This is why I - an engineer costing my employer $250/hour - am doing IT work. Someone in corporate thinks the company will save money by laying off IT workers. Instead, it usually works out like this:
We're an engineering company, and yes, our engineers do know networking. Problem is, they aren't as familiar with the network as someone employed specifically for that task. So it takes them longer to diagnose the problem, and often don't have the authority necessary to fix it.
What typically happens is that because the engineer doesn't have the authority necessary to fix problems, they come up with their own half-baked workaround which works for them, but generally causes larger problems in the long term, but that's ok because:
Some big boss saved money on the budget this quarter, and got *his* bonus.
So now we have engineers billing the company $250 an hour for doing IT work, which takes them about twice as long as an IT tech would; it costs the company about 4 times as much money per incident, and
Now we have more incidents than otherwise, because departments/engineers take it upon themselves only to fix the immediate problem, and ignore the longer term implications.
And lets not forget the IT department is now spending less on IT. Bonuses for the IT managers as well!
So now, the net effect is that we're shifting IT work to the engineering budget, where equivalent work costs us 4 times or more what it would cost if the IT department did it. But since we're saving money on paper, all the bosses collect their bonuses, while their bosses can't figure out why we can't ship products on time.
Eventually, the higher level managers will either hire consultants to figure out why development costs are so high (who, in turn, will recommend hiring more IT workers... repeat ad infinitum), or:
The strategic managers will declare the business unit to be non-viable and sell it to another company and/or layoff all the workers. Oh, and let's not forget that the managers will move on to other companies, where they'll use their stellar examples of cost control as a bullet point on their resumes.
I too, still use the 555, if for nothing more than convenience. However, I started with discrete transistors and RC networks, and things like timers, flip-flops, one-shot triggers, etc... are not at all difficult to replicate if you understand BJTs. The 555 did two things for engineers:
It reduced the amount of analysis required for timer circuits with respect to their BJT counterparts. One can simply apply the datasheet formulas and forget about the rest.
It reduced part count and cost for the design.
The latter was probably the more important of the two.
First, it's not religious FUD. The fact that a human embryo is, well, human, is not disputed by any in the scientific community. Nor is the fact that a fertilized embryo will, under the normal course of nature (i.e., implanted in the womb, carried to term, etc...) become what most people recognize as a human being.
What Bush did was simply stop federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Which didn't ban it outright, it just meant that taxpayer dollars wouldn't be used to fund it. Which is kind of remarkable that the press called it a 'ban', because it was nothing of the sort - private interests could still fund stem cell research to their heart's content. Given the U.S. stance on intellectual property, such a ban actually furthered private interests by freeing them from competition; instead of having publicly funded research result in public-domain cures, now private investors were free to fund their own research, patent the results, and reap exorbitant profits from whatever cures were forthcoming.
Except that they didn't. When you consider the fact that during the dotcom days investors were throwing money at any company with a business plan, let alone a product, the fact that stem cell research funding went lacking is telling. IOW, the prospects of (embryonic) stem cell research were so bleak that even the stupidest and riskiest of VC firms chose not to fund it. Which, quite frankly, speaks volumes about its perceived value for finding actual cures for diseases.
The stem cell debate isn't a debate over science; it's a debate about who society considers deserving of life. Two hundred years ago, people of a certain skin color were considered subhuman. In the last century, the Nazis considered it acceptable to kill off Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, Christians, etc... "for the greater good of Germany". The scientific fact of the matter is that the embryos from which stem cells are derived could have become living, breathing people.
Think about that the next time you can't find a date.
Instead, that stem cell became an experiment. And one day, after perhaps thousands, or even millions are killed in the name of science, we may find a cure for a disease. A disease which affects those who already have had the privilege of being born. IOW, people are being denied their very lives, in order that others who already have lives may live them with less discomfort.
If I were blind, I would really appreciate a cure which allows me to see again. But I wouldn't sacrifice my wife or any of my children for that cure. Nor would I expect anyone else to die so that I could be cured. It just isn't worth it. I'd rather live with a disease than do without the lives of those people I love. And for me to ask someone else to die so that my disease could be cured would be the height of arrogance.
It is the unfortunate fact of life that capitalist societies have reaped their wealth from the backs of the poor and voiceless. The dispassionate attitude toward those less privileged, those without a voice in their defense, is a staple of capitalist societies. From the Southern plantations and the slave trade to Chicago's recent establishment of "pan-handle-free" zones, the oppression and marginalization of the weak and unfortunate is a recurring theme in American society. The possibility of "miracle cures" has science drooling over the prospects of embryonic stem cell research; they have a motive of becoming famous; the drug companies, of course, see the potential profit; but who is looking at the grand scheme of things? Are we really a more progressive nation than that which fought the civil war? Do we really look out for those who can't speak for themselves? Or are we merely arrogant, attempting to assuage our guilt about the misdeeds of our forebears, all the while committing offenses that even they would have considered immoral?
