Slashdot Mirror

Your histrionics don't work well as a persuasive tactic.

Your lack of research is showing, as well.

Okay, so that get's about half of them (the male offenders). What's your plan to deal with the other half (female offenders)?

Your histrionics don't work well as a persuasive tactic.

Your lack of research is showing, as well.

Chemical and physical castration will not stop sex offenders

Why in Sam Hill did you bother posting?

http://www.anthropocenemagazin...

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/0...

https://uanews.arizona.edu/sto...

Unfortunately climate change does not work "gradually over hundreds of years".

We're talking about sea level rise, not climate change. Sea level rise necessarily is slow and gradual.

We in NY/NJ getting hit with hurricanes the likes of which we have not been seen before. Prime real estate at ocean front either got swept away and what is left of it lost all value. Even in my far from ocean town the houses close to river cannot be sold any longer.

The only reason "ocean front real estate" is "prime" is because of massive government subsidies. Prior to those, people avoided the ocean front because they would be regularly subject to storms and other natural disasters.

It's interesting what straws you people grasp at to justify your crony capitalism.

A large number of technological methods have bias ( https://cals.arizona.edu/class... ) and the facial recognition algorithms are usually machine learning I believe, they can indeed have quite a bit of bias built in. This bias can be created by the developers not training the system with properly balanced data, which is a technological issue. That bias can be due to actual bias in the world (as you mention) so here the model is right, it is just reflecting real world bias. Understanding the cause is very important.

Machine learning bias: https://towardsdatascience.com...

Children of Rhesus negative mothers and Rhesus positive fathers will be Rhesus positive and at risk of their mother developing antibodies to their blood (as as second child after the mother has been sensitised by the first child, or as the result of the mother being exposed to the child's blood). High risk of still birth or major problems for the child.

The gene for Rh- is recessive. Citation. I ended up having to explain this to my Mom--whose genotype here I actually do know, without any need to test it, because I know hers and my maternal grandfather's blood types.

Before Anti-D injections were available, it was generally fatal and the only way a later child would survive is if the father's genotype was Rh+/Rh-. This was the case with my maternal grandfather; his Rh type was known at birth..and I know the genotypes for all of his siblings. (If you're wondering: Rh+/Rh-, all but the first died of hemolytic disease of the newborn. The firstborn, a boy, opted to slide down a railing and land on spikes...)

New genome research suggests birds and reptiles are descendants of dinosaurs, with crocodilians being the reptile most closely related to birds.

It's certainly plausible the asteroid impact was not the absolute end for many of the dinosaurs, but merely a Toba-event bottleneck they could not outlast.

You don't need ice cores. Trees have this awesome recording mechanism called rings. Old trees in an area an tell you the history of fires and rain for any given year.
https://cdn.uanews.arizona.edu...
Please, try not to be so retarded....

All the critics here who are chorussing "oh, Gates is so stupid, he doesn't know that Arizona is uninhabitable" are silly: we already know it's possible because 1.6 million people *already* live there.

You are committing a fallacy. You are assuming the past and the future will always resemble each other. It will not in this case as there are resource limits and the resources are shrinking see: https://uanews.arizona.edu/sto...

Jared Diamond wrote a nice book on what happens to societies when a critical resource(s) are depleted.

That was only one of the vectors.

You should really read the literature. They also used other vectors, and while they show a USB stick on the vector line, not all of them were via USB. Sometimes it came in loaded on Lexmark printers.

https://www2.cs.arizona.edu/~c...

*sigh*

Oh, So something about 30 years ago. it will be hard to go back and elect different politicians 30 or 40 years ago. Perhaps we should do something in the present or future.

How is this supposed to translate into electing less "tribal" politicians today? And how does that action cause a good future?

And I would hope you understand what the Saudi arms deal is about.

What?

*sigh*

And I would hope you understand what the Saudi arms deal is about.

What about Sudan, Syria, or Somalia, etc? It's the 'establishment' that is financing their destruction, all so we can enjoy *everyday low prices*. Stop funding and arming the terrorists, and there might be peace. And a decent water supply can't hurt, but there's more profit in war...

I don't credit Clinton with any special intellect in this area.

Maybe you should. This is her legacy. To the people who count, including HK, this matters a lot. And she still has this power.

