A decent level of humidity can greatly improve dust problems. We purchased a cool-mist home humidifier several years ago (for our home, not a lab or office) and found especially in winter time that dust levels went down. Side benefits include better capacity of the air to store latent heat energy (feels warmer in winter) and much decreased propensity for annoying static electricity.
Of course, there are a whole host of issues with humid air, too: more likelihood of growing molds, better environment for diseases to grow (ever wonder why hospitals are so dry?), higher energy costs in winter (more heat needs to be applied to the air since it now has more capacity to hold it), humidifier filter replacement (once a season), etc. But my wife and I are relatively careful and feel it's a strong net gain.
Second point: you need to check that your building's HVAC systems are being properly maintained. Being in the building design business (A/E), I'd guess only 10% of engineered building systems are properly maintained. Probably the same figure for residences, too. People usually think about vacumming the carpet on occasion, but the 1-5 US dollars required to change your HVAC air filters every month is more important for air quality.
Yes, indeed that's the exact service I used. Killer response time and quality, would do it again for the same 50 bucks I spent two years ago. (Just the 8Mb RAM, didn't go with the flash ROM.)
Funny, my Palm m100, upgraded to 8mb still does everything I need. Sure it doesn't play 31337 videos and MP3s, but 95% of what I need a PDA for can be satisified by an Ebay m105 for
Sorry, Palm. I love ya and all, but until you make a PDA that can replace the usefulness of a cheap laptop, I've got no reason to upgrade.
I expected some way to search... this looks more like a project to index the web rather than make the results available for public use via web interface. Did it strike anyone else odd that there was no web form on the home page with which to search?!
It seems like a good concept, but the availability of the information collected needs to be accessible without installing the client. I'm not game to install distributed computing apps without some freely available benefit. The "for the good of the world" motivation went out the window for me about a day after my first Seti At Home experience. (But now BitTorrent, there was appreciable benefit. I had RedHat 9 isos within 8 hours of their initial release!)
IMO, the very best new feature of MySQL 4 is multi-table deletes. No more having to query/for each in/delete type constructs across many-to-many relationship tables.
I've been using MySQL 4.0.5/PHP4 on RH8.0 without problems to date. Granted, only on a non-critical intranet for our small (70) office, but still, no problems.
Yes, and with organizations like OpenDWG, we wouldn't even have to argue much about file formats. I personally don't think parts libraries are an issue since so many manufacturers already offer free drawing files. Plus there are public efforts like CADD/GIS Technology Center which offer complete symbol libraries along with their CAD Standard. Many municipal governments offer standard site details, too. Our office spends more time trying to organize library details than we do actually drawing them.
The environment is ripe for open source CAD, we just need to get an enterprise level effort rolling!
Perhaps the average consumer does not need more than a web browser and a word processor, but much of business requires specific applications. My industry, architecture, can not use the computer without CAD software. Thus our choice of operating systems is restricted by the offerings of CAD. (And since AutoCAD currently reigns supreme in this industry, we're stuck on Windows for a long time.)
All this talk about Linux distributions is child's play, what we really need are apps, then we can discuss suitability of distributions. I can not understand why no one seems to realize this. Enterprise level CAD and accounting software would swing huge numbers of users (personal or business) to any flavor of Linux. (Like the construction industry, maybe 5 percent the total US GDP.)
(BTW, if anybody is interested in starting a GPL, GTK+ CAD project, please drop me a line... I'm not an experienced programmer but I can do graphics, documentation, HTML, whatever, to help a serious effort. You can check CAD on Linux for more on me and my (admittedly old) research into CAD on Linux.)
Heh, probably in the end it's better for whoever is being snubbed. I know KDE sure has improved by leaps and bounds since then. Likely being the underdog is just more motivating.
In any case, the upcoming GNOME 2.2 improvements (now in beta 2 or something, won't appear in Ximian for a while, which is just getting to 2.0) will hopefully be as big a step for GNOME as KDE has taken in the last year or so. Perhaps the pendulum will swing the other side in another year, huh?
<Metaphorical epiphany/>
Think of the two desktops, GNOME and KDE, as a foot each on the person of the Linux desktop movement. One takes a step forward and then serves as the plant point the other swings around to go ahead. The one planted doesn't progress but propels the other forward before taking a turn itself.