The debate over embryonic stem cell research isn't a matter of science; it's a matter of morality. To support it requires
This Fiesta is not the first Ford to carry that name. Back in the late seventies, early eighties, Ford also produced a car called the Fiesta. My mother bought one. It was a piece of junk which made even the escort look luxurious. From starting on fire (because the battery cable was draped *across* the battery, allowing it to short the terminals together when the insulation failed...) to rusting prematurely (it was only 3 years old in 1984), to blowing a waterpump during a 1400 mile trek, it was an unmitigated disaster of cheapness.
Other interesting facts:
It was one of Ford's first front-wheel drive cars. It used u-joints rather than cv joints, which apparently failed often.
Because it was FWD, a lot of the mechanics at the time didn't understand how to work on it. Hence, it was fairly difficult to have repaired. Even the dealer balked at it, but had to repair it anyway, because it was a Ford.
Ford discontinued it after a few years, replacing it with the (much better) Escort.
Technically speaking, there's no such thing as unlimited bandwidth, though, I would expect if an ISP advertised "unlimited usage" for a 6 Mbs line, I'd be able to download (6 Mbps / 8 bits per byte * 3600 s/hour * 24 hours/day * 30 days/month = 1944000 megabytes = 1.944 terabytes per month). Sadly, no.
The problem I have with these plans is that they're charging more for essentially the same service as before. Sure, you'll always have those people who are "excessive downloaders" who - by the cable company's definition - are "abusers". But the problem is that these people: A.) Expect to use the bandwidth for which they've paid, and B.) Are so few and far between that they don't affect the overall usage significantly.
Unfortunately, for most, the only way to get a fair price is to talk your congressman into price controls; ISPs are often monopolies in the area in which they serve.
Of course, we all know what comes next: In a few weeks, their status will go back to "In a relationship", and the day after prom will be suddenly changed to "single".
When you realize you are uncontrollably in love with someone? That you and this person sitting beside you are soul mates? That you were meant for each other?
That moment for me came a few weeks ago. Yes, my wife and I have been married several years, but she was a Windows user when we met. Sure, she'd grown up in a diverse family - both Macs and PCs, but most of her experience was on Windows.
About a year ago I replaced Windows with Ubuntu on the family laptop. She kind of grudgingly went along with it.
Then, last week we were watching the news when the anchor broke the story of conficker. Without missing a beat, she turned to me and in roll-your-eyes-I-can't-believe-they're-so-stupid kind of voice said:
"That's a Windows thing, isn't it?"
"Yep," I replied.
"Hmmm. Sucks to be them, I guess..."
Linux evangelists take note: sometimes it takes people *years* to come around. But when they do, when they realize they no longer have to WORRY about viruses and other Windows-specific crap, it's priceless.
One person bought a newspaper, and then proceeded to tell the story to all of his friends, associates, etc...
It wasn't until the small-town atmosphere went away that newspapers were able to become the big businesses they are (were?!) today. News readership requires a *certain level* of interaction - too much, and no one reads the stories; too little, and there's no point in reading the stories (with whom would you discuss the news?). The problem is that getting the mix right is more art than science, so when someone reproduces their stories, they err on the side of retaining control; they attempt to shut the copiers down.
Nuclear energy is not zero emissions. It just doesn't emit carbon dioxide, which, unlike spent nuclear fuel, can be safely sequestered inside living organisms.
There are four fundamental problems with nuclear energy:
The disposal of the waste is not done in an environmentally responsible way. (No, making an area too radioactive to support life for the next 10,000 years is NOT environmentally responsible. Nor is burying it where a change in climate could cause groundwater contamination, etc...)
The current market cost of nuclear energy does not reflect the cost environmentally responsible waste disposal. The cost of nuclear energy would skyrocket if we had to dispose of it in a manner which didn't contaminate some part of the earth.
Nuclear energy is inherently dangerous, and even a small accident/sabotage can become a major catastrophe. Solar, wind, oil, even *coal* do not have this liability.
Nuclear energy is not sustainable. When the fuel supplies are gone, so is the energy.
One thing that always struck me about nuclear power proponents was the myopia of the larger issues. Nuclear doesn't solve the energy crisis; it only defers it until a later date, adding additional problems as it does.
If passed, this could have the effect of a de-facto outlawing of Linux. For example, consider the typical business small business owner's plight: he uses Windows mostly on the desktop, but has a few Linux servers handling things like mail and print services.
Government inspector pays a visit.
Government inspector verifies the desktops have the latest Microsoft patches and antivirus installed.
Inspector then moves on to the server room, where Linux is installed. Inspector can't determine that "latest Microsoft patches are installed", so machines are marked as non-compliant.
The business owner has 15 days to rectify the "non-compliant" situation. His IT guy tries to explain to the government inspector that Linux is its own operating system; that it doesn't need patches from Microsoft, indeed, that it can't even run said patches...
