It seems like all the computer gaming magazines out there dislike Windows and DirectX because of buggy programs, but they always look to Microsoft again to fix it, despite Microsoft's track record. At the same time, they say things like "How many games does Linux have now? Six?" Do you think we'll get out of Microsoft rut within the next ten years?
I beleive that the Playstation 2 actualy uses a Linux distro. From what I've heard, its been extensivly re-written. However, if its Linux, its source code is open, so it should be easy to make an emulator for other distros (far easyer then it would be to make one for Windows or the Mac, I would think). So we may see lots of PSX2 (and the orginaly PSX, since the PSX2 is backwards compatible with them) games for Linux.
Around here the local big University (UW-Madison) has a warehouse where they send all their old stuff. Every Friday they open it to the public (Wensdays and Thursdays if you work for the state). I once got a full tower w/a 300 W power supply, 486 DX, floppy drives, and a 10 MB/s network card for $5. I gutted everything and sold just the case and power supply on eBay for $50:) I kept the rest as spare parts for my Linux box.
If only there were more big games for Linux and then I'd have no reason to have a hard drive with Windows on it. Yeah, we have Quake and all the sequals (or their all coming soon), and we have a few more. But, frankly, I don't like Quake. I'm just not a action-shooter person. (I play them every once in a while, but not much).
Thankfuly, theres the linuxgames.com project. If it weren't for them, I don't think there would be any hope;).
The "Anonymous Coward" couldn't have been better used here:)
If you're addicted to gaming, I'll forgive you for having Windows 98 on your computer (thats why I have it, after all). If not, get a real operating system instead a ripped-off one. If you hang around Slashdot enough, you'll see that Microsoft is obviously borg-ifed. Linux is for people who have truly mastered their computer; they're not sheep like so many people are.
Now that there will be a lot of compotition in high-bandwidth technologies, we don't have to worry about wasting other people's bandwidth when we write 1st Post!
I haven't looked at all the posts, so this might have been mentioned.
Heres something a lot of people might not know: The Onion is not just an online newspaper. It actualy started about 100 years ago in my hometown of Madison, WI. They print out of the UW-Madison campus. I've got about four years worth of back issues under my bed (altough I'm missing a bunch).
I always laugh when people on IRC tell me they just found out about The Onion website and say I ought to check it out. hehe.
> So what if the experiments never produced all 20 amino acids? The Earth a billion years to try.
1:1*10^73 would not take a billion years to try, or a trillion years to try, it would NEVER happen.
>The "dilution" argument assumes that the amino acids were only formed once, in one location, rather than continually being created all over the world.
If they're not all together, how can they come to form a living single-celled orginizim? There has to be all 20 in the same place mixed together just right with the right ammount of energy.
>"Rearrange the hierarchy of life to make things fit"? Of course. You make that sound like a bad thing. If you don't have all the data, then obviously you can't classify things correctly. When more data comes in, you learn more about how things are related and reorganize things.
Given. But take this real life example durring the mid-19th centry: Perodic tables were coming and going like perpetual motion machines. Finaly, someone figures out that you can classify atoms by how many electrons the atom has. There were a few holes in new table, but the scientist who made it figured that they would be filled with time. He could even predict how that element behaves, even though he never observed one. Today, all these holes have been filled and we're just putting in elements on the end. And he was right about how the missing ones behaved.
Evolution has yet to produce a solid table of the orgin of life from single-celled orginizims to humans. Everything must be totally rearanged every time a new species is found. Also, recently a group in South America did some DNA testing on Neaderthal bones. They have no semblence to humans whatsoever.
I have yet to see an Evolution vs. Creation debate that has yet to degrade into name calling. This one has not disapointed that prediction.
I haven't looked at all the posts (too little time), so maybe this stuff was covered already. But I wanted to put in my two cents worth into this debate.
For the first part of my argument, I'll ignore this new Quantum Evolution twist. I'll get to it later.
Now then, look at the pure mathmatics of the situation. The chances of creating the 20 amino acids nessary for the starting up of life are 1:1*10^73. In mathmatics, if anything has a chance of happening once in 1*10^50 or more, its considered so remote so as to be immpossible.
