Slashdot Mirror

...funny how hard they're trying to come up with one, them. :)

They aren't, as far as I know. Perhaps you're thinking of theories which attempt to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics. These are theories that are problematic at high energies and small length scales, not macroscopic scales. Like I said, quantum mechanics works perfectly well at the macroscopic scale.

I said "come about": That means, the conditions that led to it (big bang), not how it progressed once it was under way.

Perhaps you haven't studied this, but inflation does not only solve the problems of Big Bang theory (and in case you didn't know, the prediction of all of space reducing to a point at zero-time is understood to be false, a result of the failure of general relativity at high energies), but does correctly bring about a universe which resembles that of a FRW universe at early time.

I suspect you see it because it is a valid argument.

I see it only as an attempt to portray scientists as being as corrupt as the politicians and businessmen who try and put their pseudo-science out into the public and pass it off as real science for their own economic benefit.

Tenure, funding, pride of place at cocktail parties, self-respect...Your argument of funding from oil companies is pitiful. No serious scientist wants that.

No serious scientist would consider 'pride of place at cocktail parties' to be a deciding factor in what they research either. Maybe you are unaware of how much scientists are paid, but they could earn much more in any other position. most do it for the love of research, and no SERIOUS scientist would consider 'going with the herd' on any issue. They're convinced of climate change because they recognize that the results of their experiments are scientifically sound.

You caught me on 'tow' though. Seriously, though, who expected its origins to be from a foot race?

That's about 22 million American tons of people. If you're checking my math, remember to allow for kids.

Look up your own satirical comparison here, for example New York alone allegedly produces that much waste anually.

Plain reality is enough. This reminds me of when that group of Christian loons claimed to hear subversive messages in Stairway To Heaven when played backwards. Obviously they never took the time to listen to the lyrics played forwards...

What should scare the shit out of you is that after the 9/11 attacks Bush told the world that they either agree with US international policies in the future or they would be treated as terrorists. (That may mean being "bombed back to the stone age," especially if you are Pakistan.) Then the Bush administration made stuff up each and every day about why Iraq needed to be invaded, and did it in such a lax and transparent manner that it was obvious that they didn't consider it important whether people believed them or not. Try this: Bush is standing on the steps to the UN building in late 2003 with Annan standing right next to him, and Bush says that Saddam Hussein "refused to let the UN weapons inspectors in, and that's why we invaded." The man is, especially with the help of Dick Cheney, capable of lies of any magnitude, and he doesn't give a freck if people believe him. Not important. His power, after all, does not come from consensus, and he doesn't feel like he needs anyone's permission to do anything.

Five years later, Iraq is in flames, Afghanistan is in flames, southern Lebanon is in ashes, and US weapons have in a few years killed tens of times more innocent civilians than all the terrorists in modern history. Bush and the neocons are on a crusade to "fix the world." No amount of havoc, no number of dead women and children can ever convince them that they are wrong, because they don't belong to the "reality-based crowd." They will just keep going, and people will keep burning.

Meanwhile, US citizens approve and disapprove of the president mostly based on the price of gasoline. As always throughout history, burning brown people on the other side of the ocean carry little weight. People are burning, US citizens don't care, and freedum and democracy have been reduced to patriotic flags to wave in feverish support of a leader who couldn't understand less or care less about those concepts. That is what should scare the shit out of you.

http://ssshotaru.homestead.com/files/aolertranslat or.html

A real estate investment sounds to me as the best option. Wisely invested money in an off-plan project can easy bring up to 400% ROCE. Another absolutely fantastic investment could be an investment in land. If we take into account the UK market there is easy might be found a deal with 50% of yearly return. 100% ROCE less than in two years does it sound bad? Even more, a deal might be supported by payment on instalments and in case of a 24 month contract the amount of monthly payments, in fact, would match with amount of revenue received. Doesn't sound realistic? If take a look at http://www.smartpropertyinvestment.homestead.com/ it would give a number of ideas and answer to the question "How?"