Goverment inspector's response: "You have to install the latest patches from Microsoft. If your software doesn't support the latest patches, you have to upgrade."
Small business has no choice but to move their servers to Windows so that Government inspector will sign off on compliance certificate. Score one for Microsoft, scratch one Linux installation.
I understand the government wants to ensure "cyber security" - whatever that means - but they, of all organizations, are the least qualified to implement it. The conflict of interest between big business and government interests is just too great for this to be anything but a tremendous waste of time and money.
And this without even considering the larger question of why the government should have any control over the software private users run on their own computers.
In the name of cyber-security, you will be required to run government-approved software. Which, if it isn't outright insecure in the first place (I'm looking at you Microsoft!) will provide a convenient avenue for the government to insert its own backdoors for spying on the public at large.
While were at it, why not use OS hooks to cap the user's bandwidth so they *cannot* download more than the large telecomms think they should.
Oh, and what a convenient way to stop piracy. Look! this government required security software reports back to the studios when a filesharing client is installed.
Why bother knocking down the door, when the Virtual Search Warrant (TM - Microsoft) will allow the police to keep us all "safer" by allowing law enforcement to check our computers for illegal content...
The problem isn't the shame associated with nudity. It's the reputation that's going to follow these girls throughout high school and college. When I was in middle school, one of the students found an issue of a certain men's magazine in which our illustrious teacher was baring all. She had posed during college because she needed the money, and yet, here, 15 or 20 years later, the centerfold was displayed on the chalkboard when she walked into the classroom. After everyone had been seated and seen it. She left the room in a fit of tears.
While the article doesn't give any details, it's probably very likely that these pictures would have shown up on the internet had the authorities not intervened. Where they would like occupy someone's MySpace page or other social networking site. Once on the web, it's almost impossible to get something permanently removed.
And this could easily have followed them the rest of their lives:
In high school, they'll probably have a reputation they never live down. I imagine they'll be called some rather nasty names, and the one who bared her chest will probably be asked to do it again... and again... and again...
In college, a Google search would likely turn up the pictures. Believe it or not, the kind of guys that girls want - i.e., the kind who are looking for a wife rather than a lay - won't be too impressed by said pictures floating around the internet. Not every guy wants the whole world to know what his wife looks like naked.
After college, it will be even worse. Perhaps she'll get hired as a teacher and experience an incident similar to the above; perhaps she'll land a job only to find a group of her male coworkers huddled around a monitor looking at pictures of her; perhaps she'll get fired when someone finds out.
Or perhaps she won't be able to find a job after college. If a university is willing to withhold someone's degree because they were a "drunken pirate" at a party, what would it do if nude pictures of their teaching candidates showed up with a Google search?
The relative long memory of the internet gives what were once excusable mistakes long and far reaching effects. No, they should probably not have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, but they should at least have to be educated with respect to the gravity of what they've done.
Hope it's not used by a professional...
on
Cellular Repo Man
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Not that I'd buy one of these, but suppose, for example, that I do. And suppose, furthermore, that because of some screwup with my bank, or human error (oops, transposed two CC digits!), my bill doesn't get paid.
I'm charging clients $100 an *hour*. If you disable my laptop for even a single 8 hour day, you owe *me* money.
Did they think of that? Did it occur to them that if this functionality *accidentally* gets tripped, the lawsuit could easily erase not just the profit on the modem and the service, but the laptop as well?
Or, to put it another way: why would someone sell a laptop (on contract) to someone who can't afford a cellphone?
If the data/observations show your theory to be wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether or not I have a better theory/explanation of the data.
This is what so many of pro-evolution folks simply miss: early evolutionary theory was *provably false* based on the data it had at the time. It wasn't until further discovery and some brighter scientists came along that the modified theories were actually logically consistent.
It's bad enough that some religions are (claimed to be) not logically consistent, but for science to make the same mistake is even less excusable.
What scientists do NOT want done to "examine" those weaknesses by contrasting observations and facts that led to a theory (evolution) with observations that fit a pre-set fairy tale (creationism in whatever form you want to call it) and then pretend that both are valid science. [emphasis added]
I think your statement sums up perfectly why most fundies don't believe in science: only *certain observations* count - i.e., observations which support the worldview of the scientist. If it doesn't support a scientist's pre-conceived notions about how the world ought to be, then the observation is just part of a fairy tale. But if it does support the scientist's theory, then it is a *scientific observation* (or as would say, a *scientific fact*).
I really have no problem with science, but it is attitudes like this which irk even the most skeptical of us. The notion that certain observations don't count because they "fit a pre-set fairy tale" is ridiculous; if the data don't match your theory, your theory is wrong, not the data. Consider, for example, that Marie Curie was rejected by Krakow University because she was a woman; consider, also, that Einstein was a patent clerk when he first published his papers on general relativity. The notion that only scientists are able to determine what counts as a relevant observation has been discredited before, and I suppose will be again, much to our collective shame.
because it is in the best interest of the politicians for them to do so. Facts are really problematic, and things like truth are downright impossible for a politician to manipulate to his or her advantage. There's a reason why you see people like Al Gore, instead of scientists, weighing in on the GW issue. Al Gore isn't subject to scientific peer review, and exaggeration doesn't hurt his credibility. A scientist, OTOH, has to be careful with his statements lest someone misquote him and ruin his career.
