Yeah, but the original Mac did not fulfill that role adequately, and the engineers knew it.
128k was barely enough to run the OS and a single application - which was by design; multitasking was a hack added on with Switcher before Multifinder was even conceived.
There was no way to add a hard drive to the 128k Mac, and it put you through hell when you had to copy a floppy. You had to swap it out about 50 times because there was not enough memory to buffer the whole thing in one step.
If it weren't for Burrell Smith's sneaking in support for 512k, the first generation of Macs would have all ended up in landfills within a year of purchase!:)
The award will allow a team of Michigan State University engineers and scientists, led by Norbert Müller, an associate professor of mechanical engineering, to begin working toward producing a vehicle-size wave disc engine/generator during the next two years
And here we are, two years later, and they have delivered a prototype. So no contradiction there.
I've owned a few Macs over the years and some models had slots, easy opening cases, no warranty issues with 3rd party cards, etc.
Yep, my first computer was a Power Mac 7500, with an outer case that slid off by pressing two buttons, and the power supply and drives tilted to the right to reveal the motherboard. Best case I ever worked with.
Funny, though, those 'open' Macs only appeared after Jobs was gone!
COME ON FBI, do your jobs and give us a proper INVESTIGATION!
"After performing a rigorous investigation, he have determined that an investigator for the Air Force did, in fact, state that three so-called flying saucers had been recovered in New Mexico."
Look, you said it plain as day: "My point is that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
You have a mathematical formulation of that law in front of you that you can use to test the claim.
Presumably this has already been done by some creationist, but I have yet to find such a calculation anywhere.
Did you really think that biologists missed this little nugget somehow? "Wow, evolution is a great theory and it explains a lot - but oh! wait. It violates the second law of thermodynamics."
"That's okay, we'll just pretend it doesn't, and hope nobody will notice."
So it is not hypocrisy, but arrogance. You suggested a course of action for me you would not take yourself, because you are better than me, I suppose.
No, it's because it's part of your religion, not mine... and you berated liberals for giving away "other people's money" when your own messiah preached charity and the justness of paying taxes to Caesar.
Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy
Right, so using that usable energy is completely in conformance with the 2nd law. This is what life does when sunlight falls on the earth. Plants, algae, etc. photosynthesize their food using part of that energy, the rest gets dissipated.
Animals consume the plants, using part of that energy to build their bodies, the rest gets dissipated.
At all levels the energy is flowing downhill thermodynamically. Think of it like a series of waterwheels, turning to saw lumber to build houses. You can build those houses as long as the water keeps flowing, but all that water eventually ends up at the bottom, flowing out to sea.
Entropy applies with equal force to information theory
Entropy is a term borrowed from thermodynamics for use in information theory. It has nothing to do with thermodynamics except by analogy.
Evolution proposes that disorganization, randomness and chaos decrease
Entropy in information is a measurement of order, there is no information equivalent to the 2LOT which says "information must tend toward disorder."
Besides, as I pointed out earlier, thermodynamics has no problem with order increasing locally as long as there is energy input. Life dissipates energy as it grows and evolves, and eventually that will end in equilibrium.
Maybe you should ask yourself why you feel the need to resort to personal attacks.
Because you put on a veneer of being reasonable, but your position and tactics are 100% typical creationist bullshit.
There is more to science than the question of origins, which is all you have allowed me to discuss.
Science is only useful inasmuch as you are able to understand it, and if your misunderstanding is pointed out to you repeatedly yet you still cover your ears and cry "does not!" then what's the point in trying to discuss it?
I note that you still have something to post with, so I can surmise that this instruction is one you wish for me, but will not do yourself. This has a name: Hypocrisy.
No, it would only be hypocrisy if I were Christian.
the refutation of irreducible complexity (re-purposing of existing structures) is very speculative at best
Yeah, and IC isn't speculative at all... right.
Plus, the idea that this proves evolution is dependent on the assumption that a design could not have produced the same range of results. Why not?
Nobody said it proved evolution - only that supposedly "irreducibly complex" structures can be built in stepwise fashion, which has been demonstrated and invalidates Behe's claim that they cannot.
You disappoint me. A troll is someone who takes a dishonest position for the sake of generating flame. What I was hoping for was honest debate, not polemic.
You are not interested in honest debate. You are interested in shooting down evolutionary theory in any way you can, because you have an emotional commitment to its falsity.
Maybe "trolling" is the wrong word, but you deliberately post and re-post false arguments that you know have been de-bunked over and over again, for no reason that I can see except that you know someone will contradict you and allow you to get on your soapbox again.
Evolution is the only scientific theory that proposes that things move from a disordered state to a more ordered state without outside intervention
There are plenty of examples of spontaneous organization (e.g. pebble sorting) on T.O. that require nothing but energy input to the system. I'm not sure what sort of "outside intervention" you think is required, but I can guess it's not solar radiation.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics does apply.
