That's an assumption based on our own solar system and the stars we can see. We've yet to find planets in a system that resembles our own
Only because we don't have equipment with enough sensitivity to find earth size planets in any orbits, much less distant ones like ours.
(in fact scientists are rethinking the standard solar system model because of it)
No they are rethinking it because of the wierd orbits of the 'jupiters' they are finding. Not because of the absence of 'earths'.
So yes, assuming we're the only ones out here is jumping to conclusions, but so is assuming the universe falls neatly into the Heliocentric solar system model, don't you think?
No.
I think that expecting that the vast number of stars that are like our own with no near orbit Jupiters don't have a significant percentage with small approx 1 AU orbit planets is, well, anti-Heliocentric. I thought I made that clear.:-)
We do. Communication requires a carrier. We use photons because they travel at light speed. There is not any evidence that SUSY or strings will shake up the fundemental requirement that information travels on matter. Thus we know that the idea of mental projection in the absence of projecting some 'thing' (e.g. photons) is a looser.
Further, the idea that low power intra-planet transmissions could take place between extra-terrestrials is interesting, but the high power needed for societal communication or worse yet inter-stellar communication could somehow be released from carbon based life is a similar no go.
Look, I'm all about remembering there is a shadow of a doubt. As an active reader of bottomquark I see the headlines outside of my own experience, and that sometimes corrections are made in theories.
But really. We are an average planet around an average star. The hubris required to think that we are along in the universe is almost unmeasurable.
Life is plentiful. The chemistry needed for life is all over the place and we have a planet that provides fantastic evidence that once a molecule is able to replicate itself then life pretty much explodes. There is no reason to believe that something unique happened here to create that initial set of circumstances.
People often point to the lack of communication from other worlds as proof (or at least evidence) that we are alone. Hogwash! We haven't heard from them because there are invariant rules in the universe. This lack of communication is much better evidence that faster than light travel is insurmountable than it is that somehow in the great sea of chemistry that is the universe *we* managed to defy the odds and not only create life, but multicellular life. And not only multicellular, but thinking. And not only thinking, but self aware and communicative. Those are long odds, eh?
Still, if this country (or planet for that matter) was scientifically litereate enough to understand all that I guess poliglut.org (shameless plug) wouldn't need to exist to straighten folks out...;-)
This girl should be commended, She performed a real scientific experiment, she came up with a hypothosis and figured out an inovative way to test it. She then documented her findings.
Yup, and I bet the ice cream her folks bought her was reward enough! I notice that just about everyone here has a story about their rights being stomped on, yet turned out to be a free thinker.
Thanks to/. for deviated so far from 'news for nerds' that it published an article that I can run over at poliglut though. I need all the help I can get...;-)
I guess the good news is they just saved themselves over a grand a year in renewals...:-)
Name ownership aside, which I do in fact understand, I think people are getting a little too excited about this stuff. It isn't like referee in the name is going to make a lick of difference. Want proof. Look at some of the largest traffic sites in their respective fields, slashdot, yahoo, amazon. WTF do any of those have to do with what the site does?
The referee mag people should get over it, but so should rightsports. These battles don't matter. To paraphrase Cosmo, "It's all about the content"
There does seem to be certain people that seem to think that competition is bad, and that it is somehow "unfair" to those that aren't as good. Peronally, I think it's unfair to cosset these people and make them believe that things are going to be easy when they hit the outside world.
Yeah, that's what it is. Everyone wants to eliminate competition in the world. Your sociological acumen has once again seen through the great liberal conspiracy and found the truth.
On the one hand, if you just write a magazine article that mentions where a lot of drug sales are going on, you could defend that as journalism, and the First Amendment would shield you. On the other hand, if you published a magazine telling people where they could buy drugs, and encouraged dealers to advertise in your magazine, and set up your business office so the dealers could pay for their ads with cash and not leave records of their identities, I don't think the courts would let you off the hook.
Man has it been a long time since I bought a copy of High Times.
"Many experts believe information overload is making it difficult for some people to absorb new information, as they have reached a limit of what they can store in their brains. These people forget things because they were too distracted to absorb them in the first place."
