No dude, sorry. Imagine that I'm paralyzed down half my body, can't breath without oxygen, can't take a piss without someone helping me, and knowing that there is no chance at all that I will ever get better, that in fact I will most likely get worse every day until the day I die. Sorry, there's no dignity in that. Let me go. Painlessly, cleanly, and by my own decision, but let me go. Freedom over your own body should be the ultimate freedom, telling someone in that position that you won't let them die isn't just insensitive, it's downright cruel and selfish.
Tow behind kite that gets unfurled after liftoff! At least theoretically possible I would think... though of course, it would increase drag, which increases your power requirements... I wonder where the feedback loop levels off in a 'perfect' system (i.e. minimum possible drag per surface area).
Actually, for 60 years fusion scientists have been saying "with current funding, it's probably impossible" which isn't the same thing as saying "almost got it". This graph shows what leading scientists in 1970 thought they could deliver with different levels of funding. Do note the 'actual funding' line at the bottom, the one that is well below the 'fusion never' line that would never produce the equipment, expertise, and practical knowledge that would be required to build an economical fusion reactor. Quite frankly, given that this is what actual scientists in the field were saying 45 years ago, it's remarkable they've made as much progress as they have.
Siri i can understand not working, we are talking speech recognition
I can't. I use the speech to text on my phone constantly (if I'm not in public) and have an error rate of probably 1 every 10 sentences; less if I purposefully talk slowly and clearly. It's not just the actual recognition algorithms, we finally have the data and processing speed to do a good Bayesian analysis on word choice in real time. I'm guessing that was the component that Siri was missing.
Statistics can control for the variables you are probably thinking of (keep in mind that the actual study involved thousands of kids, not a single pair).
I'm just trying to decide which sex should be more insulted. Men for the implication that they can't or don't love their kids in a way that helps their development. Or women for the implied blame if their children don't turn out perfect. Reminds me of back when Autism was thought to caused by 'cold mothers'.
Which basically relegates it to serving a tablet or a desktop, it still offers no replacement for the workhorse of the 'work on the go' market, which is a laptop.
That's because 'work' is almost always (except a very few niche cases) about creation, and creation without precision input devices is tedious and frustrating. Precision input in this case means a keyboard that I can type at full speed on, and a pointing device that is pixel accurate. Even with the keyboard cover that the surface uses, I don't think it meets either of those criteria.
Even if the increased risk of cancer is miniscule, the risk of dying in a terrorist act is even more so. Almost certainly by at least one order of magnitude.
If you haven't seen it, search out Asimov's essay, The Relativity of Wrong. It says a lot about how people fall into this line of thinking (science was wrong before, over and over again, so it's probably wrong now too) and does a good job pointing out the absurdity of it in a way that most people can understand. The zinger that most sticks with me has always been "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was a sphere, they were wrong too. But if you think that thinking the world is a sphere is just as bad as thinking it's flat, you're wronger than both of them put together" (paraphrasing from memory).
Intelligent scientists were able to design an experiment to replicate conditions of the recently formed Earth (at least to our understanding at the time) that created organic matter from inorganic chemicals.
And, no, I don't think it has anything at all to do with evolution. It lends support to abiogenesis, which is a different, though releated. Abiogenesis is a tenuously supported hypothesis about the origins of life on our planet, evolution is a well supported theory about the origin of the diversity of life on our planet, but it requires life to be present before it can begin.
Literal interpretations of the bible are a modern invention. Theologians going back centuries had not trouble interpreting the bible in ways that don't conflict with the physical universe, even the otherwise very conservative Catholic church has no problem with evolution or the big bang.
I've mentioned this before, but the fact that companies contribute money to candidates who then go on to support their cause is not evidence of a bribe. It could be a bribe, and at least some of the time it is (when contributors get special meetings and in the cases where special interests were shown to have written proposed laws almost in their entirety), but it could just as easily be candidates who already have a public position on an issue that the company cares about (or it could simply be obvious which way the candidate would vote on a topic).
The thing with Moore's law, it's a doubling time. If the number you're doubling is very, very small doubling every 6 years (which is the actual doubling time for quantum computing so far) is not going to sound very impressive. But, if we have 5 qbits today, by the end of the decade we should have around 15 by the end of the decade and be able to factor numbers in the low tens of thousands. 12 years after that and you can factor numbers in the quadrillions. 12 years after that and you can factor numbers in the range of 10^72.