Did you ever play "Balance of Power" back in the 80s/90s?

No, did you see how Brzezinski and Carter defeated the Soviet Union? What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Not that I agree really, but I would say Clinton was following through on that plan very well. And to tell the truth, I'm not sure if the thousand years of war between Europe and Russia is really over.

I don't like her, and would never vote for her (even less so, Trump), but there is something there... And it would be unwise to dismiss her out of hand.

Asphyxiation via C02 is an absolutely HORRIBLE way to die, regardless of the creature. There's a reason Carbogen (C02/Oxygen mix) is used to induce anxiety to test out anxiolytics. I mean I get that they need to solve the infestation problem but can't we choose a method that isn't also a completely inhumane method?

This is just not true. Low concentrations of CO2 can cause distress. High concentrations are fast and painless.

There have been lake and volcanic outgassing events which release massive amounts of CO2 and it kills people and animals where they stand, in seconds.

See the Lake Nyos incident to see how CO2 kills.

And here's the final report on the incident from the USGS (PDF): "In this incident, asphyxia resulted from the displacement of normal atmosphere (approximately 21 percent oxygen) by a cloud of carbon dioxide gas. Under such circumstances, victims will literally "drop in their tracks" after taking a few breaths and experience no feeling of suffocation. The actual mechanism of death is believed to be a paralysis of the respiratory centers in the brain by very high concentrations of carbon dioxide. Lethal levels of carbon dioxide are in the range of 8 to 10 percent (Sittig, 1985)." - pp. 18-19

Also: "Additionally, many victims were found in their beds still covered by bed clothing. Victims found outside appeared to have collapsed suddenly without substantial movement. Animals were described as "dead in their tracks" in herds rather than dispersed." - page 17

An accepted humane way to kill lab animals is with high concentrations of CO2. The key is "high concentrations."

This concept, of dry ice generating carbon dioxide which flows down into holes at high concentrations, is actually brilliant and humane.

Ahhh, the Troll mod. Sorry if it hurts the Slashdot/ISIS crowd, but this phase of the war goes back to 1979.

"What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

Are you going to argue with success?

And then the same man spills the beans in the very first response here. Qataris, and Saudis, and Turks! Oh my!

"And it becomes clear that not all of those rebels are all that 'democratic.'"

Gee! Understatement?

But hey, theater.. Carry on

Start with this paper. If you search, you'll find more.

Try this link, instead. http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/st...

graph

Yes, vindicated. For those of you who didn't click on link it shows the "enviro-left" IPCC predictions vs actual temperature measurements. Not even close. If they practised science at this point you would trash your hypothesis and come up with a new one. Since they are anti-science and reality doesn't matter, only their agenda, they ignore this reality and tell you the models are what matters and reality is only an inconvenient truth to them.

Of course climate models model the surface temperature while you're comparing them to satellite temperatures that convert proxy readings for somewhere up in the troposphere to temperatures. Also, the satellite temperature graph stops in 2013. It would be interesting to see what an up to January 2016 graph would show.

I went to Wood For Trees and the current UAH plot up to January 2016 looks like this. Just eyeballing it I'd say the January 2016 temperature is above the "Climate Models Best Estimate" line in your graph. I expect February 2016 to be even a bit warmer.

graph

Yes, vindicated. For those of you who didn't click on link it shows the "enviro-left" IPCC predictions vs actual temperature measurements.

Oh, cute, an unsourced graph that stops in 2012 and uses dodgy frequently "adjusted" UAH satellite data.

Why not try it with actual temperature data and include recent measurements? Oh, because it doesn't tell the same story.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/compare_1997-2015.jpg

graph

Yes, vindicated. For those of you who didn't click on link it shows the "enviro-left" IPCC predictions vs actual temperature measurements. Not even close. If they practised science at this point you would trash your hypothesis and come up with a new one. Since they are anti-science and reality doesn't matter, only their agenda, they ignore this reality and tell you the models are what matters and reality is only an inconvenient truth to them.

"Ignore the facts" meaning "healthy skepticism".

There's nothing "healthy" about your "skepticism". It is entirely one-sided and engineered to insulate your from inconvenient truths.