Seems to me the Doc forgot what he was talking about in between sentences. Notice how he switched from a capacity issue to an attention issue as if the two were related.
Of course, the best work is often done by those closest to the problem!
Is particularly suspect as a daily C++ writer would know to use the STL and thus remove all (not most, all) possibility of the programmer f'ing up a bounded array.
C, I'm with you on. It's a lot harder to control (though it's a simpler language too, so maybe the two things are a wash)
Precisely. I already have my box setup to use festival to talk to me. I wrote a few python scipts and a little gui to create a distributed environment such that any machine I use can do something at a command line (e.g. 'gmake && say your build is nicely completed || say tough eggs the build failed') and have every machine that I'm running the say listener on speak the output. I even have a couple elisp macros to allow for similar functionality from within the only editor/mail reader/ide one should ever need.
My next step was to go wireless, but if I can go two way wireless even better!
--
Re:Accidents, far more than firearms
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 2
Bullshit. The number one killer of those 18 and under is drunk driving. http://www.sadd.org/ Lying does not support your arguement for being a liberal snob.
Ah, but it is you who are lying you cowardly fuck.
You lie by omission by claiming that I think that firearms deaths are the leading cause of death overall. In fact, I responded to a very different question. Drownings v firearms.
In that case, my comment is 100% accurate. Check CDC if you feel the need.
Now go back to your gun rack an get things ready. I think I hear a black helicopter coming for you.
--
Re:Accidents, far more than firearms
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 2
Jon, your liberal bias is showing. While accidents are indeed a major cause of injury and death for kids, firearms accidents are a tiny minority of that number. Ten times as many kids die in swimming pools than in firearms accidents, and more kids have been killed by airbags than school shootings since airbags were made mandatory on US cars.
And your right wing bias is showing.
The facts are thus. If you choose a cut off for childhood that ends at something like age 10 then drownings dominate. This is because little kids drown a lot. If you choose and end for childhood at something like 18 (when most 'adult' permissions kick in) then firearms dominate. This is because big kids shoot each other and can get out of buckets they fall in.
You are being every bit as deceitful as Jon if you claim to correct him, but also don't illuminate what your claim is based on.
It's a shame that this is what the gun debate has become.
The VRVS system achieves bi-directional communication among participants who enter the same Virtual Room. This communication media can be audio, video, and whiteboard, depending on what media each participant selects.
An audio stream consumes between 9Kbit/s and 78 Kbit/s depending on the audio format that is selected in the control panel of the audio application (PCM: 78Kbit/s, DVI: 46Kbit/s, GSM; 17Kbit/s, LPC4: 9Kb/s).
A video stream can put a much higher load on the network: from 10 Kbit/s up to several Mbit/s. The maximum data rate value is defined for each source by a bandwidth limit slider in the control panel of the video application. For a video stream over the Internet the advised data rate is typically from 15 to 128 Kbit/s.
The VRVS system aims at controlling the maximum bandwidth used by videoconferences taking place in the virtual rooms.
Lot's of self server BS deleted, but just to clarify...
So rather than blaming Clinton for the illegal things that we know he did, like lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice; rather than blaming Clinton for being a total self-serving piece of shit who possibly broke the law for soliciting contributions from foreign governments and a quid pro quo to his multi-millionaire supporter - you choose to blame the Republicans.
No. I blame Clinton and the GOP for different things in all those. Except the topic that I was talking about, the quid pro quo to the millionaire. In that case it is exclusively the realm of the GOP that deserves blaim for wasting my tax dollars as even Rabid Right Wing Ideologue Dan Burton admits that there was absolutely no hint of a crime being commited.
Don't let your obviously extreme bias lead you to conclusions that are baseless with regard to what I was actually chatting about.
Maybe you should try reading some of his suspense novels, such as Treasure Box . Scared the willies out of me.
Been there.
It's the same old song. Unhappy kid, as an adult in this case but built up to have child like emotions, runs into trouble (which I won't spoil) without even realizing it, manages to figure out what's going on, defeats the trouble and lives sort of happily ever after.
