Anything I write is automatically copyrighted by ME. That's the law
Not if I do the writing as part of my job. It becomes property of my employer. Same is true for research projects as part of a team. You as an individual lose total control of the document in lieu of the team's. This has prompted most research teams to copyright their contributions and then integrate it into a published work. But even then, there are gray areas in the Copyright laws.
How do you know I'm not black, you ill-informed jackass. Cain *was* cursed "with a skin of blackness". I was merely following the logic through to Ham. I didn't curse Cain! God did. Ask Him for the whys and hows and don't blame other people for *thinking*.
While I agree with most of what you say about the impending subscription system and the hypocrisy of those who would block ads and still contribute, I must say that there will always be those who try to freeload off the web. As long as people can connect, there will be those who will go above and beyond obtuse to get free information/pr0n/music/w4r3z/whatever. I forsee/. actually making some money off this system, but they probably won't get more than 5% of their subscribers to pay and of the 95% who don't, I bet 50% block the ads. I do now.
Places like Slashdot can't stay afloat unless they're being paid by users, or being paid by advertisers
True. As had been said, bandwidth aint cheap, but I am and I won't pay for something unless it's really worth it. As it stands now, I wouldn't pay for much on/. Even if that means I never post again, that would be OK by me. Reading would be enough to get what I come for.
However, in response to your comment about no records being kept, I point you towards your friendly neighborhood anthropologist or archaeologist; either will be able to give you some rather good unwritten records of the progress of human culture, and how almost all of it predates anything in the Bible.
I have spoken with a few anthropologists on this subject two years ago. One fellow from the University of Arizona was very complementary of the bible and its record of human history. As for predating things in the bible, where do you get this idea?
What about plants? They don't like being submerged several thousand feet below water, even if it isn't salt water. Which brings us to fish - there are salt water fish and sweet water fish.
To quote Gen 6:19-20 "19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."
So 'every living thing' would encompass just about every animal/plant/fish etc...
Which of Noah's daughters-in-law was black?
Gen 10:6-20 details the lineage of Ham. We see that his descendants populated what is now Egypt, the Middle East and Africa. While there is no biblical account of Ham or any of his descendants receiving a curse like Cain, it seems likely that they indeed did.
What about Asians?
Again, there is no biblical account of every race or creed of mankind. Suffice it to say that skin color, eye shape and any other physical attribute of men can be said to be influenced by environment. The science behind that is pretty evidencial (especially for skin color.) However, we don't know for sure since there were no records kept and there is not a person alive today that can act a witness to the changes. Who knows, but the childred and grand children of Noah had all the genetic diversity to support the entire spectra of human races.
I believe in the phrase, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". If this insane idea ever gets close to fruition, then he will be one step closer to having that. Copy protection built into PCs and PC like devices will only serve to alienate an already tech weary population. Not to mention Jack's idea of what the people think about 'the net' is a statistical fantasy. From the article: " A recent survey revealed that 68 percent of all home computer users say they're satisfied with their normal 56K computer modem." Does that count the 50% that can't get broadband?!? If broadband were available to everyone, it goes without saying that 90% of people would have it. Just like most people want the faster car or bigger boat.
Even if it is technically feasible to implement a copy protection scheme on PCs it would next to impposible to ensure they were working and enforced (unless we revert to a police state). Then he claims that this will "benefit consumers by giving them another choice for movie viewing." Hello? Did I miss something. How will removing the ability to make legal copies with my PC give me more choices? Get a clue Jack.
I've found, however, that arguing points like this tends to get you labled as "non-creationist", at least by those who steadfastly hold to the literal definition of creation as it's described in the Bible.
It's narrowmindedness like this that makes the world a dark and dreary place. However it is god to know that there are those who still search for answers without blindly accepting the majority view.
Maybe the maistream creationists would balk at this notion, but certainly not me! It would be terribly egotistical to say that we are the only sentient beings God has created (assuming you believe in a creation). If God has all power, then He certainly can create more than one life supporting earth! May I ask why you think this is the case?
I wonder if you can tell me when god made the angels, and why he made them so powerful that one can at least rival him?
