This kind of thing has been possible/discussed for a long time. In the early 80s there were rumors the Soviets had wood-encased satellites which were harder to detect. They were to move close to comm satellites then blow themselves up, suicide satellites, if you will. There's no reason to think such things haven't been deployed for at least a generation. What's interesting here is the open public announcement of directed energy satellites for jamming. Most miltary systems have been deployed for quite a while before the public hears anything about them. There have probably been dual-use birds from a number of countries for quite a while. Nothing new here...
No, it's not a conflict of interests. Are you proposing anyone who is an employee/inventor/consultatn/etc. of a company which makes voting equipment not be allowed to participate in the political process?
I supposed, then, news media, police, postal service employees, ink manufacturers, computer screen manufacturers, etc., etc., etc. should be prohibited from voting because they have a "conflict of interests."
A "refugee" is someone who is fleeing persecution from other people. Who are the "refugees" of which you speak and why did they go to the hurricane-damaged area seeking asylum?
If you meant victims of the natural disaster hurricane, that's another word entirely.
Bottom line, "normal" societial issues in the damaged area will be suspended until things are under control. That's the way it has always been and the only way thing work. These "volunteers" want to place braodcasting equipment in a damaged building from which they will broadcast whatever they want to people in the damaged area? How incredibly selfish of them. They would not only increase physical security issues for their equipment, as noted above, they'd bring confusion to the people and create more things for the authorities to try to watch. What absolute guarantees are there that these folks wouldn't broadcast erroneous information? This is not a time for civics 101, it's a time for survival.
If these people truely wanted to help, they'd offer themselves and their services are actual volunteers, not prima donnas who want a competing power during emergency times.
I've personally used Apple, HP, Epson, Memorex (Artec), Microtek and Canon scanners. My personal scanner is a Canon CanoScan 8400F. There's probably a newer version.
The bundled software with this Canon does a wonderful job of descreening halftone images.
Last Christmas I gave my sister an Epson Perfection 2480 which included a partial-page feeder (business cards, checks, snapshots). The descreening on this one isn't as good and I wasn't able to associate the scanned images to Paint Shop Pro properly. However, the software does allow scanning multiple pages in a queue with a minimum of button clicks. Unless your sister is scanning single-page sheet music, she'll probably really benefit from this ability.
I don't know of any consumer-level sheet feeders. By that, I mean a scanner which retails for $100 or so won't have a sheet feeder option or accessory.
Another thing to consider is that scanners with their own power supply will yield higher contrast and brighter colors during the scan.
You should also look at the color of the pad on the underside of the cover. My Canon has a white cover. Yuck!! How Stupid!! Bright light will pass through paper which is being scanned and reflect back to the light sensors. It's far better to have a black pad so a ghost image of the opposite side of the paper is not detected. I have a full-sized hardcover book with a flat black cover which I use to block reflection and hold paper flat. Black construction paper won't work. The scanner's likght will bleach the paper.
A white pad does have some advantages but, in my opinion and experience, a black pad is far more useful.
What else do you suggest we do on Slashdot? Recycle hackaday links? Recycle earlier posts? Recycle Beowulf cluster comments? Attack Microsoft and TiVo?
Heh? That reminds me of a question we used to debate when I was an ICBM launch officer. Those control centers are buried under the ground with an escape hatch to a tunnel which, supposedly, went somewhere so we could escape if need be.
OK, so far so good, right?
The hatches were on the ceiling, made of some kind of heavy iron or steel and attached with chains, not hinges. OK, suppose you manage to get the hatch off without killing yourself, what happens to all the stuff inside the tunnel? They were supposedly filled with sand. Did it calcify over the 40 years the tunnels had existed? Was there enough room inside the launch center to hold the sand when it drained?
That led to the question of what to do if you couldn't get out? Given we didn't have any kind of firearm, if you're stuck in a confined space with another person and limited food and water (there was a mechanical device to generate oxygen and remove CO2) do you kill the other person? After all, they would be creating CO2 by breathing. OK, suppose you did manage to kill them. Does a rotting body produce CO2 faster than a living body?
The "best" solution seemed to be kill the other person then tape their body inside a plastic bag, hoping the bag could hold any gas pressure created by rot.
What's the relevance? A solution to man's creation of CO2. Kill everyone and seal their dead bodies in plastic. Simple, huh?
