Actually, global warming could absolutely lead to an ice age. You see, when the polar ice caps melt, the sudden deluge of fresh water into the ocean will have dramatic effects on ocean currents. For those unaware, these currents form an integral part of the global heat transfer system. In particular, the Gulf Stream is responsible for moving massive amounts of warm water north, and is a prime factor in the weather of the UK and western Europe. If this stream were to shut down (say, by massive amounts of fresh water getting dumped into the arctic ocean), the northern hemisphere would suddenly lose an important source of heat. This could result in a sudden temperature drop in the northern hemisphere, followed by a subsequent expansion of the ice caps. This would increase the amount of ice in the northern hemisphere, which would cause more sunlight to be reflected (due to the relatively high libido of ice). This would cause further cooling, creating more ice, etc, etc. Aren't positive feedback systems fun? The end result could be a new ice age. Maybe.:)
it's only understandable if they also have the key. or did you think they were encoding ASCII directly into quantum states?
Well, given the article text said this:
"Quantum cryptography takes advantage of the physical properties of light particles, known as photons, to create and transmit binary messages. The angle of vibration of a photon as it travels through space -- its polarization -- can be used to represent a zero or a one under a system first devised by scientists Charles H. Bennett and Gilles Brassard in 1984"
The point is that they can send anything using this method. The key point is that:
"It has the advantage that any attempt to intercept the photons is liable to interfere with their polarization and can therefore be detected by those operating the system,"
IOW, in case you *still* don't get it, QC only provides a transport which cannot be tapped without the intrusion being detected. Thus, it can be used for things like, oh, encryption key distribution, as you can guarantee that a third party hasn't intercept your key.
Holy crap, you posted the definition of "encrypt" and you *still* don't get it. What part of "To alter" do you not understand? The point the original poster was trying to make is that the signal being sent is perfectly readable (and understandable) by someone intercepting it. However, the intended receiver is able to detect that the signal is being tapped.
Eh, the rise of massive consumer debt is, in my mind, due to one thing: impatience. People seem to have this unbelievable need to "keep up with the Jones'", and that, by itself, isn't so bad. Let 'em waste their cache on useless luxury goods. What's bad is that they have to do it *now*, and if that means getting into massive debt, so be it! At least they can have that massive flat-screen TV *today*!
He took a gamble on the good will of the men in Detroit, and lost. Terribly. His invention was stolen.
Well, I hate to say it, but that was his mistake. Perhaps he should have gotten some advice from a lawyer or a businessman first. As another poster alluded, your great grandfather should have had a contract written up which would have prevented the automotive companies from stealing his idea (ie, allowing him to retain rights to any resultant patents). If it was as revolutionary as you claim, I'm sure the automotive industry would have signed the contract.. He chose not do to that, though, likely due to naivete (certainly not his fault), and the rest is history.
He couldn't get a patent, though, because his prototype was deemed inadequate.
Then it was inadequate. I hardly see how this is the USPTO's fault. Build a better prototype. *shrug*
It's happened a lot over the years, but most people aren't able to do anything with it, because the present system is classist.
Boo hoo. I say again, the USPTO doesn't exist in order to protect your average inventor and their pet ideas. As for your complaint that "the present system is classist", that is really a problem with capitalism... the fact is, the people with resources are the ones who are capable of developing new ideas. Big surprise. It takes money to develop new ideas into real, valid products. The USPTO can hardly be blamed for this.
The alternative is that you let just anybody patent absolutely anything. Great. So, instead of truly innovating, i.e., coming up with a new idea, creating a prototype, and actually *bringing it to market*, I'll just do the first part! Then, when some company independly develops my idea, I'll just sue them!
Sorry, but I prefer the current system.
Now, I'm sorry to hear that you feel cynical about the way the system works. But it is what it is. If your ideas are so wonderful, take them to a company, convince them to sign an NDA, and develop your idea. If you can't do that, then maybe, just maybe, your idea isn't as great (or as feasible) as you assume.
Then save up some money, or get a private backer. The patent system doesn't exist to protect every single inventor and their pet ideas. It exists to encourage inventors to disclose their ideas (thus encouraging further innovation) while retaining the ability to gain a profit from them via a limited monopoly on the idea. 'course, it's a little tough to gain profit from an idea if you can't even afford to create a friggin' prototype. So, patents won't help you... big surprise, that's not their purpose! Unless, of course, your aim is to dream up wild ideas and patent them on the off chance that you'll have an opportunity to extort some poor company. And if that's your plan... well, let's just say I'm glad you're not the head of the USPTO.
