Well, that depends on what exactly you need a monitor for. Generally the only really big issues has been contrast ratio (which on a CRT AFAIK is infinite) and color accuracy, which most LCD monitors don't even attempt to achieve. Distorted colors tend to be more eye-catching (and probably more eye-straining), and most consumers are more interested in something that "looks good" than something that displays colors accurately. That said, there are a number of really expensive LCD monitors from NEC that promise 100%+ Adobe RGB and/or NTSC that I drool over on a regular basis but have no real use for anymore, and I would be keenly interested in seeing how those stacked up against a top-of-the-line CRT.
On a side note, I checked the specs on your monitor there, and I'm not seeing anything terribly impressive. Unless you can point to some actual objective measurement where this monitor (1st gen LCD?) surpasses all subsequent creations, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ignore your opinion.
Well, I gave you a short explanation and a long explanation, and you've still missed the point, so we'll go through it again.
Let's just say that there are only two definitions of the word theory, one broad and one precise, as so:
1) any idea
2) {scientific definition of the word theory as explained in the previous post}
Intelligent design is only a theory under the first definition. The first definition of the word is not useful to science, and people discussing science do not use it. You can refer to ID as a theory or not as you like, but whether or not you choose to do so is completely irrelevant to a discussion on science. It is not correct---it's not even incorrect. It's a completely separate discussion.
whether you like it or not. You seem to be implying that I am asserting that ID is not a theory under any definition. I find that rather strange; given your previous comments it almost looks like you are deliberately misunderstanding me. So stop it. This is pedantic and inane, and this conversation is not worth having. A conversation on whether or not falsifiability is a valid criteria for a scientifictheory would be good. We could discuss the methodology of knowledge, the philosophy of science--I'd even accept a discussion of theology or creation mythology. In point of fact, I'd even welcome a discussion of Intelligent Design, from a non-scientific perspective. So please, bring something meaningful to the table, that actually merits discussion. Or would that be too "long-winded" for you?
But it's carbon that came out of the atmosphere in the growing of the corn(or other biomass), so it's carbon neutral.
Hmm. I'd admit I was wrong, but I hear that when that happens here on/. it opens up a spacetime rift and ends the universe:)
But srsly, the more I think about it, it would probably be carbon negative. It's totally impractical, and there are other issues with lotsofalgae. As far as solar-powered energy sources, it seems like it's a bad tradeoff between efficiency and ease of storage.
Fantastic!! It would be great to get off the fossil fuel, and dependency on foreign countries for our energy needs
Actually, you're only one for two there. Ethanol isn't a fossil fuel, but it may as well be one, since burning it releases carbon into the atmosphere. Also, ethanol has a lower energy density than fossil fuels, so you could probably look forward to that 455, but it probably wouldn't be the car that you were hoping for.
Ethanol has always been a solution looking for a problem. Right now it may be a convenience, but the actual goal is to find a nonpolluting way to move ourselves around. Electric cars, therefore, should be what we focus our efforts towards.
Well, thanks for narrowing it down to less than ten possible things you could have meant. However, the definition of what is and what is not a scientific theory has nothing to do with Webster.
In general, a theory is scientific if it makes falsifiable predictions about the observable universe. Beyond that, to be taken seriously it helps to have some form of empirical evidence in support of your theory, and if it is parsimonious.
As has been discussed repeatedly on slashdot, newsgroups, and in courtrooms, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, full stop. There is nothing to verify (i.e. it is not falsifiable), it does not make predictions, there is not one whit of evidence to support it, and the concept of a designer is the opposite of parsimony. You may laugh at the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but realize that there is literally no difference between that and Intelligent Design from a scientific standpoint. As far as the above definition is concerned, they are the exact same theory.
Now, you can call a banana a hammer, or call a hammer a banana, if that makes you feel better. Some people, as you say, might find more comfortable. You can even stretch the definition of "hammer" to cover banana-shaped objects, and there may be a dictionary that supports that idea. But they aren't the same thing, and they're never going to be, and you should at the very least consider that before asking people to use the word "banana" whenever the subject of hammers comes up. Failing that, don't be surprised at the reaction you get from your carpenter.
