There is a big difference between being a cheap bastard and being a poor bastard. I definitely fall into the second category beinga married graduate student. Besides, if OSS provides everything I need, why should I pay for something else?
There is no problem. I was merely trying to make a cointerpoint to the grandparent post stating that not everyone wants or needs to use/pay for all of that software. I've built a couple of machines I bought parts from newegg and couldn't be happier with them. Much lower cost than buying a Mac, and they do everything I want using free software.
Ok fine then. In that case I want a discounted G5 that has absolutely no software pre-loaded, including OS. I want it at the exact price of a comparable PC that I could buy the parts off of Newegg for. That way I can use my operating system of choice, linux, and not have to include the cost of any software whatsoever. Would you then call that a fair comparison?
" No, the ridge is not fixed relative to the coastline. The coastlines of Europe, Africa, and the Americas are all moving steadily away from the mid-Atlantic ridge."
Perhaps my statement didn't come across like I meant it to. What I was trying imply was that (especially in the case of the mid-Atlantic ridge), the ridge itself takes the shape of the coastlines it lies between, thus seeming like it is fixed in one spot.
That is true, material is produced there and spreads apart, and the ridge may seem to stay in the same fixed position relative to the coastline. This is an illusion, however. Think about it this way...if you locked the exact position of every mid-oceanic ridge in the world, then plate tectonics could not work. Mantle plumes, however, can be fixed because the plates move over them rather than with them. You can actually use the orientation of transform faults that accomodate differential spreading rates along the mid-ocean ridges to calculate total motion.
Besides if mid-ocean ridges are in a "fixed" position, then how is one currently being subducted beneath the west-coast of North-America? (Interesting to note that when a mid-ocean ridge gets subducted below a continent, a transform fault is formed. This is how the San Andreas fault came to exist.)
"The online article on "VOLCANOES, MANTLE PLUMES, and HOT SPOTS" linked to in the weblog mentions that hotspots can occur on plate boundaries."
Sure they can. I have no problem with that, however I believe the AC that replied to you above me states is pretty nicely. I believe Iceland was discussed back when I took global plate tectonics, and I was given the impression that it was not a hotspot.
The main fact that keeps me skeptical about the presence of a hotspot under Iceland is the fact that if there is one there, then the mid-Atlantic ridge has remained exactly at the same fixed point about that hotspot for a loooooooong time. Look at other hotspots around the world. With Hawaii, you can track the motion of the Pacific plate over the hotspot by the occurrence of islands and seamount. With the Yellowstone hotspot, you can track the North American plates course from the Columbia River Flood basalts.
So I'm a pussy huh? What about those who *need* to use MS Office because they exchange documents with others who use MS Office, and can't afford to buy a whole separate box to run windows on? And no, OpenOffice doesn't do a good enough conversion yet. Why was this even modded insightful? Who are you to tell anyone what they do or don't need on their machine?
Actually you are confusing some random chemical substance with a mineral. Everything is a chemical when it comes down to it, but a mineral is "a naturally occuring inorganic crystalline solid with definite but not fixed chemical composition." In the geological sciences, whenever somebody or some group discovers a new mineral, they get to name it, with the stipulation that they cannot name it after themselves in any way. They may name it after someone else if they choose to do so. For example they may choose to name it after someone who is/was famous in the field of meteoritics.
It is not subject to the IUPIAC (sp?) or whatever other chemical standards groups exist.
Holy crap, you got screwed. Seriously...if I had any mod points right now I'd give you an underrated mod to help compensate. You got hit for 30% overrated and 10% flamebait on that one. I personally thought it was damn funny!
"As the nice yellow "enemy" icon informs me. I happily made you a friend just for the hell of it.:-)"
Damn, and I've been trying so hard to get someone on my freaks list. What can you do though:P
"How do you know that they believed the world was flat? The Bible certainly doesn't state it. The "flat" world model was an invention of the middle ages. Many things had to be rediscovered due to the impact that the fall of Rome had on science and philosophy. Before that, the Egyptians were building pyramids, the Greeks were figuring out how to use a lever on the earth, and the Romans were building aqueducts and computational devices."
Regardless of who was building what, the people of that time still had nowhere near the concept of time, space, physics that we do now. Thus, any interpretations of the world using the technology of the time were constrained to what they did know. When something couldn't be explained rationally, it "must have been the gods" doing it. Hell, the motivation behind the Egyptions building those pyramids was so their dead kings could properly transition to their version of the afterlife.
> You say the big bang theory is completely random
"Eh? I did? Where?"
I went back and looked. I admit I think I looked at so many posts and replies in this whole flamewar thread that I think I mixed that up with you. However you *did* say that evolution is a random theory. I could just as easily have plugged the world "evolution" in for "big bang" and my statement would not lose any of it's meaning.