Both desktops are serving as targets for the other. As Linux matures, we might find this continued competition useful, especially as we catch everything else. Some might scoff at this possibility, but from what I've seen of KDE and GNOME 2.2, the Linux desktop if finally equaling some of the highest quality features in any desktop. Sure there's room for improvement, but who would have thought in so short a time two completely independent efforts could generate what exists right now?
Ok, so my optimism is a bit over the top. At least, I'm both looking forward to GNOME 2.2 and getting a new hard drive so I can run KDE 3.1 in parallel.;)
Indeed. Although you would expect this from SlashDot, it's been my observation that there are no "editors" here who are full-time Gnome users. Unfortunately their advocacy blindly over-rides their sense of journalistic professionalism, which is why you should never consider this site either professional or news.
Just my opinion.
(Moderation: -3 Troll.)
Re:SVG not (yet?) for presentation
on
SVG On the Rise
·
· Score: 1
Sweet, dude! Muchas gracias for the excellent link, I had never heard of SMIL before. (Half the time I post, it's just trolling for more info.;) It doesn't look so mature, have you used it or know of any examples you can point me to?
I agree, CAD type 3D models via ASCII format is the Holy Grail. In Architecture, our computer tools are still baby-faced. It will be at least another five years before it is common practice to link specification, manufacturing, and schedule information to a 3D object, a model of not only the building but the whole project. (Something most industries, such as aerospace, already do today.) And yet, I think SVG is the first glimpse into this possibility.
SVG not (yet?) for presentation
on
SVG On the Rise
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I took a quick look at SVG for a proposal. It required animation with syncronized audio narration so SVG wasn't a possibility. I still don't see that SVG supports this and can't imagine SVG to be even remotely as useful as SWF in the realm of multi-media presentation. Sure it makes sense in more technical applications like mapping or calculated interactive diagrams, but I don't fear we'll be subjected to a rash of slow-loading SVG page banners any time soon. Bit of a shame, actually.
Perhaps I was being a bit defensive. I don't mind the revision of the theory so much, as long as it isn't reported as something so definite and absolute. It seems ironic that a theoretical stab in the dark can have 95 percent accuracy and a range the magnitude as the quantity we're estimating in the first place.
Truth is discernable I do believe, even through imperfect senses and sensory tools. I wish the scientists in their fighting for fame and notoriety wouldn't overstate the values of their explorations. (But I understand we're all human.;)
Religion on the other hand, tends to keep the answers, but reformulate how they got them. IE, I have heard the 7 day theory of creation explained away by saying the 7 days were not necessarily consecutive, they may have been millions of years apart blahblahblah.
I would argue (as I did somewhere above) that the real issue is whether the Bible really says 7 days. The word for days is not so concrete. (Although I personally do believe in a 6 day creation, as I explained there.)
...look at the early renaissance European planetary charts, when Rome demanded that the Earth be in the center of the universe.
And through the whole episode, the Biblical language was never inaccurate. The whole earth at the center argument, as I also discussed above, was errant *interpretation* by the Roman Church, Biblical text doesn't say that. (Which is one of the reasons the whole Reformation started, the issue of who interprets Scripture.) The Bible interprets itself to you, you don't need anybody else to help you. (Spoken like a true Protestant, eh?) Sure teachings from others can be helpful, but they are all rubbish compared to the actual text itself.
(*Troll Alert, sorry religious discussions get me angry *)
They are exciting! Still not sure why myself, but they definitely clear my head. Thanks for the debate.
BTW... I am just curious... what is the 'level of confidence' you have in water being turned into wine? Or that Mary wasn't covering up the fact that she was knockedup?
First, I would say that the only way we even know about the story is through the Bible itself. There is no corroborating evidence of an existence of Mary. So all we know started there.
Secondly, the Bible claims to be a true account. Again, if a portion of it can be proven false, the whole bit is worthless.