Why, how dare you question the integrity of the self-appointed smarter-than-thou just because they receive funding and attention in direct positive correllation to their prediciton of doom and gloom? Don't you have ANY feelings? You must be one of those evil globalist, South Baptist, born again, Republican, gold standard, Caucasian, English-speaking, pro-life, SUV-driving, trans fat eating, Tsunami and hurricane producing, book-reading Capitalist pigs who ruin life for the rest of us by creating hospitals, infrastructure, distribution and communication channels all tied together with the evil combined goals of reduced cost and increase efficiency!!! You probably also believe literacy and math skills should be taught in schools in which the parents have influence upon what indoctrination (oops, I slipped...ahem) educational materials are used to teach their children. You probably want children to actually FAIL is they give the wrong answers under the misguided theory that failure is a learning experience!
Maybe the chickens WILL make it to the Arctic so all those swimming polar bears won't starve (see story from a few days ago about melting Antarctic ice and polar bears.)
Where did I make any statement about political affiliation?
I didn't? Oh, you are found out.
The disagreement is about the level to which human creation of CO2 affects the environment.
If you can't stay on topic and can only participate in debate by attacking other people on a personal level, your displayed lack of self discipline and debate skills is your situation, not mine, and not that of this debate. Learning material about logic, debate and philosophy are easily accessible to you. Sophomoric attempts, such as yours, are typically used by the unskilled or unsure participants in debate.
Regarding "Darwin", whoever or whatever that would be is a totally different topic. On the assumption you used those 6 letters as shorthand to refer to common misconceptions of Darwin's macro evolutionary theories, I miss your point. Darwin created documents in which he proposed a theory of macro evolution including contrary arguments which have yet to be disproven. My complete and total lack of any comment about this topic and your comment show you attempted some form of statement which is actually beneath the sophistication of Sophomoristic statements.
Your post is some citations of paid shills sandwiched by unfounded and quite incoherent character attackes.
If you have a coherent comment, perhaps you'll post it.
...and that carbon dioxide comes primarily from where? Fires? Volcanoes? Animals breathing? Decaying animals and plants?
Your post implies the majority of carbon dioxide comes from industrial processes. It does not. There's a huge difference between FUD and shrouded political agenda (what you are doing) and reality.
Besides that, you claim is completely ludicrous. 75% of carbon dioxide which "has been pumped" (huh? pumped? Oh, you mean factory emissions?) in the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution is still there? Oh, really? Prove it.
Does factory-created CO2 have a different composition that that made from fires? Amazing! You have discovered a new reality!
Pssst! Hey, guess what, the industrial revolution led to people having electricity and natural gas being delivered to their homes and businesses.
Pssst! Hey, guess what, that means they aren't burning coal or wood fires.
Nuts. My "clever" fake tags in the middle of the book excerpt were filtered. The Texas and Prava comments were mine, inserted as black humor and to illustrate a point.
Oh, great. I used the word, "black." Now Al Sharpton will hunt me down and call me a Confederat bigot. Then again, maybe his driver will get a ticket for speeding again. What am I saying?! It's not possible his driver was speeding. He must have been oppressed by "the man." Yeah, homey, he was DWB.
In the past two centuries, we have witnessed an unparalleled expansion in scientific and technical horizons. But with our longer view of things, the horizon is now interrupted,, here and there, by walls. With our newfound knowledge and technical abilities has come an understanding of the limitations of science and technology. Beyond Reason provides a mind-bending exploration not into what is doable and knowable-but what is undoable and unknowable.
Temporary barriers to understanding are sometimes swept away by knowledge, each advance revealing new vistas. But some barriers appear to be permanent. Author A.K. Dewdney explores these grand limitations that stand like granite walls around our scientific and technological enterprise. these are not the barriers of ignorance, but knowledge. It is perhaps only ignorance that prevents us from traveling thought time; Certainly no theory yet p5rohibits the possibility. Yet the presence of chaos in our atmospheric system implies rather strongly that we shall never predict the weather much better than we do now.
Beyond Reason explores these barriers and the theories that give them form and substance. We shall apparently never travel faster than the speed of light, nor shall we ever build a perpetual motion machine that performs useful work. After laying the foundations of each theory, illuminated by stories of the scientists who didcovered them, A.K. Dewdney then goes on to ask "What if"? Is there a way out? Are there no secret passages through these walls?
Divided into sections that cover inductive and deductive science, Beyond Reason explores the theories and caveats behind:
Unknowable Particles. Why the detailed behavior of any quantum system-Whether consisting of electrons, photons, or atomic particles-cannot be described or predicted by any mathematical law.