Nuclear-powered aircraft. - Humans have flight technology and use it; humans have nuclear power tech and use it (well, outside the US, anyway). Combining the two into one doesn't result in a different technology any more than combining a mouse click and a book purchase (like Amazon's "one click" patent).

Flying cars. The word for flying car is "airplane". Or if you prefer, hovercraft...or helicopter. But if you want something that *looks* like a car but flies, try this: http://www.afaco.com/ or this: http://www.volanteaircraft.com/ or this: http://www.moller.com/ or for something small and jet powered, try this: http://aviationtrivia.homestead.com/BD5J.html (I've seen this in an airshow - it's amazing)
Well, I think you get the idea.

Project Orion. - "Capable of" can include "economically and politically" as well as engineering. However, I would point out that Project Orion was a proposal based quite deliberately on *existing* technologies. That is, humans have already built (and regrettably, used) every component required to make Orion fly, we just haven't put them together. However, there is some question about the engineering required to shield, absorb impact, and not ablate, the thrust from Orion's nuclear bomb "engine"

Mach 3 aircraft with real payload, e.g. the XB-70. "With real payload" is merely engineering existing technologies into new forms. Mach 3 has been achieved, and by several aircraft. Just because it hasn't been engineered into a giraffe shape that flies upside down doesn't mean it's a "technology humans have refrained from".

Fiber to the home. Like the Mach 3 and Orion, the technology exists and is "not refrained from". Just cuz they didn't run it to *your* house ;) doesn't mean humanity as a whole has refrained from using the technology.

Betamax :-) OK, I'll give you this one.

Exactly! I remember seeing a movie about a german family in post-WWII. One of the guys in the movie had a coal-powered truck (not the actual model of the truck, but incinerator is clearly visible: cylindrical structure on the side). Later he upgraded to a gas powered one, but I found it pretty amazing that such things didn't exist anymore. I frankly don't know what the movie was, but it doesn't matter.

Also remember that the original Diesel engine was designed to run from a variety of fuels, including coal dust.

Maybe you should look up the meanings of THEN and THAN. I thought the meanings were common knowledge, and there are lots of articles on the subject.

All in jest, but "AV forums buzzing" does not make something "common knowledge". Simple grammar rules such as when to use than or then SHOULD be common knowledge, however that is much too optimistic for slashdot :D.

Hmm, I'm not a producer-type, so I wouldn't count myself as any sort of spokesperson for this stuff. Wikipedia's article has a fair number of links, though many of them seem to be simply to conference abstracts. Agile Alliance might be a better resource: they have user stories. Most of the success stories and case studies I've read have been in books about Scrum, specifically the first two on this page.

Personally, I've had varying degrees of success. A friend at a 10-person startup is having a lot of success with daily 15-minute standups and 30 day cycles, but then, how much does it really stretch your process when you only have 10 people? We successfully used some XP methods at Homestead, but I don't know whether we'd be counted as agile, overall. TDD didn't work out for us very well. Short cycles worked really well in some cases. I don't think anyone from there wrote an article on our experiences, though it would have been useful.

Regarding game-specific success stories, I don't have anything for you. Does Valve's cabal system count as agile? Does it count as a success? The most successful games I can think of pretty much all shipped horribly late. Also problematic: the largest, most formalized efforts to improve software development methodologies have taken place outside of games, and the products are different enough that straight ports don't seem to work. It feels like we're having some successes and some failures with the Scrum adaptation we're using right now, but it's too early to tell-- it can't be counted as a success if we haven't shipped.

Tell me why "certain bleeping professors' trying to Latinize English" is an accurate characterization of the proponents of this rule,

and why that characterization (if accurate) invalidates the rule

• Fort St. Vrain: An HTGR reactor, technically way different from typical power stations now in operation. It only ran for 13 years, almost NEVER at anywhere near it's rated output, because it kept having breakdowns and operational failures. (The short lifespan, and running at extremely low power, prevented the building materials from being irradiated in the way that the building of a "successful" power station would be.) The record of this reactor was a safety nightmare, and it was a financial nightmare for it's Colorado customers. Also, the "cost" of dealing with the high-level waste was hidden via sending it to the National Lab facility in ID (i.e., TAXPAYER subsidy). Here's a reference for some history: http://fsv.homestead.com/FSVHistory.html Note that although they claim to be fully decommissioned, the building is still sitting there, apparently not in use for anything which would expose people for exgtended periods.

