Egads man, it was launched from the space shuttle in 1989, which most likely means that the original specs were based upon early to mid-80's technology.
E-gads indeed.
Try, mid-70s tech, retrofitted for early 80s capability. Galileo was first envisioned in the mid 70s, and original plans were to launch circa 1982 on the shuttle. Shuttle delays and redesign resulted in significant redesign of propulsion systems (I'm not sure how much of the science package was also redone) for a planned early 80s launch. Due to more shuttle delays and congressional budget snipes, the Galileo package was knocked back and forth a few times between different launch systems (a May 1985 launch scrubbed again) until finally the science and launch packages were assembled and readied for a launch on Atlantis STS-61G in May 1986.
After the Challenger explosion, STS-61G was cancelled, and I remember vividly that afternoon hearing talk radio gibbering madly about "NUCULER DIZASTER!" aka, the RTG power source that some people felt would set up us the bomb.
The probe that launched in 1989 was already old and had been sitting on the shelf for several years. Its now felt that some of the subsequent failures were due to the amount of time spent in mothballs.
I wouldn't be surprised if the design specs for the science package froze early in development, what with the rest of the probe changing to meet current availability of launchers so frequently. And mag tapes were considered very well tested, reliable storage under the conditions Galileo faced.
When was Saint Leibowitz and the Wild Horse Woman actually written?
I haven't been able to find any reference for this, and sadly, unless Terry Bisson knows, it might be quite lost. The book was apparently completed by Bisson after Miller died, and there is on reading it, a slightly gummy feeling of amalgamation; I can't quite tell whether it was rewoven altogether from the author's notes, or merely brushed up and missing chapters/sections added.
More significantly, I wish I could tell whether the book, in general, was written shortly after, or perhaps 15 or 20 years after Canticle and left in some musty cabinet not to be discovered until after his passing; it would be illuminating to see which of the changes in writing style and theme resulted from Miller's changes in perspective over time, and what, was in fact Bisson.
It's even possible (from my reading) that the entire book was simply one chapter of Canticle that got left out of the original, or which the author might have written some time afterward, and not a stand-alone book, which Bisson felt he had to expand out to make it publishable.
The story itself is a minor historical footnote in the history of the Church after the flame deluge; as were nearly all of the stories from the original, and to me, its as breathtaking as any one of the earlier parts, but still doesn't feel like a Novel in its own right.
All of the previous is speculation; most of the reviews that I've seen assume it was a separate book written by Miller in the 1990s, and handed specifically to Bisson on his deathbed. I haven't found any of Bisson's words on the matter, if anyone here does know, I'd really love to hear.
Nope. This was a conscious design choice, midway through development, but early Betas of the Doom engine ran just fine on a 286 (with enough ram).
You can argue all you like about the excellency of protected mode operations, but John Carmack is a bloody speed freak!
*** poptix is poptix@techmonkeys.org (· Matthew S. Hallacy ·) *** on channels: @#linux #icons_of_vanity *** on irc via server irc.secsup.org (Insert Tagline ) > poptix: do you have an official response to the Slashdot story I can send them? > speaking on behalf of efnet #linux operators? <poptix> radtuna: sure 'Canada sucks' <poptix>;)
To ward off problems in transit, lag, potential corruption at either end, or other errors on the remote client's side, you may want to consider permitting unlimited downloads (or unlimited download attempts at any rate) until the product is "delivered" per contract.
When will you know it's delivered?
When the user runs the installer on their target machine, and returns the appropriate registration code to you. If the user has some TCP/IP'ish way of downloading, they must have some corresponding TCP/IP'ish way of responding. (Could be, generation of a reg code to file, or even to screen, that end user can copy down and email back to you, for the more locked-down secure environments) If your license is per-seat restricted, you can also have a registration/response code pair returned back to the target machine to complete the transaction, but depending on your needs, this might not even be nececessary.
