In the same way that Europeans in the middle ages could deduce that the earth is round from seeing ships sink in the horizon
The fact that the earth is round was proven around 200 bc by a greek scientist, and it had nothing to do with seeing ships sink over the horizon. Even before that, everyone was pretty sure it was round.
Don't get me wrong, a program that lets linux programs run in windows isn't a bad idea, but that picture... it just should not be.
When napster went legit, I had images of the napter cat, once a symbol of freedom, as a borgified drone of the RIAA, that picture sends the exact same shivers down my spine.
This isn't a "cool hack" or even "news for nerds". This is incredibly lame, backwards, and expensive.
I think someone here doesn't understand what a 'cool hack' is. One of the things that can define a 'cool hack' is going the long way around to make a peice of technology do something that it wasn't originally intended to do, i.e.: installing linux on a dreamcast or connecting a cuecat to amazon.com.
I never said that I thought sex was harmless, but a lot of the harm that sex causes can be avoided by educating children properly. And by properly I mean none of this "don't touch anyone until you are married" nonsense that one would have to be an idiot to think that most people will follow. For some reason (probably the same reason Americans don't like sexual portayals in the first place) we refuse to consider open, honest and frank sexual education.
Graphic depictions of depraved acts of violence, suc as the murder, decapitation, and robbery of women in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, fall well within the more general definition of obscenity. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has found that, when used in the context of the First Amendment, the word "obscenity" means material that deals with sex. Only "works which depict or describe sexual conduct" are considered obscene and therefore unprotected.
Why exactly is sex deemed to be worse than violence? Why are violent portrayals protected but sexual portrayals not?
A long time ago, in a galaxy not unlike this one, the microprocessor was invented. There was much rejoicing over this discovery; no longer must computers be controlled by a mystic priest-hood. Computers can be used by all as useful tools!
The knights of hackerdom, hereafter referred to as hackers, used and developed and promoted and in general considered this new breed of computer a Good Thing. These magical devices could lead to wonders never before seen in the galaxy. So these hackers, a strange group to begin with, devoted their lives to the development of this technology.
For a while peace and prosperity filled the galaxy. This was the age of Apple II's and Commodore 64's, Atari's and TRS-80's. A renewed sense of learning and cooperation-operation filled all the lands. There was comfort in knowing that for all the programs being used the source was flowing freely. When one had the source code, happiness and well-being flowed.
Unfortunately during this time there was a rumbling in the source. One of the first systems, the Altair system, had a BASIC interpreter crafted by a young hacker named Bill. Bill, however, did not want the source of his creation flowing freely. He enjoyed subverting the source for his own purposes, mainly for monetary benefit. The use of proprietary code is the dark side of the source.
This new age of joy and prosperity had to come to an end sooner or later. An old Imperial Power, IBM, decided to try to control this new way of life. It released its PC, thus beginning the clone wars. With IBM clones flooding the market, backed by the old Empire, up-starts had little chance. The ix86 architecture was enforced. This was a chaotic time, and IBM made one mistake. Needing an Operating System to be the life-source of their new product, IBM chose young Bill to obtain one.
About this time the dark side of the source became too much and young hacker Bill became Darth Gates. Obtaining an inferior 8-bit OS, he made this the mainstay of the IBM world. In just a few short years Darth Gates controlled the OS, managing to leave the old Imperial IBM far behind. While Gates could have used his powers for good, instead he chose to strive for evil.
While all this was happening, rebel groups attempted to bring down the evil stronghold. Apple, Amiga, and Unix factions fought valiantly, as did some direct competitors in Darth Gates' market. Alas, to no avail. And as the evil OS moved from version 1.0 through version 6.0 the future looked dim.
To make matters worse, Darth Gates hatched a sinister plan to counter-act the minimal success of the rebels; steal their technology. Thus the DeathOS was devised. The first half-working version was DeathOS3.1, and it could destroy the usefulness of even the most powerful 386. While the rebels learned to fight off this beast, the new DeathOS's, 95 and NT were developed that could even bring down mighty Pentium systems. The future looks grim, can no one stop this plague?