• Shoreham: Gadzooks, want to you label this as a success story ??? It cost $6 Billion to build, it completed it's 5% power test successfully, and then it was promptly shut down forever (after less than 1 month). I agree that a nuclear power plant is easy to decommission, if you never actually use it to generate any electric power! But we're hopefully talking about power plants which actually generate electricity, right?

• CTVR Yes, the NRC fact sheet lists it as a decommissioned reactor... but a quick Google shows nothing about this reactor, except a copies of the NRC list. I don't think that this was a Civilian Electrical power station. Possibly, NRC and Military came up with some backroom "let's mark it cleaned up" deal to hide a mess. If you can find a URL for a public utility which operated it, please advise!

• Pathfinder only ran for 13 months http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/com plex/pathfinder.html, and was characterized by the GAO as "a small demonstration plant" (although it's actually listed as way larger than the CVTR toy, see GAO/RCED-99-75 'Nuclear Regulation'). Small output and barely a year of operating time == extremely simple and cheap to clean up. This is another "example" which hardly generated any electrical power at all.

• Douglas Point Per this PDF dated October 2004, http://www.nea.fr/html/rwm/wpdd/canada.pdf "No commercial nuclear power reactors are undergoing active decommissioning in Canada. Three prototype power reactors (NPD, Douglas Point, and Gentilly-1) have been partially decommissioned and put into storage with surveillance mode pending final decommissioning at an undetermined future date." Looks to me like it wasn't a commercial nuclear power station, (just an AECL prototype), and it hasn't yet been decommissioned..

Still... If you've got other candidates which (a) weren't "toy-sized"; and (b) ran for at least 20 years, let's discuss them!

LOLOL!!!1 WTF IS UP Wiwth TEH Slashd0T HEaDLInez???---

Someone AOL-kiddie-translatorzored them?

Nice to see the lameness filter is still normal.

Next time they may install an AOLifier filter to all Slash posts though. Beware!

Strangeness... I'm reading this on a ThinkPad R40, and took the time to examine the mouse button placement, which I've never given much attention to before. I've used both left and right mouse buttons for the TrackPoint, as well as for the TrackPad. I'd never paid much attention before, but the set of buttons for the TrackPoint also has a middle button. Staring at it for a moment, I wondered what it did. Moving the mouse to a neutral area on the page so as not to inadvertently click something, I pushed the button. My browser (Firefox on OpenSuse) immediately jumped to a page on the Perseid Meteor Shower. I don't remember ever visiting that page, but I wouldn't say that I've never been there before, either. I just tried it in another tab, and it goes to the same place. Very strange. I may have to dig into my settings and see what the middle button does...

Not free, but it has worked well for some small business owners I know: www.homestead.com.

Correlation is not causation.

http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/toetheline.ht ml

> 14 hours a day is the new norm

... only 14?

People with pagers never have to worry about being away from work!

Some cities have implemented systems where you can borrow one of the public bicycles that are painted with an ugly colorscheme and use it to go where you need to go. Someone can then, in turn, borrow that bike from you after you've parked it. It's an interesting system because the bikes are just community property and everyone has the right to ride them.

-----

http://ssshotaru.homestead.com/files/aolertranslat or.html

BUT INTERNET AXPLORER SUX1!11!! WTF LOL ITS A FACT111! OMG WTF LOL THEYRE NOTHNG FANBOYISH ABOUT IT!11!!1 LOL
(Thank you AOLer Translator. More text so as not to set off the spam filters hahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahatest)

Mmmm, European arrogance (Intelligent papers indeed). I love it.