With the primary arial undeployed the primary effect has been a reduction in the total number of pictures, and the frequency at which they are captured and returned; since the low-gain antenna / tape recorder are still capable of bringing back images of the same quality, just not nearly as many.
It's disappointing, sure, but even had the arial been fully deployed, we wouldn't have significantly greater resolution, and might not see substantially more detail of Europa's surface. Also, the change in mission priorities might (?) have meant fewer resources spent on magnetometric observations. Events don't seem to change frequently enough on Europa's surface that a few missing frames would have changed our view much.
(Contrast with Io! What if we'd missed that eruption?)
The theories are, that Mars was warmer as a confluence of several things, essentially coming back to the internal heat.
Sources:
Heat leftover from kinetic energy of small planetismals colliding to form Mars-as-we-know-it
This radiates slowly over time, by Newton's law
Heat from radioactive decay of Uranium and other superheavy metals
rate of decay diminishes according to the half-life of the nuclides
Cascade effects:
Much hot material in core keeps core material in liquid phase.
Rotating fluid core creates magnetic field, which interacts with solar wind, to keep charged particles from eroding the atmosphere (particularly Water, from dissociation)
Current thinking is that Mars was enough smaller than Earth that it accumulated less of the critical radioisotopes needed to maintain an active interior for a long time.
It is official; Rick McCallum now confirms: Star Wars is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered movie community when LucasFilms confirmed that theatre market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all moviegoers. Coming on the heels of a recent box office survey which plainly states that AoTC has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Box offices are collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Moviegoers comprehensive audience test.
You don't need to be a Ebert to predict Star Wars future. The hand writing is on the wall: Star Wars faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Star Wars because Star Wars is dying. Things are looking very bad for Star Wars. As many of us are already aware, Star Wars continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
LucasFilm is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core producers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time producers as Stanley Kubrick only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Star Wars is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Box Office leader George Lucas states that there are 7000 watchers of Star Wars. How many users of Star Wars are there? Let's see. The number of Star Trek versus Star Wars posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Star Wars users. Episode I posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Star Wars posts. Therefore there are about 700 watchers of Episode I. A recent article put Empire Strikes Back at about 80 percent of the Star Wars market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Empire Strikes Back watchers. This is consistent with the number of Empire Strikes Back Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Lucas Ranch, abysmal sales and so on, TPM went out of business and was taken over by AoTC who sell another troubled film. Now AoTC is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Star Wars has steadily declined in market share. Star Wars is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Star Wars is to survive at all it will be among cult film dilettante dabblers. Star Wars continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Star Wars is dead.
I have some questions though, about galactic structure and stability. When we (laymen) think of the spiral galaxy its generally as a static or very-slowly changing pinwheel form. But, considering the length of the galactic year, its noteable that the Milky Way hasn't gone through very many revolutions; perhaps 30 or 40, depending on estimates for the time since galaxy-forming. As that article suggests, observations of so many other spiral galaxies seem to suggest visibly similar structure that we suspect the structure doesn't change much; at least within a few dozen orbits.
Are there any credible or serious theories as to how long this sort of structure would be maintained? Thirty orbits is NOT a lot and seems to suggest the universe is still pretty young in some regards. Its a pity that most of the brighter stars will be fading in only a few dozen more orbits hence.
Hrm. Are there any decent statistics for rates of stellar formation? One suspects that, as galactic hydrogen slowly becomes transmuted into helium->iron the rate must decline, but I have not seen any strong suggestions as to the evolution of stellar and galactic nurseries over time.
Why doesn't some starry-eyed Free Software code warrior come up with a better alternative to BitKeeper, distribute it, and everyone goes home happy?
One important reason to keep in mind:
Under the current BK license, anyone who *tries* to develop an alternate source management system gets locked out of BitKeeper, now and forever. Which could mean, out of Linux Kernel Development, and perhaps other fun projects. In short, if you *are* considering creating something else, better, you had better hope and pray that it succeeds, and pulls people away from BK. If your little project turns out for naught in the greater mindshare of the software devleopment community, you're
screwed, unless you want to fork over cash at whatever the going rate for Professional development licenses are.