How about Satan/Lucifer? Revelation talks about a war in heaven... Just because God won does not mean it was a landslide.
And if all humans are decendants of Adam and Eve, why are they so different
Let's see there is the curse of Cain (a skin of blackness) and the tower of babel to give us different languages and of course thousands of years in various parts of the earth to give us culture. Sounds pretty easy to me.
how did he fill all kinds of animal existing (and those who once existed but have since been exterminated by man) into that little ark? And why is there no mention of say kangooroos in Noahs tale or the dozens of distinct finches Darwin described?
Good questions! The Ark was big by defenition so I don't think it is too far fetched to believe that he fit all the animals on the ark. Keep in mind he only needed to worry about air breathing animals (insects, mammals, reptiles, etc.) It probably took a long time, but I recall something in Genesis that mentioned God's help in getting all the little crawlies to cooperate. As for Darwin's finches, who is to say that they didn't get on the ark with Noah? There is no proof either way and you are left with faith (for or against) which is the basis for any religion anyway.
I'll bite. What if the earth was formed from already existing materials? In other words, the dinosaurs lived on a planet that was destroyed and the stuff from that planet was "re-organized" into the earth. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it would satisfy the existense of bones, radio carbon dating and most other time related issues with creationism.
The difference here, of course, is that there is a lot of scientific studies saying that global warming, though it cannot be proven outright, is a highly likely phenomenon.
Of course comparing religion to science is shaky at best so I will avoid that can of worms. More interesting to me is that I have seen a lot of people jump on various bandwagons of science (thanks Bill Nye) without really thinking too hard about it. You obviously have so don't take it personally. As for the scientific studies, here is a thought I have never had sufficiently answered. We have temperature data for about 100 years on the earth. The farther back you go, the fewer the recording stations and the less reliable the readings are. We also theorize that the global weather patterns run on several cycles (seasonal, annual, decadal, centurial and millennial...) So how do we know that any measured increase in temperature is not just a natural cycle? Who is to say with any authority that the earth would be just as warm without a single human on the planet?
While I am at it, I would like to know something else. Why is it that those who support global warming always tout CO2 emissions as the biggest problem? Mt. Pinatubo sent out more CO2 than all the human activity to date yet the earth has seemed to deal with it just fine. See the research done by Mr. Gerlach for evidence. Here is a quote from one of his articles, "Thus, the minimum volatile emissions for the climactic eruption--from preeruption vapor phase and degassing of melt--were 17 Mt SO2, 42 Mt CO2, 3 Mt Cl, and 491 Mt H2O." That's 42 megatons of CO2 from one eruption!
Here is another article that makes some interesting points. An excerpt, "The IPCC report indicates that GHG emissions due to human intervention have increased and that there are uncertainties involved in climate change impacts. An example of the effect on the global climate was experienced after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines which caused the lowering of global temperature. This shows that there are uncertainties in determining the exact causes of climate change because of non-anthropogenic causes such as this volcanic eruption. Hence, the need for caution. The IPCC findings are controversial, some scientists do not believe the rates of change and its impacts which add to the uncertainties. Any plan or statement should be grounded on scientific findings for credibility. The fact that data is only available for the last 200 years along with the use of computer models adds to the uncertainties of the findings. The IPCC works closely with the UNFCCC negotiating process while maintaining its scientific independence."
There are uncertanties with the effects of human caused GHG emissions and Mt. Pinatubo actually global temp despite having dumped 42 megatons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Essentially, my issue is that there may be studies that support global warming but there is an equal amount against it or at least that casts a different light on the situation. We simply don't have enough information to make huge changes that may or may not affect a perceived problem.
When dealing with environmental issues it's very difficult to arrive at conclusive proof.
I don't need conclusive proof to agree with any given argument. What I need is convincing evidence that makes sense. So far, I have not seen any for global warming.
at what percentage of probability will you be convinced that global warming is a real threat that requires a change in our energy-consumption habits?
Personally, I try very hard to live my life in a responsible way. That goes for everything from how I raise my kids to where I put my trash. I despise waste and frivolity in any form. So naturally I would like to see everyone change their energy consumption habits. However, this is irregardless of the global warming theory.