If Bush has an image problem, it's his fault. If muslims have an image problem, it's Bush's fault, as well as that of the US media. Interesting. I can't *imagine* why some people may think poorly of arab muslims...

Why aren't the muslims cleaning up their own house rather than attacking the media? Do they ever stop to think that *maybe* there is a large number of islamic terrorists? And that perhaps *that* is what is destroying their image and *not* the US press? One Arab released video tape of a beheading is worth a *million* cartoons as far as 'islam image' is concerned.

These people are killing innocent people in the name of their religion! Where are the large Muslim protests against the terrorists? Where are the outreach programs in Iraq and Iran to stop the killing? Why do they only protest against the US and Europe?

It's so much easier to blame the US, Europe, England, and Israel than it is to take responsibility. Say what you want about Rumsfeld, Bush, and the media - I know it's fashionable to pick on them. But the real problem is with the arab muslims. When they decide that foreigners being kidnapped, beheaded, and tapes of the events being released is too much, then we'll see change. Until then it's quiet acceptance of those acts (read: they don't really care).

"People should care about the public domain."

You miss. The unstated agent of the sentence "The public domain should be cared about" may have not been "people".

Those who disapprove of preposition stranding in English tend to cite the rewrite rule that transforms the dependent clause (THAT clause preposition) into (preposition WHICH clause) or the question (wh-word vso-inverted-clause preposition) into (preposition wh-word vso-inverted-clause). Rewrite rules such as these do not work so easily in all cases. Specifically, rewriting sentences of the form (patient passivized-intransitive preposition) requires depassivizing the sentence to (agent intransitive preposition patient), and undeleting the agent can almost never happen automatically, as it requires encyclopedic knowledge of the subject matter. In fact, some words traditionally advertised as prepositions function more like adverbs. Nowadays, many grammarians consider this rule obsolete, and it should not be unquestioningly adhered to.

ObTopic: The public domain should still be cared about, even those works whose authors habitually end sentences with prepositions.

Hey it could be worse. It could've been licensed by this Dr.Savage

For Release: January 16, 2006

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

Given that record I'm not going to take her assertions on the Verona Project at face value; only a sucker would. So if the parent can find independent support for the claims about the Verona Project, I'm interested, but if it's all based on Ann Coulter's brand of unsupported claims, forget it,

Given that record I'm not going to take her assertions on the Verona Project at face value; only a sucker would. So if the parent can find independent support for the claims about the Verona Project, I'm interested, but if it's all based on Ann Coulter's brand of unsupported claims, forget it,

It's scientific proof of why kids' hair cannot be combed correctly.

Oh? Then I won't refer to the Protestant Reformation era...

Peter reported to James (Acts 12:17) obeyed James (Acts 15: 13-22) deferred to James (Acts 21:18) and feared James (Galatians 2:12).

There were 5 Sees/Synods in the early church: Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome--each with a Patriarch/Pope/Pastor/Bishop.

St. Augustine (The Names of Christ) : "I have said somewhere of St. Peter that the Church is built on him as the Rock; but I have since said that the Word of the Lord. Thou are Peter, and upon this Petra I will build my church, must be understood of Him [Jesus] whom Peter confesses to be the Son of the Living God. Peter so named after this Rock represents the person of the Church, and has received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. It was not said of him, thou art Petra, but thou art Petros, and the Rock was Christ; through confession of whom Simon received the name Peter."

Josephus (37 - 100) : "So he assembled a counsel of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ."

Clement, bishop of Alexandria (150 - 215) : "Peter, James (bar Zebedee) and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem."

Hegesippus (100 - 160): "Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James..."

Origen (185 - 254) quoting Josephus : "These things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus, known as Christ."

Eusebius (263 - 339) (Historia Ecclesia ii, 23.4) : "...turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem."

According to St. Ingatius (Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis Ch. 4. Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I) Peter wasn't even in the list of Rome's first bishops : Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Ignatius (Telephorus), Huginus, Pius, Anicetus, Sorer, and Eleutherius.