Having said that, let me remind folks what the first sentence in my post said. I like Card. I liked Treasure Box, for that matter. I took it on a weekend get away with the kids and knocked it off in eight hours or so while they swam in the pool. With my attention span, that's saying something! (BTW, check out Redemption, it's my current favorite due to his always quality story telling, but with a departure from the same old themes.)
What I was taking exception too was the idea that Card is somehow intelligent or deep. His stuff is very much soap opera sci-fi. And that's fine. He tells a great story. But he really is more similar to ER with it's moderately clever but too often repetative plot twists than Gone With The Wind which stands alone as a classic.
It's time for the U.S. Congress to debate the privacy issue and make some real reforms.
No can do. The docket is full of meetings discussing whether Clinton should have pardoned a multi-millionare supporter.
It doesn't appear to matter that the pardon cannot be revoked and Clinton did nothing illegal, only immoral. Good to see our tax dollars spent on what we are interested in, eh?
It's like the GOP is trying to shoot themselves in the foot this time.
I like Card as much as the next guy, but to laud him as some great author is kind of over stating it.
He churns out the same book over and over. Does this sound familar. The protagonist is a kid, more often than not with trouble in his life, but sometimes raised by a fine family who doesn't quite understand him. This kids runs into trouble, ranging from aliens to ghosts to the government, but always he is a pawn and doesn't understand what is going on around him. On page 275 he discovers the Matrix, er, I mean the omnipresent controlling influence in his life. By the end of the book he has defeated evil, or is dead but has still been victorious over the evil that he had to give his life to defeat.
That should sound familiar to everyone who has read his books not only because they are almost all like that (though Redemption was a little bit of a break and a nice historical piece) and is probably pretty close to the life story of the average/. reader.
Lot's of the denizens of/. grew up as outsiders, without control of their lives. Discovered the key to the world at some point (the ability to think) and now are critical to the daily operation of society.
I wonder how much the NWS would pay me for a web cam uplink with GPS from my coach seat across the atlantic. The oceans are a bitch to get data from, maybe this announcement is the first step to more accurate forecasts!:-)
But why can't you do such research the "old-fashioned" way - with BOOKS?
Because I don't live near a medical library. Just a community one. Cancer treatments change far more rapidly than my local libraries book collection.
Even if I did live near a teaching hospital with a good library, the web often precedes paper publications.
When you go through the magazines in my public library, you don't see "Hustler" up there with "Home and Garden" or "Pussy" on the same shelf as "Scientific American". There has already been some filtering in the sense that those types of material are simply not in the library's collection to begin with. They have been filtered out.
You are confusing two issues here. It is one thing to actively spend money on things the community most values (Scientific American v Hustler) and quite another to actively spend money on censorship (filters aren't free).
I can see how the web is a helpful research tool, and why it is becoming more and more important to students. But the idea of having computers in the library is not for personal entertainment.
1) I see nothing entertaining about breast cancer
2) You are completely wrong. The library is there for personal entertainment as much as any other reason. That's why they have such a large fiction section.
Slashdot Mirror
Only because we don't have equipment with enough sensitivity to find earth size planets in any orbits, much less distant ones like ours.
(in fact scientists are rethinking the standard solar system model because of it)
No they are rethinking it because of the wierd orbits of the 'jupiters' they are finding. Not because of the absence of 'earths'.
So yes, assuming we're the only ones out here is jumping to conclusions, but so is assuming the universe falls neatly into the Heliocentric solar system model, don't you think?
No.
I think that expecting that the vast number of stars that are like our own with no near orbit Jupiters don't have a significant percentage with small approx 1 AU orbit planets is, well, anti-Heliocentric. I thought I made that clear.
--
We do. Communication requires a carrier. We use photons because they travel at light speed. There is not any evidence that SUSY or strings will shake up the fundemental requirement that information travels on matter. Thus we know that the idea of mental projection in the absence of projecting some 'thing' (e.g. photons) is a looser.
Further, the idea that low power intra-planet transmissions could take place between extra-terrestrials is interesting, but the high power needed for societal communication or worse yet inter-stellar communication could somehow be released from carbon based life is a similar no go.