My point is that the effects of global warming are potentially so grave that even a small probability requires us not to take any chances and begin to change our habits right now.
What FRB said was "My beef was the "better to be safe than sorry" attitude, which is applicable to anything.". It seems that you didn't understand what he meant. I think getting hit by an asteroid is much more devastating that global warming could ever be. It could potentially rip the earth into many pieces (see asteroid belt).
If it turns out to be wrong, well at least we'll still be using cleaner energy.
I agree, it can only be positive. The issue I have is with how we accomplish this goal. Do we continue to steamroll legislation through the world's governments, threaten economies and potentially damage other equally important programs (like AIDS/Cancer research, fighting world hunger, etc)? I wouldn't vote for that in a minute. My not so humble opinion.
In response to the AP's coverage, Rep. Ed Markey, an aggressive privacy advocate in Congress, pressed Comcast President Brian Roberts in a letter Wednesday about the recording. Markey said the company's action could be in violation of federal law.
Sounds like they are just pre-empting a move by the FCC instead of acting benevolent.
Whoa there... Lets not crack open that whole evolution can of worms so soon. I don't know if./ can take another deluge of posts on this subject again. Besides, not everyone even agrees that evolution ever happened.
I don't think the TV remote eroded ad viewing at all. Most (if not all) Broadcast channels go to commercial at the same exact time.
I do and I personally pick two or three programs to watch at the same time so I don't sit through the commercials. I make sure that the channels don't air ads at the same time (like TNN-STTNG and Fox-Seinfeld). Ad free bliss. FWIW, I am the IS mgr for a TV station.
I never said it would be desireable, I only said it would be possible. To counter the original comment that the posted technology was ridiculous because overpopulation was *already* happening, I mentioned that it was not even close. I certainly like my open spaces, mountains and lakes to recreate in. But by now means are we anywhere near overpopulated.
Perhaps you ought to turn off your AM talk radio and read this article written by someone who actually knows something about the topic.
Do you believe everything you read? I don't. Scientific American has a history of spouting off at the mouth and I don't by into Dr. Wilson's ideas very far. He does not even take into account desalinization or hydroponics technology. Both of which (in an apolitical world) would solve world hunger and allow a huge population increase regardless of the meat inefficiency.
Water is the limiting factor if you want to fully populate the world.
Bingo. Which is why I mentioned technology. We have the ability to convert salt water into fresh water and the earth is made of 2/3 water. It is costly, but costs are always political in nature. With water, hydroponics, advanced farming techniques and other emerging technologies, the earth could easily support 60 billion people.
... the world is so clearly overpopulated right now.
What a load of crap! There are vast areas of land un populated and the US alone is paying farmers to *not* grow crops because we grow too much. Technology available a decade ago would allow at least a tenfold increase in the harvestable land area of the world. That does not even take into account the medicinal techiniques that would save millions of lives every year that do not make it to third world countries. As far as the worlds governments and people are concerned, we may be over their tolerances. As far as the earth being capable of supporting humans, we have not even begun to reach it's limits.
On the topic at hand, it seems that once again science has produced something with both very good and very bad applications. And once again we are relying on the "ethics and morals" of said scientists to do the right thing. God help us all.
What is sweet is that this is on PBS. I love public TV and I love it more that we get to see free cool stuff like this.
I bet that he isn't the first to do this either. I have a friend who lives accross the street from his ISP and has tried multiple times to get a strand of fiber run to the main switch (he is friends with the owner). Before I moved and lost contact with him he was working on a radio based method of getting 100Mbps using multiplexing and directional antennas. At less than 300 feet it seemed feasible. This was of course before 802.11x and I am sure he has looked into this. The company we worked for there has a few wireless net connections but the microwave setup we were looking at for 100Mbs and even OC-3 speeds was big bucks! About $10,000 for a single site. Are there any cheaper solutions for that kind of speed?
Slashdot Mirror
Anything I write is automatically copyrighted by ME. That's the law
Not if I do the writing as part of my job. It becomes property of my employer. Same is true for research projects as part of a team. You as an individual lose total control of the document in lieu of the team's. This has prompted most research teams to copyright their contributions and then integrate it into a published work. But even then, there are gray areas in the Copyright laws.
