Exactly! Heck it was a long time ago and far away when I did bot101 but as I faintly recall we did a whole heap of experiments showing that flowering was related to light and not heat. Now of course it's faded into the dimmest of memories.
We simply exposed various plants to various periods of light, amounts of light and types of light. We also used temperature control - hothouse and refrigerated air conditioning. No way can I recollect any detail, but I do remember that the purpose was to prove that temperature rises caused flowering and of course they didn't.
Germinating seeds was something that might be affected, but I can't recall that either. Dim memories about setting light to flowers and passing them through birds guts etc.. Do we have a botanist in the house that could elucidate?
RAMBUS didn't just "produce" RDRAM. It was their intention to move the market for PC's almost entirely to RDRAM through a deal with Intel. Intel was going to implement RDRAM as a market standard, as part of deal, that eventually gave them a big slice of the RAMBUS company. The DRAM manufacturers saw that RDRAM was a propriety development that required them to pay a larger licensing fee to RAMBUS than they could be happy with. If it was adopted industry wide they would have to pay a tax to RAMBUS/Intel just to continue in business.
A group of DRAM manufacturers believed that there was a lot of room left in SDRAM for development, especially with DDRAM and possibly QDRAM. It was demonstrated that latency problems with RDRAM gave a poorer performance on the average PC (at that time) and the extra bandwidth provided no real benefit. In short you pay more for less real world performance.
RAMBUS seemed to suddenly surface at this time and say that they in fact owned SDRAM anyway due to patents. They were reported as claiming that DRAM manufacturers had to pay not only licensing fees to make SDRAM but additional penalties for patent infringement. At this point they were claiming ownership of 100% of the dynamic memory types used normally in the manufacture of your common every day PC. They then were widely accused of trying to lever the whole industry into a de facto standard that they owned 100% for just a few tens of billions of pure profit.
>Clearly they weren't a Monopoly to begin with. Does anyone, especially the Government, even know what a Monopoly is?
If that isn't a case of monopolistic practices, then I have to admit your suggestion is correct and I don't.
Why rant about the Labour Party? They don't even have any members in an Australian Parliament.
I'm more concerned about the failing credibility of these guys: http://www.alp.org.au/The Labor Party
There is no need to wonder what a smallish (sic) water based nuke can do. "Crossroads Baker" an underwater shot of a Nagasaki class device should convince anybody that dismissing such a threat as trivial is ignorance/arrogance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Crossroads_bake r_explosion.jpg/
Last time I was there you could sail right up to Manhattan Island. It doesn't seem realistic that you could prevent a person that has the ability to overcome the obstacles to procuring a nuclear device from delivering it. It's those obstacles that will prevent the catastrophe not the shorline patrols.
I am confused as to why the BBC cannot be funded from general revenue as has its counterpart in Australia which has been so funded since the 70's. It's also strange here to be asked to pay at all for emergency hospital treatment let alone in advance. In fact, it's becoming harder to get anybody at the emergency wing to even acknowledge you've come through the door let alone talk to you - but that's another story.
Link is to the Onion and their coverage of "Intelligent Theorys".
I oft see much mention and debate on the "Scientific Method." So many of the discussions fall apart in semantics and basic misunderstandings of the subject material. Perhaps a basic refresher may help?
Please allow me a moment or two to quote from my old friends Crockford and Knight on the The Scientific Method:
"An interest develops in a certain phenomenon. The phenomenon is then subjected to close study and investigation to see whether any orderly set of conclusions can be formed. Usually the first conclusions are only qualitative statements of behaviour. With continued experimentation and refinement of techniques, it often becomes possible to draw quantitative conclusions. When well-defined mathematical relations are discovered, they are are termed laws. A law, then, is a mathematical statement of regularity of behaviour. The ideal gas law, for example, is a a mathematical expression for the quantity-volume-pressure-temperature relations in a gas. A further accumulation of data may show a given law to be only approximate and may lead to a more exact expression than was at first attained.
The next step after the development of a law or a set of laws is to work out a hypothesis, which depicts a mechanism that explains the observed phenomena and the conclusions reached in the laws. If the hypothesis explains a number of laws and if predictions based upon it prove to be correct, it becomes a theory. A theory may be looked upon as a well established hypothesis. The great value of a theory or a hypothesis rests not only on the fact that it explains already established laws but that it enables the investigator to predict other laws and to formulate experiments to test those predicted laws."
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly! Heck it was a long time ago and far away when I did bot101 but as I faintly recall we did a whole heap of experiments showing that flowering was related to light and not heat. Now of course it's faded into the dimmest of memories.