Like when the CRU at UEA was caught manipulating the numbers (and then conveniently "lost" them) ? Those facts?

I would refute your claims, except that you left out all specifics other than the target you wish you discredit with vague allegations, however, assuming you're referring to "climategate", eight separate investigations found that the claims you are repeating were invented bullshit based on quote-mining thousands of emails.

or the fact that the Polar Cap has more ice now than it should given Global Warming? (should be gone according to Al Gore!) Those facts?

More facts that aren't. Arctic ice losses are consistently out-pacing actual predictions, so there is less sea ice in the Arctic than the IPCC predicted there would be. Also, Al Gore (who is not a scientist) actually said that one study predicted ice could be gone in less than 22 years, and a second study by a U.S Navy researcher warned it could happen in as little as seven years.

Or the "starving polar bear" facts ?

What about starving polar bears?

Or any of the other 97.4% of the predictions gone wrong. Those facts?

http://www.westernjournalism.c...

Yea, a link to a conservative blog post written three years ago about a Fox News article about a Nature Climate Change article, is certainly evidence of something... It took me a while to find it, but the actual commentary article says that runs that they did of the CMIP5 models over-estimated warming from 1993 to 2012 according to the HadCRUT4 temperature data. So, it's 97.4% of the predictions from a single set of models as run by three researchers that are overestimating observed warming, and they then point out a number of reasons why that might be the case.

Khomeni was an asset. The U.S. knew the Shah was sick and going to die, and they didn't want those 'liberals' to get all chummy with the Soviets. They took him (Khomeni) out of his hibernation pod in, where was that, France, right? This precluded that threat. Can't argue with success. In a variation of the same theme the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan. Rile up the locals and give them a bunch of weapons, and wait... Carter wasn't "fooled" at all. He (the 'team') played a good game, and it worked. Destabilization is serving its purpose to this day. The whole religious angle is a ruse to sell the war. And if you don't believe me, then take a gander at our best buddy Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, etc., all just as fanatical as Iran. More so, Iran hasn't invaded anybody outside their borders in a very long time.

There's enough taxpayer money and weaponry (including the wetware to operate them) going to Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc to keep them afloat. Russia is the target of the oil dumping schemes and continued agitation of the locals.

Al Jazeera, and RT, please... mouthpieces all, just like the Times, BBC, etc. They say what their sponsor tell them to say. I wouldn't miss any one of them.

Spiders on Mars

No, C is not "horrid when it comes to standards, conventions, etc with naming", the Indian Hill C Style and Coding Standards was at rev 6.0 over 25 years ago: https://www.cs.arizona.edu/~mc...

You're just inexperienced and trying to sound important on an anonymous message board.

No. Astrology, even if you are the biggest skeptic, makes testable predictions all the time.

Do you see what I did there?

Taken the first step of a testable hypothesis.

So let's take the theory of Astrology. It's based on the hypothesis that the position of the Stars at your moment of birth determines your personality, and furthermore your life is predetermined by those stars and planets.

So first off, what is the physical mechanism of the stars on your personality? Right away, we have a problem. But that can all be ignored for the moment, if we like.

So now the first test that we can do something about. Finding people born at the exact or very similar time. A study of these folks should show virtually identical personalities, and as long as they followed the same horoscopes every day, there should be remarkable parallels in their lives.

I'd love to see the experiment performed. Given all the people I've met and know, I have an idea how it would turn out. I suspect not many astrologists would want that one performed.

Now on to climate.

We start off with a very simple hypothesis. That gases in a a gaseous mixture will retain more or less energy based on the particular gases and their concentration.

Repeated testing shows this to be as close to a fact as any scientist would ever claim, and any rational non-scientist would consider it to be absolutely true.

So the basic concept has been proven.

Next is the question of scaling. The experiment takes several forms. There are non-earth planetary experiments that might serve to use as an experiment.

Venus is anomalously hot, or would be except that it's atmosphere is around 97 percent CO2. And with a surface temperature of around 730K, why would that happen? The sulight heats the land, the CO2 stores much of the energy given off by the warmed land's infrared radiation, and the result is that at 730K, a sort of equilibrium is reached as the energy escaping is at the same rate as the energy coming in.

Here's a description should you care to look:>p> http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu...