Anything else (ahem) with the bride?
For five bucks, I wouldn't expect too much with the bride...
You mean like Alterslash?
How do you know I'm not black, you ill-informed jackass. Cain *was* cursed "with a skin of blackness". I was merely following the logic through to Ham. I didn't curse Cain! God did. Ask Him for the whys and hows and don't blame other people for *thinking*.
The web ain't free anymore
/. actually making some money off this system, but they probably won't get more than 5% of their subscribers to pay and of the 95% who don't, I bet 50% block the ads. I do now.
/. Even if that means I never post again, that would be OK by me. Reading would be enough to get what I come for.
While I agree with most of what you say about the impending subscription system and the hypocrisy of those who would block ads and still contribute, I must say that there will always be those who try to freeload off the web. As long as people can connect, there will be those who will go above and beyond obtuse to get free information/pr0n/music/w4r3z/whatever. I forsee
Places like Slashdot can't stay afloat unless they're being paid by users, or being paid by advertisers
True. As had been said, bandwidth aint cheap, but I am and I won't pay for something unless it's really worth it. As it stands now, I wouldn't pay for much on
However, in response to your comment about no records being kept, I point you towards your friendly neighborhood anthropologist or archaeologist; either will be able to give you some rather good unwritten records of the progress of human culture, and how almost all of it predates anything in the Bible.
I have spoken with a few anthropologists on this subject two years ago. One fellow from the University of Arizona was very complementary of the bible and its record of human history. As for predating things in the bible, where do you get this idea?
What about plants? They don't like being submerged several thousand feet below water, even if it isn't salt water. Which brings us to fish - there are salt water fish and sweet water fish.
To quote Gen 6:19-20 "19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."
So 'every living thing' would encompass just about every animal/plant/fish etc...
Which of Noah's daughters-in-law was black?
Gen 10:6-20 details the lineage of Ham. We see that his descendants populated what is now Egypt, the Middle East and Africa. While there is no biblical account of Ham or any of his descendants receiving a curse like Cain, it seems likely that they indeed did.
What about Asians?
Again, there is no biblical account of every race or creed of mankind. Suffice it to say that skin color, eye shape and any other physical attribute of men can be said to be influenced by environment. The science behind that is pretty evidencial (especially for skin color.) However, we don't know for sure since there were no records kept and there is not a person alive today that can act a witness to the changes. Who knows, but the childred and grand children of Noah had all the genetic diversity to support the entire spectra of human races.
I believe in the phrase, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". If this insane idea ever gets close to fruition, then he will be one step closer to having that. Copy protection built into PCs and PC like devices will only serve to alienate an already tech weary population. Not to mention Jack's idea of what the people think about 'the net' is a statistical fantasy. From the article: " A recent survey revealed that 68 percent of all home computer users say they're satisfied with their normal 56K computer modem." Does that count the 50% that can't get broadband?!? If broadband were available to everyone, it goes without saying that 90% of people would have it. Just like most people want the faster car or bigger boat.
Even if it is technically feasible to implement a copy protection scheme on PCs it would next to impposible to ensure they were working and enforced (unless we revert to a police state). Then he claims that this will "benefit consumers by giving them another choice for movie viewing." Hello? Did I miss something. How will removing the ability to make legal copies with my PC give me more choices? Get a clue Jack.
I've found, however, that arguing points like this tends to get you labled as "non-creationist", at least by those who steadfastly hold to the literal definition of creation as it's described in the Bible.
It's narrowmindedness like this that makes the world a dark and dreary place. However it is god to know that there are those who still search for answers without blindly accepting the majority view.
which is totally against creationism.
Maybe the maistream creationists would balk at this notion, but certainly not me! It would be terribly egotistical to say that we are the only sentient beings God has created (assuming you believe in a creation). If God has all power, then He certainly can create more than one life supporting earth! May I ask why you think this is the case?
I wonder if you can tell me when god made the angels, and why he made them so powerful that one can at least rival him?
How about Satan/Lucifer? Revelation talks about a war in heaven... Just because God won does not mean it was a landslide.