Unpredictable Systems. Why there are some classical systems (such as the weather or planetary systems) the long-term behavior of which cannot be predicted by any computer.
Anyone in a ditch in Texas knows the answer to "weather problems", they were created by greedy Republicans with their SUVs!
See, also, the recent Pravda story which claims the political balance of the world is changing too quickly and in too complex a way for the human mind to comprehend then immediately says "experts" at Deutche Bank know what the future holds.
Uh...aren't both of those examples all-too-common occurrences in moving from thought to dogma? Answer: yes.
Unprovable Theorems. Which theorems (true mathematical statements) will never be proven? Gödel's theorem says they exist.
Impossible Programs. How it is that some problems with simple yes/no answers will never be answered by a computer, no matter how it is programmed.
Intractable Problems. Why will some problems, even when they can be solved by a computer, nevertheless take forever to solve? Cook's theorem points the way.
Why do most humans have 4 fingers and a thumb on each hand? Why not more fingers.
Why do most humans have 2 arms? Have you ever seen pictures of people who have part of an undeveloped "twin" attached to their body? OK, why don't we have 3 arms. That would be must more helpful.
Why don't we have eyes on the back of our heads?
Why don't we have better night vision?
Why don't women have an extra set of breasts on their backs? (They would if I designed them...)
Why can't humans aspirate in water?
Why don't humans have stomache systems like that of a cow?
The point is your simple list and lack of explanation serve no point. I've just listed a number of physical aspects which would be very helpful to "humans" who somehow evolved over a gazillion unknown number of years.
You totally missed what I was saying, btw. My comment has nothing to do with either religion, that of macro evolution or that of intelligent design.
Yes, I agree with your first statement, though, it would be hard to believe in purpose without something to create the purpose, wouldn't it? By that, I mean I understand someone could rationally conclude the idea that the complex system we live in didn't just...happen out of raw chance but there would have to be some kind of initiating actor, wouldn't there? Actually, what you describe would fit the "pure" creationist belief.
Sure, the vast majority of stuff in Biblical Archaeology Review (if it's still published...) would be things like fingind some old well in a place which matches a story in the Bible or whatnot. Discovery Channel has shows about this type of thing periodically. They had one about a theory that Egypt had 2 competing Pharaohs at one time and, if true, that pulled the timeline of some Biblical stories into perfect mesh with Archaeological timeline evidence which was previously believed to conclusivley discount the Biblical story. Even so, what happens when they find evidence which would fit stories of supernatural activity? At some point physical discoveries or "decoded" manuscripts, etc. would match non-human actors in the Bible. That's all I was trying to bring up. BAR is (or was, I don't know if it's in print now) was a true scholarly journal. It had an obvious preference for what was published but was most certainly along the "physical evidence" as opposed to dogmatic mental constructs line.
I don't think your statement about secular archaeologists fits what I was trying to say. I understand the comment but, by it's nature, a secular denial viewpoint (for lack of a better word) wouldn't have analogy to the Bible truth viewpoint of Christian archaeology (for lack of a better term.) IOW, BAR would be making the case through physical evidence that the stories in the Bible are actual recorded events. The more that is "proven", the less "fictional" the Bible would be. There just wouldn't be an analogy for secular viewpoints. (I know what I'm trying to say, it might not have come out my fingertips just now. Try to read past my poor word choices.)
Sorry if it seemed I pulled things off topic. That wasn't the intent.
I love the way the word "science" is equated with "truth" when they don't really have much in common.
It's also funny to see the line of argument which is, "Most scientists agree X." which really means, "you're stupid and the "cool kids" think X so you're not cool, stupid."
At least the guy mentioned in the thread post is honest. It reminds me of the studies shich looked at submitted papers to "Nature" which showed only those which the selection panel agreed with were getting published. Look up a few posts in this thread and you'll see the fallacious argument that "IDers haven't published any papers." Think about that for a moment. (Not ID vs. randomness in an infinite space, that's a totally different issue.) The poster made a fallacious statement and tried to justify it with a claim that partisan publishers published only their partisan views which proves competing view are invalid.
Yeah, OK, look at the beautiful robe the emporer is wearing. If we all think about something hard enough we can make it happen. Uh...yeah.
Where's that Star Trek episode with Harry Mudd's planet and the "everything he says is a lie." "I'm lying." segment.