Patents are to protect the creators idea. If I was to mention a completly original idea to someone, then they ran out and come up with a physical copy before me, patented it as their own idea, I could possible be screwed from millions/billions of $$'s.
Umm... yeah, that's the way the system is *supposed* to work. If you'd been smart, you would have created a working prototype and patented the idea *before* you told anyone about it. Sounds pretty simple to me, and perfectly fair. What's the problem?
Oh please. What decent graphics apps out there *don't* support PNGs? And even if you do have such an old, underpowered graphics app, you could always export to some other format and convert.
As for those applications which output bloated PNGs, use pngcrush.
Well, given that the first sentence in the article mentions "games, simulations, movies, commercial and military applications", my guess is that photoshop-types features aren't part of the general thrust of the article, which is more concerned with algorithms related to real-time 3D rendering.
Well, the first three you mentioned are interesting, if rather pedestrian these days (I mean, you might as well include linked lists in that set. I'm sure they're used in games). As for the remaining ones, collision detection isn't a "graphics" problem, although it's definitely a game-related issue (and an even more complex problem in three dimensions). As for alternate color spaces, what games have you been playing??
Who said anything about latin roots? "regard" is the *English* root of the word "irregardless". Kinda like how "necessary" is the English root of the word "unnecessary". As such, your example is a poor one. "rigate" isn't a word in the English language, last I checked, and "irrigate" is most definitely not a compound word constructed from the composition of the root "rigate" and the prefix "ir".
The problem is that the word "irregardless" breaks all rules about word construction in the English language. The root word is "regard". "regardless" means to have no regard, as per standard English suffixing rules. "irregardless" represents the negation of the word "regardless", as per standard English prefixing rules. So, it must mean to not not have regard for. IOW, it's a double negative, all in one word. It's like someone saying "unthaw" when they really mean "thaw"... it's just - plain - wrong!
Maybe it's actually because most parents (or, more generally, people) aren't properly trained in the proper storage and use of a firearm, and hence only endanger themselves and their children.
Actually, that's not correct. My understanding is that it was a classic example of the use of submarine patents. Basically, Rambus participated in JEDEC, a memory technology conference whose purpose was to standardize SDRAM, while at the same time neglecting to mention that they, in fact, held patents or had patents pending on that very technology. They then attempted to elicit licensing fees for those technologies once it was firmly entrenched in the industry. See this article for a somewhat more detailed history of the case.
Uhh, did you read that article? That article only showed that three elliptical galaxies didn't have as much dark matter in them as expected. It did this by showing that these galaxies rotated in the exact fashion they should *in the absence of dark matter*. So, this study does not deny the existence of dark matter. It only poses the question "why do some galaxies have dark matter and others don't?"
As for cosmic acceleration, there's no particular reason to believe that that phenomenon has anything at all to do with the nature of gravity. It very well could be related to how our universe formed (see some of the alternative theories to inflation that involve pre-big-bang states).
Heh, like this is anything new. I've seen submissions where the entire submission text, often 75-100 words of text, is lifted *straight* from the first paragraph of the article. Oh well... I've seen enough examples of people plagiarizing comments... why not move on to entire article submissions?
Which doesn't change my point that zombie-nets are pretty far removed from "grid computing", and definitely do *not* represent a big leap forward in the concept, at least, IMHO.:)
Bah, this is definitely *not* grid computing. Grid computing is sorta like clustered computing, but not quite, where it's possible to purchase CPU cycles from the grid for use in high-performance computing applications. Think a beowulf-for-hire, only the nodes aren't necessarily commodity hardware (for example, here in Western Canada, there's a project to build a grid connecting various academic supercomputing resources).
These zombie-nets, OTOH, are simply large networks of computers that can be asked to do the same thing on a large scale. BFD. Hell, I wrote some Perl code to do just this for administration of a testbed during one of my previous jobs. It's nothing new, and most definitely not an advancement of technology.
Only if the UI models are equivalent. Take container packing models. In Windows, the tradition was to explicitly place components in their locations. XUL, OTOH, uses something similar to TCL and Gtk where components are arranged in boxes, and the container "packs" itself in order to lay the widgets out... ie, there's no explicit positioning done.