What's wrong with BK is not a question of Larry's rights so much as the chilling effect it has the potential of unleashing on the development community.
This is what scares me. I haven't read RMS's article yet. He tends to post off-the-cuff, and in inappropriate contexts; but he's doing the best job he knows how. (Somebody please get this guy a P.R. manager, a personal groomer...)
Students must pay a $20 registration fee with additional tuition supplied by NASA on a first-come, first-served basis." I do not know if the registration has been filled.
Gee. Only 60 slots? I'll bet we can't slashdot this one.
"I'm doing some work designing a solar car for a certain unnamed university. We are contemplating installing a camera and LCD system to replace the rear view mirror, since it is hard to turn one's head in the car and it would make designing the cockpit much easier."
...
if it suddenly stops working, you won't DIE.
If you're driving an experimental solar powered car, so cramped for space that you can't even turn your head, in rushhour traffic, as Princess Leia said: "You're braver than I thought!"
When solar powered cars are run on the highway, they tend to be the only cars on the road.
They require a lot of care, and a tremendous amount of maintenance. The lcd-rear-view does not sound very robust, but, from the article as posed, I suspect that its the least of their problems.
Note to submitter: Until you grasp the difference between Comfort Systems (i.e. your mp3 player) and Safety Systems (i.e. rearview devices) please keep your car off my road. Thanks:)
fossils are evolutionary snapshots. Its like trying to reconstruct the events of football game,
from a few still photos taken at random throughout the play. Fossils are rare, because most environmental processes destroy rather than preserve biological materials. As time goes on, we gradually pick up more pieces, and more snapshots, but most creatures who have ever lived never left any fossils. This neither proves nor disproves evolution, its a complication that makes paleontology difficult.
2) How can you explain the presence of young comets in a solar system that is supposed to be "billions" of years old?
(Of course, if the SS is only a few thousand years old, comets are easy to explain.)
That's really a question for an astrophysicist. But, many "young" comets are tugged into the inner solar system from the Oort cloud, where presumably they have been orbiting unchanged and virtually untouched for billions of years, in an almost perfect primordial state. When planetary motion pulls them in, and they become short period comets, they have a "new" appearance, because they still have all their old cometary material.
3) What caused the Big Bang? What happened in the first 10E-38th of a second after the Big Bang happened?
Another astrophysics question, (well, two) that is still largely resolved at present. Its outside the domain of evolutionary biology, and is largely not applicable to events happening many many seconds later. (You'll grant that our world is more than 6000 seconds old, will you?) Its possibly relevant whether or not the universe was Created, but that does not prove or disprove evolution.
4) How do you explain the relative thinness of the layer of dust on the Moon? It should be much deeper if the Moon
is billions of years old.
Where does dust come from? On Earth (and on Mars; places we've actually been to) it appears to be largely the work of weathering processes, wind, water, chemical and gravitational sundering. There is a lot of dust on Earth, and Mars; much of it layered and pressed into sediment. With scarcely any weathering processes on the Moon, its not surprising that little dust has accumulated. Lunar dust, or regolith, is sundered by mechanical abrasion from meteorite strikes, the vast majority of which haven't happened in a long time, so there is little dust, and what's there is pretty jagged and abrasive.
5) How do you reconcile the perfection of Scripture with the hoaxes and embarrassments of science (i.e., Piltdown
Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy, etc.)