Emotional opinions are always the best for those in power, because they can be wielded toward whatever end those in power seek. The only reason why global warming is on the political horizon is because one party is using it to gain a majority of votes over the other. Both sides could care less about actual progress on the issue.
If you don't believe me, look at how the Republican party handled the pro-life issue: we've had Republican "pro-life" presidents for 20 of the last 28 years, and "liberal, socialist" Europe has more restrictions on abortion than the US.
It's not about truth, it's about political power. The actual science is irrelevant; people often believe in global warming because they don't have a religion, and others often deny it because they don't want the inconvenience of changing their lifestyle.
While I'll grant that fundamentalists believe in the literal, word-for-word translation of the Bible, their theology of anti-evolutionism is not based on said literal reading.
Rather, they can't come to terms with the notion that sacred scripture describes creation *from God's perspective*, and evolution describes it from a scientific perspective. A careful reading of the first chapter of Genesis does not reveal any conflicts with the commonly accepted theory of evolution, if one understands general relativity. Scripture even says, "With God, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day." If the Bible really is inerrant, and God cannot lie, the only conclusion one can draw is that the Genesis account was not talking about what we would call a 24 hour day.
In fact, if one really thinks about it, a simple thought experiment will suffice. (Some of you will recognize this as based on Einstein's work). Suppose, for example, you had limitless power and could do all things. You decide to create a universe. But as you create this universe, and it grows in size, you must travel progressively farther away in order to bring all of it within your field of view. If one is traveling at the speed of light away from an object, the object appears frozen in time; light from subsequent events never reaches the viewer. If one is stationary with respect to an object, time proceeds at the same rate for both observer and object alike. At some point between these two extremes, there exists a speed at which 14 billion years occupies one day (or six) from the perspective of the observer. In fact, from the perspective of someone riding the wave of background radiation at the edge of the universe (that is, the remnants of the big bang), the universe is scarcely a second old.
The debate over evolution isn't a debate about whether or not certain scientific theories are valid. It isn't even a debate about the proper interpretation of scripture. It is a debate over the role of Fundamentalist Christianity in public life. The fundamentalists aren't interested in an interpretation of the Bible which cedes any authority to science. Nor are atheists interested in ceding any power to fundamentalists.
I suppose I could go out on a limb and suggest the reason most life forms exhibit similar characteristics is because God writes in C++ and reuses base classes... But then, who am I to question./ orthodoxy?!
This distinction between immediate and eventual consistency is deeply philosophical and depends on how important the data happens to be.
Ah, the naivete of youth... These guys clearly have never spent a few weeks debugging a concurrency problem. If your data is important enough to keep around, it's important enough to get it right.
There's nothing deeply philosophical about corrupting the relationships between various data sets because your database doesn't enforce consistency. A certain desktop recently discovered just how bad poorly enforced consistency can make things. Those *young whippersnappers* won't stay young for very long trying to debug that seemingly impossible to find data corruption problem, or worse, a web site which displays garbage pages at random because your data storage mechanism isn't consistent when it needs to be.
Consistency in databases has always been a ground rule because consistency checks are more easily done by a database than an application programmer. Consider, for example, the prototypical record read-update-write operation on a database with strict consistency and enforced locks:
Read the record. The database automatically locks it for you.
Update the record.
Write the record back to the database.
Now consider the same operation with a database which enforces no consistency, or does so rather lazily:
Read the record. (Someone else might also read it in the interim, but you'll never know.)
Update the record.
Read the record again. Has someone changed it?
Someone else changed the record. Reread the record.
Before updating the record, check to see if you are going to modify any of the fields previously modified by the intervening write.
Write the old, conflicting values to a log file for manual reconstruction later.
Update the record, and commit it back to disk.
Ooops! - someone else read the record while you were updating it and didn't get your latest changes. Maybe the other reader is going to create another invoice for the customer because they read it before you'd committed your "invoice sent" flag back to disk. Or maybe one poster's comment will show up under another's username. Maybe not. Who knows? Anything can happen!
And let's not forget how confusing this is for users:
User posts reply to comment.
User doesn't see the comment on the page. After a few refreshes, decides to post comment again.
Database finally gets around to committing the changes.
User looks like an idiot for double posting the same comment, or admin thinks this guy is being abusive because he's posting the same comment twice.
If you don't want a database, you can restrict your web app to a single thread and use flat files. For a lot of amatuers and personal web pages, this is perfectly fine. But don't call it a new kind of database: IBM was using flat files in the 60's. The reason why flat files were abandoned was because they didn't scale well and couldn't handle concurrency correctly. It is not a matter of *size* but of correctness.