Who said they agreed with Monsanto's practices? No one. The point is that GM foods are a potential useful thing that shouldn't be disregarded on spurious grounds (e.g., they're not "natural"). The moral and legal issues regarding the patenting of genes is an entirely orthogonal issue.
Who said anything about hybrids? AFAIK, most seedless species are just selectively bred regular varieties... correct me if I'm wrong.
offspring of a hybrid can reach maturity, so it's okay in a sense. However, hybrids cannnot themselves procreate, which is nature's way of saying it wasn't really such a good idea after all.
Oh please, Nature is not a thing. Things are either sterile or not. Their "value" as a species hardly has anything to do with it. What if you'd been born sterile. Does that mean you're not a "good idea"?
I don't think GE is inherently evil -- but it lacks the QA of time that traditional breeding has under its belt. Sure, Super Cow's milk may up my life span by 10 years and prevent cancer, but can you tell me it won't cause sterility (random, bad problem unforseen by creators of Super Cow) after a few generations of people consuming it?
Okay, now you're bringing up a completely difference issue.
Issue 1: Some genetically engineered species are sterile, therefore not a "good idea".
Issue 2: Genetically engineered foods may possess side effects that we're not immediately aware of.
The first thing that should be clear is that Issue 2 does NOT follow from Issue 1! The viability of a species has absolutely *nothing* to do with it's value to human beings (take, oh, Zebra Mussels as an example).
As for Issue 2, I completely agree, genetically engineered foods should be verified safe before being made available to the population at large. The advantage is, with science, we can do a pretty good job of verifying food as safe.
You seem to be assuming that scientists can do better than nature at the genetic level. You have a lot more faith in modern science than I do. Sure, we can crank out specific traits better than nature can with GE, but it will take 'til the end of either of our lifetimes before we know whether or not it was a good idea back in 2004.
Again, a "good idea"?
How many substances were deemed safe, only to be found horribly toxic to people 50 years later? Lead. DDT. More than I can rattle off from memory. Yet chemicals are much simpler beasts than genetic engineering.
How are they even the same?!? Good lord... okay, if you make a GE food X that produces untested substance Y, then your comparison holds. And in that case, I completely agree, care should be taken. But, again, this is a completely separate issue from this whole "mother nature knows best" crap. After all, mother nature "knew" to put cyanide in almonds.
f I existed 100 years from now, as I am today, and no major problem in GE foods had arrived, I'd probably be singing its praises. You're already singing the praises of GE, yet it hasn't left the starting gate yet. It's that same overly-eager optimism of the scientific community that worries me the most, not the potential benefits of GE.
I must point out, I'm not singing any praises. Frankly, I'm indifferent on the issue. What bugs me are people who use irrational, unfounded arguments as a basis for immediately disregarding useful technologies. This is also known as ludditism.
I still don't. You don't have a problem with humans manipulating genetics (which is what selective breeding is). And you don't have a problem with selective breeding produces something that wouldn't be successful in the wild. So, the only real objection I see is that you have an issue with things that can't self-procreate. But, what about, say, seedless grapes, or oranges, ro watermelon? They can't self-procreate. Are these things not "blessed 'safe' by nature"? Are they "unnatural"?
The fact is, the whole argument about "natural" versus "unnatural" is really an emotional one. Yes, there are real, scientific concerns regarding some of this work (eg, plants which produce their own pesticides creeping into the wild fauna, or genetically engineered fish escaping and fscking up the ecosystem), but the idea that, somehow, "natural" seeds, milk, etc, are "better" is really just irrational fear (or a misplaced sense of superiority... which is, I suspect, the case here).
I mean, what *actually* makes your family Jersey cow any more superior to Super Cow v2.05? What if the Super Cow produced milk that extended your life span by ten years, prevented cancer, and made your toast in the morning? Would you still argue that good ol' Bessy was superior just 'cuz of that precious "good old-fashioned pedigee (sic)"?