Thirdly, there's really no motivation we can see by the authors to fabricate such a tale. From a human perspective, it is a complete tragedy, everyone dies or is imprisoned. The apostles had arguments and painted themselves a complete fools, they had no glory during their lives. 11 out of 12 were killed for their belief, and with pathetic account. The Old Testament, parts written more than 2000 years before, so astoundingly predicted what was to happen and all was fulfilled by a bunch of uneducated fisherman and workers in the lowest class in society. Sure, Rome painted them to be wonderful so many years later, but the early Church survived persecution in catacombs for three centuries.
Also, this prediction of the future business is facinating. I have recently done a study of the Jewish feasts in the Old Testament, all of which were incredible types or predictions of Jesus' birth, life and death. I fail to see how anyone could have so perfectly created a story across so many years that could be so artistically fulfilled in the way the New Testament records. Mind boggling I would say.
Finally then, my "level of confidence" comes from my own convictions, those based on a lifetime of exploration. I have no hope in this life for any of these beliefs. If I'm wrong, what a pity for wasting life in hope of the afterlife. But they are my convictions, so what more can I do?
There's a great deal of noise out there. My reason for starting this thread is to not to add more, but to understand for myself. The questions I started with were not intended to be persuading, they are my real questions. I appreciate all those who have been responding with helpful and knowledgable points without all the flames.
Yes, indeed that's my view. To me the faith to believe in a super natural creator is easier than that required to believe in one (three? how many are we up to?) big bangs anyway.
I just thought for a long time that day could *only* mean 24 hours. I think the light and dark created on the second day might actually indicate rotation, explaining how the heavenly bodies could occur later on day 4. (God being light for the point of reference, perhaps?) But several individuals I know who are knowledgable about Hebrew tell me that the word is not necessarily translated that way. There are, in fact, a few other locations where the same word is translated another way.
It is quite interesting to me that the entire Old Testament stems from such a limited vocabulary (1,800 root words as I remember). With such a small list, words had larger and richer meanings, which today can be more widely interpreted. The original meaning is still there, but it relies on understanding the larger connections between thoughts, something our analytical persuasions do not often encourage. We'd rather break it down into pieces rather than look at the whole.
This somehow comes full circle to me. The arguments in this thread are very pointed, but seem to gloss over the assembly of all these theories. ("Evolution relates only to biology on earth" and the like.) The connection of astronomical requirements of universe age, biological requirements for evolution, and statistical probability for all this to occur seem to me beyond science, really an act of faith at their essence. And then, for some reason, I'm considered an ignorant idiot for believing in a "literal" Bible and an open universe God.
On nitpick... I try to interpret the word "literal" to mean "as was intended", it's from the same root as "literary". A six day creation (while my own view, for now) as is read in Genesis 1 leaves room for longer time periods. While I'm still far from being convinced about long-span creation and the real interpretation of the original word "day", to accept the Bible as "literal" means that I must take it as it was intended, even if it means changing my current view.
I'm sure you would agree that the church made this mistake back in Galieo's day. We clearly see today that there is no scientific reference in the Bible to the Earth being the center of the solar system. There are indeed several "literal" indications... but we still use the same ones ourselves today, such as "the sun comes up".
The bottom line is proper interpretation of the Bible, as was intended. I've never found contradictions of it's intended meanings, just those of interpretation. (And no, I do not believe shaping interpretations to match is valid. We all know you can read the Bible and be amazed for yourself.)
Wow, great source for reading about views alternative to my own. Thanks for indicating it.
By the way, it didn't seem to indicate a reference for flatness of the world, do you have one? I have previously read verses which indicate roundness (sorry, can't find them here at work). Be glad to exchange if you care to.
Not trying to troll here (and speaking as a creationist), but I fail to see how a range this wide is helpful to anybody, let alone intriguing. This has always been my biggest fault with the theory of evolution: it will always remain indeterminate. Questions abound:
How can a range nearly equal to that of one of the factors itself be considered scientific?
What is "95" percent level of confidence" based on?
How do we know we're looking at "old" star clusters?
Couldn't they have been reformed once or twice in the expanding and collapsing process?
How will we ever guarantee that we can see enough of the picture to know we have a statistically representative sample?
The article even states:
Cosmologists, who speculate about the origin and operation of the universe as a whole, know they have their work cut out for them even as their understanding grows.