This is primarily a religious question, and not implicated in evolutionary biology, because science as a whole does not address questions of perfection. There is no perfect theory, or absolutely right answer, and therefore no way to reconcile perfection with non-perfection within scientific modelling. Additionally, there are many divergent views of what constitutes the Truth, in the biblical scriptures, even; as many who call themselves Christian, Jewish, or Moslem disagree with eachother. (Each hold a portition of those Scriptures to be True) You may be correct, and the rest of us wallowing in sin, but its outside the realm of things that evolutionary theory addresses, so we can't help you. Do scientists make mistakes? Ha ha! Its what we do best:)
6) How do you counter the charge that modern Information Theory (IT) renders evolution all but impossible?
I don't counter it. Genetic engineering may well supercede natural selection, because we can select precisely genomic features that would otherwise take a very long time to be expressed. We may not know, for some time yet, whether natural selection is over, on Earth, but it is entirely possible, from what little we now know. The presence of an Intelligent Architect, certainly has the possibility of mucking up the whole works. If we can architect ourselves, this might be the end of evolution as we've known it, and we may need new theories to describe future differentiation and radiation of species, post-genetic-revolution. Before there were creatures on earth doing genegeneering, evolution would have remained in effect.
I welcome your questions, and am glad you keep asking (and keep trolling!) If we evolutionists don't keep on our toes, the silurians will get us.
Re:Newton or Pad comp?
on
Newton Won't Die
·
· Score: 2, Informative
(Score:-2, Flaming Troll)
AFAIK the Ipaq runs on a Pentium III 400, with 64 megs of RAM.
You don't seem to Know too far, then. Read your own link.
Its a 400mhz Xscale, which is an ARM based chip, in the same family as the Newton's oddly enough. You got the memory right, and the 400mhz Xscale surely is more powerful than many servers, but strangely its slower for many things, than the 200mhz SA-1110 it replaced. And XScale is only on the newer Ipaqs; the older ones use the Strong-Arm CPU, (as does the MP2000).
The older ARMs, like the one the original series Newtons had, was not Intel at all; Intel bought ARM some time ago.
SCO had quite a bit of corporate culture behind it, in "the old days." You might think that based in the Santa Cruz hills, it might be full of hippie freeks and geeks, but then again you might be right.
That the engineers (not managers), back in the pre-dotcom days used to lounge about in hot tubs
Several Jargon File entries
(edited out from more recent versions of the file. ???)
Re:Movies as reference?
on
Electric Armor
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Oompa Loompa, doompadee doo, I've got a tougher armor for you. Oompa Loompa, doompadee dee, If you are wise run away from me.
What do you get when you shoot at a TANK? All flattened like a Palestinian CAMP! Why bother hitting when you will get FRIED What do you think they next.. will.. try?
(with another megaton)
Oompa Loompa Doompadee dib, If you are hardened then you will live You will be in happiness too Like the Oompa Loompa doopity do!
Slashdot Mirror
E-gads indeed.
Try, mid-70s tech, retrofitted for early 80s capability. Galileo was first envisioned in the mid 70s, and original plans were to launch circa 1982 on the shuttle. Shuttle delays and redesign resulted in significant redesign of propulsion systems (I'm not sure how much of the science package was also redone) for a planned early 80s launch. Due to more shuttle delays and congressional budget snipes, the Galileo package was knocked back and forth a few times between different launch systems (a May 1985 launch scrubbed again) until finally the science and launch packages were assembled and readied for a launch on Atlantis STS-61G in May 1986.
After the Challenger explosion, STS-61G was cancelled, and I remember vividly that afternoon hearing talk radio gibbering madly about "NUCULER DIZASTER!" aka, the RTG power source that some people felt would set up us the bomb.
The probe that launched in 1989 was already old and had been sitting on the shelf for several years. Its now felt that some of the subsequent failures were due to the amount of time spent in mothballs.
I wouldn't be surprised if the design specs for the science package froze early in development, what with the rest of the probe changing to meet current availability of launchers so frequently. And mag tapes were considered very well tested, reliable storage under the conditions Galileo faced.