LOL! Provide it then! Think how famous you'd become! And before you start, I should probably be more specific: when I say evidence, I mean actual, physical, scientifically verifiable proof. None of that hand-wavy, metaphysical bullshit. No "god in the gaps" crap. The real stuff. You know, like actual, physical fossils, or microwave background radiation.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, global warming could absolutely lead to an ice age. You see, when the polar ice caps melt, the sudden deluge of fresh water into the ocean will have dramatic effects on ocean currents. For those unaware, these currents form an integral part of the global heat transfer system. In particular, the Gulf Stream is responsible for moving massive amounts of warm water north, and is a prime factor in the weather of the UK and western Europe. If this stream were to shut down (say, by massive amounts of fresh water getting dumped into the arctic ocean), the northern hemisphere would suddenly lose an important source of heat. This could result in a sudden temperature drop in the northern hemisphere, followed by a subsequent expansion of the ice caps. This would increase the amount of ice in the northern hemisphere, which would cause more sunlight to be reflected (due to the relatively high libido of ice). This would cause further cooling, creating more ice, etc, etc. Aren't positive feedback systems fun? The end result could be a new ice age. Maybe. :)
it's only understandable if they also have the key. or did you think they were encoding ASCII directly into quantum states?
Well, given the article text said this:
"Quantum cryptography takes advantage of the physical properties of light particles, known as photons, to create and transmit binary messages. The angle of vibration of a photon as it travels through space -- its polarization -- can be used to represent a zero or a one under a system first devised by scientists Charles H. Bennett and Gilles Brassard in 1984"
The point is that they can send anything using this method. The key point is that:
"It has the advantage that any attempt to intercept the photons is liable to interfere with their polarization and can therefore be detected by those operating the system,"
IOW, in case you *still* don't get it, QC only provides a transport which cannot be tapped without the intrusion being detected. Thus, it can be used for things like, oh, encryption key distribution, as you can guarantee that a third party hasn't intercept your key.
BTW, I lifted that quoted text from this post.
Holy crap, you posted the definition of "encrypt" and you *still* don't get it. What part of "To alter" do you not understand? The point the original poster was trying to make is that the signal being sent is perfectly readable (and understandable) by someone intercepting it. However, the intended receiver is able to detect that the signal is being tapped.
Eh, the rise of massive consumer debt is, in my mind, due to one thing: impatience. People seem to have this unbelievable need to "keep up with the Jones'", and that, by itself, isn't so bad. Let 'em waste their cache on useless luxury goods. What's bad is that they have to do it *now*, and if that means getting into massive debt, so be it! At least they can have that massive flat-screen TV *today*!
He took a gamble on the good will of the men in Detroit, and lost. Terribly. His invention was stolen.
Well, I hate to say it, but that was his mistake. Perhaps he should have gotten some advice from a lawyer or a businessman first. As another poster alluded, your great grandfather should have had a contract written up which would have prevented the automotive companies from stealing his idea (ie, allowing him to retain rights to any resultant patents). If it was as revolutionary as you claim, I'm sure the automotive industry would have signed the contract.. He chose not do to that, though, likely due to naivete (certainly not his fault), and the rest is history.
He couldn't get a patent, though, because his prototype was deemed inadequate.
Then it was inadequate. I hardly see how this is the USPTO's fault. Build a better prototype. *shrug*
It's happened a lot over the years, but most people aren't able to do anything with it, because the present system is classist.
Boo hoo. I say again, the USPTO doesn't exist in order to protect your average inventor and their pet ideas. As for your complaint that "the present system is classist", that is really a problem with capitalism... the fact is, the people with resources are the ones who are capable of developing new ideas. Big surprise. It takes money to develop new ideas into real, valid products. The USPTO can hardly be blamed for this.
The alternative is that you let just anybody patent absolutely anything. Great. So, instead of truly innovating, i.e., coming up with a new idea, creating a prototype, and actually *bringing it to market*, I'll just do the first part! Then, when some company independly develops my idea, I'll just sue them!
Sorry, but I prefer the current system.
Now, I'm sorry to hear that you feel cynical about the way the system works. But it is what it is. If your ideas are so wonderful, take them to a company, convince them to sign an NDA, and develop your idea. If you can't do that, then maybe, just maybe, your idea isn't as great (or as feasible) as you assume.
Then save up some money, or get a private backer. The patent system doesn't exist to protect every single inventor and their pet ideas. It exists to encourage inventors to disclose their ideas (thus encouraging further innovation) while retaining the ability to gain a profit from them via a limited monopoly on the idea. 'course, it's a little tough to gain profit from an idea if you can't even afford to create a friggin' prototype. So, patents won't help you... big surprise, that's not their purpose! Unless, of course, your aim is to dream up wild ideas and patent them on the off chance that you'll have an opportunity to extort some poor company. And if that's your plan... well, let's just say I'm glad you're not the head of the USPTO.