Mars on the other hand, has shown some other interesting matters on Greenhouse and other warming effects Early Mars might have been warmed by a combination of CO2, and interestingly enough H2 The H2 would hav ebeen contributed byvolcanic outgassing of CH4, which would have degraded to CO2 and H2, allowing early Mars to be fairly warm, even taking the dimmer sun at the time into account. Today, after most of Mar's atmosphere is gone, while CO2 is the main component of the atmosphere, it is in too small amount to contribute to any warming, and th planet is pretty cold.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...

So we have that confirming evidence from experiments in assessing extraterrestrial planets.

So now we have an effect that has been proven on other planets as well as earth.

Now there are many experiments that have been performed, and they also do not refute the theory that the so called 'Greenhouse gases" act to retain heat.

Measurements bear it out as well. The "evidence "against it includes cherry picking for any anomalous data, then introducing a false dilemma by saying an anomaly kills the entire concept. Also eliminating years of data to claim that no warming has occurred, or my favorite, claiming weather is climate.

If that were true, I was outside today in shorts and a T-Shirt in the Northeast of the US. waddya think? I'll just claim it is anomalous weather for Christmas, and not claim "So much for So much for Global warning"

See what I did there?

Savory is right; I've seen it in action with sheep in the desert. Where it was grazed by big commercial flocks several times a year, it was all native grass and flowers. When the sheep stopped coming, within three years it went to tumbleweeds and hardpan (despite being years with higher rainfall than average).

This might interest you as well:

The Desert Tortoise in Relation to Cattle Grazing
(U. of Arizona research publication)

https://journals.uair.arizona....

TL;DR: the more cattle graze the desert, the more tortoises there are -- because they don't eat plants; they eat dung.

In spite of the gut feeling of the submitter, it's not much better in at least computer science: http://reproducibility.cs.ariz...

Well duh. Everybody knows that when you turn the machine off and on again, everything comes out different.

I am not sure I understand. What even is a paper in computer science?

There's list of 601 examples on the linked page.

In spite of the gut feeling of the submitter, it's not much better in at least computer science: http://reproducibility.cs.ariz...

And to clarify: they only checked for what they call "weak repeatability": was it possible to get the code from the original researchers and if yes, was it possible to build it (or did the author at least explain how he himself managed to build it). They did not even investigate whether they could replicate the reported results with the the code that built.

In spite of the gut feeling of the submitter, it's not much better in at least computer science: http://reproducibility.cs.ariz...

Each retina collects photons on a surface and with a single eye you get a 2D image*. Your brain combines the images from your eyes in very complex ways to create a 3D internal model, but as far as what needs to get shined into your eyes, it's just the 2D image constructed on your retina that matters.

That is incorrect. There are numerous 3D depth perception cues, among which are stereo-vision, depth of field (things far from what you are looking at appear blurry) and prior knowledge of the objects size (knowing the average size of a car, you know that if you see it "small", then it must be far away). With only one eye, the last two are perfectly valid. The very last one is very simple to reproduce but the depth of field is far from being trivial to implement. For VR head set such as the Oculus, you would need retinal tracking, map to the corresponding depth of the observed object and adapt the rendering of the whole scene to this depth of field (with of course, very small latency), see http://3dvis.optics.arizona.edu/research/research.html. Having different cues in a system can cause serious discomfort to a large portion of the population.

Read David Braine's Language and Human Understanding: The Roots of Creativity in Speech and Thought[1]. Unless you think programming languages have anything to do with creativity and especially, in breaking wholes into parts (fun quotations of Bertrand Russell and Aristotle in the first two pages of de Koninck's "The Unity and Diversity of Natural Science"[2]), you need a whole different kind of language. The difference is between a structurally closed language which is 'dead' (Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look[3], 12; Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics[4], 79), and a structurally open language, which has that critical informality that allows one to explore new territory that the language was not 'designed' to address. Finally, from Jacques Ellul's The Humiliation of the Word[5]:

Meaning is uncertain; therefore I must constantly fine-tune my language and work at reinterpreting the words I hear. I try to understand what the other person says to me. All language is more or less a riddle to be figured out; it is like interpreting a text that has many possible meanings. In my effort at understanding and interpretation, I establish definitions, and finally, a meaning. The thick haze of discourse produces meaning.