Some years ago, someone attempted to replicate the creation of a genitic soup. They created 4 of the 20 on the first try. Further experements have yielded somewhat better results, but never all 20. This was under a controled expereiment, not real life.
If, by some chance, all the acids were to form, where would it go? If it gets into a lot of water, the soup would be dilluted and spread all over the earth's oceans. If it stays on land, the suns rays would quickly break apart the bonds keeping the acids together.
Lots of stuff, like the fact that human ebryos (and several other mammals) have gills, are shown as evidence of evolution. In essence, these biologists are saying "Of course ebryos have gills! We evolved from fish!" and never give it a second thought. There could be millions of resons for such an occurence! They just refuse to look for them.
Darwin himself said in "The Orgin of Life" that if the gaping holes in the fossil record weren't filled that it would kill his theory. After more then 150 years, these holes actualy got bigger! New animal fossils were found that didn't fit the evolutionists' theories, so they rearanged the heiracracy of life several times to make them fit. But the end result was even bigger holes.
It is absolutely true that Creationism cannot be proved nor disproved by current scientific meathods. But evolution most certianly can. Also, it is true that Creationists usualy can't put up much of a fight on a scientific front. Most of them are not sceintists. Its just good enough for them that they have their faith and thats that. But by doing so they do themselves and others like them a tremendus disservice because they can't show facts to help disprove evolution. I hope I'm doing a better job.
Now, on to Quantum Evolution. This makes all my previous arguments irrelvent. I'll bet this theory gains widespred support because it can explain away all the current theory's problems.
Our understanding of Quantum Physics is kinda like figuring out Quantum Physics itself; we both understand it and we don't. I have somewhat of a passing intrest in Quantum Mechanics, so I'll see what I can find out about this. I will be posting again.
------------------------
I'm going home and make one now!
on
Lego Machine Gun
·
· Score: 1
Let us be thankful that Hitler never had this power, although I bet they were working on it near the end.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like all the computer gaming magazines out there dislike Windows and DirectX because of buggy programs, but they always look to Microsoft again to fix it, despite Microsoft's track record. At the same time, they say things like "How many games does Linux have now? Six?" Do you think we'll get out of Microsoft rut within the next ten years?
----------
I beleive that the Playstation 2 actualy uses a Linux distro. From what I've heard, its been extensivly re-written. However, if its Linux, its source code is open, so it should be easy to make an emulator for other distros (far easyer then it would be to make one for Windows or the Mac, I would think). So we may see lots of PSX2 (and the orginaly PSX, since the PSX2 is backwards compatible with them) games for Linux.
----------
Why was the last post scored "0: Flamebait"? Oh yeah, because moderators set it there ;-)
----------
Around here the local big University (UW-Madison) has a warehouse where they send all their old stuff. Every Friday they open it to the public (Wensdays and Thursdays if you work for the state). I once got a full tower w/a 300 W power supply, 486 DX, floppy drives, and a 10 MB/s network card for $5. I gutted everything and sold just the case and power supply on eBay for $50 :) I kept the rest as spare parts for my Linux box.
----------
If only there were more big games for Linux and then I'd have no reason to have a hard drive with Windows on it. Yeah, we have Quake and all the sequals (or their all coming soon), and we have a few more. But, frankly, I don't like Quake. I'm just not a action-shooter person. (I play them every once in a while, but not much).
Thankfuly, theres the linuxgames.com project. If it weren't for them, I don't think there would be any hope ;).
----------
Actualy, that old Lisa team at Apple (or at least some of them) are now making stuff for X. It was just on Slashdot today, I beleive.
----------
***Gets out FlameThrow 2000***
Hmmm, on Hotmail are we? Did you know that even though MS owns Hotmail, Hotmail is hosted on a Linux box?
----------
The "Anonymous Coward" couldn't have been better used here :)
If you're addicted to gaming, I'll forgive you for having Windows 98 on your computer (thats why I have it, after all). If not, get a real operating system instead a ripped-off one. If you hang around Slashdot enough, you'll see that Microsoft is obviously borg-ifed. Linux is for people who have truly mastered their computer; they're not sheep like so many people are.
I suggest you follow my sig's advice:
----------
Now that there will be a lot of compotition in high-bandwidth technologies, we don't have to worry about wasting other people's bandwidth when we write 1st Post!