Research has led to the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction normally taking less than a second, to take from four days to four years to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2-6 years. It does not decay, but undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes, not to mention multiple oxymorons.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. That hypothetical quantity might normally be called 'critical mass' but, in this unique case it is known as 'critical mess'.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium (Am), another just-discovered element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
his ignorance of the blatant racism of his pastor for 20 years
Link please.
I've heard people call his pastor a racist, but I've none of his remarks I've heard to date would lead me to that conclusion. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
When the term racist becomes an epithet used to discredit people purely on political disagreements, it marginalizes the struggles of the oppressed in this country. While some people may take for granted the fact that peoples of all colors can coexist peacefully in this country, it wasn't always so. People died in the struggle for justice, and I'd hate to think that someone would so carelessly marginalize their struggle for the sake of winning an unrelated political argument.
Reaching 1800K is possible given enough electricity. While I can't melt copper with my propane torch, I discovered (rather accidentally: is this breaker on?!) that 110 V residental service can melt the copper probes of a multimeter without even tripping the breaker.
What I'd like to see is an electrolytic refining oven for silicon that anyone could construct and power with 110V service. Even being able to pour a nothing more few grams of silicon at a time would enable the construction of solar cells. Add some conveyers, controlled via a Linux PC, and you could probably largely automate the process and produce enough in a few Saturdays to power your house.
Sand is cheap; both phosporous and boron are cheap (remarkably, both were used in detergents). We've got the chemicals - we need a relatively easy manufacturing process.
The usual argument runs something like this: If the universe is deterministic, then we cannot have free will, because our actions are determined.
The trouble is with this view is that it equates free will with indeterminacy.
Not in a universe where the laws of nature are deterministic only to the extent they are not specifically manipulated by supernatural means.
In short, natural law can provide a correct explanation of behavior, but never a guarantee.
The deterministic nature of the universe would imply that free will requires a force outside of nature to exist. Hence, because we can observe both determinism (with respect to the physical laws) and free will (with respect to individuals), we can conclude that there exists something capable of influencing matter which exists outside the realm of what would normally be called science. Some people call it a soul, others call it consciousness, etc...
The debate about whether the universe is deterministic or not largely sidestep the issue that we may be able to observe non-deterministic behavior in a deterministic universe if metaphysical forces are in play. By restricting itself to the axiom, "Natural events have natural causes..." and requiring repeatable experiments for the verification of hypothesis, science excludes itself from being able to resolve the debate regarding determinism. Philosophy picks up the question, which brings religion into play. The current trend of anti-religious thinking among contemporary philosophers has had the unfortunate side effect of stifling their ability to make progress on this issue.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why I - an engineer costing my employer $250/hour - am doing IT work. Someone in corporate thinks the company will save money by laying off IT workers. Instead, it usually works out like this:
I too, still use the 555, if for nothing more than convenience. However, I started with discrete transistors and RC networks, and things like timers, flip-flops, one-shot triggers, etc... are not at all difficult to replicate if you understand BJTs. The 555 did two things for engineers:
The latter was probably the more important of the two.
First, it's not religious FUD. The fact that a human embryo is, well, human, is not disputed by any in the scientific community. Nor is the fact that a fertilized embryo will, under the normal course of nature (i.e., implanted in the womb, carried to term, etc...) become what most people recognize as a human being.
What Bush did was simply stop federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Which didn't ban it outright, it just meant that taxpayer dollars wouldn't be used to fund it. Which is kind of remarkable that the press called it a 'ban', because it was nothing of the sort - private interests could still fund stem cell research to their heart's content. Given the U.S. stance on intellectual property, such a ban actually furthered private interests by freeing them from competition; instead of having publicly funded research result in public-domain cures, now private investors were free to fund their own research, patent the results, and reap exorbitant profits from whatever cures were forthcoming.
Except that they didn't. When you consider the fact that during the dotcom days investors were throwing money at any company with a business plan, let alone a product, the fact that stem cell research funding went lacking is telling. IOW, the prospects of (embryonic) stem cell research were so bleak that even the stupidest and riskiest of VC firms chose not to fund it. Which, quite frankly, speaks volumes about its perceived value for finding actual cures for diseases.
The stem cell debate isn't a debate over science; it's a debate about who society considers deserving of life. Two hundred years ago, people of a certain skin color were considered subhuman. In the last century, the Nazis considered it acceptable to kill off Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, Christians, etc... "for the greater good of Germany". The scientific fact of the matter is that the embryos from which stem cells are derived could have become living, breathing people.
Think about that the next time you can't find a date.
Instead, that stem cell became an experiment. And one day, after perhaps thousands, or even millions are killed in the name of science, we may find a cure for a disease. A disease which affects those who already have had the privilege of being born. IOW, people are being denied their very lives, in order that others who already have lives may live them with less discomfort.