All of intellectual life (and I use the word "all" advisedly), even that of specialists in the most exact sciences, is based on these instabilities, failures to understand, and errors in interpretation, which we must find a way to go beyond and overcome. Mistaking a person's language keeps me from "taking" the person—from taking him prisoner. (19)

Anyone who tries to circumvent the above (eliminating all ambiguity everywhere) is doing violence to creativity and humanity.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Language...
[2] http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aver...
[3] http://www.amazon.com/Interpre...
[4] http://www.amazon.com/Interpre...
[5] http://www.amazon.com/The-Humi...

From 1964 through around 1975, planetary astronomers at Tucson's Lunar & Planetary Laboratory used physical models to project and remap the moon's surface. They took high resolution photos through an earth based telescope, and then projected the images onto a spherical, white plaster globe. By carefully controlling the geometry, and knowing distances, angles, and (yes) lunar libation, they created detailed maps of the moon's near side, taking into account geometric distortion around the limbs. In this way, they could rephotograph parts of the lunar far-side.

The rectified lunar atlas can now be seen at https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/si...

This was all done using telescopes, photographs, and optical projection ... all analog, earth-based work. (the main telescope was the 61" reflector at Mt. Bigelow in Tucson; the films were Kodak 3-AJ 10x10inch glass plates)

It was my honor to work with several of these astronomers, including Ewen Whitaker, Gerard Kuiper, Bill Hartmann, and Bob Strom. Brilliant scientists who would be astounded and impressed to see those NASA/Goddard videos. What we take for granted today, once required several years of detailed work.

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rubinson/copyright_violations/Go_To_Considered_Harmful.html

GMOs are also just as safe as off-shore oil drilling.

Look, the whole discussion goes in the toilet as soon as they try to boil a complex topic down to a binary-valued decision of "safe" or "not safe". No useful computer is "secure" and no useful agriculture is "safe". The question is one of risk vs reward: are the potential risks worth the possible reward.

With GMOs, there are still many people who believe that much of the rewards are privatized to company profits and most of the risks are socialized. Worse they believe that the black swan risk potential of GMOs are orders of magnitude greater than the black swan risks possible with conventional cross-breeds. Most scientists will simply ignore such unlikely risks because they've been trained that they cannot theorize from very low probability events.

Risk reward analysis cannot treat low probability as equivalent to zero. It must be be like Sherlock Holmes and consider even the improbable.

SNOBOL evolved into ICON, which forked into Unicon. ICON used to be rather well known back in the day for its SNOBOL inherited pattern matching, goal-directed expression evaluation, generators, co-expressions, first-class functions and a very very fast byte-code interpreter. All before Windows was born :) It has an elegant and effective binding to X11 which works to this day, even under Mac OS X. It is my go-to language for personal projects.

ICON is feature-frozen, but still maintained, and it is all in the public domain. It has a loyal following: http://www.cs.arizona.edu/icon

Unicon is under active development, and introduces lots of new shiny kitchen sinks like objects and unicode. I don't use it....

That page was confusing - the technicolour height-maps aren't from India's Mars orbiter, but from the HiRISE camera on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.

Sodding enormous digital terrain models are available for download. I suggest using GDAL to convert them into higher-bit-depth GeoTIFFs and loading them as displacement maps in your 3D editing software of choice. They're lovely.

1. "nested brackets" (blocks) are by definition not spaghetti. Spaghetti is exclusively the result of gotos and their control equivalents (like the early return).

Bullshit. One of the projects at my last job had a single function in C++ that was over 50 printed pages. 5-deep nested loops, not even counting conditionals. On a 1280p resolution monitor, 8pt font, 4 space-tabbing and properly indented code, the start of the deepest nested blocks were 4/5s or more across the screen. A lot of the crap was due to avoiding goto's. That is spaghetti. By using a few judicial goto's, I was able to reduce the code by a third alone. Goto's are not evil. Like any language construct, they can be abused. Just because one famous guy wrote a paper Go To Considered Harmful doesn't make it scripture. You might want to read "Considered Harmful" Essays Considered Harmful. Just because *you* don't understand when to properly use a construct doesn't make the construct evil or wrong.

https://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu... trully spectaculare.

https://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

So, it's the software that you download that verifies itself?