See "2. Actual origins of the papacy" http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/OP/OP.htm and the corruption by papal Rome of the Sixth Nicene Canon in an attempt to extend its authority: http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/PF/6c.htm

The whole papal election process has been an embarassing flop with Popes adding former Popes to the growing list of Antipopes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope

Oh? Then I won't refer to the Protestant Reformation era...

Peter reported to James (Acts 12:17) obeyed James (Acts 15: 13-22) deferred to James (Acts 21:18) and feared James (Galatians 2:12).

There were 5 Sees/Synods in the early church: Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome--each with a Patriarch/Pope/Pastor/Bishop.

St. Augustine (The Names of Christ) : "I have said somewhere of St. Peter that the Church is built on him as the Rock; but I have since said that the Word of the Lord. Thou are Peter, and upon this Petra I will build my church, must be understood of Him [Jesus] whom Peter confesses to be the Son of the Living God. Peter so named after this Rock represents the person of the Church, and has received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. It was not said of him, thou art Petra, but thou art Petros, and the Rock was Christ; through confession of whom Simon received the name Peter."

Josephus (37 - 100) : "So he assembled a counsel of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ."

Clement, bishop of Alexandria (150 - 215) : "Peter, James (bar Zebedee) and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem."

Hegesippus (100 - 160): "Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James..."

Origen (185 - 254) quoting Josephus : "These things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus, known as Christ."

Eusebius (263 - 339) (Historia Ecclesia ii, 23.4) : "...turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem."

According to St. Ingatius (Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis Ch. 4. Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I) Peter wasn't even in the list of Rome's first bishops : Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Ignatius (Telephorus), Huginus, Pius, Anicetus, Sorer, and Eleutherius.

See "2. Actual origins of the papacy" http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/OP/OP.htm and the corruption by papal Rome of the Sixth Nicene Canon in an attempt to extend its authority: http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/PF/6c.htm

The whole papal election process has been an embarassing flop with Popes adding former Popes to the growing list of Antipopes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope

Where are you located?

A side note: your homepage that you have listed is disabled. So I couldn't use that to figure out where you live

If you're in the states and you only get basic cable, you'll have to wait until adult swim starts airing them again. That's a lineup of shows that the Cartoon Network has late at night. I saw the first season a long time ago on there and that's the limit of my exposure to it.

Now, if you're in Canada, you'll have to wait until YTV starts airing it again. They used to have marathons on for this show so let's hope they pick up the second season.

Let us know your location and cable options. If you have really great cable, you might have some of the channels that will sporadically play it.

Or consider the word "spelt," an older participial form of the word "spell." You almost never encounter "spelt" in the United States, but it is actually fairly common in England. On the other hand, the older participial form "gotten" is almost unheard of in England, but in most sentences it is the preferred form in the U.S.
(from: http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/british.html)

Alright, I'll give him a 'pass' on this one, but I don't like it.

-FL

"Nah, they're busy writing Shakespeare, remember? ;)"

No; that's monkeys.
<flamebait>
The chimp is running the US of A.
</flamebait>

They are re-running season 1 on Space now. My wife and I watch it. She likes it more than any other "weird faces show" (her term for the TV SciFi shows), I think it's OK.

> It's the essence of the show. The Cylons are biological. They think and breath and live.

Which brings me to one of the show's most glaring flaws.

I'm a big fan of internal consistency. It helps me suspend my disbelief and immerse myself in the show for the 45 minutes that it is on. Screw that up, especially for something crucial, and I get this nagging feeling that something is not right.

So, on one hand we are shown Cylons that are
(1) much stronger and have significantly better endurance than humans,
(2) their spines glow red when having sex, and
(3) they are adversely affected by radiation that does not bother humans.

while on the other hand, we are told that they are practically indistinguishable from humans and the only test was created by a "genius" and can only be operated by him.

Come on, they made a full post mortem on Leoben and didn't find fluorescent cells in his spinal column? No difference in the muscle tissue that would explain the ability of this model to break metal handcuffs?