Unbeknowned to Darth Gates, on the planet Finlandia a young hacker named Linus has a vision. He decided that a 386 could be made to do something useful after all. And out of this vision came **Linux**!!! Drawing from the mystic Unix religion, this new OS was developed. Strong in the free side of the source, **Linux** only grew more and more powerful every day. Improved by hackers throughout the galaxy, and aided by strong flightless waterfowl the OS became a major fighting tool of the rebels. Hackers, which had been a dying breed, rallied behind **Linux** and the GNU project. ALL IS NOT LOST! THE GALAXY CHAFING UNDER DARTH GATES WILL RISE AGAIN!! THE BATTLE HAS BEGUN!!!!!! WHO WILL WIN??????
To find out, watch for the upcoming OS Wars Trilogy, appearing soon in a theater near you.
The two processes you are describing are the same thing. One simply takes a lot longer. Someone else in this thread made a great analogy about how saying that microevolution is possible while macroevolution is impossible is like saying that water can wash away individual grains of sand, but can't erode away a beach.
One of the problems with creationists is that they have a hard time conceiving of the incredibly vast amount of time that has passed which makes macroevolution possible.
I don't know where you ever got that idea.
What idea? That creationists are the only people I have heard use the terms? From the fact that they are the only ones I have heard use the terms. Read it carefully. No where did I say that they aren't scientific terms. I am well aware that they are. Creationists have latched onto them and gotten it into their heads that they are two different things.
ANY environmental adaptation of genetic code over multiple generations is evolution. It does not have to be a major change. BTW, creationists are the only ones that make a distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. If fact, creationists are the only ones that I have ever heard use the terms.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you're fine. chaosmage42 needs to have his humor recognition settings adjusted though.
The next Leisure Suit Larry game is going to be in 3D.
I want to see the 3D in action.
In the same way that Europeans in the middle ages could deduce that the earth is round from seeing ships sink in the horizon
The fact that the earth is round was proven around 200 bc by a greek scientist, and it had nothing to do with seeing ships sink over the horizon. Even before that, everyone was pretty sure it was round.
What do you call 100 lawyers on the moon?
A good start.
This is just so very, very wrong.
Don't get me wrong, a program that lets linux programs run in windows isn't a bad idea, but that picture... it just should not be.
When napster went legit, I had images of the napter cat, once a symbol of freedom, as a borgified drone of the RIAA, that picture sends the exact same shivers down my spine.
Lets NEVER put anything into production that was ever used in sci-fi. That eliminates pretty much every modern convinience in existance.
Terrorists will concentrate on building EMP bombs.
The government will always make sure that we have someone to fight.
But I never put any money in it or used it in any way.
What does this mean for me?
This isn't a "cool hack" or even "news for nerds". This is incredibly lame, backwards, and expensive.
I think someone here doesn't understand what a 'cool hack' is. One of the things that can define a 'cool hack' is going the long way around to make a peice of technology do something that it wasn't originally intended to do, i.e.: installing linux on a dreamcast or connecting a cuecat to amazon.com.
Price never enters into it.
My favorite:
L.Ron Hubbard as (who else?) the mysterious and secretive cult leader Elrond! (Which imitates? Life or fiction?)
Say anything even remotely negative about scientology and you will be paying legal fees for the rest of your life.
That is exactly what I would want to transmit to the aliens.
But why is a type of speech restricted simply because it isn't used to speak out against 'the Man'?
I never said that I thought sex was harmless, but a lot of the harm that sex causes can be avoided by educating children properly. And by properly I mean none of this "don't touch anyone until you are married" nonsense that one would have to be an idiot to think that most people will follow. For some reason (probably the same reason Americans don't like sexual portayals in the first place) we refuse to consider open, honest and frank sexual education.
Then they wouldn't have anyone to look down on and feel superior in comparison to.
Graphic depictions of depraved acts of violence, suc as the murder, decapitation, and robbery of women in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, fall well within the more general definition of obscenity. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has found that, when used in the context of the First Amendment, the word "obscenity" means material that deals with sex. Only "works which depict or describe sexual conduct" are considered obscene and therefore unprotected.
Why exactly is sex deemed to be worse than violence? Why are violent portrayals protected but sexual portrayals not?
That's right, give the bastard ideas
A long time ago, in a galaxy not unlike this one, the microprocessor was invented. There was much rejoicing over this discovery; no longer must computers be controlled by a mystic priest-hood. Computers can be used by all as useful tools!
