Slashdot Mirror

Not heat. Light.

Something's wrong with the graphs. Here's the 13 yr old's graphs here and here.

Typical, hand-drawn 13 yr old stuff. So who did this and this and this?

And don't tell me he could not make a bar graph on a PC but that is a "Diagram of tree model that Aidan made with his computer."

He also made the computer generated voltage diagrams but a simple Excel pie chart for the number of hours was too difficult?

He even made the common bar graph mistake (more) of not starting the scale from zero, instead starting from 4v, which makes the 4.1-4.4v flat solar panel appear as if it puts out less than half of the 5.25 volt from the solar tree.

Who really did this experiment?

Try a real one. http://members.cox.net/javacoco/

but they do affect the outcome quite significantly

Ah, but they don't. A human getting run over at 65 MPH kills with about the same probability as at 45 MPH (almost always, that is). Anything above about 20 or 25 MPH and you're probably screwed. Thus, since car accidents are so frequently not fatal, it should be pretty obvious that the largest component of accident safety is not the m*v^2 term, but rather the ability of the car to absorb that impact and spread the reduction in velocity out over a period of time.

Even at a modest 45 MPH, the only thing standing between you, as a driver, and almost certain death is your car's ability to crumple and absorb the impact. Up to the point at which it is no longer able to do so, the m*v^2 term isn't important, and above that line, you've probably gotten impaled by some part of the car or ripped the seatbelt out anyway. It's more important, therefore, to understand where that line is and be sure not to cross it. Oh, and also to avoid rolling the car.... :-)

Either way, given the current state of automotive safety systems, if you ignore pedestrian injuries, speed and the number of traffic deaths are not at all correlated.

My wife Sue was diagnosed with a Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) in November of 2005. She died in my arms just seven weeks later in January 2006. Even though we did almost everything together for the twenty years we were together, those last weeks we were literally inseparable. While we held hands where ever we went and shared hugs, kisses and "I love you"s everyday, since almost the day we met, we were most lucky to have those last few weeks together.

The last thing we shared before she fell asleep to never wake was a kiss and "I love you". In the end we were alone together. I held her in my arms, heard her last breath and felt her last heartbeat. I will never forget those moments.

I keep our photo albums and stuffed animals - we had no children or pets - and try to keep the house neat and tidy as she liked it. I still have her perfume and sometimes dab a little on my neck, close my eyes and remember those hugs and kisses. Every night, I tell her that I love her and wish her sweet dreams, as I always did.

Sue was a teacher, and in that spirit, donated her body to science. I sent letters to her relatives, friends and students and created a small website, mainly for them, with the story of her last few weeks and a few photos -- as an adjunct, I created a scrapbook each for her students and family. I reviewed her many boxes of teaching materials and books and donated most to her fellow teachers. Her school planted a tree in her name and I put a lock of her hair (from a baby book, when she was 3) down with the roots.

Probably the most lasting thing I did was have an ink stamp made that says "Remember Sue..." Every book I donated, to her school or charity, and every book I own has been stamped and I stamp the back of all my envelopes. If you ever that mark...

Remember Sue...
http://members.cox.net/slpuckett3/index.html

Check this out:
http://members.cox.net/tfangrow/hissdrive.html

Otherwise, barn door mounts:
http://www.mikeoates.org/mas/projects/scotch/
http://www.astunit.com/tonkinsastro/atm/projects/scotch.htm
http://www.davetrott.com/DoubleArmBarnDoor.html

Equatorial platforms:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/eqplatforms/

Lots of other links:
http://members.ziggo.nl/jhm.vangastel/Astronomy/links.htm

Bonus points to the first person that can rip an mp3/flac from an old cassette and get the program to load.

-- gid

Already done, for Atari 2600 cassette-based games. No trouble at all.

I did some internet checking and it seems we are both wrong, but to be fair, you were more correct than I. Almost everything you said was right, except "to let loose" isn't a compound verb. It is a verb phrase. A compound verb is when you use multiple verbs separated by commas. Here's the links I read:
http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/compoundverb.htm
http://members.cox.net/lenco1/grammarpractice/verbs/vphrase.htm

A few years ago I saw this: http://members.cox.net/starscopes/space_sky/20050922_vandenberg_rocket_launch.html while driving home from work. It looks more or less identical to the photographs from Norway. I can attest that it's an amazing site.

