> > Because a shell of water around the earth would have > > steam-broiled everything on the ark when it collapsed.
> I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. In order to "steam-broil" the ark, the water would have needed to maintain an extreme temperature *as it was falling*. Yet it couldn't fall if it was still up to temp.
And for some reason you think that supports your model...
> Quite the contrary, there are many SCIENTISTS (not religious nuts) who have serious problems with fitting Darwin's theories with observed facts.
How many, and how many of them can you actually name.
> For example, the idea that DNA could self-organize from bare chemicals is difficult to support, when there are ZERO examples of lower-level compounds that appear to be precursors of DNA; this casts a certain pall on the entire concept of life-as-we-know-it-evolving-from-primoridal-goop.
Suppose you had a bucket of DNA precursors and tossed them out on the lawn. How long do you think they would last on this life-infested world (with an oxidizing atmosphere, no less) before broken down and/or consumed by microbes?
> There are numerous examples of microevolution such as moths changing color in sooty areas of England, etc. But the fossil record, often used to "prove" evolution, contains HUGE gaps that cannot be explained (at this point).
The gaps are easily explained. For example, calculate how many great* grandparents you had 1,000 years ago, and then go see how many of their skeletons you can find. Then imagine the difficulty of getting even that poor a record from 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 years ago, when creatures were more commonly eaten than buried in a churchyard and marked with a tombstone.
> How many times over the history of science have scientists had to backpeddle and admit that their theories are wrong?
Every time the evidence demands it.
> The only thing that has stayed constant for all time is the Word of God.
No, the Word of God mutates every time a new denomination cleaves off. And with an estimated 3000 protestant denominations in the USA alone, that should give you some idea of how "constant" the WoG is.
> Umm... huh? I DID say two lines asking why a shell of water around the Earth was any harder to believe as a theory than the current theory of multiverse collisions.
Because a shell of water around the earth would have steam-broiled everything on the ark when it collapsed.
She's had many visions that have come true and today she had one vision of horrifying clarity. She just called me about having seen a cataclysmic taking place next week. "Black silhuettes of mangled corpses, adults and children, flying in searing hot wind against a bleeding red sky pierced by a square tower made of four smaller towers with needles at the endpoints."
Normal girlfriend:
Hon,
I burned the gingerbread men and had to chuck them out, so that treat's off. But my new four-poster arrived today and I've already picked out the stockings I'm going to tie you out with, so you won't be complaining about any lack of treats tonight.
p.s. - Keep your hand off the hardware this afternoon, 'cause I'll be expecting a magnificent "five poster" after dinner.
> While the idea of these things is good, they make it very difficult to avoid people you'd rather not waste your time with. The loud, twitchy, obnoxious, guy everyone is trying to stay away from better not have the same likes and dislikes as you - or 'Beep! Beep! Beep!' the badge will let him know you are a potential friend.
If they broadcast enough information, maybe they could be equiped with something akin to a bayesian spam filter, to detect that such-and-such a card is probably being worn by some loud, twitchy, obnoxious guy, and thus send his card some faked put-off information.
> But I actually like the idea, if you goto a bar and are looking for a 1 night stand the device can automatically hook you up with another person, or if you're walking down the street and have your device set to lonely it can alert other people to your presence and make some new friends.
Yeah, whores and muggers will love 'em.
> but I'v got a problem with the shady bastards who will get my CC numbers and not tell me when they are charging me or try to get my money in a semi-legal way or who think harassing me is a good marketing tactic.
> One of the best points of the program was when they discussed whether or not string theory could ever be verified experimentally. If it couldn't, most of the physicists had to put it in the category of philosophy rather than science.
I'm not sure I agree. There's a role for the "merely descriptive" in science. If string theory gives identical results to relativity + quantum mechanics over all the ranges that we have power to test, but adds the benefit of unifying them into a common framework, then why not accept it?
So long as we are unable to test two theories in the regions where they diverge, there's absolutely no reason to claim that one is better than the other.