Patents are to protect the creators idea. If I was to mention a completly original idea to someone, then they ran out and come up with a physical copy before me, patented it as their own idea, I could possible be screwed from millions/billions of $$'s.
Umm... yeah, that's the way the system is *supposed* to work. If you'd been smart, you would have created a working prototype and patented the idea *before* you told anyone about it. Sounds pretty simple to me, and perfectly fair. What's the problem?
Oh please. What decent graphics apps out there *don't* support PNGs? And even if you do have such an old, underpowered graphics app, you could always export to some other format and convert.
As for those applications which output bloated PNGs, use pngcrush.
Well, given that the first sentence in the article mentions "games, simulations, movies, commercial and military applications", my guess is that photoshop-types features aren't part of the general thrust of the article, which is more concerned with algorithms related to real-time 3D rendering.
Well, the first three you mentioned are interesting, if rather pedestrian these days (I mean, you might as well include linked lists in that set. I'm sure they're used in games). As for the remaining ones, collision detection isn't a "graphics" problem, although it's definitely a game-related issue (and an even more complex problem in three dimensions). As for alternate color spaces, what games have you been playing??
LOL! I can't believe that got an "Interesting"! Gotta love them mods...
Who said anything about latin roots? "regard" is the *English* root of the word "irregardless". Kinda like how "necessary" is the English root of the word "unnecessary". As such, your example is a poor one. "rigate" isn't a word in the English language, last I checked, and "irrigate" is most definitely not a compound word constructed from the composition of the root "rigate" and the prefix "ir".
The problem is that the word "irregardless" breaks all rules about word construction in the English language. The root word is "regard". "regardless" means to have no regard, as per standard English suffixing rules. "irregardless" represents the negation of the word "regardless", as per standard English prefixing rules. So, it must mean to not not have regard for. IOW, it's a double negative, all in one word. It's like someone saying "unthaw" when they really mean "thaw"... it's just - plain - wrong!
Maybe it's actually because most parents (or, more generally, people) aren't properly trained in the proper storage and use of a firearm, and hence only endanger themselves and their children.
Actually, that's not correct. My understanding is that it was a classic example of the use of submarine patents. Basically, Rambus participated in JEDEC, a memory technology conference whose purpose was to standardize SDRAM, while at the same time neglecting to mention that they, in fact, held patents or had patents pending on that very technology. They then attempted to elicit licensing fees for those technologies once it was firmly entrenched in the industry. See this article for a somewhat more detailed history of the case.
Uhh, did you read that article? That article only showed that three elliptical galaxies didn't have as much dark matter in them as expected. It did this by showing that these galaxies rotated in the exact fashion they should *in the absence of dark matter*. So, this study does not deny the existence of dark matter. It only poses the question "why do some galaxies have dark matter and others don't?"
As for cosmic acceleration, there's no particular reason to believe that that phenomenon has anything at all to do with the nature of gravity. It very well could be related to how our universe formed (see some of the alternative theories to inflation that involve pre-big-bang states).
Heh, like this is anything new. I've seen submissions where the entire submission text, often 75-100 words of text, is lifted *straight* from the first paragraph of the article. Oh well... I've seen enough examples of people plagiarizing comments... why not move on to entire article submissions?
Which doesn't change my point that zombie-nets are pretty far removed from "grid computing", and definitely do *not* represent a big leap forward in the concept, at least, IMHO. :)
Bah, this is definitely *not* grid computing. Grid computing is sorta like clustered computing, but not quite, where it's possible to purchase CPU cycles from the grid for use in high-performance computing applications. Think a beowulf-for-hire, only the nodes aren't necessarily commodity hardware (for example, here in Western Canada, there's a project to build a grid connecting various academic supercomputing resources).
These zombie-nets, OTOH, are simply large networks of computers that can be asked to do the same thing on a large scale. BFD. Hell, I wrote some Perl code to do just this for administration of a testbed during one of my previous jobs. It's nothing new, and most definitely not an advancement of technology.
Only if the UI models are equivalent. Take container packing models. In Windows, the tradition was to explicitly place components in their locations. XUL, OTOH, uses something similar to TCL and Gtk where components are arranged in boxes, and the container "packs" itself in order to lay the widgets out... ie, there's no explicit positioning done.