"I agree. Do you know how to interpret them correctly? I'm glad you do, because there are a LOT of geologists fighting over that very point."
So what is your expertise that you can make this statment? I happen to be a geologist actually. Of course, there is always debate of how to interpret rocks. However that interpretation is always constrained within bounds of rational thought. Ideas like "God snapped fingers and *POOF* these creatures appeared" and "a catastrophic flood created all the Earth's sedimentary rocks" are just ludicrous. The arguments between geologists you speak of typically are something like this: "Hey, a fluid passed through these rocks during the Carboniferous, forming some ore." "No, you're wrong...the ore formed at the same time as those rocks 50 million years earlier." Each geologist typically has very sound scientific reasoning for thinking what they do. Perhaps you should read the link in my sig. It pertains typically to the evolution vs. creation argument, but the statement is valid for *any* related theory in "crisis" as the fundie Christians want everyone to believe.
"I have not and will not state that the Earth is 6000 years old. However, if we interpret the Genesis account correctly, human beings are probably about that age."
You see, that's the problem right there! Supporting an idea using unverifiable data. Ever heard the phrase "I read it on the internet so it must be true!"? Do those people annoy you as much as they do me? Substitute bible for internet in that statement, and it's the same. And don't even pay attention to the hominid fossil record that has been dated using scientifically sound and peer reviewed techniques? I suppose I can't even make that argument though, seeing as evolution doesn't occur, right? Therefore it doesn't matter how old our ancestors are?
"Good question. I'm game if you're ready to act rationally."
I'm always ready to act rationally. My question is, does taking the words of a 2000 year old book as literal truth qualify as rational thought?
You forgot anorthosites. The dark areas (marea) are of a basaltic/gabbroic composition, and the light areas (highlands) are anorthosites. A fellow by the name of John Wood (he came up with the model for the Moon's formation!) gave a talk at our geology department seminar a few weeks ago on this. The model calls for a completely molten moon to start with. Because of the density difference between anorthosite and basalt, the moon stratified as a result. During cooling, impacts punctured the anorthositic surface which allowed the basaltic magma to upwell to the surface, forming the marea.
The funny thing about all this was that he came up with this model before terribly much data had been collected, and it was generally laughed at in a way. However, once they started actually getting real data about the moon's composition, it became apparent that his model actually worked, and has been regarded as the best theory for the formation of the moon as we know it ever since then.
Now I should say it still doesn't change the validity of your original post. I just wanted to note that the surface of the moon is definitely not all basalt.
So I've been reading your replies in this thread, and I must say I am astounded by your ignorance of science. You are basically saying that a book A) that was thrown together by humans a couple thousand years ago B) in a time when most still thought the world was flat was the center of the universe is C) just as good as any theories that modern man has come up with today? That is just asinine!
You say the big bang theory is completely random, I say you are full of it. It is based on verifiable observations that support it directly, for example red/blue shift.
You say that evolution is a random grasp theory basically. So what that DNA has linked us very closely with other primates? So what that the fossil record where intact also shows progressive physiological changes in similar groups of organisms throughout time? You speak of verifiable historical records? I say these verifiable historical records are recorded plain as day in the rocks surrounding all of us!
And, don't even get me started on the age of the Earth. Or on the whole Noah flood thing. Basically what I'm saying is what ever happened to rational thought based on factual data?
I read the link, and I also went the the hacker in question's website. He indeed does have source code posted that will create a registration key for this software. I actually agree with the gamespy folks on this one point. It is not a security breach, but rather a copyright circumvention to allow you to get a free registration. It is the kind of program you send up searching for on kazaa or similar filesharing networks in order to crack your demo versions of software. Regardless of anyone's opinion on whether software should be free or not (I think it should be free personally), a company has the right to require registration keys to force users to purchase their software.
I have no problem with the other things. If he figured out how to DDOS because of a gamespy bug, then that's just fine. That is definitely the kind of thing that people like him should be figuring out and sharing with everyone.
So what kind of kind of amphibolies were they? Actinolite? Hornblende? Anthophyllite? Cummingtonite?
(Hint for the geology impaired, look up amphibole on google:)
You're right, it doesn't really prove anything. My impression is that they are confusing the ability of a substance to withstand very high pressures with hardness. Now if you can actually scratch a diamond with this new form of carbon, then that would be a different story.
Actually the size of the continents or "land smushing" as you put it really won't that terribly much difference. What does make a very significant difference though is the spreading rate of mid-ocean ridges. During periods of high heat flow and rapid spreading, the ridges actually swell and displace quite a volume of water, changing the sealevel.