----------
I haven't looked at all the posts, so this might have been mentioned.
Heres something a lot of people might not know: The Onion is not just an online newspaper. It actualy started about 100 years ago in my hometown of Madison, WI. They print out of the UW-Madison campus. I've got about four years worth of back issues under my bed (altough I'm missing a bunch).
I always laugh when people on IRC tell me they just found out about The Onion website and say I ought to check it out. hehe.
----------
> So what if the experiments never produced all 20 amino acids? The Earth a billion years to try.
1:1*10^73 would not take a billion years to try, or a trillion years to try, it would NEVER happen.
>The "dilution" argument assumes that the amino acids were only formed once, in one location, rather than continually being created all over the world.
If they're not all together, how can they come to form a living single-celled orginizim? There has to be all 20 in the same place mixed together just right with the right ammount of energy.
>"Rearrange the hierarchy of life to make things fit"? Of course. You make that sound like a bad thing. If you don't have all the data, then obviously you can't classify things correctly. When more data comes in, you learn more about how things are related and reorganize things.
Given. But take this real life example durring the mid-19th centry: Perodic tables were coming and going like perpetual motion machines. Finaly, someone figures out that you can classify atoms by how many electrons the atom has. There were a few holes in new table, but the scientist who made it figured that they would be filled with time. He could even predict how that element behaves, even though he never observed one. Today, all these holes have been filled and we're just putting in elements on the end. And he was right about how the missing ones behaved.
Evolution has yet to produce a solid table of the orgin of life from single-celled orginizims to humans. Everything must be totally rearanged every time a new species is found. Also, recently a group in South America did some DNA testing on Neaderthal bones. They have no semblence to humans whatsoever.
------------------------
I have yet to see an Evolution vs. Creation debate that has yet to degrade into name calling. This one has not disapointed that prediction.
I haven't looked at all the posts (too little time), so maybe this stuff was covered already. But I wanted to put in my two cents worth into this debate.
For the first part of my argument, I'll ignore this new Quantum Evolution twist. I'll get to it later.
Now then, look at the pure mathmatics of the situation. The chances of creating the 20 amino acids nessary for the starting up of life are 1:1*10^73. In mathmatics, if anything has a chance of happening once in 1*10^50 or more, its considered so remote so as to be immpossible.
Some years ago, someone attempted to replicate the creation of a genitic soup. They created 4 of the 20 on the first try. Further experements have yielded somewhat better results, but never all 20. This was under a controled expereiment, not real life.
If, by some chance, all the acids were to form, where would it go? If it gets into a lot of water, the soup would be dilluted and spread all over the earth's oceans. If it stays on land, the suns rays would quickly break apart the bonds keeping the acids together.
Lots of stuff, like the fact that human ebryos (and several other mammals) have gills, are shown as evidence of evolution. In essence, these biologists are saying "Of course ebryos have gills! We evolved from fish!" and never give it a second thought. There could be millions of resons for such an occurence! They just refuse to look for them.
Darwin himself said in "The Orgin of Life" that if the gaping holes in the fossil record weren't filled that it would kill his theory. After more then 150 years, these holes actualy got bigger! New animal fossils were found that didn't fit the evolutionists' theories, so they rearanged the heiracracy of life several times to make them fit. But the end result was even bigger holes.
It is absolutely true that Creationism cannot be proved nor disproved by current scientific meathods. But evolution most certianly can. Also, it is true that Creationists usualy can't put up much of a fight on a scientific front. Most of them are not sceintists. Its just good enough for them that they have their faith and thats that. But by doing so they do themselves and others like them a tremendus disservice because they can't show facts to help disprove evolution. I hope I'm doing a better job.
Now, on to Quantum Evolution. This makes all my previous arguments irrelvent. I'll bet this theory gains widespred support because it can explain away all the current theory's problems.
Our understanding of Quantum Physics is kinda like figuring out Quantum Physics itself; we both understand it and we don't. I have somewhat of a passing intrest in Quantum Mechanics, so I'll see what I can find out about this. I will be posting again.
------------------------
Let us be thankful that Hitler never had this power, although I bet they were working on it near the end.
---------------
Go ping yourself
------------------------