The knights of hackerdom, hereafter referred to as hackers, used and developed and promoted and in general considered this new breed of computer a Good Thing. These magical devices could lead to wonders never before seen in the galaxy. So these hackers, a strange group to begin with, devoted their lives to the development of this technology.
For a while peace and prosperity filled the galaxy. This was the age of Apple II's and Commodore 64's, Atari's and TRS-80's. A renewed sense of learning and cooperation-operation filled all the lands. There was comfort in knowing that for all the programs being used the source was flowing freely. When one had the source code, happiness and well-being flowed.
Unfortunately during this time there was a rumbling in the source. One of the first systems, the Altair system, had a BASIC interpreter crafted by a young hacker named Bill. Bill, however, did not want the source of his creation flowing freely. He enjoyed subverting the source for his own purposes, mainly for monetary benefit. The use of proprietary code is the dark side of the source.
This new age of joy and prosperity had to come to an end sooner or later. An old Imperial Power, IBM, decided to try to control this new way of life. It released its PC, thus beginning the clone wars. With IBM clones flooding the market, backed by the old Empire, up-starts had little chance. The ix86 architecture was enforced. This was a chaotic time, and IBM made one mistake. Needing an Operating System to be the life-source of their new product, IBM chose young Bill to obtain one.
About this time the dark side of the source became too much and young hacker Bill became Darth Gates. Obtaining an inferior 8-bit OS, he made this the mainstay of the IBM world. In just a few short years Darth Gates controlled the OS, managing to leave the old Imperial IBM far behind. While Gates could have used his powers for good, instead he chose to strive for evil.
While all this was happening, rebel groups attempted to bring down the evil stronghold. Apple, Amiga, and Unix factions fought valiantly, as did some direct competitors in Darth Gates' market. Alas, to no avail. And as the evil OS moved from version 1.0 through version 6.0 the future looked dim.
To make matters worse, Darth Gates hatched a sinister plan to counter-act the minimal success of the rebels; steal their technology. Thus the DeathOS was devised. The first half-working version was DeathOS3.1, and it could destroy the usefulness of even the most powerful 386. While the rebels learned to fight off this beast, the new DeathOS's, 95 and NT were developed that could even bring down mighty Pentium systems. The future looks grim, can no one stop this plague?
Unbeknowned to Darth Gates, on the planet Finlandia a young hacker named Linus has a vision. He decided that a 386 could be made to do something useful after all. And out of this vision came **Linux**!!! Drawing from the mystic Unix religion, this new OS was developed. Strong in the free side of the source, **Linux** only grew more and more powerful every day. Improved by hackers throughout the galaxy, and aided by strong flightless waterfowl the OS became a major fighting tool of the rebels. Hackers, which had been a dying breed, rallied behind **Linux** and the GNU project. ALL IS NOT LOST! THE GALAXY CHAFING UNDER DARTH GATES WILL RISE AGAIN!! THE BATTLE HAS BEGUN!!!!!! WHO WILL WIN??????
To find out, watch for the upcoming OS Wars Trilogy, appearing soon in a theater near you.
And, as always, MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU.
respects to author Vince Weaver
Mutation is what all selection is based on, but you are right in that I forgot genetic drift.
The two processes you are describing are the same thing. One simply takes a lot longer. Someone else in this thread made a great analogy about how saying that microevolution is possible while macroevolution is impossible is like saying that water can wash away individual grains of sand, but can't erode away a beach.
One of the problems with creationists is that they have a hard time conceiving of the incredibly vast amount of time that has passed which makes macroevolution possible.
I don't know where you ever got that idea.
What idea? That creationists are the only people I have heard use the terms? From the fact that they are the only ones I have heard use the terms. Read it carefully. No where did I say that they aren't scientific terms. I am well aware that they are. Creationists have latched onto them and gotten it into their heads that they are two different things.
Natural selection is one of the methods (the other being sexual selection) by which all evolution (macro and micro) proceeds.
ANY environmental adaptation of genetic code over multiple generations is evolution. It does not have to be a major change. BTW, creationists are the only ones that make a distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. If fact, creationists are the only ones that I have ever heard use the terms.
Unfortunatly, that method doesn't work too well with religious fanatics. What is the current bounty on Osama Bin Laden's head?
...from Berman, Straczynski can.