Here we go:
http://linuxshop.ru/linuxbegin/win-lin-soft-en/table.shtml
That list will tell you what to get. The RPM finder site I posted a link for will let you find the packages.
Why not have a look instead of hoping one of the few people who read this thread will happen to know?
RPMs are (essentially) the Linux equivalent of an installation pack under Windows.
There's a big list of Windows and equivalent Linux packages somewhere - I will dig it out for you.
I presume by "physical energy" he means some sort of dynamo arrangement (although I have no idea what "kickstarting a battery" might involve), in which case isn't he taking energy from outside the system?
I used the term "non sequitur" in the correct fashion, and the correct context, in common with the intended use of the term in modern English.
If you don't like it, it's your problem.
See above.
It can be considered a noun. That has nothing to do with how it is apllied to an argument.
That's up to you.
How do you define "over-use"? Unless it's something along the lines of "using the correct terms to describe something", then you probably are the only one.
It's in the nature of members in a science and debate community to identify such problems with proposals and arguments. The reason straw man and tautology come up so much is because they are used that much. Non sequitur quite literally is one of the most common occurences in cause-and-effect discussions.
It's not the same point at all. Creationism is not a passive transfer of information; it's an active attempt to "prove" A by refuting B, which is non sequitur logic. Creationism removes freedom of choice and also defeats the purpose of faith.
Quite (well, with the exception that creationism goes beyond "telling people a story".)
Or to point out that:
1) Most of the factors have incorrect probabilities,
2) Most of the factors are irrelevant,
3) The factors that are relevant are for a planet that is IDENTICAL to Earth in virtually every way, and not an "Earth-like" planet.
That calc is wishful thinking.
Not really - if people want to believe in Genesis, they will do regardless of anything else. It's more for people who wish to believe that religious stories must exclude any other possibility.
What the modern advocates of creationism are trying to do is show that nothing science says can apply, because of their interpretations of a particular bit of text they like and the avoidance of any other. This is a non-sustainable movement.
What's the reasoning for that number? (I am not signing up to that site, no way.)
He must realise that is a horribly, horribly biased source for ANY kind of information.
It's more unscientific of him to unilaterally rule it out tbh, particularly if his reasoning only involves derivations of religious texts.
Knowledge.com has an excellent database of resources.
Does it need to be total vacuum (insofar as that's possible in engineering)?
Why a cube?
I ask because a cube is not a very strong shape when you evacuate it.
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.