It is illegal in the US: Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, Sections 1029 or 1030 of U.S. Code are good places to start looking, but there are other federal and state ordinances against fraudulently gaining access to "access devises."
Hi, Jimi. The specific genetic disorder that they're talking about is not what causes all forms of autism--they're dealing with one specific kind of autism that's something entirely different. However (as someone who also has Asperger's) my hat is off to you for accepting your son as he is.:)
We can't blame Microsoft for the fragmentation of GNU/Linux... nor will the temporary unity of fighting Microsoft make that fragmentation go away. Fundamentally, the fragmentation of the OS is a result of the fierce--perhaps even rabid--demand for independence from the community. Too many people insist on doing things their way, or not doing it at all.
That was Apple's problem--Steve Jobs wanted to do things his way, or not at all. That fierce desire for independence, and for charting his own course, was (and continues to be) a stumbling block to Apple's relevance in the market. But instead of one headstrong maverick at Apple, we have dozens of headstrong mavericks in the Linux community.
How about seeds? They can survive being submerged for quite a while.
Some seeds can--some can't. Even for those that can... it could take weeks or months for the relatively fast-growing grasses to recover, but years for things like trees.
And no, plants don't automatically die under water.
I'm used to discussing these issues with YEC "Biblical Literalists," so remember you're talking about a whole year under water--and you're not just dealing with the water itself, you're also dealing with the pressure of all that water weighing down on the plants, the lack of sunlight, the absence of the normal reproductive cycle, the lack of pollinating insects. Even if your trees survived, your annuals are gone... and with only two of each pollinating insects (for those plants that need insects to pollinate), and the necessary wait of perhaps several year for the recovery of the pollinating animals.
The big problem is that, no matter what possibilities one brings up that certain things might have survived a worldwide flood (and no matter what evidence is used to counter those possibilities), the topic is not one that will be solved by debate. When someone believes in proposition X as strongly as YECs believe in Biblical literality, there is literally no amount of evidence in the world that will change their mind. And I don't mean that as an insult--for most (perhaps all) of humanity, concepts that are accepted as "faith issues" cannot be rationally critiqued. When we believe in something that strongly, we will reject any and all evidence that contradicts those beliefs.
I read a study somewhere (can't find it now) that the brain will reward itself for defending its beliefs--the pleasure center of the brain is stimulated by justifying one's beliefs, even if one has to deny facts to do so. The context of the study was political: the subjects would be shown politicians that they favored doing things that they politically opposed, and if the person could suppress the memory of the politician saying something they disagreed with, the limbic center of the brain was stimulated. Evidently, we as human beings are hardwired to hold fast to our beliefs... even if we have to turn a blind eye to the facts to do so.
"With that reasoning, wouldn't all plant life have died as a result of this "great flood"?
Yes, it would kill the plant life... but that doesn't matter, because they'll think of some "reason" why it wouldn't, even if they have to fall back on "Goddidit." Creationism (like any other a priori position) does not rely on logic, reason, or evidence.
That's not to say that I feel that religion or faith or a priori knowledge is worthless--heck, I'm a theist myself. But (IMHO) when a person's gotten to the point that they'll explain away fundamental facts--as Creationists attempt to do--then argument is a waste of time.
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no proof is possible.
Does the clear array have a flat sensitivity level across the spectrum? Where it will give the same data value for the same number of photons striking it with a 700nm wavelength as it would for photons striking it that vibrate at 400nm?
Theoretically, there's no subtance that has a perfectly flat sensitivity level across the spectrum. However, as long as the errors are below the perception level of the sensor, it should work.
It's kind of like glass--there's no such thing as a perfectly transparent, color-free glass. But as long as the glass is thin enough that human eyes can't perceive the little bit of light absorption that does occur, it still looks clear.
Slashdot Mirror
It is illegal in the US: Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, Sections 1029 or 1030 of U.S. Code are good places to start looking, but there are other federal and state ordinances against fraudulently gaining access to "access devises."
Hi, Jimi. The specific genetic disorder that they're talking about is not what causes all forms of autism--they're dealing with one specific kind of autism that's something entirely different. However (as someone who also has Asperger's) my hat is off to you for accepting your son as he is. :)
We can't blame Microsoft for the fragmentation of GNU/Linux ... nor will the temporary unity of fighting Microsoft make that fragmentation go away. Fundamentally, the fragmentation of the OS is a result of the fierce--perhaps even rabid--demand for independence from the community. Too many people insist on doing things their way, or not doing it at all.
That was Apple's problem--Steve Jobs wanted to do things his way, or not at all. That fierce desire for independence, and for charting his own course, was (and continues to be) a stumbling block to Apple's relevance in the market. But instead of one headstrong maverick at Apple, we have dozens of headstrong mavericks in the Linux community.
Shuttleworth runs Canonical Ltd, the folks who sponsor U/Ku/Xu/Edubuntu.
Some seeds can--some can't. Even for those that can ... it could take weeks or months for the relatively fast-growing grasses to recover, but years for things like trees.
I'm used to discussing these issues with YEC "Biblical Literalists," so remember you're talking about a whole year under water--and you're not just dealing with the water itself, you're also dealing with the pressure of all that water weighing down on the plants, the lack of sunlight, the absence of the normal reproductive cycle, the lack of pollinating insects. Even if your trees survived, your annuals are gone ... and with only two of each pollinating insects (for those plants that need insects to pollinate), and the necessary wait of perhaps several year for the recovery of the pollinating animals.
The big problem is that, no matter what possibilities one brings up that certain things might have survived a worldwide flood (and no matter what evidence is used to counter those possibilities), the topic is not one that will be solved by debate. When someone believes in proposition X as strongly as YECs believe in Biblical literality, there is literally no amount of evidence in the world that will change their mind. And I don't mean that as an insult--for most (perhaps all) of humanity, concepts that are accepted as "faith issues" cannot be rationally critiqued. When we believe in something that strongly, we will reject any and all evidence that contradicts those beliefs.
I read a study somewhere (can't find it now) that the brain will reward itself for defending its beliefs--the pleasure center of the brain is stimulated by justifying one's beliefs, even if one has to deny facts to do so. The context of the study was political: the subjects would be shown politicians that they favored doing things that they politically opposed, and if the person could suppress the memory of the politician saying something they disagreed with, the limbic center of the brain was stimulated. Evidently, we as human beings are hardwired to hold fast to our beliefs ... even if we have to turn a blind eye to the facts to do so.
Yes, it would kill the plant life ... but that doesn't matter, because they'll think of some "reason" why it wouldn't, even if they have to fall back on "Goddidit." Creationism (like any other a priori position) does not rely on logic, reason, or evidence.
That's not to say that I feel that religion or faith or a priori knowledge is worthless--heck, I'm a theist myself. But (IMHO) when a person's gotten to the point that they'll explain away fundamental facts--as Creationists attempt to do--then argument is a waste of time.
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no proof is possible.
Brings a whole new meaning to "laptop interface"....
...to support independent music.
Good to know. Well, short of improvements to Wine, is there a Linux equivalent?
Peachtree (2006) will work on Wine, but needs some tweaking: http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=603 7
It's good that another major software company is working with Linux. But compared to the overall market, this is a drop in the bucket.