In Terry Bisson's own words:
I haven't been able to find any reference for this, and sadly, unless Terry Bisson knows, it might be quite lost. The book was apparently completed by Bisson after Miller died, and there is on reading it, a slightly gummy feeling of amalgamation; I can't quite tell whether it was rewoven altogether from the author's notes, or merely brushed up and missing chapters/sections added.
More significantly, I wish I could tell whether the book, in general, was written shortly after, or perhaps 15 or 20 years after Canticle and left in some musty cabinet not to be discovered until after his passing; it would be illuminating to see which of the changes in writing style and theme resulted from Miller's changes in perspective over time, and what, was in fact Bisson.
It's even possible (from my reading) that the entire book was simply one chapter of Canticle that got left out of the original, or which the author might have written some time afterward, and not a stand-alone book, which Bisson felt he had to expand out to make it publishable.
The story itself is a minor historical footnote in the history of the Church after the flame deluge; as were nearly all of the stories from the original, and to me, its as breathtaking as any one of the earlier parts, but still doesn't feel like a Novel in its own right.
All of the previous is speculation; most of the reviews that I've seen assume it was a separate book written by Miller in the 1990s, and handed specifically to Bisson on his deathbed. I haven't found any of Bisson's words on the matter, if anyone here does know, I'd really love to hear.
Nope. This was a conscious design choice, midway through development, but early Betas of the Doom engine ran just fine on a 286 (with enough ram). You can argue all you like about the excellency of protected mode operations, but John Carmack is a bloody speed freak!
To ward off problems in transit, lag, potential corruption at either end, or other errors on the remote client's side, you may want to consider permitting unlimited downloads (or unlimited download attempts at any rate) until the product is "delivered" per contract.
When will you know it's delivered?
When the user runs the installer on their target machine, and returns the appropriate registration code to you. If the user has some TCP/IP'ish way of downloading, they must have some corresponding TCP/IP'ish way of responding. (Could be, generation of a reg code to file, or even to screen, that end user can copy down and email back to you, for the more locked-down secure environments) If your license is per-seat restricted, you can also have a registration/response code pair returned back to the target machine to complete the transaction, but depending on your needs, this might not even be nececessary.
It's disappointing, sure, but even had the arial been fully deployed, we wouldn't have significantly greater resolution, and might not see substantially more detail of Europa's surface. Also, the change in mission priorities might (?) have meant fewer resources spent on magnetometric observations. Events don't seem to change frequently enough on Europa's surface that a few missing frames would have changed our view much.
(Contrast with Io! What if we'd missed that eruption?)
Sources:
- Heat leftover from kinetic energy of small planetismals colliding to form Mars-as-we-know-it
- Heat from radioactive decay of Uranium and other superheavy metals
Cascade effects:This radiates slowly over time, by Newton's law
rate of decay diminishes according to the half-life of the nuclides
-
Much hot material in core keeps core material in liquid phase.
-
Rotating fluid core creates magnetic field, which interacts with solar wind, to keep charged particles from eroding the atmosphere (particularly Water, from dissociation)
-
Denser atmosphere supports greenhouse warming;
increased atmospheric H2O supports greenhouse strongly
Current thinking is that Mars was enough smaller than Earth that it accumulated less of the critical radioisotopes needed to maintain an active interior for a long time.One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered movie community when LucasFilms confirmed that theatre market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all moviegoers. Coming on the heels of a recent box office survey which plainly states that AoTC has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Box offices are collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Moviegoers comprehensive audience test.