Well, 'theory' isn't a reserved word. You can use it to describe just about anything if you like. For the purposes of science, it would not be a valid theory. That's the question that I was assuming that you were asking, because otherwise the question doesn't make sense: it depends solely on how you define the term.
Not to be condescending, but the quote is appropriate and Carroll is FTW
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
Theoretically, yeah, it is creating Higgs bosons. Extremely high energy cosmic rays do the same thing in our atmosphere every day, but probably it happens a lot more frequently around black holes. I propose a field trip to go investigate the phenomenon...
Show evidence that it does not. Be sure to include an explanation for Venus and all research involving the words "greenhouse gasses".
But seriously, don't argue out of ignorance. Just because someone hasn't proved something to you to your satisfaction doesn't mean it's false.
There are all sorts of things that we can use to relate temperature and atmospheric C02. Ice cores, tree rings, levels of sediment deposits, other fossil records--the global temperature doesn't follow the CO2 levels exactly (for which the most obvious explanation is that there are also other factors involved), but they tend to coincide fairly often.
How many of those thousands of years worth of data include data on solar cycles? Well, probably we can use things like ice core studies and analyze tree rings and take a look at other fossil evidence and extrapolate from the evidence. For measuring, say, levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, you can take a look at ginko leaves, which haven't really changed in millions of years, and count the number of stomata on them, which vary depending on how much atmospheric carbon there is. High levels of CO2 = fewer stomata needed. You can figure out exactly how much by growing ginkoes in environment with varying CO2 levels, and then cross reference that with ice core data on temperature. High temperature + low levels of atmospheric carbon = the sun is probably putting out more energy than usual. So while we don't have a lot of direct data on the solar cycles, we can get a pretty good idea what the planet was like on a fairly long timescale.
Well, to be fair, those are complicated legal documents that exist because of an equally complicated copyright system, that rarely have any direct effects on the majority of the population. The arbitrary EULAs don't seem to hold up all that well in courtroom environments anyway.
I would pose the following question to slashdot: how has Java being closed source affected you personally, and what effects do you see this having in the future?
I can't offer any definitive sources, but from what I've read cannibals claimed that human flesh tasted much more like pork, and the term long pork has been used to refer to it at times.
That's a really horrifying thought, but given the way that McDonald's operates, it's possible that that is already happening. Time for me to move back to Alaska and a subsistence lifestyle, I think...global warming should take care of the 'snow' issue pretty soon.
But aren't we always up in arms about ISPs monitoring and altering internet traffic? Seems like a double standard. Give me my BitTorrent, but other things that generate lots of traffic are harmful to the network? And with increasing levels of encryption, how do you tell the difference?
Is this a first? Are there any other known instances of quantum mechanics influencing the macroscopic behavior of anything else? Butterflies, for example? And what happens when the poles shift?
I'd say that (while this entire discussion is rather off-topic) the United States has a pretty good rights record overall, there are mountains of bad things that can be said about our foreign policies, and a few glaring issues with our domestic policies. On the subject of domestic abuses, the United States has really only recently taken a strong stand against racism. Internment of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War also does not show us off in the best light, and being openly gay or communist today will still get you some hate mail, if not any actual oppression from the government. Just sweep the same-sex marriage issue under the rug, will you?
The domestic espionage issue probably could get classified as a rights violation of some sort, and the Gitmo detainees are certainly having their rights violated, but whether that is a 'domestic rights violation' is hazy. Historically this country has been somewhat less than the land of the free for all sorts of groups. Little things like breaking every treaty we ever signed with a Native American. In point of fact, our treatment of the Native American peoples in many cases is not very different from genocide.
Now, on the foreign side, we've got a pretty bad track record. We've had a heavy hand in Central America for most of our history. Iraq today could be considered the Spanish-American war v3.0---the evidence that Spain had anything to do with the Maine is flimsy at best, but it was sure one hell of a good way to get a war started. And speaking of war, anyone up for some atrocities in the Philippines? Cool. Vietnam? Same story. Iraq? You know how that story goes. Other notable events might include using nuclear weapons on civilian populations, the fire-bombing of Dresden and Tokyo during that same war, and indiscriminately dropping bombs and napalm over everything we could see in Vietnam.