COX has been doing this for a while. Although it is not 'ad-laden', it is sponsored by Yahoo and 'suggests' some alternatives. When you mistype a domain name, or just make something up that doesn't exist, COX Cable redirects you to the following page: http://finder.cox.net/

As far as mathematics research goes, there is a huge range in journal prices depending upon the publisher. Many for-profit publishers (Springer, Elsevier, etc.) charge very high prices for journals, or have comprehensive pricing packages which make it hard to figure out how much a particular journal costs. Many journals are published by non-profit professional societies or universities, and those tend to be much more reasonably priced.

There is an effort to only submit to journals which are reasonably priced- see, for example, the Banff Protocol where prominent researchers state their commitment to only contribute to, serve on editorial boards and referee for reasonable journals. Many of the most prestigious journals are still for-profit and there is of course pressure on untenured people to publish in the best journals they can, but there is a healthy set of more senior people who choose where to submit things incorporating journal expense as a consideration.

Maybe you can explain why these PhD's are so gullible for "buying" into a "currently unacceptable theory":

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/Endorsements.htm

"I really love this book. It is causing me to rethink a great deal of my own work. I am convinced that The Electric Sky deserves the widest possible readership.... I felt genuine excitement while reading and felt I was delving into a delicious feast of new ideas."
- Gerrit L. Verschuur, PhD, University of Manchester. A well-known radio astronomer and writer, presently at the Physics Department, University of Memphis. He is the author of "Interstellar matters : essays on curiosity and astronomical discovery", and "The invisible universe - The Story of Radio Astronomy" as well as many other books and scientific papers.

"You don't have to be an astronomer to enjoy this book. It's an exciting story about how a small group of physicists, engineers and other scientists have challenged the 'establishment' - the 'big science' astronomers who are reluctant to listen to anyone outside their own elite circle."
- Lewis E. Franks, PhD, Stanford University, Fellow of the IEEE (1977), Professor Emeritus and Head of the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts (Retired).

"Gravity was the focus of 20th century astronomy. For the 21st century, it will be electromagnetism and plasmas in addition. This forthcoming scientific revolution is presaged by the rapid pace of discoveries about our own star, the Sun, and its total plasma environment, and discoveries about the nature of the interstellar medium."
- Timothy E. Eastman, PhD, Head of Raytheon's space physics and astrophysics groups. He is well known for his work on magnetospheric boundary layers and the initial discovery of the Low Latitude Boundary Layer.

"It is gratifying to see the work of my mentor, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén enumerated with such clarity. I am also pleased to see that Dr. Scott has given general readers such a lucid and understandable summary of my own work."
- Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He is the author of Physics of the Plasma Universe and numerous published papers.

--

I find a hard time placing faith in any pseudo-religious Science that can't even understand the importance of consciousness by simply ignoring it from their equations.

SPREAD A MEME

(advice dog)

TROLL SLASHDOT

I like this one better:

http://members.cox.net/~dwmattisoncv/rfc_ipdatagrams.html

Much less susceptible to the health and security flaws that Avian Carriers have. Security is good because attackers aren't much of a problem (or at least they stop being a problem.)

As has Cox Communications, at least in Omaha. For example, when trying coxnxdomain.com, a non-existant domain. The worst part is that the page's URL also includes a unique id and the refer(r)er (both which I removed), which lets the owner of whatever link you click know who you are (pseudonymously with the id) and where you came from.

Fortunately you can opt out of it with the DNS servers 68.105.28.13 and 68.105.29.13.

I really don't think that these NX domain redirections are necessary, and I shouldn't have to opt out of this stupid "service". Honestly, most modern web browsers already do something like this and redirect you to google.com/msn.com/whateverthehellthebrowserdoes.com.

It's a project I'm working on. I'm one of those unfortunates with an analog OnStar box that can't be upgraded (or rather, Chevy refuse to) so I did some research and found this (and many others), remembered how cool the Empeg Car was so got inspired to build one for the 21st century that'd do GPS navigation and play DVDs as well as being an MP3 jukebox.

One of these days I'll actually finish it and post pictures. :-)

I will no longer be able to point to my home server on these lists because Cox
rejects such messages as spam. The message given when I try is:

Sending failed:
Could not write file The message content was not accepted.
The server responded: "ID_INTENTIONALLY_REMOVED This message was
undeliverable. This message has been found to be a potential spam message,
and has therefore been blocked. Please visit http://coxagainstspam.cox.net/
for more information.".
Disk full.
The message will stay in the 'outbox' folder until you either fix the problem
(e.g. a broken address) or remove the message from the 'outbox' folder.
The following transport protocol was used:
smtp.east.cox.net

. . .