Somewhere I have a really good book whose title is something like 20 questions science is incapable of answering. I'm sorry, the actual title would be the best help, I know. The book illustrates the weaknesses in the scientific method. It goes far beyond the "irrepeatable" criticism of scientific method. Wish I could remember the title now. It's all about the perils of basing "truth" upon the mistaken belief that "science" is perfect and the scientific method is perfect to the point that it slips into dogma and adherents of "science is perfect/infallible" are blinding themselves.
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. Sorry, I'm having a real ADD day. Where are the global warming is caused by hydrocarbon use/pollution folks today? Shouldn't they be all over this thread? Maybe they're hiding because of that large hurricane which happened no matter what anyone did.
No, oh closed-minded one. Try Biblical Archaeology Review.
Funny to see the posts from heathens calling the kettle black. I especially like the one a few up from this where everybody who doesn't believe all that exists is a random occurrence is summarized into a half a sentence hate rant. Shesh!!! That's not a pot calling a kettle black, it's a pot proclaiming how black it is itself!!
Can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to as full of bile and predictable as that post...
Oh, sorry, that was 30 years ago. I must be getting old but my memory is pretty darn good. I remember this being on TV and the magazines. It might even have been the topic of one of those "In the News" shorts that woudl run during Saturday morning cartoons.
In any event, it was monstrously common then to claim we were going to freeze to death. President Carter would wear a sweater, the oil embargo happened, and so on. Those were the days of sandals made from old tires and "homemade formula" books for people to make their own shampoo and other household chemicals. What else?
Where did you find this article? Was it between the monkey boy bites man and pyramid power articles or the ones which describe perpetual motion machines from space aliens?
Really, quoting Pravda is worse than treating the National Enquirer as a legitmate news source.
Brazil, Russia, India and China to outdo Europe and the US - 08/29/2005 13:29
The main economic analysts of today share their thoughts of tomorrow The world is changing so quickly that the human mind is unable to keep up. Experts from Deutsche Bank and other analysts decided to take a look at the future. The role of the EU becomes less and less important while developing countries boost their economic growth. Experts do not consider the USA a motive power in the economic progress. China and other rapidly developing countries are more important in the accelerating of world economy.
Uh..ok, the situation is changing so fast that the human mind can't comprehend but Deutsche Bank "experts" can predict the future. Uh...right. No contradiciton here, just accept what Pravda says.
Never mind that they are raising funds by selling Pravda-branded merchandise through Cafe Express...an American commercial site.
Click on the "Science and Health" sub-category and you will see 3 main areas: Discoveries (which includes a story titled, "Ageing and dying is just a freak" about nanotech to let people live forever because science fiction authors think about it, UFOs, and Technologies. That 3rd category includes articles about how every living creature on earth will be given a unique barcode, indispensable Russian Navy submersibles (if only they would learn the difference between nets and hammocks) and the story about food which will last forever.
Yeah, Pravda, the science reference for those without grounding in reality.
2. Excel operates in what I call a fake-non-MDI mode. In that it pretends it's not an MDI application, but it actually is. Each document you open shows up in a separate taskbar icon. And yet there's only one window. And if you close that window it closes all your documents. Congratulations MS, you found a way to make MDI even more frustrating. (In fact, I *never* found MDI frustrating before Excel. And yet I can't tell you how many times I've closed all my documents by mistake.)
You only have yourself to blame for not finding the setting for this. It's on the top of the first tab in the user options.
Twenty years ago the self-appointed more-intelligent-ones told me I'd freeze to death. Now they say my great-grandkids will get their toes wet. Well, which is it? Maybe my great-grandkids will have their toes encased in ice and the mutate polar bears (see first reply) will eat them. That'd server those ungrateful whelps right!! Tell you what, making fun of an old man like me I...I...is it cold in here? Where are my teeth? I miss the old days when the only thing I had to worry about was those sneaky Rooskies.
Slashdot Mirror
This kind of thing has been possible/discussed for a long time. In the early 80s there were rumors the Soviets had wood-encased satellites which were harder to detect. They were to move close to comm satellites then blow themselves up, suicide satellites, if you will. There's no reason to think such things haven't been deployed for at least a generation. What's interesting here is the open public announcement of directed energy satellites for jamming. Most miltary systems have been deployed for quite a while before the public hears anything about them. There have probably been dual-use birds from a number of countries for quite a while. Nothing new here...
No, it's not a conflict of interests. Are you proposing anyone who is an employee/inventor/consultatn/etc. of a company which makes voting equipment not be allowed to participate in the political process?