You don't need to be a Ebert to predict Star Wars future. The hand writing is on the wall: Star Wars faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Star Wars because Star Wars is dying. Things are looking very bad for Star Wars. As many of us are already aware, Star Wars continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
LucasFilm is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core producers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time producers as Stanley Kubrick only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Star Wars is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Box Office leader George Lucas states that there are 7000 watchers of Star Wars. How many users of Star Wars are there? Let's see. The number of Star Trek versus Star Wars posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Star Wars users. Episode I posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Star Wars posts. Therefore there are about 700 watchers of Episode I. A recent article put Empire Strikes Back at about 80 percent of the Star Wars market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Empire Strikes Back watchers. This is consistent with the number of Empire Strikes Back Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Lucas Ranch, abysmal sales and so on, TPM went out of business and was taken over by AoTC who sell another troubled film. Now AoTC is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Star Wars has steadily declined in market share. Star Wars is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Star Wars is to survive at all it will be among cult film dilettante dabblers. Star Wars continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Star Wars is dead.
Fact: Star Wars is dying
I have some questions though, about galactic structure and stability. When we (laymen) think of the spiral galaxy its generally as a static or very-slowly changing pinwheel form. But, considering the length of the galactic year, its noteable that the Milky Way hasn't gone through very many revolutions; perhaps 30 or 40, depending on estimates for the time since galaxy-forming. As that article suggests, observations of so many other spiral galaxies seem to suggest visibly similar structure that we suspect the structure doesn't change much; at least within a few dozen orbits.
Are there any credible or serious theories as to how long this sort of structure would be maintained? Thirty orbits is NOT a lot and seems to suggest the universe is still pretty young in some regards. Its a pity that most of the brighter stars will be fading in only a few dozen more orbits hence.
Hrm. Are there any decent statistics for rates of stellar formation? One suspects that, as galactic hydrogen slowly becomes transmuted into helium->iron the rate must decline, but I have not seen any strong suggestions as to the evolution of stellar and galactic nurseries over time.
One important reason to keep in mind:
This is what scares me. I haven't read RMS's article yet. He tends to post off-the-cuff, and in inappropriate contexts; but he's doing the best job he knows how. (Somebody please get this guy a P.R. manager, a personal groomer...)There's a sig reference that predates it by a week
On November 4, 1997.
Students must pay a $20 registration fee with additional tuition supplied by NASA on a first-come, first-served basis." I do not know if the registration has been filled.
Gee. Only 60 slots? I'll bet we can't slashdot this one.
Hurry up all ye frist psoters! ;(
hi troll
" . . to explore strange new worlds,"
Like the interior of the Genesis asteroid?
". . to seek out new life"
Cetian slugs?
". . and new civilizations"
The colony on Ceti Alpha V?
". . to boldly go"
and Spock was a wuss
". . where no man has gone before"
No man or no vulcan. (c.f. the Genesis Planet at the end)
blah. i think i need to register slashalias TrekDotTroll
Details...
if it suddenly stops working, you won't DIE.
If you're driving an experimental solar powered car, so cramped for space that you can't even turn your head, in rushhour traffic, as Princess Leia said: "You're braver than I thought!"
When solar powered cars are run on the highway, they tend to be the only cars on the road.
They require a lot of care, and a tremendous amount of maintenance. The lcd-rear-view does not sound very robust, but, from the article as posed, I suspect that its the least of their problems.
Note to submitter: Until you grasp the difference between Comfort Systems (i.e. your mp3 player) and Safety Systems (i.e. rearview devices) please keep your car off my road. Thanks :)
It's bad manners for him to post 1n 31337 on his own web site, and good manners for you to rip him apart on Slashdot? Golly.
You should send him feedback, demanding an apology.
Ahem.
It's pathetic.
If I had mod points, I'd downmod the parent [my original posting]. Thanks for the concise, comprehensive, and accurate info :)
fossils are evolutionary snapshots. Its like trying to reconstruct the events of football game, from a few still photos taken at random throughout the play. Fossils are rare, because most environmental processes destroy rather than preserve biological materials. As time goes on, we gradually pick up more pieces, and more snapshots, but most creatures who have ever lived never left any fossils. This neither proves nor disproves evolution, its a complication that makes paleontology difficult.
2) How can you explain the presence of young comets in a solar system that is supposed to be "billions" of years old? (Of course, if the SS is only a few thousand years old, comets are easy to explain.)