We simply exposed various plants to various periods of light, amounts of light and types of light. We also used temperature control - hothouse and refrigerated air conditioning. No way can I recollect any detail, but I do remember that the purpose was to prove that temperature rises caused flowering and of course they didn't.
Germinating seeds was something that might be affected, but I can't recall that either. Dim memories about setting light to flowers and passing them through birds guts etc.. Do we have a botanist in the house that could elucidate?
It goes back just a little further - it's Biblical. Deuteronomy 15:1-6
r onomy%2015:1-6,12-18;%20Nehemiah%2010:31/
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deute
RAMBUS didn't just "produce" RDRAM. It was their intention to move the market for PC's almost entirely to RDRAM through a deal with Intel. Intel was going to implement RDRAM as a market standard, as part of deal, that eventually gave them a big slice of the RAMBUS company. The DRAM manufacturers saw that RDRAM was a propriety development that required them to pay a larger licensing fee to RAMBUS than they could be happy with. If it was adopted industry wide they would have to pay a tax to RAMBUS/Intel just to continue in business.
A group of DRAM manufacturers believed that there was a lot of room left in SDRAM for development, especially with DDRAM and possibly QDRAM. It was demonstrated that latency problems with RDRAM gave a poorer performance on the average PC (at that time) and the extra bandwidth provided no real benefit. In short you pay more for less real world performance.
RAMBUS seemed to suddenly surface at this time and say that they in fact owned SDRAM anyway due to patents. They were reported as claiming that DRAM manufacturers had to pay not only licensing fees to make SDRAM but additional penalties for patent infringement. At this point they were claiming ownership of 100% of the dynamic memory types used normally in the manufacture of your common every day PC. They then were widely accused of trying to lever the whole industry into a de facto standard that they owned 100% for just a few tens of billions of pure profit.
>Clearly they weren't a Monopoly to begin with. Does anyone, especially the Government, even know what a Monopoly is?
If that isn't a case of monopolistic practices, then I have to admit your suggestion is correct and I don't.
Strongarm is close to what is needed I would think. That thing weighs 2/3 of a pound. I don't know what sort of wristwatch you wear but.........
Imagine the sort of belt behind the ear you could give yourself if you thoughtlessly swatted at a mosquito!
They both should get the Nobel prize for this kind of philantrophy..........
Why rant about the Labour Party? They don't even have any members in an Australian Parliament. I'm more concerned about the failing credibility of these guys: http://www.alp.org.au/ The Labor Party
There is no need to wonder what a smallish (sic) water based nuke can do. "Crossroads Baker" an underwater shot of a Nagasaki class device should convince anybody that dismissing such a threat as trivial is ignorance/arrogance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Crossroads_bake r_explosion.jpg/
Last time I was there you could sail right up to Manhattan Island. It doesn't seem realistic that you could prevent a person that has the ability to overcome the obstacles to procuring a nuclear device from delivering it. It's those obstacles that will prevent the catastrophe not the shorline patrols.
I am confused as to why the BBC cannot be funded from general revenue as has its counterpart in Australia which has been so funded since the 70's. It's also strange here to be asked to pay at all for emergency hospital treatment let alone in advance. In fact, it's becoming harder to get anybody at the emergency wing to even acknowledge you've come through the door let alone talk to you - but that's another story.
First Post! (At least I can't remember posting before) :)
& n=2/
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133
Link is to the Onion and their coverage of "Intelligent Theorys".
I oft see much mention and debate on the "Scientific Method." So many of the discussions fall apart in semantics and basic misunderstandings of the subject material. Perhaps a basic refresher may help?
Please allow me a moment or two to quote from my old friends Crockford and Knight on the The Scientific Method:
"An interest develops in a certain phenomenon. The phenomenon is then subjected to close study and investigation to see whether any orderly set of conclusions can be formed. Usually the first conclusions are only qualitative statements of behaviour. With continued experimentation and refinement of techniques, it often becomes possible to draw quantitative conclusions. When well-defined mathematical relations are discovered, they are are termed laws. A law, then, is a mathematical statement of regularity of behaviour. The ideal gas law, for example, is a a mathematical expression for the quantity-volume-pressure-temperature relations in a gas. A further accumulation of data may show a given law to be only approximate and may lead to a more exact expression than was at first attained.
The next step after the development of a law or a set of laws is to work out a hypothesis, which depicts a mechanism that explains the observed phenomena and the conclusions reached in the laws. If the hypothesis explains a number of laws and if predictions based upon it prove to be correct, it becomes a theory. A theory may be looked upon as a well established hypothesis. The great value of a theory or a hypothesis rests not only on the fact that it explains already established laws but that it enables the investigator to predict other laws and to formulate experiments to test those predicted laws."