I supposed, then, news media, police, postal service employees, ink manufacturers, computer screen manufacturers, etc., etc., etc. should be prohibited from voting because they have a "conflict of interests."
Yeah, that'll happen right after Broderbund sues Adobe for infringing on "Print Shop"...
Dirty farts?
A "refugee" is someone who is fleeing persecution from other people. Who are the "refugees" of which you speak and why did they go to the hurricane-damaged area seeking asylum?
If you meant victims of the natural disaster hurricane, that's another word entirely.
Bottom line, "normal" societial issues in the damaged area will be suspended until things are under control. That's the way it has always been and the only way thing work. These "volunteers" want to place braodcasting equipment in a damaged building from which they will broadcast whatever they want to people in the damaged area? How incredibly selfish of them. They would not only increase physical security issues for their equipment, as noted above, they'd bring confusion to the people and create more things for the authorities to try to watch. What absolute guarantees are there that these folks wouldn't broadcast erroneous information? This is not a time for civics 101, it's a time for survival.
If these people truely wanted to help, they'd offer themselves and their services are actual volunteers, not prima donnas who want a competing power during emergency times.
You will find good reviews of imaging hardware at http://www.steves-digicams.com/
I've personally used Apple, HP, Epson, Memorex (Artec), Microtek and Canon scanners. My personal scanner is a Canon CanoScan 8400F. There's probably a newer version.
The bundled software with this Canon does a wonderful job of descreening halftone images.
Last Christmas I gave my sister an Epson Perfection 2480 which included a partial-page feeder (business cards, checks, snapshots). The descreening on this one isn't as good and I wasn't able to associate the scanned images to Paint Shop Pro properly. However, the software does allow scanning multiple pages in a queue with a minimum of button clicks. Unless your sister is scanning single-page sheet music, she'll probably really benefit from this ability.
I don't know of any consumer-level sheet feeders. By that, I mean a scanner which retails for $100 or so won't have a sheet feeder option or accessory.
Another thing to consider is that scanners with their own power supply will yield higher contrast and brighter colors during the scan.
You should also look at the color of the pad on the underside of the cover. My Canon has a white cover. Yuck!! How Stupid!! Bright light will pass through paper which is being scanned and reflect back to the light sensors. It's far better to have a black pad so a ghost image of the opposite side of the paper is not detected. I have a full-sized hardcover book with a flat black cover which I use to block reflection and hold paper flat. Black construction paper won't work. The scanner's likght will bleach the paper.
A white pad does have some advantages but, in my opinion and experience, a black pad is far more useful.
My sister told me she's dated a few...
A day?!?! Are you mad, sir?
What else do you suggest we do on Slashdot? Recycle hackaday links? Recycle earlier posts? Recycle Beowulf cluster comments? Attack Microsoft and TiVo?
Really!
Heh? That reminds me of a question we used to debate when I was an ICBM launch officer. Those control centers are buried under the ground with an escape hatch to a tunnel which, supposedly, went somewhere so we could escape if need be.
OK, so far so good, right?
The hatches were on the ceiling, made of some kind of heavy iron or steel and attached with chains, not hinges. OK, suppose you manage to get the hatch off without killing yourself, what happens to all the stuff inside the tunnel? They were supposedly filled with sand. Did it calcify over the 40 years the tunnels had existed? Was there enough room inside the launch center to hold the sand when it drained?
That led to the question of what to do if you couldn't get out? Given we didn't have any kind of firearm, if you're stuck in a confined space with another person and limited food and water (there was a mechanical device to generate oxygen and remove CO2) do you kill the other person? After all, they would be creating CO2 by breathing. OK, suppose you did manage to kill them. Does a rotting body produce CO2 faster than a living body?
The "best" solution seemed to be kill the other person then tape their body inside a plastic bag, hoping the bag could hold any gas pressure created by rot.
What's the relevance? A solution to man's creation of CO2. Kill everyone and seal their dead bodies in plastic. Simple, huh?
Why, how dare you question the integrity of the self-appointed smarter-than-thou just because they receive funding and attention in direct positive correllation to their prediciton of doom and gloom? Don't you have ANY feelings? You must be one of those evil globalist, South Baptist, born again, Republican, gold standard, Caucasian, English-speaking, pro-life, SUV-driving, trans fat eating, Tsunami and hurricane producing, book-reading Capitalist pigs who ruin life for the rest of us by creating hospitals, infrastructure, distribution and communication channels all tied together with the evil combined goals of reduced cost and increase efficiency!!! You probably also believe literacy and math skills should be taught in schools in which the parents have influence upon what indoctrination (oops, I slipped...ahem) educational materials are used to teach their children. You probably want children to actually FAIL is they give the wrong answers under the misguided theory that failure is a learning experience!