If I were blind, I would really appreciate a cure which allows me to see again. But I wouldn't sacrifice my wife or any of my children for that cure. Nor would I expect anyone else to die so that I could be cured. It just isn't worth it. I'd rather live with a disease than do without the lives of those people I love. And for me to ask someone else to die so that my disease could be cured would be the height of arrogance.
It is the unfortunate fact of life that capitalist societies have reaped their wealth from the backs of the poor and voiceless. The dispassionate attitude toward those less privileged, those without a voice in their defense, is a staple of capitalist societies. From the Southern plantations and the slave trade to Chicago's recent establishment of "pan-handle-free" zones, the oppression and marginalization of the weak and unfortunate is a recurring theme in American society. The possibility of "miracle cures" has science drooling over the prospects of embryonic stem cell research; they have a motive of becoming famous; the drug companies, of course, see the potential profit; but who is looking at the grand scheme of things? Are we really a more progressive nation than that which fought the civil war? Do we really look out for those who can't speak for themselves? Or are we merely arrogant, attempting to assuage our guilt about the misdeeds of our forebears, all the while committing offenses that even they would have considered immoral?
The debate over embryonic stem cell research isn't a matter of science; it's a matter of morality. To support it requires
This Fiesta is not the first Ford to carry that name. Back in the late seventies, early eighties, Ford also produced a car called the Fiesta. My mother bought one. It was a piece of junk which made even the escort look luxurious. From starting on fire (because the battery cable was draped *across* the battery, allowing it to short the terminals together when the insulation failed...) to rusting prematurely (it was only 3 years old in 1984), to blowing a waterpump during a 1400 mile trek, it was an unmitigated disaster of cheapness.
Other interesting facts:
You're supposed to scan the originals and shred the lawyers.
For $14.99 a month via DSL.
Technically speaking, there's no such thing as unlimited bandwidth, though, I would expect if an ISP advertised "unlimited usage" for a 6 Mbs line, I'd be able to download (6 Mbps / 8 bits per byte * 3600 s/hour * 24 hours/day * 30 days/month = 1944000 megabytes = 1.944 terabytes per month). Sadly, no.
The problem I have with these plans is that they're charging more for essentially the same service as before. Sure, you'll always have those people who are "excessive downloaders" who - by the cable company's definition - are "abusers". But the problem is that these people: A.) Expect to use the bandwidth for which they've paid, and B.) Are so few and far between that they don't affect the overall usage significantly.
Unfortunately, for most, the only way to get a fair price is to talk your congressman into price controls; ISPs are often monopolies in the area in which they serve.
They've just changed the status to "complicated".
Of course, we all know what comes next: In a few weeks, their status will go back to "In a relationship", and the day after prom will be suddenly changed to "single".
When you realize you are uncontrollably in love with someone? That you and this person sitting beside you are soul mates? That you were meant for each other?
That moment for me came a few weeks ago. Yes, my wife and I have been married several years, but she was a Windows user when we met. Sure, she'd grown up in a diverse family - both Macs and PCs, but most of her experience was on Windows.
About a year ago I replaced Windows with Ubuntu on the family laptop. She kind of grudgingly went along with it.
Then, last week we were watching the news when the anchor broke the story of conficker. Without missing a beat, she turned to me and in roll-your-eyes-I-can't-believe-they're-so-stupid kind of voice said:
"That's a Windows thing, isn't it?"
"Yep," I replied.
"Hmmm. Sucks to be them, I guess..."
Linux evangelists take note: sometimes it takes people *years* to come around. But when they do, when they realize they no longer have to WORRY about viruses and other Windows-specific crap, it's priceless.
Even in colonial times.
One person bought a newspaper, and then proceeded to tell the story to all of his friends, associates, etc...
It wasn't until the small-town atmosphere went away that newspapers were able to become the big businesses they are (were?!) today. News readership requires a *certain level* of interaction - too much, and no one reads the stories; too little, and there's no point in reading the stories (with whom would you discuss the news?). The problem is that getting the mix right is more art than science, so when someone reproduces their stories, they err on the side of retaining control; they attempt to shut the copiers down.
Nuclear energy is not zero emissions. It just doesn't emit carbon dioxide, which, unlike spent nuclear fuel, can be safely sequestered inside living organisms.
There are four fundamental problems with nuclear energy:
One thing that always struck me about nuclear power proponents was the myopia of the larger issues. Nuclear doesn't solve the energy crisis; it only defers it until a later date, adding additional problems as it does.
Surely the Jupiterians are burning too much fossil fuels.
If passed, this could have the effect of a de-facto outlawing of Linux. For example, consider the typical business small business owner's plight: he uses Windows mostly on the desktop, but has a few Linux servers handling things like mail and print services.
I understand the government wants to ensure "cyber security" - whatever that means - but they, of all organizations, are the least qualified to implement it. The conflict of interest between big business and government interests is just too great for this to be anything but a tremendous waste of time and money.