United States, best country in the fucking world, eh? A step up from the regimes of Hitler and Pol Pot, I guess. Except that with us it's more of a continual thing, whether there's a tyrant at the helm or not. So go ahead and feel good about that free speech track record, all right? Alternately, use your freedom of speech (and other freedoms, and the four boxes of liberty) to make this country into one that might actually be able to claim to be the best in the world.
As long as you're talking about things that the government has had a hand in, how about NASA or the Internet? the EPA? National Parks? You are not actually addressing the subject at hand, you're just kind of bitching about the government. I presume you are too smart to go into politics yourself? The problem with the free market solution here is the barrier to entry, which is quite high. This limits competition. We've tried subsidies for the major players to get them to expand their networks, and it failed spectacularly. Right now there isn't a whole lot of incentive for ISPs to compete at all. The question is what we need to do to get the competition ball rolling. If you've noticed, no one has proposed that the solution should be a monopoly of any kind.
For future reference, Verizon (in the U.S.) is the exact same way--the people with the power to do things for you are always the cancellations guys. And for Verizon DSL, they're also not in India (always a plus). IIRC they are in Tampa, FL.
Yeah, the mainland government (People's Republic of China) isn't all that happy with the folks at the Republic of China (that's Taiwan to y'all). A brief timeline of events:
1911:After having had a 2,000 year run with the Imperial ball, the Chinese decide they want a republic. A bad government is better than no government at all, right? Whoops, how'd we screw that one up? Competing warlords control various parts of the country,
1925: A man name of Chiang Kai-shek begins to take over the reins. He's the best thing that the Chinese have to a leader, so US diplomatic efforts are directed his way. Of course, it would be a horrible insult to claim that he was anything other than the strong leader of a united China, right?
1931: The japanese invade Manchuria. CKS response: oh, dang, what a bummer. I suppose I could send some troops out there, but what the hell--they're only peasants. And you know, if I lose any of my army, then I wouldn't have it any more...wonder who I could get to fight for me? CUE 77 YEARS (and counting) OF U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE.
1931-1945: Chiang Kai-shek fights a losing war, when other people force him to. Through diplomatic cunning, he gets the U.S. (whose desire to have China in the game as a major player, especially after the outbreak of war in Europe, was basically driving the whole matter) to send him aid, soldiers supplies, and recognition as a major power. Meanwhile, the communists are taking things over while CKS lets things slide.
1949: CKS runs off to the newly-acquired island of Taiwan, aka Formosa. The corrupt regime is rescued from annihilation by the U.S. military. Again.
2008: we're still protecting the ROC, the PRC is still angry at the mere existence of the ROC, and the U.S. still buys stuff from both of them. Cause, y'know, we want them to be a major player in the w---hmm. Well, we've been doing it for a while. Can't quit now, right?
"On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
What truly happens to an impossible sum?
Does it dry up
like a slashdotter in the sun?
or does it fester like sco
and then run?
does it stink like an overused meme?
or crust and sugar o'er--
like a deferred dream?
maybe it just sags like a 5-ton calculating machine under a heavy load
Stars above about 13 jupiter masses fuse deuterium and above 65 jupiter masses also fuse lithium, according to Wikipedia. Below 13 jupiter masses, well, it's hard to say...
Slashdot Mirror
On a side note, I checked the specs on your monitor there, and I'm not seeing anything terribly impressive. Unless you can point to some actual objective measurement where this monitor (1st gen LCD?) surpasses all subsequent creations, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ignore your opinion.
Let's just say that there are only two definitions of the word theory, one broad and one precise, as so:
1) any idea
2) {scientific definition of the word theory as explained in the previous post}
Intelligent design is only a theory under the first definition. The first definition of the word is not useful to science, and people discussing science do not use it. You can refer to ID as a theory or not as you like, but whether or not you choose to do so is completely irrelevant to a discussion on science. It is not correct---it's not even incorrect. It's a completely separate discussion.