And if all humans are decendants of Adam and Eve, why are they so different
Let's see there is the curse of Cain (a skin of blackness) and the tower of babel to give us different languages and of course thousands of years in various parts of the earth to give us culture. Sounds pretty easy to me.
how did he fill all kinds of animal existing (and those who once existed but have since been exterminated by man) into that little ark? And why is there no mention of say kangooroos in Noahs tale or the dozens of distinct finches Darwin described?
Good questions! The Ark was big by defenition so I don't think it is too far fetched to believe that he fit all the animals on the ark. Keep in mind he only needed to worry about air breathing animals (insects, mammals, reptiles, etc.) It probably took a long time, but I recall something in Genesis that mentioned God's help in getting all the little crawlies to cooperate. As for Darwin's finches, who is to say that they didn't get on the ark with Noah? There is no proof either way and you are left with faith (for or against) which is the basis for any religion anyway.
I'll bite. What if the earth was formed from already existing materials? In other words, the dinosaurs lived on a planet that was destroyed and the stuff from that planet was "re-organized" into the earth. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it would satisfy the existense of bones, radio carbon dating and most other time related issues with creationism.
The difference here, of course, is that there is a lot of scientific studies saying that global warming, though it cannot be proven outright, is a highly likely phenomenon.
Of course comparing religion to science is shaky at best so I will avoid that can of worms. More interesting to me is that I have seen a lot of people jump on various bandwagons of science (thanks Bill Nye) without really thinking too hard about it. You obviously have so don't take it personally. As for the scientific studies, here is a thought I have never had sufficiently answered. We have temperature data for about 100 years on the earth. The farther back you go, the fewer the recording stations and the less reliable the readings are. We also theorize that the global weather patterns run on several cycles (seasonal, annual, decadal, centurial and millennial...) So how do we know that any measured increase in temperature is not just a natural cycle? Who is to say with any authority that the earth would be just as warm without a single human on the planet?
While I am at it, I would like to know something else. Why is it that those who support global warming always tout CO2 emissions as the biggest problem? Mt. Pinatubo sent out more CO2 than all the human activity to date yet the earth has seemed to deal with it just fine. See the research done by Mr. Gerlach for evidence. Here is a quote from one of his articles, "Thus, the minimum volatile emissions for the climactic eruption--from preeruption vapor phase and degassing of melt--were 17 Mt SO2, 42 Mt CO2, 3 Mt Cl, and 491 Mt H2O." That's 42 megatons of CO2 from one eruption!
Here is another article that makes some interesting points. An excerpt, "The IPCC report indicates that GHG emissions due to human intervention have increased and that there are uncertainties involved in climate change impacts. An example of the effect on the global climate was experienced after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines which caused the lowering of global temperature. This shows that there are uncertainties in determining the exact causes of climate change because of non-anthropogenic causes such as this volcanic eruption. Hence, the need for caution. The IPCC findings are controversial, some scientists do not believe the rates of change and its impacts which add to the uncertainties. Any plan or statement should be grounded on scientific findings for credibility. The fact that data is only available for the last 200 years along with the use of computer models adds to the uncertainties of the findings. The IPCC works closely with the UNFCCC negotiating process while maintaining its scientific independence."
There are uncertanties with the effects of human caused GHG emissions and Mt. Pinatubo actually global temp despite having dumped 42 megatons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Essentially, my issue is that there may be studies that support global warming but there is an equal amount against it or at least that casts a different light on the situation. We simply don't have enough information to make huge changes that may or may not affect a perceived problem.
When dealing with environmental issues it's very difficult to arrive at conclusive proof.
I don't need conclusive proof to agree with any given argument. What I need is convincing evidence that makes sense. So far, I have not seen any for global warming.
at what percentage of probability will you be convinced that global warming is a real threat that requires a change in our energy-consumption habits?
Personally, I try very hard to live my life in a responsible way. That goes for everything from how I raise my kids to where I put my trash. I despise waste and frivolity in any form. So naturally I would like to see everyone change their energy consumption habits. However, this is irregardless of the global warming theory.