And this without even considering the larger question of why the government should have any control over the software private users run on their own computers.
Use beer to sequester CO2 emissions from power plants?
Think about it for a moment:
Who knew the solution to global warming resided pint of lager?!
Beer: is there anything it can't do?
The problem isn't the shame associated with nudity. It's the reputation that's going to follow these girls throughout high school and college. When I was in middle school, one of the students found an issue of a certain men's magazine in which our illustrious teacher was baring all. She had posed during college because she needed the money, and yet, here, 15 or 20 years later, the centerfold was displayed on the chalkboard when she walked into the classroom. After everyone had been seated and seen it. She left the room in a fit of tears.
While the article doesn't give any details, it's probably very likely that these pictures would have shown up on the internet had the authorities not intervened. Where they would like occupy someone's MySpace page or other social networking site. Once on the web, it's almost impossible to get something permanently removed.
And this could easily have followed them the rest of their lives:
The relative long memory of the internet gives what were once excusable mistakes long and far reaching effects. No, they should probably not have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, but they should at least have to be educated with respect to the gravity of what they've done.
Not that I'd buy one of these, but suppose, for example, that I do. And suppose, furthermore, that because of some screwup with my bank, or human error (oops, transposed two CC digits!), my bill doesn't get paid.
I'm charging clients $100 an *hour*. If you disable my laptop for even a single 8 hour day, you owe *me* money.
Did they think of that? Did it occur to them that if this functionality *accidentally* gets tripped, the lawsuit could easily erase not just the profit on the modem and the service, but the laptop as well?
Or, to put it another way: why would someone sell a laptop (on contract) to someone who can't afford a cellphone?
If the data/observations show your theory to be wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether or not I have a better theory/explanation of the data.
This is what so many of pro-evolution folks simply miss: early evolutionary theory was *provably false* based on the data it had at the time. It wasn't until further discovery and some brighter scientists came along that the modified theories were actually logically consistent.
It's bad enough that some religions are (claimed to be) not logically consistent, but for science to make the same mistake is even less excusable.
What scientists do NOT want done to "examine" those weaknesses by contrasting observations and facts that led to a theory (evolution) with observations that fit a pre-set fairy tale (creationism in whatever form you want to call it) and then pretend that both are valid science. [emphasis added]
I think your statement sums up perfectly why most fundies don't believe in science: only *certain observations* count - i.e., observations which support the worldview of the scientist. If it doesn't support a scientist's pre-conceived notions about how the world ought to be, then the observation is just part of a fairy tale. But if it does support the scientist's theory, then it is a *scientific observation* (or as would say, a *scientific fact*).
I really have no problem with science, but it is attitudes like this which irk even the most skeptical of us. The notion that certain observations don't count because they "fit a pre-set fairy tale" is ridiculous; if the data don't match your theory, your theory is wrong, not the data. Consider, for example, that Marie Curie was rejected by Krakow University because she was a woman; consider, also, that Einstein was a patent clerk when he first published his papers on general relativity. The notion that only scientists are able to determine what counts as a relevant observation has been discredited before, and I suppose will be again, much to our collective shame.
because it is in the best interest of the politicians for them to do so. Facts are really problematic, and things like truth are downright impossible for a politician to manipulate to his or her advantage. There's a reason why you see people like Al Gore, instead of scientists, weighing in on the GW issue. Al Gore isn't subject to scientific peer review, and exaggeration doesn't hurt his credibility. A scientist, OTOH, has to be careful with his statements lest someone misquote him and ruin his career.
Emotional opinions are always the best for those in power, because they can be wielded toward whatever end those in power seek. The only reason why global warming is on the political horizon is because one party is using it to gain a majority of votes over the other. Both sides could care less about actual progress on the issue.
If you don't believe me, look at how the Republican party handled the pro-life issue: we've had Republican "pro-life" presidents for 20 of the last 28 years, and "liberal, socialist" Europe has more restrictions on abortion than the US.
It's not about truth, it's about political power. The actual science is irrelevant; people often believe in global warming because they don't have a religion, and others often deny it because they don't want the inconvenience of changing their lifestyle.
While I'll grant that fundamentalists believe in the literal, word-for-word translation of the Bible, their theology of anti-evolutionism is not based on said literal reading.
Rather, they can't come to terms with the notion that sacred scripture describes creation *from God's perspective*, and evolution describes it from a scientific perspective. A careful reading of the first chapter of Genesis does not reveal any conflicts with the commonly accepted theory of evolution, if one understands general relativity. Scripture even says, "With God, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day." If the Bible really is inerrant, and God cannot lie, the only conclusion one can draw is that the Genesis account was not talking about what we would call a 24 hour day.