whether you like it or not. You seem to be implying that I am asserting that ID is not a theory under any definition. I find that rather strange; given your previous comments it almost looks like you are deliberately misunderstanding me. So stop it. This is pedantic and inane, and this conversation is not worth having. A conversation on whether or not falsifiability is a valid criteria for a scientific theory would be good. We could discuss the methodology of knowledge, the philosophy of science--I'd even accept a discussion of theology or creation mythology. In point of fact, I'd even welcome a discussion of Intelligent Design, from a non-scientific perspective. So please, bring something meaningful to the table, that actually merits discussion. Or would that be too "long-winded" for you?Hmm. I'd admit I was wrong, but I hear that when that happens here on /. it opens up a spacetime rift and ends the universe :)
But srsly, the more I think about it, it would probably be carbon negative. It's totally impractical, and there are other issues with lots of algae. As far as solar-powered energy sources, it seems like it's a bad tradeoff between efficiency and ease of storage.
As for the car, are you thinking perhaps about one with a variable compression ratio?
So what? TFA is about algal ethanol.
Actually, you're only one for two there. Ethanol isn't a fossil fuel, but it may as well be one, since burning it releases carbon into the atmosphere. Also, ethanol has a lower energy density than fossil fuels, so you could probably look forward to that 455, but it probably wouldn't be the car that you were hoping for.
Ethanol has always been a solution looking for a problem. Right now it may be a convenience, but the actual goal is to find a nonpolluting way to move ourselves around. Electric cars, therefore, should be what we focus our efforts towards.
In general, a theory is scientific if it makes falsifiable predictions about the observable universe. Beyond that, to be taken seriously it helps to have some form of empirical evidence in support of your theory, and if it is parsimonious.
As has been discussed repeatedly on slashdot, newsgroups, and in courtrooms, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, full stop. There is nothing to verify (i.e. it is not falsifiable), it does not make predictions, there is not one whit of evidence to support it, and the concept of a designer is the opposite of parsimony. You may laugh at the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but realize that there is literally no difference between that and Intelligent Design from a scientific standpoint. As far as the above definition is concerned, they are the exact same theory.
Now, you can call a banana a hammer, or call a hammer a banana, if that makes you feel better. Some people, as you say, might find more comfortable. You can even stretch the definition of "hammer" to cover banana-shaped objects, and there may be a dictionary that supports that idea. But they aren't the same thing, and they're never going to be, and you should at the very least consider that before asking people to use the word "banana" whenever the subject of hammers comes up. Failing that, don't be surprised at the reaction you get from your carpenter.
Not to be condescending, but the quote is appropriate and Carroll is FTW
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'This is the funniest post I've seen all day.
Theoretically, yeah, it is creating Higgs bosons. Extremely high energy cosmic rays do the same thing in our atmosphere every day, but probably it happens a lot more frequently around black holes. I propose a field trip to go investigate the phenomenon...
If you can't test it, it can still be falsifiable. Slight but important difference.
But seriously, don't argue out of ignorance. Just because someone hasn't proved something to you to your satisfaction doesn't mean it's false.
There are all sorts of things that we can use to relate temperature and atmospheric C02. Ice cores, tree rings, levels of sediment deposits, other fossil records--the global temperature doesn't follow the CO2 levels exactly (for which the most obvious explanation is that there are also other factors involved), but they tend to coincide fairly often.
Well, to be fair, those are complicated legal documents that exist because of an equally complicated copyright system, that rarely have any direct effects on the majority of the population. The arbitrary EULAs don't seem to hold up all that well in courtroom environments anyway.
I would pose the following question to slashdot: how has Java being closed source affected you personally, and what effects do you see this having in the future?
Really? Those must be new policies that I haven't heard about. Last time I checked, they actually had a screw everybody policy...
I can't offer any definitive sources, but from what I've read cannibals claimed that human flesh tasted much more like pork, and the term long pork has been used to refer to it at times.
That's a really horrifying thought, but given the way that McDonald's operates, it's possible that that is already happening. Time for me to move back to Alaska and a subsistence lifestyle, I think...global warming should take care of the 'snow' issue pretty soon.
But aren't we always up in arms about ISPs monitoring and altering internet traffic? Seems like a double standard. Give me my BitTorrent, but other things that generate lots of traffic are harmful to the network? And with increasing levels of encryption, how do you tell the difference?
Is this a first? Are there any other known instances of quantum mechanics influencing the macroscopic behavior of anything else? Butterflies, for example? And what happens when the poles shift?