How DARE you?!?!?!
Maybe the chickens WILL make it to the Arctic so all those swimming polar bears won't starve (see story from a few days ago about melting Antarctic ice and polar bears.)
Where did I make any statement about political affiliation?
I didn't? Oh, you are found out.
The disagreement is about the level to which human creation of CO2 affects the environment.
If you can't stay on topic and can only participate in debate by attacking other people on a personal level, your displayed lack of self discipline and debate skills is your situation, not mine, and not that of this debate. Learning material about logic, debate and philosophy are easily accessible to you. Sophomoric attempts, such as yours, are typically used by the unskilled or unsure participants in debate.
Regarding "Darwin", whoever or whatever that would be is a totally different topic. On the assumption you used those 6 letters as shorthand to refer to common misconceptions of Darwin's macro evolutionary theories, I miss your point. Darwin created documents in which he proposed a theory of macro evolution including contrary arguments which have yet to be disproven. My complete and total lack of any comment about this topic and your comment show you attempted some form of statement which is actually beneath the sophistication of Sophomoristic statements.
Your post is some citations of paid shills sandwiched by unfounded and quite incoherent character attackes.
If you have a coherent comment, perhaps you'll post it.
...and that carbon dioxide comes primarily from where? Fires? Volcanoes? Animals breathing? Decaying animals and plants?
Your post implies the majority of carbon dioxide comes from industrial processes. It does not. There's a huge difference between FUD and shrouded political agenda (what you are doing) and reality.
Besides that, you claim is completely ludicrous. 75% of carbon dioxide which "has been pumped" (huh? pumped? Oh, you mean factory emissions?) in the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution is still there? Oh, really? Prove it.
Does factory-created CO2 have a different composition that that made from fires? Amazing! You have discovered a new reality!
Pssst! Hey, guess what, the industrial revolution led to people having electricity and natural gas being delivered to their homes and businesses.
Pssst! Hey, guess what, that means they aren't burning coal or wood fires.
Pssst! Hey, guess what, your premise is bs.
Nuts. My "clever" fake tags in the middle of the book excerpt were filtered. The Texas and Prava comments were mine, inserted as black humor and to illustrate a point.
Oh, great. I used the word, "black." Now Al Sharpton will hunt me down and call me a Confederat bigot. Then again, maybe his driver will get a ticket for speeding again. What am I saying?! It's not possible his driver was speeding. He must have been oppressed by "the man." Yeah, homey, he was DWB.
I found it!
1 013986/qid=1125453020/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-1879 610-3998461?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
The book is called "Beyond Reason - 8 Great Problems That Reveal the Limits of Science" by A. K. Dewdney.
Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/047
Shamelessly "borrowe" from Amazon:
From the Inside Flap
BEYOND REASON
In the past two centuries, we have witnessed an unparalleled expansion in scientific and technical horizons. But with our longer view of things, the horizon is now interrupted,, here and there, by walls. With our newfound knowledge and technical abilities has come an understanding of the limitations of science and technology. Beyond Reason provides a mind-bending exploration not into what is doable and knowable-but what is undoable and unknowable.
Temporary barriers to understanding are sometimes swept away by knowledge, each advance revealing new vistas. But some barriers appear to be permanent. Author A.K. Dewdney explores these grand limitations that stand like granite walls around our scientific and technological enterprise. these are not the barriers of ignorance, but knowledge. It is perhaps only ignorance that prevents us from traveling thought time; Certainly no theory yet p5rohibits the possibility. Yet the presence of chaos in our atmospheric system implies rather strongly that we shall never predict the weather much better than we do now.
Beyond Reason explores these barriers and the theories that give them form and substance. We shall apparently never travel faster than the speed of light, nor shall we ever build a perpetual motion machine that performs useful work. After laying the foundations of each theory, illuminated by stories of the scientists who didcovered them, A.K. Dewdney then goes on to ask "What if"? Is there a way out? Are there no secret passages through these walls?
Divided into sections that cover inductive and deductive science, Beyond Reason explores the theories and caveats behind:
Unknowable Particles. Why the detailed behavior of any quantum system-Whether consisting of electrons, photons, or atomic particles-cannot be described or predicted by any mathematical law.