--
But really. We are an average planet around an average star. The hubris required to think that we are along in the universe is almost unmeasurable.
Life is plentiful. The chemistry needed for life is all over the place and we have a planet that provides fantastic evidence that once a molecule is able to replicate itself then life pretty much explodes. There is no reason to believe that something unique happened here to create that initial set of circumstances.
People often point to the lack of communication from other worlds as proof (or at least evidence) that we are alone. Hogwash! We haven't heard from them because there are invariant rules in the universe. This lack of communication is much better evidence that faster than light travel is insurmountable than it is that somehow in the great sea of chemistry that is the universe *we* managed to defy the odds and not only create life, but multicellular life. And not only multicellular, but thinking. And not only thinking, but self aware and communicative. Those are long odds, eh?
Still, if this country (or planet for that matter) was scientifically litereate enough to understand all that I guess poliglut.org (shameless plug) wouldn't need to exist to straighten folks out...
--
Yup, and I bet the ice cream her folks bought her was reward enough! I notice that just about everyone here has a story about their rights being stomped on, yet turned out to be a free thinker.
Thanks to
--
Oh my God. I love donuts!
Where are they? I checked the whole floor, but all I could find was half a leftover bagel from this mornings training breakfast.
Worked up a good sweat looking, I did.
--
I guess the good news is they just saved themselves over a grand a year in renewals...
Name ownership aside, which I do in fact understand, I think people are getting a little too excited about this stuff. It isn't like referee in the name is going to make a lick of difference. Want proof. Look at some of the largest traffic sites in their respective fields, slashdot, yahoo, amazon. WTF do any of those have to do with what the site does?
The referee mag people should get over it, but so should rightsports. These battles don't matter. To paraphrase Cosmo, "It's all about the content"
--
Yeah, that's what it is. Everyone wants to eliminate competition in the world. Your sociological acumen has once again seen through the great liberal conspiracy and found the truth.
F'in trolls...
--
Just a better browser. My mozilla, though I can see the story in the source, doesn't display dick.
Right about now I wish
--
--
Man has it been a long time since I bought a copy of High Times.
Great mag!
Anyone know if it's still published?
--
Jesus taco, enough pr0n talk already...
--
Seems to me the Doc forgot what he was talking about in between sentences. Notice how he switched from a capacity issue to an attention issue as if the two were related.
Of course, the best work is often done by those closest to the problem!
--
His comment:
I write C++ code daily.
Is particularly suspect as a daily C++ writer would know to use the STL and thus remove all (not most, all) possibility of the programmer f'ing up a bounded array.
C, I'm with you on. It's a lot harder to control (though it's a simpler language too, so maybe the two things are a wash)
C++. You can easily contain buffers overflows.
--
My next step was to go wireless, but if I can go two way wireless even better!
--
Ah, but it is you who are lying you cowardly fuck.
You lie by omission by claiming that I think that firearms deaths are the leading cause of death overall. In fact, I responded to a very different question. Drownings v firearms.
In that case, my comment is 100% accurate. Check CDC if you feel the need.
Now go back to your gun rack an get things ready. I think I hear a black helicopter coming for you.
--
And your right wing bias is showing.
The facts are thus. If you choose a cut off for childhood that ends at something like age 10 then drownings dominate. This is because little kids drown a lot. If you choose and end for childhood at something like 18 (when most 'adult' permissions kick in) then firearms dominate. This is because big kids shoot each other and can get out of buckets they fall in.
You are being every bit as deceitful as Jon if you claim to correct him, but also don't illuminate what your claim is based on.
It's a shame that this is what the gun debate has become.
--
The VRVS system achieves bi-directional communication among participants who enter the same Virtual Room. This communication media can be audio, video, and whiteboard, depending on what media each participant selects.
An audio stream consumes between 9Kbit/s and 78 Kbit/s depending on the audio format that is selected in the control panel of the audio application (PCM: 78Kbit/s, DVI: 46Kbit/s, GSM; 17Kbit/s, LPC4: 9Kb/s).
