seen before, well, I can get it from the internet again in a matter of hours or days.
"Your car requires a mandatory update. This update will take 1h 16m, and must be installed within 7 days. Please click "OK" to install this update now. Click "DELAY" to defer the update to a later time. Note that after 7 days, the update will install automatically, with no further opportunities for you to delay it."
Would you guys contest that "light is transmitted by fluctuations in the ether" is a scientific theory? It was believed by many scientists, and for a long time. The answer to the question posed in the survey depends not just on the definition of "astrology," but also on the definition of "scientific."
One of the things that I keep parroting to the creationist crowd is that a scientific theory must explain past events, and predict future events in a way that is testable. Nothing in here says that it has to be true. In fact, many theories that we now use are expressly not true at certain limits. Nope - explanation of past events, and prediction of future events in a testable manner. Those are the qualifications.
So let's apply this to astrology. Does it explain past events? Well, it certainly tries to. Does it predict future events? Check. Does it predict future events in a manner that is testable and falsifiable? I think that a controlled experiment would certainly do so. The controlled experiment would fail, and that would prove the theory of astrology false, but that doesn't make it "not a scientific theory."
Given that logic, I'd have to answer "sort of scientific" to this question. But if I were asked "do you believe that the position of stars and planets govern our day to day lives," that would get a resounding "no."
I don't understand this kind of argument. What would have happened when automobiles were first invented if someone said:
Show me a car that can reproduce by itself, and only needs to be fuelled with grass that I grow on my own fields for free, and then maybe we'll talk.
An electric car does not need to match all of the performance specifications of a gasoline-powered car. All it has to do is meet the needs of the consumers. And if you sat down and thought about it, you probably don't _need_ the things you listed. Those are specifications derived from your actual requirements, under the assumption that a car is gasoline-powered.
For two things only:
-E opens up the file browser (aka windows explorer)
-R opens up the "run" dialog box, so I can launch calc, or cmd, or mspaint (useful when snapping and cropping screenshots) without navigating through six layers of menus
Abiogenesis is the proper term for the beginnings of life. The scientific theory of evolution does not apply there at all. Abiogenesis is a completely different field of study than evolution.
As far a species to species evolution (what I would call "speciation", rather than "macro-evolution") _has_ been observed in laboratory conditions and in the field. And even more than that, the scientific theory of evolution predicts that it would happen.
What's that, you say? A scientific theory made a prediction, and that prediction was found to be true? Damn.
And not only does the theory of evolution make predictions about future speciation events, it makes predictions about those that happened in the past as well. There has not been a single case of transitional fossils found that contradicts the theory of evolution.
Please take your tired, ad-hominem rhetoric home.
Scientific Theory: Something that describes the current state of the world in a way that makes testable predictions about the future. Useful in furthering our knowledge. Should be taught in science classes.
Colloquial "Theory": Any explanation that potentially describes the current state of the world. Not testable. Makes no predictions about the future. Potentially useful in exploring moral or ethical quandaries. Should be taught in philosophy classes.
Please learn the difference. Teach creationism if you want, I don't give a rat's ass. But don't teach it in a science classroom. It is not science. It never will be science.