I could care less that their disk is stuffed and suspect it is misdirection.

This censorship is only a minor inconvenience but the message it sends is
ugly. It says, in so many words, that the internet is for your consumption
not participation. Changing messages to point to my physics page gets around
the immediate problem, but most people do not have such a thing nor should
they be forced to host things on someone else's computers. I'm paying for my
bandwith, why can't I use it for what I want? Finally, subscribers now know
that every word of every message sent is filtered. Will they filter my IM
conversations next?

If we're going to consider systems that were released very recently, I think we should include the retro system that was released recently.

Like many others, I owned an Atari 2600 when I was about 6. I came to acquire a large number of games for it, which somehow I managed to stop my parents from throwing away. I still have those games, but of course the old 2600 doesn't hoot up to any TV I own, nor does it likely still function.

Enter the Atari flashback2. 40 games on a system that still uses my old Atari joysticks. And even better, people have already demonstrated how to hack it to play the original 2600 cartridges!

Now I just have to get my hands on a second one, so that if I screw up the hack, my wife and I can still play pong on the first flashback2 I bought...

http://members.cox.net/pimpbot9000/roflcopter.gif

I'd recommend NPP (No Pet Peeves) Angband at http://members.cox.net/nppangband/

It's like Vanilla Angband but with additions like quests and some removed annoyances. Really a lot better, IMO.

When I say, "Well, I don't see no p'ints about that frog that's any better'n any other frog," is it kind, is it just, for this Frenchman to try to make it appear that I said, "Eh bien! I no saw not that that frog had nothing of better than each frog"?

I grew up with astronomy, and have been watching the skies with binoculars for a few years now, which is leading to my first scope. Something you have to understand from the start is that

First of all, get a good Planisphere. That'll set you back about fifteen bucks, and you'll learn a TON about the night sky. Also get a red flashlight. I really like the Rigel Systems ones which have a variable-brightness red LED for viewing, and a variable brightness white one for set-up and tear down.

Get a copy of Nightwatch, by Terry Dickenson. It'll serve you from day one until the paper disintegrates (which will be a long time--it's well made).

Now guess what? Armed with nothing more than a pair of eyes and a chart, you're an amateur astronomer! Wasn't that easy?

The next step is usually binoculars. A good pair of 10x50 (Nikon and Pentax are good in the low end, ~$150) and a tripod mount will let you see more than you realised was out there. 10x50 is a nice size, because you can use them handheld, whereas getting much bigger (11x70 and up) will be too heavy to hold steady enough without a tripod. The first time you see the Pleiades through mounted binoculars in a dark sky will be breathtaking.

Now comes the scope. You can easily spend two years happily researching scopes while you use the binoculars and charts (and your naked eyes--don't ever forget just looking up!), by which point you'll know what suits you best. A few pointers, though:

1) Aperture rules. More aperture means more light coming in, which means fainter objects. Deep sky stuff (galaxies and nebulae) NEED aperture. Unfortunately, more aperture means more money, more size, and more weight.
2) Bigger is harder to move. A gorgeous 24" light-bucket is useless if you can't actually get it outside without three willing friends (unless they're eager and living with you). An 8" scope may only be adequate for deep sky objects, but if you get it out every clear night then it's a far better scope for you.
3) The mount is key. Most mid-range telescopes available are built by one of two companies, and have surprisingly good optics--better by far than you could get at (almost) any price 25 years ago. Unfortunately, good optics are ruined if the scope won't stay steady.
4) No telescope can do everything.

As I said above, most telescopes are made by one of two Chinese companies. Synta makes Sky-Watcher and Celestron, Guan Sheng makes several Meades, Antares and some others. Orion scopes are sourced from both companies, depending on the year and the type. There's not a lot of difference between them--both have good optics and good design. There are some cheapies, but once you hit the $300 point, the scopes and mounts are all pretty reliable. (and again--MUCH better than you could get a while back.)