My point is that the effects of global warming are potentially so grave that even a small probability requires us not to take any chances and begin to change our habits right now.
What FRB said was "My beef was the "better to be safe than sorry" attitude, which is applicable to anything.". It seems that you didn't understand what he meant. I think getting hit by an asteroid is much more devastating that global warming could ever be. It could potentially rip the earth into many pieces (see asteroid belt).
If it turns out to be wrong, well at least we'll still be using cleaner energy.
I agree, it can only be positive. The issue I have is with how we accomplish this goal. Do we continue to steamroll legislation through the world's governments, threaten economies and potentially damage other equally important programs (like AIDS/Cancer research, fighting world hunger, etc)? I wouldn't vote for that in a minute. My not so humble opinion.
How do you think we evolved out of the nothing?
Why do you assume that we evolved at all?
From the article:
In response to the AP's coverage, Rep. Ed Markey, an aggressive privacy advocate in Congress, pressed Comcast President Brian Roberts in a letter Wednesday about the recording. Markey said the company's action could be in violation of federal law.
Sounds like they are just pre-empting a move by the FCC instead of acting benevolent.
Whoa there... Lets not crack open that whole evolution can of worms so soon. I don't know if ./ can take another deluge of posts on this subject again. Besides, not everyone even agrees that evolution ever happened.
That was quite a rant. You care to post something on topic?
I don't think the TV remote eroded ad viewing at all. Most (if not all) Broadcast channels go to commercial at the same exact time.
I do and I personally pick two or three programs to watch at the same time so I don't sit through the commercials. I make sure that the channels don't air ads at the same time (like TNN-STTNG and Fox-Seinfeld). Ad free bliss. FWIW, I am the IS mgr for a TV station.
Anyway, who would want to live in such a place.
I never said it would be desireable, I only said it would be possible. To counter the original comment that the posted technology was ridiculous because overpopulation was *already* happening, I mentioned that it was not even close. I certainly like my open spaces, mountains and lakes to recreate in. But by now means are we anywhere near overpopulated.
Perhaps you ought to turn off your AM talk radio and read this article written by someone who actually knows something about the topic.
Do you believe everything you read? I don't. Scientific American has a history of spouting off at the mouth and I don't by into Dr. Wilson's ideas very far. He does not even take into account desalinization or hydroponics technology. Both of which (in an apolitical world) would solve world hunger and allow a huge population increase regardless of the meat inefficiency.
Water is the limiting factor if you want to fully populate the world.
Bingo. Which is why I mentioned technology. We have the ability to convert salt water into fresh water and the earth is made of 2/3 water. It is costly, but costs are always political in nature. With water, hydroponics, advanced farming techniques and other emerging technologies, the earth could easily support 60 billion people.
... the world is so clearly overpopulated right now.
What a load of crap! There are vast areas of land un populated and the US alone is paying farmers to *not* grow crops because we grow too much. Technology available a decade ago would allow at least a tenfold increase in the harvestable land area of the world. That does not even take into account the medicinal techiniques that would save millions of lives every year that do not make it to third world countries. As far as the worlds governments and people are concerned, we may be over their tolerances. As far as the earth being capable of supporting humans, we have not even begun to reach it's limits.
On the topic at hand, it seems that once again science has produced something with both very good and very bad applications. And once again we are relying on the "ethics and morals" of said scientists to do the right thing. God help us all.
What is sweet is that this is on PBS. I love public TV and I love it more that we get to see free cool stuff like this.
I bet that he isn't the first to do this either. I have a friend who lives accross the street from his ISP and has tried multiple times to get a strand of fiber run to the main switch (he is friends with the owner). Before I moved and lost contact with him he was working on a radio based method of getting 100Mbps using multiplexing and directional antennas. At less than 300 feet it seemed feasible. This was of course before 802.11x and I am sure he has looked into this. The company we worked for there has a few wireless net connections but the microwave setup we were looking at for 100Mbs and even OC-3 speeds was big bucks! About $10,000 for a single site. Are there any cheaper solutions for that kind of speed?
I love you too. The fossil records are on display at the Natural Science Museum in D.C. if you would care to see for yourself...