Unpredictable Systems. Why there are some classical systems (such as the weather or planetary systems) the long-term behavior of which cannot be predicted by any computer.
Anyone in a ditch in Texas knows the answer to "weather problems", they were created by greedy Republicans with their SUVs!
See, also, the recent Pravda story which claims the political balance of the world is changing too quickly and in too complex a way for the human mind to comprehend then immediately says "experts" at Deutche Bank know what the future holds.
Uh...aren't both of those examples all-too-common occurrences in moving from thought to dogma? Answer: yes.
Unprovable Theorems. Which theorems (true mathematical statements) will never be proven? Gödel's theorem says they exist.
Impossible Programs. How it is that some problems with simple yes/no answers will never be answered by a computer, no matter how it is programmed.
Intractable Problems. Why will some problems, even when they can be solved by a computer, nevertheless take forever to solve? Cook's theorem points the way.
And your point is...what?
Would you like some contrary examples?
Why do most humans have 4 fingers and a thumb on each hand? Why not more fingers.
Why do most humans have 2 arms? Have you ever seen pictures of people who have part of an undeveloped "twin" attached to their body? OK, why don't we have 3 arms. That would be must more helpful.
Why don't we have eyes on the back of our heads?
Why don't we have better night vision?
Why don't women have an extra set of breasts on their backs? (They would if I designed them...)
Why can't humans aspirate in water?
Why don't humans have stomache systems like that of a cow?
The point is your simple list and lack of explanation serve no point. I've just listed a number of physical aspects which would be very helpful to "humans" who somehow evolved over a gazillion unknown number of years.
You totally missed what I was saying, btw. My comment has nothing to do with either religion, that of macro evolution or that of intelligent design.
Yes, I agree with your first statement, though, it would be hard to believe in purpose without something to create the purpose, wouldn't it? By that, I mean I understand someone could rationally conclude the idea that the complex system we live in didn't just...happen out of raw chance but there would have to be some kind of initiating actor, wouldn't there? Actually, what you describe would fit the "pure" creationist belief.
Sure, the vast majority of stuff in Biblical Archaeology Review (if it's still published...) would be things like fingind some old well in a place which matches a story in the Bible or whatnot. Discovery Channel has shows about this type of thing periodically. They had one about a theory that Egypt had 2 competing Pharaohs at one time and, if true, that pulled the timeline of some Biblical stories into perfect mesh with Archaeological timeline evidence which was previously believed to conclusivley discount the Biblical story. Even so, what happens when they find evidence which would fit stories of supernatural activity? At some point physical discoveries or "decoded" manuscripts, etc. would match non-human actors in the Bible. That's all I was trying to bring up. BAR is (or was, I don't know if it's in print now) was a true scholarly journal. It had an obvious preference for what was published but was most certainly along the "physical evidence" as opposed to dogmatic mental constructs line.
I don't think your statement about secular archaeologists fits what I was trying to say. I understand the comment but, by it's nature, a secular denial viewpoint (for lack of a better word) wouldn't have analogy to the Bible truth viewpoint of Christian archaeology (for lack of a better term.) IOW, BAR would be making the case through physical evidence that the stories in the Bible are actual recorded events. The more that is "proven", the less "fictional" the Bible would be. There just wouldn't be an analogy for secular viewpoints. (I know what I'm trying to say, it might not have come out my fingertips just now. Try to read past my poor word choices.)
Sorry if it seemed I pulled things off topic. That wasn't the intent.
I love the way the word "science" is equated with "truth" when they don't really have much in common.
It's also funny to see the line of argument which is, "Most scientists agree X." which really means, "you're stupid and the "cool kids" think X so you're not cool, stupid."
At least the guy mentioned in the thread post is honest. It reminds me of the studies shich looked at submitted papers to "Nature" which showed only those which the selection panel agreed with were getting published. Look up a few posts in this thread and you'll see the fallacious argument that "IDers haven't published any papers." Think about that for a moment. (Not ID vs. randomness in an infinite space, that's a totally different issue.) The poster made a fallacious statement and tried to justify it with a claim that partisan publishers published only their partisan views which proves competing view are invalid.
Yeah, OK, look at the beautiful robe the emporer is wearing. If we all think about something hard enough we can make it happen. Uh...yeah.
Where's that Star Trek episode with Harry Mudd's planet and the "everything he says is a lie." "I'm lying." segment.