The other thing that I don't care for is that this show takes itself so damn seriously.
It shouts: "Hey, pay attention! This is a very serious show talking about very serious issues! And here they are...". It's not as bad as ST:Voyager (and if the couple of episodes that I watched are representative of the series, nothing can be as bad as ST:Voyager) but it still gets old after a short while.

Contrast it with Farscape that seems to say: "Chill, dude. This is just a silly show for your entertainment, but when you done watching this episode, maybe you'll want to reflect a bit about how the characters behaved and, perhaps, find something to think about. Or maybe not, we don't really care".

And the funny thing is, I did find myself thinking about the moral issues presented in Farscape more than those presented in BSG'05.

I also did not mind as much when they violated the laws of physics right and left in Farscape. Maybe because the "holes" did not detract from the overall plot (my favourite was Rigel telling off Sikozu in I shrink therefore I am).

So, in my opinion, BSG'05 is OK, better than most SciFi shows that I'm exposed to, but not the best of them.

Its the Frog and scorpion, not the dog and the scorpion.

http://hoopsu.homestead.com/motivfrogscorpion.html

Well, I got it, but I'm more interested in how Deja Thoris, Princess of Mars, is faring (she could raise the surface temperature on Mars all by herself).

http://thebookhaven.homestead.com/Z_Who_Moved_My_C heese.html

The FCC isn't that active in cracking down on annoying emitters, but they do try. This went out on August 24th:

"The Federal Communications Commission has been made aware that an electronic transformer manufactured by W.A.C. Lighting Company, model number EN-12PX-AR, located in a lighting circuit at your residence, is causing harmful radio interference to the AM Radio Broadcast Band as well as to a licensee in the Amateur Radio Service."

People tend to forget that a switching power supply is a high-powered RF generator. If it weren't for strict emissions regulations and type approval, the frequencies below a few megahertz would be full of power supply hash and not much else.

here & here.

So suppose Paul is a prehistoric hominid; a hungry tiger approaches. Fleeing is perhaps the most appropriate behavior: I pointed out that this behavior could be produced by a large number of different belief-desire pairs. To quote myself:

Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect, because he thinks it unlikely that the tiger he sees will eat him. This will get his body parts in the right place so far as survival is concerned, without involving much by way of true belief. . . . . Or perhaps he thinks the tiger is a large, friendly, cuddly pussycat and wants to pet it; but he also believes that the best way to pet it is to run away from it. . . . or perhaps he thinks the tiger is a regularly recurring illusion, and, hoping to keep his weight down, has formed the resolution to run a mile at top speed whenever presented with such an illusion; or perhaps he thinks he is about to take part in a 1600 meter race, wants to win, and believes the appearance of the tiger is the starting signal; or perhaps . . . . Clearly there are any number of belief-cum-desire systems that equally fit a given bit of behavior

The thing is, rational behavior does not replace instinct. This scenario is very plausable, if Paul was left up to only his own mental devices to make decisions; if paul were somehow completely separated from instinct. A real homonid would have instinct to tell him to fear the tiger, and these instincts are behaviors governed only by the long term survivial of the species. Instincual behaviors are simple and have few links between input and result. This behavior is simple: to fear predators or other large, scary creatures and to flee from them. This behavior will continue to be correct as long as predators exist. It's the perfect type of behavior to program insinctively since

• It will be correct for many many generations, even across species
• It is fairly general (and so is robust and will continue to be correct even if the predator changes)
• An incorrect choice will result in certain death, so has a direct effect on selection

On the other hand, some types of behaviors are better learned by each creature:

Suppose Joey is a prehistoric homonid. In recent years, a new species of plant has evolved. It spreads when birds eat its berries, but the seeds are lost when eaten by other creatures. The plant's berries are adapted to make non-birds sick when the berries are eaten. To continue to entice the birds, the berries continue to be sweet. The only distinguishing part of the plant is the shape of its leaves. Joey eats a bunch of the berries from this plant, and likes them because they are sweet. A few hours later, Joey feels sick and realizes that the plant with the funny leaves was the only unusual thing he ate recently. Joey remembers not to eat from this bush again. 500 years later, this plant becomes extinct, choked out by other plants.