If your heart is set on astrophotography, be prepared to spend a LOT of time and quite a chunk of money in the hobby. You'll need an equatorially mounted scope with a motor drive, and stability will become much more important than for simple viewing. You'll need some sort of camera capable of long (30 minute!) exposures, you'll need books, you'll need planning, and you'll need patience. Lots of patience. Don't get me wrong--astrophotography can be great fun--I used to take pictures on my dad's 8" SCTs and do the developing and printing in our darkroom--but it's a whole range of 'more work' and pretty serious stuff, even with digital.

Which mount you want is a major deciding factor. For the same amount of portability and similar prices (about $400 CDN), you can get an 8" Dobsonian or a 6" Newtonian on an adequate mount. For another hundred bucks, you can get the same 6" on a really beefy mou

Were you pictured in one of the first 3? I am not the type of guy to put a man down and not help him back up. Here is some advice to bring balance back to your life. First, switch to this. It is a compromise (and not my first choice) but it will give you time to implement my other advice. Second, buy and start using this and these. Third, stop eating these and talk to these people. It is not everything but it is a start. Just imagine yourself as cool as this guy. Read the DISCLAIMER

We agree neither to submit to, referee for, nor participate in the operation of any journal that charges an excessively high per page subscription fee, as compared to the average of the 25 highest impact journals in pure mathematics**
 

Fred Hoyle of the British Academy of Science and mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe decided to calculate the probability of life coming into existence anywhere in the universe. Their results? Utterly impossible.

Evolutionary theory does not address how life itself came about. Abiogenesis is a distinctly different field. But even so, life exists--we know that already. It's a bit odd to posit that something that has already happened is impossible. We may not know the agency (Hoyle was a fan of panspermia, for example) but that life exists indicates that life can come into existence.

...also attempted to calculate the probability that life sprang into existence spontaneously. His results? Utter impossible.

Again, life exists, so I'd temper the "utter impossible" assessments. Considering that we, along with the men whose assessments you're trumpeting, don't know exactly how life came about, I'd take their calculations with an ounce of salt. You might be overestimating how impossible something is when it's actually just improbable. Shuffle one deck of cards, and the probability of coming out with any particular arrangement is one over a 68-digit number. Two decks of cards? One over a 166-digit number. It is trivially easy to do things at your dining-room table that are mind-staggeringly improbable. That's the problem with trying to assess the probability of something that already happened--it may have been improbable, but now it's a fait accompli, so it no longer makes sense to say it's impossible.

Stephen J. Gould, one of the greatest defenders of evolution, was also troubled by issues that he saw within evolution. As a result, he came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium. He postulated that there were sudden leaps in evolution that left no transitional forms.

This is false, and is a deliberate mischaracterization by creationists of what Gould wrote. I'm sorry you were duped by this, but you might want to do an internet search for creationism and quote-mining. Here is a good link where you can read what Gould actually thought about those transitional fossils that you've been told he thought didn't exist. Again, I'm sorry you were lied to. It's hard enough to have a conversation about this complex of a subject without some creationist authors basically lying about what some scientist did or didn't say.

Take for example the eye.

I'd love to, primarily because it's one of the most frequently explained examples of how complex structures can evolve piece by piece. Wikipedia has a good article on the subject, and if you search around there are others. I've read good explanations by Dawkins, and others. Even PBS has a decent article. Basically any light-sensetive cell would give an organism an advantage over his competitors, and over time any further advantages would accrue as they develop. You are underestimating the power of accumulated changes.

Another stake in the heart of evolution is the absence of transitional forms.

There are many articles covering transitional fossils. They are real, we have thousands of them, and they can be easily viewe

I have no feelings for this Hovind fellow one way or another, but whoever put together that Geocities page doesn't understand what a "lie" is. Stating an opinion, whether or not it's at odds with common thought, is not a lie.

I do not dispute that some of the entries on Buddika's page are opinion, but you cannot deny that a number of the exposed claims from Hovind are demonstratable lies.

For example, Hovind's claim that the human Cytochrome gene is closer to that of a sunflower's than that of a chimpanzee's is a complete falsehood.

Hovind also lies about the definition of "evolution". The fundamental premise of his arguments against the theory of evolution are an outright lie. Citing him as a source of information on any subject demonstrates either personal dishonesty or abysmal ignorance. In either case, the credibilty of the individual making the reference is called into question.

What, and no mention of OS/2? Feh... what a bloody useless study...

Whew, thank that I'm not the only one who thinks that libertarianism is fraudulent.

That's not grammatically correct.