Or use a small DNS proxy, like dnsmasq. Simple, easy to configure, flexible... it's a useful tool in one's anti-popup arsenal.
Who said they agreed with Monsanto's practices? No one. The point is that GM foods are a potential useful thing that shouldn't be disregarded on spurious grounds (e.g., they're not "natural"). The moral and legal issues regarding the patenting of genes is an entirely orthogonal issue.
Hybrids have a foot in both camps. The
Who said anything about hybrids? AFAIK, most seedless species are just selectively bred regular varieties... correct me if I'm wrong.
offspring of a hybrid can reach maturity, so it's okay in a sense. However, hybrids cannnot themselves procreate, which is nature's way of saying it wasn't really such a good idea after all.
Oh please, Nature is not a thing. Things are either sterile or not. Their "value" as a species hardly has anything to do with it. What if you'd been born sterile. Does that mean you're not a "good idea"?
I don't think GE is inherently evil -- but it lacks the QA of time that traditional breeding has under its belt. Sure, Super Cow's milk may up my life span by 10 years and prevent cancer, but can you tell me it won't cause sterility (random, bad problem unforseen by creators of Super Cow) after a few generations of people consuming it?
Okay, now you're bringing up a completely difference issue.
Issue 1: Some genetically engineered species are sterile, therefore not a "good idea".
Issue 2: Genetically engineered foods may possess side effects that we're not immediately aware of.
The first thing that should be clear is that Issue 2 does NOT follow from Issue 1! The viability of a species has absolutely *nothing* to do with it's value to human beings (take, oh, Zebra Mussels as an example).
As for Issue 2, I completely agree, genetically engineered foods should be verified safe before being made available to the population at large. The advantage is, with science, we can do a pretty good job of verifying food as safe.
You seem to be assuming that scientists can do better than nature at the genetic level. You have a lot more faith in modern science than I do. Sure, we can crank out specific traits better than nature can with GE, but it will take 'til the end of either of our lifetimes before we know whether or not it was a good idea back in 2004.
Again, a "good idea"?
How many substances were deemed safe, only to be found horribly toxic to people 50 years later? Lead. DDT. More than I can rattle off from memory. Yet chemicals are much simpler beasts than genetic engineering.
How are they even the same?!? Good lord... okay, if you make a GE food X that produces untested substance Y, then your comparison holds. And in that case, I completely agree, care should be taken. But, again, this is a completely separate issue from this whole "mother nature knows best" crap. After all, mother nature "knew" to put cyanide in almonds.
f I existed 100 years from now, as I am today, and no major problem in GE foods had arrived, I'd probably be singing its praises. You're already singing the praises of GE, yet it hasn't left the starting gate yet. It's that same overly-eager optimism of the scientific community that worries me the most, not the potential benefits of GE.
I must point out, I'm not singing any praises. Frankly, I'm indifferent on the issue. What bugs me are people who use irrational, unfounded arguments as a basis for immediately disregarding useful technologies. This is also known as ludditism.
I still don't. You don't have a problem with humans manipulating genetics (which is what selective breeding is). And you don't have a problem with selective breeding produces something that wouldn't be successful in the wild. So, the only real objection I see is that you have an issue with things that can't self-procreate. But, what about, say, seedless grapes, or oranges, ro watermelon? They can't self-procreate. Are these things not "blessed 'safe' by nature"? Are they "unnatural"?
The fact is, the whole argument about "natural" versus "unnatural" is really an emotional one. Yes, there are real, scientific concerns regarding some of this work (eg, plants which produce their own pesticides creeping into the wild fauna, or genetically engineered fish escaping and fscking up the ecosystem), but the idea that, somehow, "natural" seeds, milk, etc, are "better" is really just irrational fear (or a misplaced sense of superiority... which is, I suspect, the case here).
I mean, what *actually* makes your family Jersey cow any more superior to Super Cow v2.05? What if the Super Cow produced milk that extended your life span by ten years, prevented cancer, and made your toast in the morning? Would you still argue that good ol' Bessy was superior just 'cuz of that precious "good old-fashioned pedigee (sic)"?
LOL! Provide it then! Think how famous you'd become! And before you start, I should probably be more specific: when I say evidence, I mean actual, physical, scientifically verifiable proof. None of that hand-wavy, metaphysical bullshit. No "god in the gaps" crap. The real stuff. You know, like actual, physical fossils, or microwave background radiation.