Re:RPMs are not the only measure of hard drive spe
on
Why Vista Won't Suck
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but overall we're talking a few ms of performance gain over two decades. That's not much. Where as capacity has increased in magnitudes speed performance has really only improved by a few multiples. If I compare my hard drive from 1993 (100mb) to the current 100g-300g drives of today; capacity is way higher but performance has improved it has not done so on par with capacity nor akin to processors.
1993: I had a 33mhz 2003: I bought a 2.4ghz (2400mhz)
Basically after 10 yrs processors are approx. 100 x faster. Hard drives may be a 100x larger but they're no where near a 100x times faster. Even in another 10 yrs most experts are stating there will be minimal performance improvement.
Compact Flash, well you already after a few years have 80x cards.;-)
How much actuall improvement to speed performance of hard drives have we seen over the years?
Okay, so 10 yrs I had a 7,200rpm drive. And today...I still have a 7,200rpm drive. (Er, actually 5,400rpm laptop drive). So the bus has gotten wider, but the truth...the drive can seldom push the data fast enough to fill these new FAST busses.
How fast has Flash memory improved in performance? In five years...do you think you will be buying an 80x CompactFlash card? In truth, I imagine we'll be seeing 240x if not faster.
Furthermore, hard drive performance hits upon a number of mechanical barriers that are extremely difficult to get passed. They can increase density but the performance end of things is much harder to advance. Memory on the other hand tends to improve with density. Performance is steadily increasing. For example, what speed was your RAM 10 yrs ago? what speed is it today? Will Flash memory be what fills Compact Flash cards in 5 yrs or will the new CF cards utilize magnentic MRAM or other advancement. The idea of utilizing a new device for access is to me a very good step in the right direction.
My believe is Microsoft has made one mis-step, they did not push the concept far enough to where I've been wanting to see things go. Or perhaps they have come to the same thought I have and this is a trail run before they invest in it.
I've long said I want a decentralized computing platform. For example, let me have a PDA phone that I can dock when I get to work and then from there utilize a faster desktop workstation processor and monitor. Dock my PDA to my DSLR. Connect my PDA via wireless access to a data storage device. Ride Verizon EvDO to my storage device. Or dock when I am at home or work. Instead of these all being distinct devices I'd very much like to see a composite computing. Where the connectivity allows for the productivity.;)
It's the future, I know we will eventually arrive there...just a matter of when!
(and you know what else I've noticed....is that during those cooling cycles all of our pollution clouds the sky or something cause I'd swear that it gets darker much earlier too)
Okay, so it's the warmest century in the northern hemisphere since 800A.D.
( I mean, this is an improvement. I mean, people claiming a lack of science and rationality on the opposing viewpoint while looking at only 200 yrs of data seemed a bit moronic IMHO. So now, we've expanded our range of evidence to finally have some shred of evidence which might insinuate that we are warmer than the last 1,000 yrs.
Okay, but what about prior to that? 4,000 yrs, 10,000yrs, 120,000 yrs?
How do we compare?
I mean, any study that looks at lest than 10,000 years seems pretty unscientific and damnably stupid to me. As I recall, many of the ice age cycles are in excess of such a length of time.
Okay, and I am still left wondering about the recent announcement of the polar ice caps melting ON MARS!!!!!! Which would insinuate that the global warming is in fact a solar based occurrence. All that said, i still think we need to clean up our act, reduce pollution, and stop de-forestation. However, crap science should not be the justification for doing so.
Hey, want to know the future?
1) PAST: Scientists predict global ice age 2) PRESENT: Scientists predict global warming
After that fails what will be next? Well here it is...
3) FUTURE: Scientists predict instability of weather, saying temperatures will cycle rapidly from warming to cooling periods over periods of 2-3 to 200-300 yrs. Weather will be unstable alternating between an increase of storms followed by years of tranquility.
Yes you've heard it first. I expect such to become the new motif around 2020-2025. w(o)(o)t you heard it here on Slashdot first!
You see, I love the mechanical click-wheel. It's the thing I most like about the iPod. And why I've contemplated getting one over say the Archos or DishNetwork's variant of Archos' unit.
Now, they're going to get rid of the click wheel, my guess, they'll go widescreen and sideways. Which is what I've always said a video unit should be.
But using the screen, great...now you NEVER get rid of finger-prints. (This will be Apple's big boon-doggle.) Rather, they should have just moved the click-wheel to the backside. Oh well...guess I don't need to buy one now.
"Wikipedia says the controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it"
It needs to go both ways. Blocking the Presidential staff or Congress from editing the bios and removing inflammatory content is only fair if they also block members of political groups such as MoveOn.org or New Republicans. Of course, it's near impossible to do so. But if they're not careful they may open themselves up for a libel lawsuit.
Then will come the increasing pay scale filter. In otherwords, who ever has the higher fee plan (sender/receiver) will win on whether the email goes through or not.