Open this link in a new window, look really carefully at the image, and then file a bug against your web browser.

http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson/Dropped_word. png

Very interesting. I just looked in my mailbox (never read the spam) and it is indeed picture based. Here is an example of one. The background looks a bit obfuscated, do you think it will confuse OCR trying to read it?

http://www.members.cox.net/pnawltrs/spam.gif

isp is not. but the court won't see the user with an open wlan as an isp.

ISPs still are not responsible for actions of their users.

Interesting, because my ISP (Cox Communications) explicitly says in their Acceptable Use Policy that "Any wireless network installed by the customer or a Cox representative, that is unsecured or 'open' and connected to the Cox network, will be deemed to be operating as an ISP." Makes me wonder if that would hold up in court!

There was 19 years difference in our ages (I'm younger), and we were always at different places in our careers; we met in 1985 when I was 22 and still in college. Making a deliberate choice to always put the relationship first and deciding then and there to stick by that choice, made things a lot clearer down the road.

As for work, we always supported each other and I helped her with school work as much as I could -- creating forms, flyers, databases... I understood when she had to sometimes grade papers all weekend and she understood when I got paged at 10pm and had to work all night.

You can always find another job, but the love of your life comes around only once. Though we didn't have children, I would include them in this sentiment if we had.

Unless there's something wrong with or abusive about one or both, I believe that people stay together because they want to. People come up with various excuses like "we drifted apart", "I wanted something different", etc... but I believe it comes back to not wanting and/or caring enough to work things out and stay together.

Remember Sue...

For those of you who wonder just who little twitter here is, a synopsis:

This is the original confirmation of his real identity. We've had that suspicion for quite a while but there was no way to prove it for sure. He reacted predictably enough instead of just ignoring the post.

Here is further confirmation. And this. As you can see, this guy is just insanely retarded - all he had to do do was just ignore the posts and we still wouldn't know for sure. He didn't reply to this, but by that time it wasn't necessary. Someone (not us) then posted this as well. We think that was the same person who registered this account, but we're not sure. He also has another lame home page. And this is his Cox page.

As for his sockpuppet account, here's some dialectic proof (you can see the 'twitter' oozing out of there well enough), along with mention of "nuclear power", a topic which he claims to know about but is just generally ignorant about (as with everything else). Here's one where he mentions the BRLUG. A message was posted to the BRLUG (see "Willy evangelizes" thread here) for further confirmation, which he graciously provided.

For those of who are new to the twitter experience, here's a thread that distills the interaction between KeithRussel and twitter: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=195829&cid=160 48784. Wow.

And finally, some great twitter material:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=88413&cid=7656 803
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77588&cid=6896 690
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=73226&cid=6595 921
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=71864&cid=6492 229
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=69025&cid=6312 196
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=49657&cid=5011 656
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=180946&thresho ld=1&cid=14972959
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=129735&thresho ld=5&cid=10823036
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=112229&cid=952 1025&threshold=5
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137420&cid=11

This is more for the sibling posters - the parent poster `gets it`.

I've got extra HDMI and DVIHDMI adapters.
I really don't want any more!

The irony is:
I ordered my HDMI cable from one of those "direct cable" sites online (works great). This was for a Sceptre LCD TV ordered online from Costco. The online info clearly listed a bunch of other cables and parts, but did -not- mention HDMI, so I thought I needed one.

Opened up the TV crate, and there was the HDMI cable.

Then the Comcast guy shows up to hookup the HD DVR... another set of HDMI cables.

Bottom line: all the babies crying there's no HDMI cable, don't have HDTV to begin with. Sony is promising a LOT for the PS3... they've overpromised in fact, and there's no going back on the big specs. Sony made a big gamble on the BlueRay player, which to me is more significant than the Cell CPU. EVERY PS3 is going to have a BlueRay drive, so the installed base will be 100% unlike the X-Box360, which will have an "add on" HD-DVD drive.

No one has EVER successfully "added" formats to a gaming console:
For the Atari VCS, failed (Spectra SuperCharger: http://members.cox.net/rcolbert/schookup.htm)
Coleco failed (Coleco Adam expansion kit: http://www.myoldcomputers.com/museum/comp/adam.htm )
Sega failed (Genesis Megadrive: http://cgfm2.emuviews.com/gen.php)

To this day, I bet most Windows games ship on CD not DVD (correct me if I am wrong, but if this has changed it is very recent and still no clear market format)

50GB is an amazing platform to write games, and even though the first generation of games will not take advantage of it, eventually they will. This is true even if the extra "bloat" doesn't add to gameplay - not right away anyways. I used to remember all the C64 games were written for 64K, and all the ATARI XL/XE games were written for 48K... even during the twilight of the 8-bit platform.