The domestic espionage issue probably could get classified as a rights violation of some sort, and the Gitmo detainees are certainly having their rights violated, but whether that is a 'domestic rights violation' is hazy. Historically this country has been somewhat less than the land of the free for all sorts of groups. Little things like breaking every treaty we ever signed with a Native American. In point of fact, our treatment of the Native American peoples in many cases is not very different from genocide.
Now, on the foreign side, we've got a pretty bad track record. We've had a heavy hand in Central America for most of our history. Iraq today could be considered the Spanish-American war v3.0---the evidence that Spain had anything to do with the Maine is flimsy at best, but it was sure one hell of a good way to get a war started. And speaking of war, anyone up for some atrocities in the Philippines? Cool. Vietnam? Same story. Iraq? You know how that story goes. Other notable events might include using nuclear weapons on civilian populations, the fire-bombing of Dresden and Tokyo during that same war, and indiscriminately dropping bombs and napalm over everything we could see in Vietnam.
United States, best country in the fucking world, eh? A step up from the regimes of Hitler and Pol Pot, I guess. Except that with us it's more of a continual thing, whether there's a tyrant at the helm or not. So go ahead and feel good about that free speech track record, all right? Alternately, use your freedom of speech (and other freedoms, and the four boxes of liberty) to make this country into one that might actually be able to claim to be the best in the world.
As long as you're talking about things that the government has had a hand in, how about NASA or the Internet? the EPA? National Parks? You are not actually addressing the subject at hand, you're just kind of bitching about the government. I presume you are too smart to go into politics yourself? The problem with the free market solution here is the barrier to entry, which is quite high. This limits competition. We've tried subsidies for the major players to get them to expand their networks, and it failed spectacularly. Right now there isn't a whole lot of incentive for ISPs to compete at all. The question is what we need to do to get the competition ball rolling. If you've noticed, no one has proposed that the solution should be a monopoly of any kind.
For future reference, Verizon (in the U.S.) is the exact same way--the people with the power to do things for you are always the cancellations guys. And for Verizon DSL, they're also not in India (always a plus). IIRC they are in Tampa, FL.
1911:After having had a 2,000 year run with the Imperial ball, the Chinese decide they want a republic. A bad government is better than no government at all, right? Whoops, how'd we screw that one up? Competing warlords control various parts of the country,
1925: A man name of Chiang Kai-shek begins to take over the reins. He's the best thing that the Chinese have to a leader, so US diplomatic efforts are directed his way. Of course, it would be a horrible insult to claim that he was anything other than the strong leader of a united China, right?
1931: The japanese invade Manchuria. CKS response: oh, dang, what a bummer. I suppose I could send some troops out there, but what the hell--they're only peasants. And you know, if I lose any of my army, then I wouldn't have it any more...wonder who I could get to fight for me? CUE 77 YEARS (and counting) OF U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE.
1931-1945: Chiang Kai-shek fights a losing war, when other people force him to. Through diplomatic cunning, he gets the U.S. (whose desire to have China in the game as a major player, especially after the outbreak of war in Europe, was basically driving the whole matter) to send him aid, soldiers supplies, and recognition as a major power. Meanwhile, the communists are taking things over while CKS lets things slide.
1949: CKS runs off to the newly-acquired island of Taiwan, aka Formosa. The corrupt regime is rescued from annihilation by the U.S. military. Again.
2008: we're still protecting the ROC, the PRC is still angry at the mere existence of the ROC, and the U.S. still buys stuff from both of them. Cause, y'know, we want them to be a major player in the w---hmm. Well, we've been doing it for a while. Can't quit now, right?
For further reading, check out Stilwell and the American Experience in China 1911-45 by Barbara Tuchman, who is more well known for The Guns of August
"On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
What truly happens to an impossible sum?
Does it dry up
like a slashdotter in the sun?
or does it fester like sco
and then run?
does it stink like an overused meme?
or crust and sugar o'er--
like a deferred dream?
maybe it just sags like a 5-ton calculating machine under a heavy load
or does it explode?
Stars above about 13 jupiter masses fuse deuterium and above 65 jupiter masses also fuse lithium, according to Wikipedia. Below 13 jupiter masses, well, it's hard to say...