I honestly thought their justice system was more enlightened over the pond. I mean, even the US there are some people that are starting to wake up to the fact that solitary confinement is an extremely cruel and tortuous thing to do to a human being. Fuck, I mean, green peace gets pissed if you keep a whale or ape locked up alone for any length of time; how can anyone think that is an ok thing to do to a human being in any but the most extreme circumstances.
I suspect the idea here is for this to be the enthusiast's enthusiast toy. One of the single largest cost factors in building a 3d printer is the cost of the laser cut gears, I suspect this is a plan to cut that cost considerably. If you've got one guy out of 20 who can cut new gears for all his friends, suddenly the cost of making and maintaining a 3d printer plummets, and interest sky rockets. I sincerely hope they don't plan on having a DIY 40 watt laser enclosure in every house, I suspect this is more of a bootstrap effort.
Why don't they just put headlines and first paragraphs on one page and set robots.txt to allow search engines to index it, then put the full articles on a different page with indexing not allowed. Google's crawler would get the headline and synopsis and the papers would get advertising from everyone who was interested enough to read more than a few sentences.
I set out to find a link pointing out that it's ok to be atheist as long as you don't want to run for political office, but instead I found this. 54% of US citizens would vote for a well qualified atheist. Not enough to actually be elected (unless you could convince almost every single one of them you were the right candidate for the job), but it's a huge improvement over the results of the same question even a decade ago.
The Anthropic Principal says that it doesn't matter how rare life is, our existence cannot be used as evidence of God because if we hadn't come into existence we wouldn't be around to ask the question. There could be a million, billion, trillion universes without life and one with, and that would be the only one we would be looking at and the only sample we have.
How about the religions that are believed by the young earth creationists (which includes all three of the religions you mentioned)? Or the religion that persecuted Galileo? Or the religions which refuse to acknowledge the over whelming evidence in support of evolution? It's nice that the old book has those passages, but it has a lot of passages that people ignore these days, the fact is that a sizable percentage of religious people do reject scientific evidence when it disagrees with their faith. That's not to say everyone who is religious does so, only that it's far more common in people who are heavily religious.
Slashdot Mirror
No dude, sorry. Imagine that I'm paralyzed down half my body, can't breath without oxygen, can't take a piss without someone helping me, and knowing that there is no chance at all that I will ever get better, that in fact I will most likely get worse every day until the day I die. Sorry, there's no dignity in that. Let me go. Painlessly, cleanly, and by my own decision, but let me go. Freedom over your own body should be the ultimate freedom, telling someone in that position that you won't let them die isn't just insensitive, it's downright cruel and selfish.
Tow behind kite that gets unfurled after liftoff! At least theoretically possible I would think... though of course, it would increase drag, which increases your power requirements... I wonder where the feedback loop levels off in a 'perfect' system (i.e. minimum possible drag per surface area).
It's plain physics
I see what you did there.
https://play.google.com/store/search?q=compass :-)
Actually, for 60 years fusion scientists have been saying "with current funding, it's probably impossible" which isn't the same thing as saying "almost got it". This graph shows what leading scientists in 1970 thought they could deliver with different levels of funding. Do note the 'actual funding' line at the bottom, the one that is well below the 'fusion never' line that would never produce the equipment, expertise, and practical knowledge that would be required to build an economical fusion reactor. Quite frankly, given that this is what actual scientists in the field were saying 45 years ago, it's remarkable they've made as much progress as they have.
Siri i can understand not working, we are talking speech recognition
I can't. I use the speech to text on my phone constantly (if I'm not in public) and have an error rate of probably 1 every 10 sentences; less if I purposefully talk slowly and clearly. It's not just the actual recognition algorithms, we finally have the data and processing speed to do a good Bayesian analysis on word choice in real time. I'm guessing that was the component that Siri was missing.
Statistics can control for the variables you are probably thinking of (keep in mind that the actual study involved thousands of kids, not a single pair).
I'm just trying to decide which sex should be more insulted. Men for the implication that they can't or don't love their kids in a way that helps their development. Or women for the implied blame if their children don't turn out perfect. Reminds me of back when Autism was thought to caused by 'cold mothers'.
Which basically relegates it to serving a tablet or a desktop, it still offers no replacement for the workhorse of the 'work on the go' market, which is a laptop.
That's because 'work' is almost always (except a very few niche cases) about creation, and creation without precision input devices is tedious and frustrating. Precision input in this case means a keyboard that I can type at full speed on, and a pointing device that is pixel accurate. Even with the keyboard cover that the surface uses, I don't think it meets either of those criteria.