As far as I'm concerned, game systems should ship with NO AV cable since whatever they include is not going to satisfy everyone:
A lot of people wil be looking for adapter cables to operate the nexgen game systems with:
DVI (plenty of early HD sets have this instead of HDMI)
VGA (ditto)
component
S-Video

I have a draw full of old composite cables, and a ton more in the garage.

The point is, people never upgrade game platforms. Never. It's a stretch I know to factor HDMI cables in here, but every nickel you can save somewhere just makes the rest of the platform more viable. (I understand the Blue-Ray gamble, but the Cell-processor gamble is just stupid "not invented here". I would have chopped the Cell processor - too big of a question mark. What's to be gained??).

Anyways - anyone still not believing this "excusing" of the HDMI cable, please take an moment to window-shop a brand-new car. Then you'll really understand what it means to have to "option" things out.

If you're using Cox, use a speedtest on *their* network, otherwise it doesn't mean jack. They're only saying you'll get 15mbps from them to you, not from the entire Internet to you.

http://speedtest1.ks.ks.cox.net/speedtest/

How much are they going to save in licensing costs, does anyone know? (not just over Windows, but Office, Photoshop, etc.)

A HUGE amount. Microsoft's "educational" discounts are laugable. I don't know the exact numbers for Indiana, but I have experience in setting up a large linux network for a school and the money we saved on software allowed us to purchase much better hardware. All of our workstations are now equiped with flat panel monitors.

I remember MS claiming the TCO total cost of ownership is lower for Windows than for linux because of training...

MS's claims are just marketing garbage.

The school that I volunteer for has 2 ltsp servers and 60 thin clients. Since the thin clients have no hard drives, I never have to fix them. If there is a need for a new software package to be installed or account maintenance, I just remote into the server.
Much easier solution for me personally than servicing 60 windows XP computers, regardless of how locked down they are.

As far as training goes.. well, the first year I just made the system look like windows : screenshot
As the year went on, I noticed that neither students(k-8) nor teachers had any problems using the web browser or open office in linux. I can't imagine spending much money on training, becuase the system was more than intuitive enough.
As far as training for any new network administrators goes, sure. However in this day and age it would be silly for a network administrator to not put some effort into learning linux.

This is the original confirmation of his real identity. We've had that suspicion for quite a while but there was no way to prove it for sure. He reacted predictably enough instead of just ignoring the post.

Here is further confirmation. As you can see, this guy is just insanely retarded - all he had to do do was just ignore the posts and we still wouldn't know for sure. He didn't reply to this, but by that time it wasn't necessary. Someone (not us) then posted this as well. We think that was the same person who registered this account, but we're not sure. He also has another lame home page. And this is his Cox page.

As for his sockpuppet account, here's some dialectic proof (you can see the 'twitter' oozing out of there well enough), along with mention of "nuclear power", a topic which he claims to know about but is just generally ignorant about (as with everything else). Here's one where he mentions the BRLUG. A message was posted to the BRLUG (see "Willy evangelizes" thread here) for further confirmation, which he graciously provided.

As to his wife... well, that's another story =)

"Without a doubt [this is] the most commonly suggested solution. This solution is usually put forth by newbies who may have just been sniped and are used to the "Going, Going Gone" format that is very popular on TV and movie. There are several problems with this format.

Sellers schedule auctions to begin and end at certain times. Under this policy, sellers would never know when or if their auction ended. This makes things such as bulk deliveries and vacations hard to schedule. An auction format where people could bid against each other indefinitely would encourage shill bidding like never before. Non-snipers without a defineable True Max would be more tempted to get caught up in the moment, getting into a bidding frenzy and perhaps bidding more than they could afford. Buyer's Remorse would then increase.

This would still not solve the basic perceived problem. If you're not at your machine in the final hour, what good is an extra 15 minutes going to do? You would still have to be on the internet at the end of the auction, and you would no longer have the luxury of knowing exactly when that would be. Finally, even if you were at your computer at the end of the auction, your would be forced to sit at your computer indefinitely, since each time somebody bids, the endtime would be extended. The stress factor would increase a fair amount on people who are already upset in their belief that the system is unfair. What if you have to leave, and the Overtime period is still going? Undoubtedly almost every anti-sniper would still consider this unfair and still not be satisfied."