This behavior is better suited to be learned because:

• It was correct for only a short time. Evolution would take far too long to program an appropriate instinct, and it would be vestigial for some time after that.
• It is specific to one type of plant; it's fragile and would not be applicable to any other species of plants.
• An incorrect choice will be rememberable but not fatal. Joey's species would continue to survive (albeit not as well) even while eating the berries regularly. This smaller differen

So suppose Paul is a prehistoric hominid; a hungry tiger approaches. Fleeing is perhaps the most appropriate behavior: I pointed out that this behavior could be produced by a large number of different belief-desire pairs. To quote myself:

Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect, because he thinks it unlikely that the tiger he sees will eat him. This will get his body parts in the right place so far as survival is concerned, without involving much by way of true belief. . . . . Or perhaps he thinks the tiger is a large, friendly, cuddly pussycat and wants to pet it; but he also believes that the best way to pet it is to run away from it. . . . or perhaps he thinks the tiger is a regularly recurring illusion, and, hoping to keep his weight down, has formed the resolution to run a mile at top speed whenever presented with such an illusion; or perhaps he thinks he is about to take part in a 1600 meter race, wants to win, and believes the appearance of the tiger is the starting signal; or perhaps . . . . Clearly there are any number of belief-cum-desire systems that equally fit a given bit of behavior

The thing is, rational behavior does not replace instinct. This scenario is very plausable, if Paul was left up to only his own mental devices to make decisions; if paul were somehow completely separated from instinct. A real homonid would have instinct to tell him to fear the tiger, and these instincts are behaviors governed only by the long term survivial of the species. Instincual behaviors are simple and have few links between input and result. This behavior is simple: to fear predators or other large, scary creatures and to flee from them. This behavior will continue to be correct as long as predators exist. It's the perfect type of behavior to program insinctively since

• It will be correct for many many generations, even across species
• It is fairly general (and so is robust and will continue to be correct even if the predator changes)
• An incorrect choice will result in certain death, so has a direct effect on selection

On the other hand, some types of behaviors are better learned by each creature:

Suppose Joey is a prehistoric homonid. In recent years, a new species of plant has evolved. It spreads when birds eat its berries, but the seeds are lost when eaten by other creatures. The plant's berries are adapted to make non-birds sick when the berries are eaten. To continue to entice the birds, the berries continue to be sweet. The only distinguishing part of the plant is the shape of its leaves. Joey eats a bunch of the berries from this plant, and likes them because they are sweet. A few hours later, Joey feels sick and realizes that the plant with the funny leaves was the only unusual thing he ate recently. Joey remembers not to eat from this bush again. 500 years later, this plant becomes extinct, choked out by other plants.

This behavior is better suited to be learned because:

• It was correct for only a short time. Evolution would take far too long to program an appropriate instinct, and it would be vestigial for some time after that.
• It is specific to one type of plant; it's fragile and would not be applicable to any other species of plants.
• An incorrect choice will be rememberable but not fatal. Joey's species would continue to survive (albeit not as well) even while eating the berries regularly. This smaller differen

Hope you don't mind my butting in b100dian, but I closed the joke tag for you:

YES ITS A FAATURE COMPARISON AS SIBLNG SADE TAHT1111!!11 OMG WTF LOL IS DA BTA IS TEH COMPARISON IS BTWEN THNGS SOME PAOPLA ALRAADY ENJOY AND THNGS SOM3 OTHERS MIGHT ENJOY IN DA FUTUR3 IF11!11!!! OMG WTF LOL THEY AVER FINISH TEH BTA1!!11!1! LOL

Translated by means of Moi using the AOL Translator

PS - Is b100dian an Armenian nick?

If you don't know the answer, then either:
A. It does not exist.
B. You have not looked hard enough.

look here. Holland most likely has different distribution fees and share percentages than the US.

Ah, yes, the right wingnuts. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing. Pure American right wing. The anthrax attack? Unclear, but it was somebody who had access to the US's weaponized anthrax.