Even if the increased risk of cancer is miniscule, the risk of dying in a terrorist act is even more so. Almost certainly by at least one order of magnitude.
much faster and more intuitive universal search feature than Windows 7
I'm actually curious, how do you get more intuitive than "type what you want to find and it pops up"?
If you haven't seen it, search out Asimov's essay, The Relativity of Wrong. It says a lot about how people fall into this line of thinking (science was wrong before, over and over again, so it's probably wrong now too) and does a good job pointing out the absurdity of it in a way that most people can understand. The zinger that most sticks with me has always been "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was a sphere, they were wrong too. But if you think that thinking the world is a sphere is just as bad as thinking it's flat, you're wronger than both of them put together" (paraphrasing from memory).
I don't believe in spontanous generation, I am a creationist,
*blinks*
Intelligent scientists were able to design an experiment to replicate conditions of the recently formed Earth (at least to our understanding at the time) that created organic matter from inorganic chemicals.
And, no, I don't think it has anything at all to do with evolution. It lends support to abiogenesis, which is a different, though releated. Abiogenesis is a tenuously supported hypothesis about the origins of life on our planet, evolution is a well supported theory about the origin of the diversity of life on our planet, but it requires life to be present before it can begin.
Literal interpretations of the bible are a modern invention. Theologians going back centuries had not trouble interpreting the bible in ways that don't conflict with the physical universe, even the otherwise very conservative Catholic church has no problem with evolution or the big bang.
I've mentioned this before, but the fact that companies contribute money to candidates who then go on to support their cause is not evidence of a bribe. It could be a bribe, and at least some of the time it is (when contributors get special meetings and in the cases where special interests were shown to have written proposed laws almost in their entirety), but it could just as easily be candidates who already have a public position on an issue that the company cares about (or it could simply be obvious which way the candidate would vote on a topic).
The thing with Moore's law, it's a doubling time. If the number you're doubling is very, very small doubling every 6 years (which is the actual doubling time for quantum computing so far) is not going to sound very impressive. But, if we have 5 qbits today, by the end of the decade we should have around 15 by the end of the decade and be able to factor numbers in the low tens of thousands. 12 years after that and you can factor numbers in the quadrillions. 12 years after that and you can factor numbers in the range of 10^72.
I did specify DIY. I wouldn't feel terribly comfortable standing in front of a microwave that one of my friends banged up in his garage either.
I honestly thought their justice system was more enlightened over the pond. I mean, even the US there are some people that are starting to wake up to the fact that solitary confinement is an extremely cruel and tortuous thing to do to a human being. Fuck, I mean, green peace gets pissed if you keep a whale or ape locked up alone for any length of time; how can anyone think that is an ok thing to do to a human being in any but the most extreme circumstances.
I suspect the idea here is for this to be the enthusiast's enthusiast toy. One of the single largest cost factors in building a 3d printer is the cost of the laser cut gears, I suspect this is a plan to cut that cost considerably. If you've got one guy out of 20 who can cut new gears for all his friends, suddenly the cost of making and maintaining a 3d printer plummets, and interest sky rockets. I sincerely hope they don't plan on having a DIY 40 watt laser enclosure in every house, I suspect this is more of a bootstrap effort.
Why don't they just put headlines and first paragraphs on one page and set robots.txt to allow search engines to index it, then put the full articles on a different page with indexing not allowed. Google's crawler would get the headline and synopsis and the papers would get advertising from everyone who was interested enough to read more than a few sentences.
I set out to find a link pointing out that it's ok to be atheist as long as you don't want to run for political office, but instead I found this. 54% of US citizens would vote for a well qualified atheist. Not enough to actually be elected (unless you could convince almost every single one of them you were the right candidate for the job), but it's a huge improvement over the results of the same question even a decade ago.
The Anthropic Principal says that it doesn't matter how rare life is, our existence cannot be used as evidence of God because if we hadn't come into existence we wouldn't be around to ask the question. There could be a million, billion, trillion universes without life and one with, and that would be the only one we would be looking at and the only sample we have.
How about the religions that are believed by the young earth creationists (which includes all three of the religions you mentioned)? Or the religion that persecuted Galileo? Or the religions which refuse to acknowledge the over whelming evidence in support of evolution? It's nice that the old book has those passages, but it has a lot of passages that people ignore these days, the fact is that a sizable percentage of religious people do reject scientific evidence when it disagrees with their faith. That's not to say everyone who is religious does so, only that it's far more common in people who are heavily religious.