AMEN!! Just to add a point here, the same thing does happen to geology. Evolutionary theory is strongly linked to geology and the concept of the age of the Earth. Without the old Earth, evolution simply doesn't work. Numerous extremely carefully thought out and executed studies have shown over and over and over that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, yet you have common religious zealots refuting this, either through naming special cases where it doesn't always work (that can almost always be explained by a normal process that the creationists ignore), or by refuting the technique itself. It's sad that there are still people around that think like this.
I agree. I think that was the first game to actually make me jump out of my seat. When those facehuggers leap out of nowhere you just want to scream!
The part of the game I really found satisfying though was the alien's ability to crawl on *any* surface. It could almost make you sick if you weren't really paying close attention and you could really lose perspective on where you were if not careful.
I also really enjoyed biting the heads off of poor weak humans, especially the non-marine ones that would just cower in fear and beg for their lives before you removed their heads!
Slashdot Mirror
There is a big difference between being a cheap bastard and being a poor bastard. I definitely fall into the second category beinga married graduate student. Besides, if OSS provides everything I need, why should I pay for something else?
There is no problem. I was merely trying to make a cointerpoint to the grandparent post stating that not everyone wants or needs to use/pay for all of that software. I've built a couple of machines I bought parts from newegg and couldn't be happier with them. Much lower cost than buying a Mac, and they do everything I want using free software.
Ok fine then. In that case I want a discounted G5 that has absolutely no software pre-loaded, including OS. I want it at the exact price of a comparable PC that I could buy the parts off of Newegg for. That way I can use my operating system of choice, linux, and not have to include the cost of any software whatsoever. Would you then call that a fair comparison?
You mean like this guy? And no, it's not goatse or tubgirl, although possibly just as disturbing because the guy is an idiot!
RTFA? The author says that the Ultra 5's are UDMA 33.
Small enough to only account for a single second out of an entire year perhaps?
" No, the ridge is not fixed relative to the coastline. The coastlines of Europe, Africa, and the Americas are all moving steadily away from the mid-Atlantic ridge." Perhaps my statement didn't come across like I meant it to. What I was trying imply was that (especially in the case of the mid-Atlantic ridge), the ridge itself takes the shape of the coastlines it lies between, thus seeming like it is fixed in one spot.
Besides if mid-ocean ridges are in a "fixed" position, then how is one currently being subducted beneath the west-coast of North-America? (Interesting to note that when a mid-ocean ridge gets subducted below a continent, a transform fault is formed. This is how the San Andreas fault came to exist.)
Sure they can. I have no problem with that, however I believe the AC that replied to you above me states is pretty nicely. I believe Iceland was discussed back when I took global plate tectonics, and I was given the impression that it was not a hotspot.
The main fact that keeps me skeptical about the presence of a hotspot under Iceland is the fact that if there is one there, then the mid-Atlantic ridge has remained exactly at the same fixed point about that hotspot for a loooooooong time. Look at other hotspots around the world. With Hawaii, you can track the motion of the Pacific plate over the hotspot by the occurrence of islands and seamount. With the Yellowstone hotspot, you can track the North American plates course from the Columbia River Flood basalts.
Let me get this out of the way right now by saying that Iceland is not a mantle plume...it just happens to be sitting on a mid-ocean ridge!
So I'm a pussy huh? What about those who *need* to use MS Office because they exchange documents with others who use MS Office, and can't afford to buy a whole separate box to run windows on? And no, OpenOffice doesn't do a good enough conversion yet. Why was this even modded insightful? Who are you to tell anyone what they do or don't need on their machine?
It is not subject to the IUPIAC (sp?) or whatever other chemical standards groups exist.
Holy crap, you got screwed. Seriously...if I had any mod points right now I'd give you an underrated mod to help compensate. You got hit for 30% overrated and 10% flamebait on that one. I personally thought it was damn funny!
"As the nice yellow "enemy" icon informs me. I happily made you a friend just for the hell of it. :-)"
Damn, and I've been trying so hard to get someone on my freaks list. What can you do though :P
"How do you know that they believed the world was flat? The Bible certainly doesn't state it. The "flat" world model was an invention of the middle ages. Many things had to be rediscovered due to the impact that the fall of Rome had on science and philosophy. Before that, the Egyptians were building pyramids, the Greeks were figuring out how to use a lever on the earth, and the Romans were building aqueducts and computational devices."
Regardless of who was building what, the people of that time still had nowhere near the concept of time, space, physics that we do now. Thus, any interpretations of the world using the technology of the time were constrained to what they did know. When something couldn't be explained rationally, it "must have been the gods" doing it. Hell, the motivation behind the Egyptions building those pyramids was so their dead kings could properly transition to their version of the afterlife.