Yes.

It's not particularly different than relying on a repository signature. There's nothing stopping you from adding untrustworthy repositories in Linux, and if a repository is compromised signatures can be modified as well. There's a reason people are cautious about PPAs. Package managers are not immune to security issues, either.

Or, does Windows have a list of checked software along with their signatures?

The mechanism is just a digital certificate. The same as those used for SSL/TLS but with a different flag for use (code signing instead of just identity verification). It's not particularly more or less robust than an external metadata signature.

Windows checks all software, but it doesn't block unsigned software. It simply issues a warning. I'm not certain what it does for a revoked certificate or for a certificate for a program that no longer passes the signature check; I've never seen one. On recent editions of Windows Server, the enhanced IE security prevents executing programs from sites that are not trusted until you manually unblock the file on the properties window.

Yeah, as an example, in ancient China, you only paid the doctor when you were well...
http://www.dailypaul.com/256879/tcm-traditional-chinese-medicine-paying-your-doctor-to-keep-you-well

Even now, Chinese doctors get good but not outrageous pay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_in_China#Physician_compensation

Maybe they were on to something in their overall approach?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine
"TCM's view of the body places little emphasis on anatomical structures, but is mainly concerned with the identification of functional entities (which regulate digestion, breathing, aging etc.). While health is perceived as harmonious interaction of these entities and the outside world, disease is interpreted as a disharmony in interaction. TCM diagnosis includes in tracing symptoms to patterns of an underlying disharmony, by measuring the pulse, inspecting the tongue, skin, eyes and by looking at the eating and sleeping habits of the patient as well as many other things."

People like Andrew Weil seem to focus on integrating the best of all the medical approaches.
http://integrativemedicine.arizona.edu/

For a more extreme criticism of Western Medicine, see Ivan Illich's book "Medical Nemesis":
http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303critic/030313illich/Frame.Illich.Ch1.html

Yes, I did.

Wiki is a reliable enough source, as encyclopedias go.

But if you think that there are some scientific organizations of National or International standing that do reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change, feel free to post them here.

Unfortunately that in itself will undermine any claims of inaccuracy in wiki, as I will update the wiki page if you do.

A simple telescope might have three reflective surfaces at 0.9 reflectivity, and so no more 3/4 of the original light reaches the detector. A complex AO system typically has closer to ten mirrors, so no more than a third of the original light will reach the detector.

Magellan has three mirrors in front of the IR camera, and four in front of the visible camera. The transitivity of such a system is higher than 75% in the visible range, which wouldn't for most accounts, constitute a "small fraction" of the light getting to detectors.

If you would like to do a little further digging on unwise usage of water look into large scale ethanol production (not whiskey) http://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/archive/V6_N5/feature4.pdf sorry i don't know how to use html (I am a geek just not a good one!) My fancies lie in the chemistry and drug development distribution world....please forgive.

For more immediate visual gratification appreciated by a wider audience, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter provides wonderfully detailed images of Phobos.

That was the instrument that caught this mind-numbing image of the Phoenix lander as it was descending on its parachute. Words are really quite superfluous.

That's a great image, I wouldn't consider it mind-numbing at all.

For more immediate visual gratification appreciated by a wider audience, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter provides wonderfully detailed images of Phobos.

That was the instrument that caught this mind-numbing image of the Phoenix lander as it was descending on its parachute. Words are really quite superfluous.

https://www.cs.arizona.edu/stork/packagemanagersecurity/

Do read it all. It may not apply here but it should be read by everyone who uses package managers.

The other way around. The maximum resolution of a lens is limited by diffraction. The only way around that limitation is to increase the number of lenses (compound eyes), or increase the size (simple eyes). Increasing the number is a simple solution and works pretty well when you're tiny and so can't have high resolution vision anyway. As you get bigger, the increase-the-size-of-the-lens solution becomes much more efficient, so most bigger organisms have simple eyes. If humans had compound eyes, they would have to be ridiculously large (the size of a house, by one estimation) to give equivalent resolution: http://web.neurobio.arizona.edu/gronenberg/nrsc581/eyedesign/visualacuity.pdf.