I'm not trying to pessimistic, but it's always hard for me to believe any of these theories given that they seem to change on the decade. (And yes, I've been around a few decades.) If evolutionists could step back for a second and see the ridiculousness posed by articles like these, they might see that it comes off as not much better than science fiction or some 1960's Popular Mechanics dream concept of the future. The "evolution" of the theory of evolution itself should be evidence of its failure. (BTW, has anybody ever written about this?)
Slashdot Mirror
How about MeetUp?
A decent level of humidity can greatly improve dust problems. We purchased a cool-mist home humidifier several years ago (for our home, not a lab or office) and found especially in winter time that dust levels went down. Side benefits include better capacity of the air to store latent heat energy (feels warmer in winter) and much decreased propensity for annoying static electricity.
Of course, there are a whole host of issues with humid air, too: more likelihood of growing molds, better environment for diseases to grow (ever wonder why hospitals are so dry?), higher energy costs in winter (more heat needs to be applied to the air since it now has more capacity to hold it), humidifier filter replacement (once a season), etc. But my wife and I are relatively careful and feel it's a strong net gain.
Second point: you need to check that your building's HVAC systems are being properly maintained. Being in the building design business (A/E), I'd guess only 10% of engineered building systems are properly maintained. Probably the same figure for residences, too. People usually think about vacumming the carpet on occasion, but the 1-5 US dollars required to change your HVAC air filters every month is more important for air quality.
Yes, indeed that's the exact service I used. Killer response time and quality, would do it again for the same 50 bucks I spent two years ago. (Just the 8Mb RAM, didn't go with the flash ROM.)
Funny, my Palm m100, upgraded to 8mb still does everything I need. Sure it doesn't play 31337 videos and MP3s, but 95% of what I need a PDA for can be satisified by an Ebay m105 for
Sorry, Palm. I love ya and all, but until you make a PDA that can replace the usefulness of a cheap laptop, I've got no reason to upgrade.
I expected some way to search... this looks more like a project to index the web rather than make the results available for public use via web interface. Did it strike anyone else odd that there was no web form on the home page with which to search?!
It seems like a good concept, but the availability of the information collected needs to be accessible without installing the client. I'm not game to install distributed computing apps without some freely available benefit. The "for the good of the world" motivation went out the window for me about a day after my first Seti At Home experience. (But now BitTorrent, there was appreciable benefit. I had RedHat 9 isos within 8 hours of their initial release!)
Version 1.4 *still* hasn't closed my three favorite bugs:
Home button should appear on main Toolbar:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89350
Edit Source using External Editor:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35268
Address book: Lists lose addresses:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96877
(Sorry for the dumb links, bugzilla won't accept SlashDot referals.)
IMO, the very best new feature of MySQL 4 is multi-table deletes. No more having to query/for each in/delete type constructs across many-to-many relationship tables.
I've been using MySQL 4.0.5/PHP4 on RH8.0 without problems to date. Granted, only on a non-critical intranet for our small (70) office, but still, no problems.
Beautiful idea, dude. If only we could turn back time.
Yes, and with organizations like OpenDWG, we wouldn't even have to argue much about file formats. I personally don't think parts libraries are an issue since so many manufacturers already offer free drawing files. Plus there are public efforts like CADD/GIS Technology Center which offer complete symbol libraries along with their CAD Standard. Many municipal governments offer standard site details, too. Our office spends more time trying to organize library details than we do actually drawing them.
The environment is ripe for open source CAD, we just need to get an enterprise level effort rolling!
Perhaps the average consumer does not need more than a web browser and a word processor, but much of business requires specific applications. My industry, architecture, can not use the computer without CAD software. Thus our choice of operating systems is restricted by the offerings of CAD. (And since AutoCAD currently reigns supreme in this industry, we're stuck on Windows for a long time.)
All this talk about Linux distributions is child's play, what we really need are apps, then we can discuss suitability of distributions. I can not understand why no one seems to realize this. Enterprise level CAD and accounting software would swing huge numbers of users (personal or business) to any flavor of Linux. (Like the construction industry, maybe 5 percent the total US GDP.)
(BTW, if anybody is interested in starting a GPL, GTK+ CAD project, please drop me a line... I'm not an experienced programmer but I can do graphics, documentation, HTML, whatever, to help a serious effort. You can check CAD on Linux for more on me and my (admittedly old) research into CAD on Linux.)