> You say the big bang theory is completely random "Eh? I did? Where?"
I went back and looked. I admit I think I looked at so many posts and replies in this whole flamewar thread that I think I mixed that up with you. However you *did* say that evolution is a random theory. I could just as easily have plugged the world "evolution" in for "big bang" and my statement would not lose any of it's meaning.
"I agree. Do you know how to interpret them correctly? I'm glad you do, because there are a LOT of geologists fighting over that very point."
So what is your expertise that you can make this statment? I happen to be a geologist actually. Of course, there is always debate of how to interpret rocks. However that interpretation is always constrained within bounds of rational thought. Ideas like "God snapped fingers and *POOF* these creatures appeared" and "a catastrophic flood created all the Earth's sedimentary rocks" are just ludicrous. The arguments between geologists you speak of typically are something like this: "Hey, a fluid passed through these rocks during the Carboniferous, forming some ore." "No, you're wrong...the ore formed at the same time as those rocks 50 million years earlier." Each geologist typically has very sound scientific reasoning for thinking what they do. Perhaps you should read the link in my sig. It pertains typically to the evolution vs. creation argument, but the statement is valid for *any* related theory in "crisis" as the fundie Christians want everyone to believe.
"I have not and will not state that the Earth is 6000 years old. However, if we interpret the Genesis account correctly, human beings are probably about that age."
You see, that's the problem right there! Supporting an idea using unverifiable data. Ever heard the phrase "I read it on the internet so it must be true!"? Do those people annoy you as much as they do me? Substitute bible for internet in that statement, and it's the same. And don't even pay attention to the hominid fossil record that has been dated using scientifically sound and peer reviewed techniques? I suppose I can't even make that argument though, seeing as evolution doesn't occur, right? Therefore it doesn't matter how old our ancestors are?
"Good question. I'm game if you're ready to act rationally."
I'm always ready to act rationally. My question is, does taking the words of a 2000 year old book as literal truth qualify as rational thought?
The funny thing about all this was that he came up with this model before terribly much data had been collected, and it was generally laughed at in a way. However, once they started actually getting real data about the moon's composition, it became apparent that his model actually worked, and has been regarded as the best theory for the formation of the moon as we know it ever since then.
Now I should say it still doesn't change the validity of your original post. I just wanted to note that the surface of the moon is definitely not all basalt.
Yeah! I'm with you on that! Not too many mineral exploration jobs left here on the earth anyway. Especially in the US ;)
You say the big bang theory is completely random, I say you are full of it. It is based on verifiable observations that support it directly, for example red/blue shift.
You say that evolution is a random grasp theory basically. So what that DNA has linked us very closely with other primates? So what that the fossil record where intact also shows progressive physiological changes in similar groups of organisms throughout time? You speak of verifiable historical records? I say these verifiable historical records are recorded plain as day in the rocks surrounding all of us!
And, don't even get me started on the age of the Earth. Or on the whole Noah flood thing. Basically what I'm saying is what ever happened to rational thought based on factual data?
I have no problem with the other things. If he figured out how to DDOS because of a gamespy bug, then that's just fine. That is definitely the kind of thing that people like him should be figuring out and sharing with everyone.
So what kind of kind of amphibolies were they? Actinolite? Hornblende? Anthophyllite? Cummingtonite? (Hint for the geology impaired, look up amphibole on google :)
You're right, it doesn't really prove anything. My impression is that they are confusing the ability of a substance to withstand very high pressures with hardness. Now if you can actually scratch a diamond with this new form of carbon, then that would be a different story.
Actually the size of the continents or "land smushing" as you put it really won't that terribly much difference. What does make a very significant difference though is the spreading rate of mid-ocean ridges. During periods of high heat flow and rapid spreading, the ridges actually swell and displace quite a volume of water, changing the sealevel.
AMEN!! Just to add a point here, the same thing does happen to geology. Evolutionary theory is strongly linked to geology and the concept of the age of the Earth. Without the old Earth, evolution simply doesn't work. Numerous extremely carefully thought out and executed studies have shown over and over and over that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, yet you have common religious zealots refuting this, either through naming special cases where it doesn't always work (that can almost always be explained by a normal process that the creationists ignore), or by refuting the technique itself. It's sad that there are still people around that think like this.
I came across another link since submitting the story. This one actually gives the name of this new species: Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis
"Praying to God won't help you now! I fragged him last Tuesday."
The part of the game I really found satisfying though was the alien's ability to crawl on *any* surface. It could almost make you sick if you weren't really paying close attention and you could really lose perspective on where you were if not careful.
I also really enjoyed biting the heads off of poor weak humans, especially the non-marine ones that would just cower in fear and beg for their lives before you removed their heads!