> When The Elegant Universe aired here locally, PBS followed it by another noteworthy program called Einstein's Wife, which questions wether Einstein was alone in his creation of the Theory of Relativity as well as several other papers, or if he was in fact aided by his first wife Mileva who was as insightful into the universe as Einstein himself.
Yes, a very interesting show... unfortunately I only caught about half of it.
To add a bit of detail, the show said that Mileva and Albert were listed as co-authors in the original publication of the paper on (special?) relativity, but her name was removed from later editions. The various people interviewed differed in opinion as to whether she was his peer or "merely a sounding board" for his ideas. (In addition to being his playmate, either way.)
> The way it appears, Matt Groening (either satircal, or flat out lying...and it appears he was just lying) claimed Fox News was going to sue him for that episode. Well, Fox News never claimed they would, and so Matt Groening and the Simpsons staff had to issue an apology.
Still kind of funny... got in trouble with them for pretending to get in trouble with them.
> If you could go back in time with the knowledge you have to day, and live the dot-com years for a second time. What would you change in RedHat's business model ?
> > Has SCO gone completely mad? What the fuck? ? > > Is SCO completely, utterly, loony? What the fuck? What the fucking fuck fuck?!
Oh, right. That as me, quoting myself from Septempter, and then from October.
So, to bring you all up to date. It's November. The proper question is now:
"Is SCO completely, utterly, apeshit and batshit, half-a-gig-short-of-a-Debian-ISO, stark, slavering, buggo?!? What the fuck? What the fucking fuck fuck fuck [ several dozen instances of the word "fuck" deleted for brevity ] fuck?!?!"
Slashdot Mirror
> > Because a shell of water around the earth would have
> > steam-broiled everything on the ark when it collapsed.
> I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. In order to "steam-broil" the ark, the water would have needed to maintain an extreme temperature *as it was falling*. Yet it couldn't fall if it was still up to temp.
And for some reason you think that supports your model...
> I hope the author knows what "RPG" stands for
He thinks it stands for "Rocket Propelled Grenade", and requires "no hand-eye coordination, no button-timing" because of it's area effect.
(He probably goes for the chain gun, and thinks it requires "skill" because at least one of the bullets has to hit something.)
> Seriously, calling currently-held religous beliefs "myths" is incredibly rude and disrespectful to slashdot christians.
Given that we've known for 200 years that the global flood didn't happen, and given that people still believe it, what do you expect us to call it?
> Quite the contrary, there are many SCIENTISTS (not religious nuts) who have serious problems with fitting Darwin's theories with observed facts.
How many, and how many of them can you actually name.
> For example, the idea that DNA could self-organize from bare chemicals is difficult to support, when there are ZERO examples of lower-level compounds that appear to be precursors of DNA; this casts a certain pall on the entire concept of life-as-we-know-it-evolving-from-primoridal-goop.
Suppose you had a bucket of DNA precursors and tossed them out on the lawn. How long do you think they would last on this life-infested world (with an oxidizing atmosphere, no less) before broken down and/or consumed by microbes?
> There are numerous examples of microevolution such as moths changing color in sooty areas of England, etc. But the fossil record, often used to "prove" evolution, contains HUGE gaps that cannot be explained (at this point).
The gaps are easily explained. For example, calculate how many great* grandparents you had 1,000 years ago, and then go see how many of their skeletons you can find. Then imagine the difficulty of getting even that poor a record from 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 years ago, when creatures were more commonly eaten than buried in a churchyard and marked with a tombstone.
> How many times over the history of science have scientists had to backpeddle and admit that their theories are wrong?
Every time the evidence demands it.
> The only thing that has stayed constant for all time is the Word of God.
No, the Word of God mutates every time a new denomination cleaves off. And with an estimated 3000 protestant denominations in the USA alone, that should give you some idea of how "constant" the WoG is.
> Umm... huh? I DID say two lines asking why a shell of water around the Earth was any harder to believe as a theory than the current theory of multiverse collisions.
Because a shell of water around the earth would have steam-broiled everything on the ark when it collapsed.
> The radar astronomers admit that they were not able to probe Shackleton crater where Clementine got it positive reading.