Of course it applies - and the reason you think it prohibits evolution is because you don't understand it. I can't say this bluntly enough. 2LOT does not say that entropy can never decrease. It says nothing at all about order.
How do you know what science I understand?
Based on your posts so far, I'd be hard pressed to find any science you really understand. That's not intended as an insult, but your ability to absorb established fact + theory seems to be utterly blocked by your prior commitment to creationism.
Jesus was liberal with his own resources, to our benefit.
He also told people to give away all their possessions. Have you done that yet?
Modern liberals give only other people's money away, and then only to their supporters.
Oh, so liberals don't pay taxes? That money doesn't go to benefit even one conservative? Conservatives never vote for pork? You need to take off the blinders and put on your thinking cap.
I have to respond to this post because it is pure FUD. The question of irreducible complexity and violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics arguments have not been refuted, and I check regularly.
The 2nd law has never been a legitimate objection to evolution. If it were, it would also refute the growth of any organism from a single cell to a large body.
The refutation of irreducible complexity is here. I pointed it out last time you trolled on evolution, but obviously you still haven't read it.
Do you have some reference for your debunki? I am always entertained by a good tautology.
No you're not. You're amused by your own perceived cleverness, by "debunking" science you don't understand.
"klomeddres" takes about as long to say as "miles", its not difficult, IF you're used to it:-) In the same way that I stumble pronouncing names in languages other than English.
Yeah, it's funny that in the US at least, "kilo" is always short for kilogram, and it's always the weight of a drug shipment!
Incidentally, WTF is up with pronouncing kilometer as "kill-AWM-et-ur" instead of "KEE-lo-MEET-ur"? Is that some sort of whacked analogy with British English pronunciation of "ther-MOM-et-ur" (which should probably be "THERM-o-MEET-ur" anyway)?
C'mon, we don't say "cen-TIM-et-ur" or "mil-LIM-it-ur," why should "kilometer" get singled out?
The computer science pioneer's latest book on combinatorial algorithms is just the first in an as-of-yet unknown number of parts to follow.
The dude is 73 years old. There's a good chance we won't see any more volumes from him considering how long this one took. There was a fair amount of doubt that 4a would ever see print.
Now if we can just get those hyperlongevity + brain mapping technologies working...
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about fear - it's about the consequences biting you in the ass before you even get a chance to defend yourself.
You are too, when it comes to armchair libertarian chest-puffing bravado.
Says the brave AC. Say that to my face, punk.
Yeah, I'll really enjoy making that assertion before a judge, *after* my door has been kicked in and my gear confiscated!
Yeah, but the original Mac did not fulfill that role adequately, and the engineers knew it.
128k was barely enough to run the OS and a single application - which was by design; multitasking was a hack added on with Switcher before Multifinder was even conceived.
There was no way to add a hard drive to the 128k Mac, and it put you through hell when you had to copy a floppy. You had to swap it out about 50 times because there was not enough memory to buffer the whole thing in one step.
If it weren't for Burrell Smith's sneaking in support for 512k, the first generation of Macs would have all ended up in landfills within a year of purchase! :)
From your link:
The award will allow a team of Michigan State University engineers and scientists, led by Norbert Müller, an associate professor of mechanical engineering, to begin working toward producing a vehicle-size wave disc engine/generator during the next two years
And here we are, two years later, and they have delivered a prototype. So no contradiction there.
Yep, my first computer was a Power Mac 7500, with an outer case that slid off by pressing two buttons, and the power supply and drives tilted to the right to reveal the motherboard. Best case I ever worked with.
Funny, though, those 'open' Macs only appeared after Jobs was gone!
"After performing a rigorous investigation, he have determined that an investigator for the Air Force did, in fact, state that three so-called flying saucers had been recovered in New Mexico."
But your proposal has nothing to do with thermodynamics, you're talking about information entropy.
Please show how evolution requires overall entropy to decrease in a closed system.
Look, you said it plain as day: "My point is that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
You have a mathematical formulation of that law in front of you that you can use to test the claim.
Presumably this has already been done by some creationist, but I have yet to find such a calculation anywhere.
Did you really think that biologists missed this little nugget somehow? "Wow, evolution is a great theory and it explains a lot - but oh! wait. It violates the second law of thermodynamics."
"That's okay, we'll just pretend it doesn't, and hope nobody will notice."
Please.
You mean you haven't already done the calculations? How do you know evolution must break the 2nd law then?
The 2nd law in its simplest mathematical form is:
dS ... where S is the entropy of the system and t is time
--- >= 0
dt
For our purposes, the "system" should at minimum include the earth and the sun.
I'm no physicist, but if you can calculate how evolution requires dS/dt < 0, then I can have your answer analyzed by someone more qualified.
Okay, if you really think so, let's see your math.