Somewhere I have a really good book whose title is something like 20 questions science is incapable of answering. I'm sorry, the actual title would be the best help, I know. The book illustrates the weaknesses in the scientific method. It goes far beyond the "irrepeatable" criticism of scientific method. Wish I could remember the title now. It's all about the perils of basing "truth" upon the mistaken belief that "science" is perfect and the scientific method is perfect to the point that it slips into dogma and adherents of "science is perfect/infallible" are blinding themselves.
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. Sorry, I'm having a real ADD day. Where are the global warming is caused by hydrocarbon use/pollution folks today? Shouldn't they be all over this thread? Maybe they're hiding because of that large hurricane which happened no matter what anyone did.
Fight! Fight!
No, oh closed-minded one. Try Biblical Archaeology Review.
Funny to see the posts from heathens calling the kettle black. I especially like the one a few up from this where everybody who doesn't believe all that exists is a random occurrence is summarized into a half a sentence hate rant. Shesh!!! That's not a pot calling a kettle black, it's a pot proclaiming how black it is itself!!
Can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to as full of bile and predictable as that post...
Yeah, sorry, I would have responded sooner if I had some kind of monitoring for the threads here...but I don't.
o rld.pdf
Newsweek, April 28, 1975 is an easy to find resource. It should be available in most college libraries. I've posted a copy at http://home.mindspring.com/~fredthompson/coolingw
Oh, sorry, that was 30 years ago. I must be getting old but my memory is pretty darn good. I remember this being on TV and the magazines. It might even have been the topic of one of those "In the News" shorts that woudl run during Saturday morning cartoons.
In any event, it was monstrously common then to claim we were going to freeze to death. President Carter would wear a sweater, the oil embargo happened, and so on. Those were the days of sandals made from old tires and "homemade formula" books for people to make their own shampoo and other household chemicals. What else?
Where did you find this article? Was it between the monkey boy bites man and pyramid power articles or the ones which describe perpetual motion machines from space aliens?
Really, quoting Pravda is worse than treating the National Enquirer as a legitmate news source.
The current headlines at http://english.pravda.ru/ includes this:
Brazil, Russia, India and China to outdo Europe and the US - 08/29/2005 13:29
The main economic analysts of today share their thoughts of tomorrow
The world is changing so quickly that the human mind is unable to keep up. Experts from Deutsche Bank and other analysts decided to take a look at the future. The role of the EU becomes less and less important while developing countries boost their economic growth. Experts do not consider the USA a motive power in the economic progress. China and other rapidly developing countries are more important in the accelerating of world economy.
Uh..ok, the situation is changing so fast that the human mind can't comprehend but Deutsche Bank "experts" can predict the future. Uh...right. No contradiciton here, just accept what Pravda says.
Never mind that they are raising funds by selling Pravda-branded merchandise through Cafe Express...an American commercial site.
Click on the "Science and Health" sub-category and you will see 3 main areas: Discoveries (which includes a story titled, "Ageing and dying is just a freak" about nanotech to let people live forever because science fiction authors think about it, UFOs, and Technologies. That 3rd category includes articles about how every living creature on earth will be given a unique barcode, indispensable Russian Navy submersibles (if only they would learn the difference between nets and hammocks) and the story about food which will last forever.
Yeah, Pravda, the science reference for those without grounding in reality.
Yes, I disable all of those, too.
You're correct, it should not be the default. Looking at it now, my post was a little more snippy than it needed to be.
2. Excel operates in what I call a fake-non-MDI mode. In that it pretends it's not an MDI application, but it actually is. Each document you open shows up in a separate taskbar icon. And yet there's only one window. And if you close that window it closes all your documents. Congratulations MS, you found a way to make MDI even more frustrating. (In fact, I *never* found MDI frustrating before Excel. And yet I can't tell you how many times I've closed all my documents by mistake.)
You only have yourself to blame for not finding the setting for this. It's on the top of the first tab in the user options.
Tools | Options | View | Windows in Taskbar.
clear that check box.
Yeah, that was real tough, wasn't it?
Twenty years ago the self-appointed more-intelligent-ones told me I'd freeze to death. Now they say my great-grandkids will get their toes wet. Well, which is it? Maybe my great-grandkids will have their toes encased in ice and the mutate polar bears (see first reply) will eat them. That'd server those ungrateful whelps right!! Tell you what, making fun of an old man like me I...I...is it cold in here? Where are my teeth? I miss the old days when the only thing I had to worry about was those sneaky Rooskies.
Yeah, that's what I like.
But until then, don't cross the streams.
Why?
It would be bad, real bad. Wrath of God bad.