Heh, probably in the end it's better for whoever is being snubbed. I know KDE sure has improved by leaps and bounds since then. Likely being the underdog is just more motivating.
In any case, the upcoming GNOME 2.2 improvements (now in beta 2 or something, won't appear in Ximian for a while, which is just getting to 2.0) will hopefully be as big a step for GNOME as KDE has taken in the last year or so. Perhaps the pendulum will swing the other side in another year, huh?
<Metaphorical epiphany/>
Think of the two desktops, GNOME and KDE, as a foot each on the person of the Linux desktop movement. One takes a step forward and then serves as the plant point the other swings around to go ahead. The one planted doesn't progress but propels the other forward before taking a turn itself.
Both desktops are serving as targets for the other. As Linux matures, we might find this continued competition useful, especially as we catch everything else. Some might scoff at this possibility, but from what I've seen of KDE and GNOME 2.2, the Linux desktop if finally equaling some of the highest quality features in any desktop. Sure there's room for improvement, but who would have thought in so short a time two completely independent efforts could generate what exists right now?
Ok, so my optimism is a bit over the top. At least, I'm both looking forward to GNOME 2.2 and getting a new hard drive so I can run KDE 3.1 in parallel. ;)
Indeed. Although you would expect this from SlashDot, it's been my observation that there are no "editors" here who are full-time Gnome users. Unfortunately their advocacy blindly over-rides their sense of journalistic professionalism, which is why you should never consider this site either professional or news.
Just my opinion.
(Moderation: -3 Troll.)
Sweet, dude! Muchas gracias for the excellent link, I had never heard of SMIL before. (Half the time I post, it's just trolling for more info. ;) It doesn't look so mature, have you used it or know of any examples you can point me to?
Thanks again.
I agree, CAD type 3D models via ASCII format is the Holy Grail. In Architecture, our computer tools are still baby-faced. It will be at least another five years before it is common practice to link specification, manufacturing, and schedule information to a 3D object, a model of not only the building but the whole project. (Something most industries, such as aerospace, already do today.) And yet, I think SVG is the first glimpse into this possibility.
I took a quick look at SVG for a proposal. It required animation with syncronized audio narration so SVG wasn't a possibility. I still don't see that SVG supports this and can't imagine SVG to be even remotely as useful as SWF in the realm of multi-media presentation. Sure it makes sense in more technical applications like mapping or calculated interactive diagrams, but I don't fear we'll be subjected to a rash of slow-loading SVG page banners any time soon. Bit of a shame, actually.
Perhaps I was being a bit defensive. I don't mind the revision of the theory so much, as long as it isn't reported as something so definite and absolute. It seems ironic that a theoretical stab in the dark can have 95 percent accuracy and a range the magnitude as the quantity we're estimating in the first place.
Truth is discernable I do believe, even through imperfect senses and sensory tools. I wish the scientists in their fighting for fame and notoriety wouldn't overstate the values of their explorations. (But I understand we're all human. ;)
I would argue (as I did somewhere above) that the real issue is whether the Bible really says 7 days. The word for days is not so concrete. (Although I personally do believe in a 6 day creation, as I explained there.)
And through the whole episode, the Biblical language was never inaccurate. The whole earth at the center argument, as I also discussed above, was errant *interpretation* by the Roman Church, Biblical text doesn't say that. (Which is one of the reasons the whole Reformation started, the issue of who interprets Scripture.) The Bible interprets itself to you, you don't need anybody else to help you. (Spoken like a true Protestant, eh?) Sure teachings from others can be helpful, but they are all rubbish compared to the actual text itself.
They are exciting! Still not sure why myself, but they definitely clear my head. Thanks for the debate.
First, I would say that the only way we even know about the story is through the Bible itself. There is no corroborating evidence of an existence of Mary. So all we know started there.
Secondly, the Bible claims to be a true account. Again, if a portion of it can be proven false, the whole bit is worthless.