"Without a doubt [this is] the most commonly suggested solution. This solution is usually put forth by newbies who may have just been sniped and are used to the "Going, Going Gone" format that is very popular on TV and movie. There are several problems with this format.

Sellers schedule auctions to begin and end at certain times. Under this policy, sellers would never know when or if their auction ended. This makes things such as bulk deliveries and vacations hard to schedule. An auction format where people could bid against each other indefinitely would encourage shill bidding like never before. Non-snipers without a defineable True Max would be more tempted to get caught up in the moment, getting into a bidding frenzy and perhaps bidding more than they could afford. Buyer's Remorse would then increase.

This would still not solve the basic perceived problem. If you're not at your machine in the final hour, what good is an extra 15 minutes going to do? You would still have to be on the internet at the end of the auction, and you would no longer have the luxury of knowing exactly when that would be. Finally, even if you were at your computer at the end of the auction, your would be forced to sit at your computer indefinitely, since each time somebody bids, the endtime would be extended. The stress factor would increase a fair amount on people who are already upset in their belief that the system is unfair. What if you have to leave, and the Overtime period is still going? Undoubtedly almost every anti-sniper would still consider this unfair and still not be satisfied."

This is the standard way that science works today. And in this case, I find professor Cromer's case so well argued and referenced that the lack of peer review is acceptable to me - especially since the claim he's making isn't one that's particularly contested. I've not seen a single negative review (and I've searched), and there's a ton of positive ones, including Nature. Well, actually, there is ONE negative review, but the author has since retracted the review and replaced it with a glowing one (see here).

Eivind.

Is there not five forms of Jihad, and are they not as follows?

I had never heard of the term "Jihad al-faasiqeen" until I read it in your post, and looked it up on google. I suppose that's a formal term for it, though I've never heard it described as such. Anyway, that means I can't answer your question fully. I did find a web page that describes the five in detail; perhaps you'll find that useful.

Please demonstrate how killing and violence are not, and have never been, valid means of carrying out all of the above, particularly the last three.

I can only say that violence is used for Jihad al-kuffaar. The rest are where violence is not logically applicable (the first two), or where historically non-violence has been used (Jihad al-munafiqeen, Jihad al-faasiqeen). For the hypocrites, you already have God's word, as described in the link I gave you: read 9:73-110 to see how hypocrites should be treated. In no place is violence mentioned. Crack open any impartial history of Muhammad's life, or that of his four immediate successors: they didn't use violence against hypocrites or the corrupt unless the latter gave them a reason to (like, sedition or treason). The (known) hypocrites of that time prayed at the same mosques as the other Muslims, and were not turned away.

As Muslims are supposed to emulate Muhammad's example when it comes to living their lives and dealing with other people (Muslims or otherwise), I'd say that's a pretty important demonstration, no?

And please to tell how so many Muslims around the world could have it so wrong that they want to see cartoonists put to death for simply offending them.

Please to tell? Hmm. I don't know how many Muslims want the cartoonists dead. Do you? I don't know anything about them: I'm not one of them, nor do I personally know anyone who has openly espoused the opinion that they should die. So, who are they?

Here's another interesting journal article, characterizing the condition as NCS or Neuro-Cutaneous Syndrome.

The author is a parasitology researcher who suggests that the lesions host opportunistic parasite infestations (the 'fibers' are the parasites' nesting material), and suggests reactions to dental toxins as a cause of the lesions.

It's obvious you need those civics classes as much as anyone else. The actual quote is: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

There seems to be disagreements as to exactly what Benjamin Frankiln said. This website says:

To be clear, since it has been a while since I have written on this matter, security and liberty are both highly desirable goals for which we strive. They are, unfortunately, conflicting. Ben Franklin's dictum, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" is oft misquoted as an absolute ("They who would give up liberty for security, deserve neither liberty or security"); Franklin was, alas, not that simpleminded.

This one says basically what you've got but is more compleat:

As Benjamin Franklin once wrote, those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. Where our security and liberty is concerned, we must remain constantly vigilant and uncompromisingly devoted. - Representative Ron Paul, July 13, 1998 [WorldNetDaily]

And this one says:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Although worded differently they all mean basically the same thing, if you give up essential liberty for temporary safety you will neither get nor deserve either.