Also, Lunar Prospector gives support to the Clementine findings, detecting a dearth of medium-energy neutrons from the same regions.
(Mentioned in passing in a Dec. 2003 article on lunar geography in Scientific American.)
Normal girlfriend:Your girlfriend:
Clearly, those platforms that MS does not like are treated differently than less popular (and less threatening?) technologies.
Clearly, they find some topics more offensive than others!
> Go To Statement Considered Harmful [acm.org].
Shouldn't you give equal time to "Structured Programming Considered Square", by Ima Leet Haxor?
> While the idea of these things is good, they make it very difficult to avoid people you'd rather not waste your time with. The loud, twitchy, obnoxious, guy everyone is trying to stay away from better not have the same likes and dislikes as you - or 'Beep! Beep! Beep!' the badge will let him know you are a potential friend.
If they broadcast enough information, maybe they could be equiped with something akin to a bayesian spam filter, to detect that such-and-such a card is probably being worn by some loud, twitchy, obnoxious guy, and thus send his card some faked put-off information.
> But I actually like the idea, if you goto a bar and are looking for a 1 night stand the device can automatically hook you up with another person, or if you're walking down the street and have your device set to lonely it can alert other people to your presence and make some new friends.
Yeah, whores and muggers will love 'em.
> but I'v got a problem with the shady bastards who will get my CC numbers and not tell me when they are charging me or try to get my money in a semi-legal way or who think harassing me is a good marketing tactic.
Put them on your "do not ping" list.
> lots of errors is a bad thing. what if their estimates are wrong now, and the previous estimates were right.
What if we roll a 1 on our d600000 next year?
> One of the best points of the program was when they discussed whether or not string theory could ever be verified experimentally. If it couldn't, most of the physicists had to put it in the category of philosophy rather than science.
I'm not sure I agree. There's a role for the "merely descriptive" in science. If string theory gives identical results to relativity + quantum mechanics over all the ranges that we have power to test, but adds the benefit of unifying them into a common framework, then why not accept it?
So long as we are unable to test two theories in the regions where they diverge, there's absolutely no reason to claim that one is better than the other.
> When The Elegant Universe aired here locally, PBS followed it by another noteworthy program called Einstein's Wife, which questions wether Einstein was alone in his creation of the Theory of Relativity as well as several other papers, or if he was in fact aided by his first wife Mileva who was as insightful into the universe as Einstein himself.
Yes, a very interesting show... unfortunately I only caught about half of it.
To add a bit of detail, the show said that Mileva and Albert were listed as co-authors in the original publication of the paper on (special?) relativity, but her name was removed from later editions. The various people interviewed differed in opinion as to whether she was his peer or "merely a sounding board" for his ideas. (In addition to being his playmate, either way.)
> The way it appears, Matt Groening (either satircal, or flat out lying...and it appears he was just lying) claimed Fox News was going to sue him for that episode. Well, Fox News never claimed they would, and so Matt Groening and the Simpsons staff had to issue an apology.
Still kind of funny... got in trouble with them for pretending to get in trouble with them.
> Looking at the acronym for the bill, it's the ART Prevention Act.
No problem, they could call it "the Feinstein Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act", avoiding the embarrasing acronym.
> If you could go back in time with the knowledge you have to day, and live the dot-com years for a second time. What would you change in RedHat's business model ?
I'd change what I did on IPO day!
kid: Is that first fix for free as in "free beer", or "free speech"?
pusher: Huh?
> since Red Hat has shifted focus to Enterprise, with Fedora serving merely as a testbed for them.
That was kinda my impression of RH9, for that matter.
> Isn't this the plot of a James Bond flick??? I'm just waiting for the perpetrators to be caught, and be named something like "Pussy Galore"...
Alas, James was disappointed to learn that this one was stolen by Dick A. Plenty.
> Guys, relax. The article clearly states that this study was done on MICE and not HUMANS!!
Yeah, but when you get 50 e-msgs a day asking
Are you a mouse or a man?
this kind of news can rattle you!