A video stream can put a much higher load on the network: from 10 Kbit/s up to several Mbit/s. The maximum data rate value is defined for each source by a bandwidth limit slider in the control panel of the video application. For a video stream over the Internet the advised data rate is typically from 15 to 128 Kbit/s.
The VRVS system aims at controlling the maximum bandwidth used by videoconferences taking place in the virtual rooms.
--
If you cannot do that, then perhaps you are the one that needs the adjustment.
--
So rather than blaming Clinton for the illegal things that we know he did, like lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice; rather than blaming Clinton for being a total self-serving piece of shit who possibly broke the law for soliciting contributions from foreign governments and a quid pro quo to his multi-millionaire supporter - you choose to blame the Republicans.
No. I blame Clinton and the GOP for different things in all those. Except the topic that I was talking about, the quid pro quo to the millionaire. In that case it is exclusively the realm of the GOP that deserves blaim for wasting my tax dollars as even Rabid Right Wing Ideologue Dan Burton admits that there was absolutely no hint of a crime being commited.
Don't let your obviously extreme bias lead you to conclusions that are baseless with regard to what I was actually chatting about.
--
Yeah, there's really nothing better for cryptography than a repeating stream!
--
Been there.
It's the same old song. Unhappy kid, as an adult in this case but built up to have child like emotions, runs into trouble (which I won't spoil) without even realizing it, manages to figure out what's going on, defeats the trouble and lives sort of happily ever after.
Having said that, let me remind folks what the first sentence in my post said. I like Card. I liked Treasure Box, for that matter. I took it on a weekend get away with the kids and knocked it off in eight hours or so while they swam in the pool. With my attention span, that's saying something! (BTW, check out Redemption, it's my current favorite due to his always quality story telling, but with a departure from the same old themes.)
What I was taking exception too was the idea that Card is somehow intelligent or deep. His stuff is very much soap opera sci-fi. And that's fine. He tells a great story. But he really is more similar to ER with it's moderately clever but too often repetative plot twists than Gone With The Wind which stands alone as a classic.
--
No can do. The docket is full of meetings discussing whether Clinton should have pardoned a multi-millionare supporter.
It doesn't appear to matter that the pardon cannot be revoked and Clinton did nothing illegal, only immoral. Good to see our tax dollars spent on what we are interested in, eh?
It's like the GOP is trying to shoot themselves in the foot this time.
--
He churns out the same book over and over. Does this sound familar. The protagonist is a kid, more often than not with trouble in his life, but sometimes raised by a fine family who doesn't quite understand him. This kids runs into trouble, ranging from aliens to ghosts to the government, but always he is a pawn and doesn't understand what is going on around him. On page 275 he discovers the Matrix, er, I mean the omnipresent controlling influence in his life. By the end of the book he has defeated evil, or is dead but has still been victorious over the evil that he had to give his life to defeat.
That should sound familiar to everyone who has read his books not only because they are almost all like that (though Redemption was a little bit of a break and a nice historical piece) and is probably pretty close to the life story of the average
Lot's of the denizens of
--
I wonder how much the NWS would pay me for a web cam uplink with GPS from my coach seat across the atlantic. The oceans are a bitch to get data from, maybe this announcement is the first step to more accurate forecasts!
--
Because I don't live near a medical library. Just a community one. Cancer treatments change far more rapidly than my local libraries book collection.
Even if I did live near a teaching hospital with a good library, the web often precedes paper publications.
When you go through the magazines in my public library, you don't see "Hustler" up there with "Home and Garden" or "Pussy" on the same shelf as "Scientific American". There has already been some filtering in the sense that those types of material are simply not in the library's collection to begin with. They have been filtered out.
You are confusing two issues here. It is one thing to actively spend money on things the community most values (Scientific American v Hustler) and quite another to actively spend money on censorship (filters aren't free).
I can see how the web is a helpful research tool, and why it is becoming more and more important to students. But the idea of having computers in the library is not for personal entertainment.
1) I see nothing entertaining about breast cancer
2) You are completely wrong. The library is there for personal entertainment as much as any other reason. That's why they have such a large fiction section.
--