Interesting post, just have issue with this one point:

For the same reasons as above. Quick, easy, graphical, sharable. Java is more restricted in that it can't really be run as a script - it can barely be run when compiled into bytecode! - so you don't get the same feel of "what happens when I change this here".

Java can very easily be run as a script throught the use of BeanShell which is now officiallyl JSR 274

I threw together a pretty simple IDE for kids to do this called JTurtle. Still needs a little work, but it was a fun app to write :)
Kids get syntax highlighting, a C/C++/Java style syntax, and instant feedback. JTurtle can be used to write procedural or object oriented scripts and the full java API is accessible if they want to do something more advanced.

Aluminum costs 15kwh/kg to refine from bauxite. It can be recycled after the windmill dies, although I think many parts of a windmill could be reused. Recycling uses 5% of the energy to refine from ore.

A regular turbine makes 1.5MW, so it generates 100kg aluminum from ore per hour.

or 2000kg/hr recycled aluminum. They're rated in terms of decades, so that'd be 17,520,000 kg aluminum in 20 years. From ore.

Aluminum is recycled like crazy since it saves so much energy.

Because your post was a reply to me and it said...

No, it was a reply to another who asked what relevance the existence of one or two frauds has to the vast amounts of real, non-fraudulent evidence. I was providing an anecdotal explanation from a situation where another creationist claimed that the existence of even one fraud conclusively disproved evolution.

You want references to textbook and articles that taught Nebraska Man? One textbook is "Fossil Men: A Textbook of Human Palaeontology" 1957.

Why do you believe that this reference is a source that supports your claim? It does not. The textbook that you reference published a story about how Nebraska Man was a mistaken find based upon a pig's tooth. It did not, as you claim, present Nebraska Man as a legitimate find with pictures of what Nebraska Man looked like.

The truth be told, it was in *all* the textbooks at the time of the Scopes trial and the judge was even questioned as to whether or not it should be admitted as evidence. He declined because the trial was not supposed to be about whether evolution was true or not, but what a particular teacher has taught in a particular classroom.

You again appear misinformed regarding the facts.

Articles were published in Scientific American, The NY Times, and the French L'Anthropologie.

You claimed that articles were written describing "how Nebraska man lived". These articles did nothing of the sort. The articles in the respective publications specifically stated that the find was a pig tooth. This contradicts your previous claim.

Simply denying that fraud was perpetrated by evolutionists does not make it go away.

Nebraska Man was not a fraud. It was speculation on a find that did not pan out. There was never any deliberate attempt at deception involved. Even the man who found the tooth acknowledged skepticism regarding whether or not it was a hominid. Repeatedly claiming that Nebraska Man was a fraud only demonstrates that you are not only not misinformed regarding the situation, but that you are willfully passing on misinformation even after you have been corrected on the subject.

Nor that it has been perpetrated again and again in order to promote a *belief* that is as much as religion as any other.

Evolution is a theory supported by evidence. Citing one mistaken find and inaccurately calling it fraud does not make it a religious belief.

That's true.

Rockets explode on launch. OS'es are cracked and crash upon release. But CPUs and other logic chips rarely make headlines with such spectacular failures once tested and distributed in products.

One reason could be that microprocessors do so little compared with operating systems. While operating systems have hundreds, or even thousands of libraries, all of which must be debugged and cross-tested, a microprocessor has, at worst, a few hundred instructions whose results are all rather clearly spelled out in the design. Also, in the case that some instructions are found to generate inaccurate results, one can design compilers that work around the issue by not using the affected portions of the chip.

Even still, not all flaws are caught. Look at the Pentium division flaw.

why not chose delphi?

Here's a reason not to choose delphi

Another reason is that its not free in any sense of the word.

I'd recommend using Java on eclipse (with the GUI builder if necessary).
Fedora 4 includes an eclipse built on top of a 100% free java stack.

Aside from cost, the reason I wouldn't recommend VB as a starter language is that the syntax is very different than C,C++,C#, Java and many others.

And oh yeah, if you want to teach programming to young children Here's a little IDE I threw together ;)

Geeks are more hams every day with their antenna farms.

Try reading about tower review, or join in on Tower Talk.

Better yet, get a ham license. The technician test isn't even that hard.