Fun militia sites:

• The Michigan Militia. Protecting Michigan from, well, somebody. Canada, maybe? "Training Schedule for Saturday, August 6th: 0800 Rifle zero, 0930 Camo check, 1000 Tactical walk, 1100 Fire team formation."
• Militia of Montana. More into selling stuff. Order your bomb-making manual here.
• The Indiana Militia. Offers custom dog tags. Currently feuding with the Indiana Citizens Volunteer Militia. Promotes National Ammo Day.

There's been a boom in militia activity in recent years. This may reflect the changing role of the National Guard. It used to be a one-weekend a month thing with a two week summer camp. If you join the National Guard today, they send you off to the real wars. So the guys who just want to play soldier on weekends don't join the Guard any more.

There are always vultures there. I went on a tour of the facilities a while back and there were vultures all over the place especially flying around the VAB. I asked some employees there about this and they say the vultures get great thermals there because of the huge building.

This just in, courtesy of Spaceflight Now. Note for the unitiated: buzzard == vulture

1810 GMT (2:10 p.m. EDT)

NASA believes the bird struck by Discovery's fuel tank was a buzzard. These large birds can have a wing span of more than six feet and the average weight of a full-grown bird is 6.5 lbs.

"It was in the wrong place at the wrong time," a Kennedy Space Center spokesperson said.

NASA has long assumed that the noisy launch pad environment at the time of main engine ignition would cause bird to fly away from the launching shuttle.

Workers had not located the carcass of the bird but not all areas of the launch complex had been searched.

Images of the strike are available here.

Subscribers of our Spaceflight Now Plus service can see a video clip of the bird strike here.

The incident is one of several NASA is studying from yesterday's launch, along with the chipped nose gear door tile and external tank debris-shedding event.

"A little info! A "U" is the measured height of a server case 1U is 44.45mm (1.75inches) 19 inches is 482,6mm"

Actually, the historical roots of the U are traced back to Bonnie Scotland. The U was the designation of how many sheep could be stuffed into the small slot of a server rack. The server rack would then be set afire as the rack doubled as a barbecue on the weekends. (This is where Al Gore studied the creation of the internet incidentally) The phrase "rack of ribs" was also coined in Bonnie Scotland during the infamous "Troy McLure Cuefest of '79" (1879) during a rendition of "Laddie, fetch me ha'notharack o them ribs" performed by, who else, The Scotsmen.

I had shown these pictures to many people. My 12 year-old son, Greg, pointed out to me something no one else had noticed. He said, "Dad, there's no fire in that explosion".

I guess this wouldn't make it in hollywood.

The explosion happened underwater. The ship was split by the gas bubble generated.

It's nowhere near as simple as that. You can recreate the moon illusion by doing the following:

1) Stare at the dot in the circle found on this page for around 30 seconds.

2) Stare up at the ceiling, you should see a yellow after-image appear. Note its size.

3) Now look horizontally at a nearby wall. Notice how bigger the circle looks? That's the moon illusion taking effect without a horizon in sight.

For a detailed explanation of the Moon Illusion, visit this page at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. According to that site, it's due to Oculomotor Micropsia, which is to do with the way the eye focuses on objects in the distance

"In an effort to earn a new reputation as a leading Internet destination, AOL will open up to a wider audience on the Web through AOL.com."

I apologize but at the moment I cannot find a link to the specific articles.(which were not in refrence to widespread but more area specific activitys I believe, but which I felt shed a rather dubious light to the claims of thinning deer population)

Here however are a couple of links with some relevence(of special note is the breeding and hunting of endangered animals)

http://www.friendsofanimals.org/actionline/spring- 2005/in-my-view.html

http://worldanimalfoundation.homestead.com/WAFWhit eTailedDeer.html

According to AOL Translator its:

OMG I BT U LOSE 20 POINTS FOR IM11!!!!1! OMG LOL

The ALL-CAPS are evidently important to the syntax, after all...
you don't want to look like a nerd.