I've had enough verbal jousting, put your money where your mouth is.
Yep. Things take time to develop. The news here is that they presented their prototype to ARPA last week.
"Port-Humphrey" according to the transcript. You can find it here:
http://news.msu.edu/story/7036/
Pshaw. I predict we'll be buying Chinese knock-offs of it within 2 years!
No, it's because it's part of your religion, not mine... and you berated liberals for giving away "other people's money" when your own messiah preached charity and the justness of paying taxes to Caesar.
Right, so using that usable energy is completely in conformance with the 2nd law. This is what life does when sunlight falls on the earth. Plants, algae, etc. photosynthesize their food using part of that energy, the rest gets dissipated.
Animals consume the plants, using part of that energy to build their bodies, the rest gets dissipated.
At all levels the energy is flowing downhill thermodynamically. Think of it like a series of waterwheels, turning to saw lumber to build houses. You can build those houses as long as the water keeps flowing, but all that water eventually ends up at the bottom, flowing out to sea.
Entropy is a term borrowed from thermodynamics for use in information theory. It has nothing to do with thermodynamics except by analogy.
Entropy in information is a measurement of order, there is no information equivalent to the 2LOT which says "information must tend toward disorder."
Besides, as I pointed out earlier, thermodynamics has no problem with order increasing locally as long as there is energy input. Life dissipates energy as it grows and evolves, and eventually that will end in equilibrium.
Because you put on a veneer of being reasonable, but your position and tactics are 100% typical creationist bullshit.
Science is only useful inasmuch as you are able to understand it, and if your misunderstanding is pointed out to you repeatedly yet you still cover your ears and cry "does not!" then what's the point in trying to discuss it?
No, it would only be hypocrisy if I were Christian.
Yeah, and IC isn't speculative at all... right.
Nobody said it proved evolution - only that supposedly "irreducibly complex" structures can be built in stepwise fashion, which has been demonstrated and invalidates Behe's claim that they cannot.
You are not interested in honest debate. You are interested in shooting down evolutionary theory in any way you can, because you have an emotional commitment to its falsity.
Maybe "trolling" is the wrong word, but you deliberately post and re-post false arguments that you know have been de-bunked over and over again, for no reason that I can see except that you know someone will contradict you and allow you to get on your soapbox again.
There are plenty of examples of spontaneous organization (e.g. pebble sorting) on T.O. that require nothing but energy input to the system. I'm not sure what sort of "outside intervention" you think is required, but I can guess it's not solar radiation.
Of course it applies - and the reason you think it prohibits evolution is because you don't understand it. I can't say this bluntly enough. 2LOT does not say that entropy can never decrease. It says nothing at all about order.
Based on your posts so far, I'd be hard pressed to find any science you really understand. That's not intended as an insult, but your ability to absorb established fact + theory seems to be utterly blocked by your prior commitment to creationism.
Sorry, I meant the *Grants'* research - David Lack did a lot of research on them as well, and his name stuck in my head.
Here is the book you want:
The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time
I hope you enjoy it - the Lacks did far more research on the Galapagos Finches than Darwin ever could have!
He also told people to give away all their possessions. Have you done that yet?
Oh, so liberals don't pay taxes? That money doesn't go to benefit even one conservative? Conservatives never vote for pork? You need to take off the blinders and put on your thinking cap.
The 2nd law has never been a legitimate objection to evolution. If it were, it would also refute the growth of any organism from a single cell to a large body.
The refutation of irreducible complexity is here. I pointed it out last time you trolled on evolution, but obviously you still haven't read it.
No you're not. You're amused by your own perceived cleverness, by "debunking" science you don't understand.
The first command they'll run on the quantum computer:
cat schroedinger.txt | tee alive.txt dead.txt
Yeah, it's funny that in the US at least, "kilo" is always short for kilogram, and it's always the weight of a drug shipment!
Incidentally, WTF is up with pronouncing kilometer as "kill-AWM-et-ur" instead of "KEE-lo-MEET-ur"? Is that some sort of whacked analogy with British English pronunciation of "ther-MOM-et-ur" (which should probably be "THERM-o-MEET-ur" anyway)?
C'mon, we don't say "cen-TIM-et-ur" or "mil-LIM-it-ur," why should "kilometer" get singled out?
Like "raise my left arm" or "throw the harpoon"? People are going to come from all over... this boy's an Eskimo!
If you want the plausible ones, try this:
http://slashdot.org/tags/april1already
I, for one, welcome our new nano-nana overlords!
The dude is 73 years old. There's a good chance we won't see any more volumes from him considering how long this one took. There was a fair amount of doubt that 4a would ever see print.
Now if we can just get those hyperlongevity + brain mapping technologies working...
I guess after rewriting Einstein's theory of relativity, he re-wrote the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory of stellar nucleosynthesis. :)