Thirdly, there's really no motivation we can see by the authors to fabricate such a tale. From a human perspective, it is a complete tragedy, everyone dies or is imprisoned. The apostles had arguments and painted themselves a complete fools, they had no glory during their lives. 11 out of 12 were killed for their belief, and with pathetic account. The Old Testament, parts written more than 2000 years before, so astoundingly predicted what was to happen and all was fulfilled by a bunch of uneducated fisherman and workers in the lowest class in society. Sure, Rome painted them to be wonderful so many years later, but the early Church survived persecution in catacombs for three centuries.
Also, this prediction of the future business is facinating. I have recently done a study of the Jewish feasts in the Old Testament, all of which were incredible types or predictions of Jesus' birth, life and death. I fail to see how anyone could have so perfectly created a story across so many years that could be so artistically fulfilled in the way the New Testament records. Mind boggling I would say.
Finally then, my "level of confidence" comes from my own convictions, those based on a lifetime of exploration. I have no hope in this life for any of these beliefs. If I'm wrong, what a pity for wasting life in hope of the afterlife. But they are my convictions, so what more can I do?
There's a great deal of noise out there. My reason for starting this thread is to not to add more, but to understand for myself. The questions I started with were not intended to be persuading, they are my real questions. I appreciate all those who have been responding with helpful and knowledgable points without all the flames.
Yes, indeed that's my view. To me the faith to believe in a super natural creator is easier than that required to believe in one (three? how many are we up to?) big bangs anyway.
I just thought for a long time that day could *only* mean 24 hours. I think the light and dark created on the second day might actually indicate rotation, explaining how the heavenly bodies could occur later on day 4. (God being light for the point of reference, perhaps?) But several individuals I know who are knowledgable about Hebrew tell me that the word is not necessarily translated that way. There are, in fact, a few other locations where the same word is translated another way.
It is quite interesting to me that the entire Old Testament stems from such a limited vocabulary (1,800 root words as I remember). With such a small list, words had larger and richer meanings, which today can be more widely interpreted. The original meaning is still there, but it relies on understanding the larger connections between thoughts, something our analytical persuasions do not often encourage. We'd rather break it down into pieces rather than look at the whole.
This somehow comes full circle to me. The arguments in this thread are very pointed, but seem to gloss over the assembly of all these theories. ("Evolution relates only to biology on earth" and the like.) The connection of astronomical requirements of universe age, biological requirements for evolution, and statistical probability for all this to occur seem to me beyond science, really an act of faith at their essence. And then, for some reason, I'm considered an ignorant idiot for believing in a "literal" Bible and an open universe God.
Ahh, that was it, thanks.
On nitpick... I try to interpret the word "literal" to mean "as was intended", it's from the same root as "literary". A six day creation (while my own view, for now) as is read in Genesis 1 leaves room for longer time periods. While I'm still far from being convinced about long-span creation and the real interpretation of the original word "day", to accept the Bible as "literal" means that I must take it as it was intended, even if it means changing my current view.
I'm sure you would agree that the church made this mistake back in Galieo's day. We clearly see today that there is no scientific reference in the Bible to the Earth being the center of the solar system. There are indeed several "literal" indications... but we still use the same ones ourselves today, such as "the sun comes up".
The bottom line is proper interpretation of the Bible, as was intended. I've never found contradictions of it's intended meanings, just those of interpretation. (And no, I do not believe shaping interpretations to match is valid. We all know you can read the Bible and be amazed for yourself.)
Wow, great source for reading about views alternative to my own. Thanks for indicating it.
By the way, it didn't seem to indicate a reference for flatness of the world, do you have one? I have previously read verses which indicate roundness (sorry, can't find them here at work). Be glad to exchange if you care to.
Not trying to troll here (and speaking as a creationist), but I fail to see how a range this wide is helpful to anybody, let alone intriguing. This has always been my biggest fault with the theory of evolution: it will always remain indeterminate. Questions abound:
The article even states:
I'm not trying to pessimistic, but it's always hard for me to believe any of these theories given that they seem to change on the decade. (And yes, I've been around a few decades.) If evolutionists could step back for a second and see the ridiculousness posed by articles like these, they might see that it comes off as not much better than science fiction or some 1960's Popular Mechanics dream concept of the future. The "evolution" of the theory of evolution itself should be evidence of its failure. (BTW, has anybody ever written about this?)
Start with Rute.
Malcom Wells wrote seriously about this in the 70's. Check out The Earth-Sheltered House, a real classic.