In fact, if one really thinks about it, a simple thought experiment will suffice. (Some of you will recognize this as based on Einstein's work). Suppose, for example, you had limitless power and could do all things. You decide to create a universe. But as you create this universe, and it grows in size, you must travel progressively farther away in order to bring all of it within your field of view. If one is traveling at the speed of light away from an object, the object appears frozen in time; light from subsequent events never reaches the viewer. If one is stationary with respect to an object, time proceeds at the same rate for both observer and object alike. At some point between these two extremes, there exists a speed at which 14 billion years occupies one day (or six) from the perspective of the observer. In fact, from the perspective of someone riding the wave of background radiation at the edge of the universe (that is, the remnants of the big bang), the universe is scarcely a second old.
The debate over evolution isn't a debate about whether or not certain scientific theories are valid. It isn't even a debate about the proper interpretation of scripture. It is a debate over the role of Fundamentalist Christianity in public life. The fundamentalists aren't interested in an interpretation of the Bible which cedes any authority to science. Nor are atheists interested in ceding any power to fundamentalists.
I suppose I could go out on a limb and suggest the reason most life forms exhibit similar characteristics is because God writes in C++ and reuses base classes... But then, who am I to question ./ orthodoxy?!
This distinction between immediate and eventual consistency is deeply philosophical and depends on how important the data happens to be.
Ah, the naivete of youth... These guys clearly have never spent a few weeks debugging a concurrency problem. If your data is important enough to keep around, it's important enough to get it right.
There's nothing deeply philosophical about corrupting the relationships between various data sets because your database doesn't enforce consistency. A certain desktop recently discovered just how bad poorly enforced consistency can make things. Those *young whippersnappers* won't stay young for very long trying to debug that seemingly impossible to find data corruption problem, or worse, a web site which displays garbage pages at random because your data storage mechanism isn't consistent when it needs to be.
Consistency in databases has always been a ground rule because consistency checks are more easily done by a database than an application programmer. Consider, for example, the prototypical record read-update-write operation on a database with strict consistency and enforced locks:
Now consider the same operation with a database which enforces no consistency, or does so rather lazily:
And let's not forget how confusing this is for users:
If you don't want a database, you can restrict your web app to a single thread and use flat files. For a lot of amatuers and personal web pages, this is perfectly fine. But don't call it a new kind of database: IBM was using flat files in the 60's. The reason why flat files were abandoned was because they didn't scale well and couldn't handle concurrency correctly. It is not a matter of *size* but of correctness.
Didn't enter the contest.
Research has led to the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction normally taking less than a second, to take from four days to four years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2-6 years. It does not decay, but undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes, not to mention multiple oxymorons. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. That hypothetical quantity might normally be called 'critical mass' but, in this unique case it is known as 'critical mess'. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium (Am), another just-discovered element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
his ignorance of the blatant racism of his pastor for 20 years
Link please.
I've heard people call his pastor a racist, but I've none of his remarks I've heard to date would lead me to that conclusion. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
When the term racist becomes an epithet used to discredit people purely on political disagreements, it marginalizes the struggles of the oppressed in this country. While some people may take for granted the fact that peoples of all colors can coexist peacefully in this country, it wasn't always so. People died in the struggle for justice, and I'd hate to think that someone would so carelessly marginalize their struggle for the sake of winning an unrelated political argument.
Reaching 1800K is possible given enough electricity. While I can't melt copper with my propane torch, I discovered (rather accidentally: is this breaker on?!) that 110 V residental service can melt the copper probes of a multimeter without even tripping the breaker.
What I'd like to see is an electrolytic refining oven for silicon that anyone could construct and power with 110V service. Even being able to pour a nothing more few grams of silicon at a time would enable the construction of solar cells. Add some conveyers, controlled via a Linux PC, and you could probably largely automate the process and produce enough in a few Saturdays to power your house.
Sand is cheap; both phosporous and boron are cheap (remarkably, both were used in detergents). We've got the chemicals - we need a relatively easy manufacturing process.
The usual argument runs something like this: If the universe is deterministic, then we cannot have free will, because our actions are determined. The trouble is with this view is that it equates free will with indeterminacy.
Not in a universe where the laws of nature are deterministic only to the extent they are not specifically manipulated by supernatural means.
In short, natural law can provide a correct explanation of behavior, but never a guarantee.
The deterministic nature of the universe would imply that free will requires a force outside of nature to exist. Hence, because we can observe both determinism (with respect to the physical laws) and free will (with respect to individuals), we can conclude that there exists something capable of influencing matter which exists outside the realm of what would normally be called science. Some people call it a soul, others call it consciousness, etc...
The debate about whether the universe is deterministic or not largely sidestep the issue that we may be able to observe non-deterministic behavior in a deterministic universe if metaphysical forces are in play. By restricting itself to the axiom, "Natural events have natural causes..." and requiring repeatable experiments for the verification of hypothesis, science excludes itself from being able to resolve the debate regarding determinism. Philosophy picks up the question, which brings religion into play. The current trend of anti-religious thinking among contemporary philosophers has had the unfortunate side effect of stifling their ability to make progress on this issue.