That's really a question for an astrophysicist. But, many "young" comets are tugged into the inner solar system from the Oort cloud, where presumably they have been orbiting unchanged and virtually untouched for billions of years, in an almost perfect primordial state. When planetary motion pulls them in, and they become short period comets, they have a "new" appearance, because they still have all their old cometary material.
3) What caused the Big Bang? What happened in the first 10E-38th of a second after the Big Bang happened?
Another astrophysics question, (well, two) that is still largely resolved at present. Its outside the domain of evolutionary biology, and is largely not applicable to events happening many many seconds later. (You'll grant that our world is more than 6000 seconds old, will you?) Its possibly relevant whether or not the universe was Created, but that does not prove or disprove evolution.
4) How do you explain the relative thinness of the layer of dust on the Moon? It should be much deeper if the Moon is billions of years old.
Where does dust come from? On Earth (and on Mars; places we've actually been to) it appears to be largely the work of weathering processes, wind, water, chemical and gravitational sundering. There is a lot of dust on Earth, and Mars; much of it layered and pressed into sediment. With scarcely any weathering processes on the Moon, its not surprising that little dust has accumulated. Lunar dust, or regolith, is sundered by mechanical abrasion from meteorite strikes, the vast majority of which haven't happened in a long time, so there is little dust, and what's there is pretty jagged and abrasive.
5) How do you reconcile the perfection of Scripture with the hoaxes and embarrassments of science (i.e., Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy, etc.)
This is primarily a religious question, and not implicated in evolutionary biology, because science as a whole does not address questions of perfection. There is no perfect theory, or absolutely right answer, and therefore no way to reconcile perfection with non-perfection within scientific modelling. Additionally, there are many divergent views of what constitutes the Truth, in the biblical scriptures, even; as many who call themselves Christian, Jewish, or Moslem disagree with eachother. (Each hold a portition of those Scriptures to be True) You may be correct, and the rest of us wallowing in sin, but its outside the realm of things that evolutionary theory addresses, so we can't help you. :)
Do scientists make mistakes? Ha ha! Its what we do best
6) How do you counter the charge that modern Information Theory (IT) renders evolution all but impossible?
I don't counter it. Genetic engineering may well supercede natural selection, because we can select precisely genomic features that would otherwise take a very long time to be expressed. We may not know, for some time yet, whether natural selection is over, on Earth, but it is entirely possible, from what little we now know. The presence of an Intelligent Architect, certainly has the possibility of mucking up the whole works. If we can architect ourselves, this might be the end of evolution as we've known it, and we may need new theories to describe future differentiation and radiation of species, post-genetic-revolution. Before there were creatures on earth doing genegeneering, evolution would have remained in effect.
I welcome your questions, and am glad you keep asking (and keep trolling!) If we evolutionists don't keep on our toes, the silurians will get us.
AFAIK the Ipaq runs on a Pentium III 400, with 64 megs of RAM.
You don't seem to Know too far, then. Read your own link.
Its a 400mhz Xscale, which is an ARM based chip, in the same family as the Newton's oddly enough. You got the memory right, and the 400mhz Xscale surely is more powerful than many servers, but strangely its slower for many things, than the 200mhz SA-1110 it replaced. And XScale is only on the newer Ipaqs; the older ones use the Strong-Arm CPU, (as does the MP2000).
The older ARMs, like the one the original series Newtons had, was not Intel at all; Intel bought ARM some time ago.
Oompa Loompa, doompadee doo,
I've got a tougher armor for you.
Oompa Loompa, doompadee dee,
If you are wise run away from me.
What do you get when you shoot at a TANK?
All flattened like a Palestinian CAMP!
Why bother hitting when you will get FRIED
What do you think they next.. will.. try?
(with another megaton)
Oompa Loompa Doompadee dib,
If you are hardened then you will live
You will be in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa doopity do!