You'd be amazed...with the number of people who are afraid of clowns, and robotic clowns all the more,...the famed mechanical rubber chicken can be frightful to many.
Please explain to me why the martian polar ice caps have been melting and receeding at a brisk pace over the past 3 yrs of their being monitored? is this due to global warming?
Oh and key word, "past few years"...however, historically this past century or so was considered an extremely stable one.
Please explain to me why the martian polar ice caps have been melting and receeding at a brisk pace over the past 3 yrs of their being monitored? is this due to global warming?
Really, did they offer an explanation for why the Martian polar caps are receeding? they keep making computer models that are nearly 100% inaccurate then they tweak them to match their desired results. Amazing!!!!!
They ignore history for thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of years. Does anyone even have a !@#$% clue what effect the current magnetic pole shift has on temperatures?
And as I pointed out above, the polar ice caps are melting....on Mars!!!!! What's your explanation for that? Blame it on the fact that President Bush increased the number of vehicles on Mars by 200% (yes, I am sure the two little solar powered rovers have caused the ice caps to melt all by themselves).
Now, this is NOT an excuse to ignore the damage to the environment but it's merely a request STOP posting every 2 days the same repeat article with little factual support.
Try dynamic applications that allow drag'n'drop functionality, alterations without reloading the page. AJAX like functionality. If you think Flash is only an animation "gimmick" tool. You are naively wrong.
The Big Fish....the little fry, just have no right to pursue it. So, does anyone expect this to turn out any other way than in the MPAA's favor?
He who has the $$$ gets the rest of the $$$$$$$$$$
SONY, should have been hit with a fine or penalty for every instance of the ROOT kit installed. Were they? Nope...but they'll turn around and sue a 12 yr old.
- Disney gains Pixar (the vast majority of hit (bread & butter) Disney films in the past decade have been from Pixar).
- Steve Jobs loses control of Pixar but gains a seat on the board + becomes #1 share-holder.
- Steve negotiates sweet deal with Disney (and don't ABC or something), for said movies to be made available on Apple iPod. (And you know that Yuppieville will start filling their 8 yr old's iPods with with Pixar films before every road trip). Lots of $$$ for Apple and even more cash for Disney.
- Disney's stocks increase, meanwhile Steve jobs acquires additional stock 5% to approx. 6-8%. The increased success of Disney stock builds near unanimous support for Steve Jobs to be CEO of Disney. (If you know anything about Steve Jobs his IDOL is Walt Disney! So this has likely been his life dream/goal since being young.
- Steve Jobs as CEO re-vitalizes Disney. Disney theme parks return to being places full of wonder, awe, amazing new technologies on Display for the common people to see. (And yes, all the displays have little rainbow colored Apples on them.)
In truth, I think Disney greatly needs an eccentric visionary like Steve Jobs to return it back to "dreams". To Steve Jobs, Disney is not just about $$$. It's about dreams. And for the past few decades Disney's dream has solely been $$$. The end result, no vision, no dreams. Nothing to stir up the human sole. Less interest and love for Disney. Equating to less $$$. Steve Jobs has the philosophy the $$$ will come as a by-product of the vision. And I believe he's right. In truth, I think there is an opportunity to see Disney re-vitalized in a kinda second birth. Steve Jobs loves show-casing. Loves grand-standing (in the style of a circus leader). A revitalized Disney allows him to do such. And would bring back a central character for the first time since the passing of Walt Disney himself.
Whatch, some overly depressed LJ'er is going to flip out and take a sledgehammer to the skulls of the perpetrators. Very dangerous to mess with the jouranls of unstable people.
*click* *cluck* *cluck* *cluck* *cluck*
Just ignore the sound of me loading rounds into my clip...you didn't hear that...
a) recruiter was an ass b) numerous white programmers & network engineers are unemployed, hence "white" means jack shit c) a lot has to do with regions, where you live...perhaps the above is true in deep south. But in the northeast an african IT professional is much more likely to be hired over a caucasian.
Might point is the term ID is very broad. Covers 6-day "creationists" to "evolution by intelligence".
The first might be out of the scope of science for the most part, but I find the latter to be addressable in the confines of science as evolution.
DNA coding, influence of programming or random formation. There is not a thread of evidence that I know of that truly supports that such DNA formation was purely random. Oh, sure, the chemical reactions can occur. In fact, there have been experiments in labs to show such. Please note, all of these experiments add credence to "intelligent" influences. (In said cases it was human intellect as opposed to a possible superior intellect.)
Funny thing, I.D. is often accepted by multitudes if we just call the intelligence aliens. (See "Mission to Mars")
"Do you believe in purple invisible dragon ? Why Not ? Why believing in the existence of God and not a purple invisible Dragon and why believe in Alien ?"
[[[ Common argument, and falls under the "sphagheti monster fallacy". Which states that I believe the "sphagheti monster" created the universe. Since I can neither prove nor disprove this. Your scenario regarding your God creating the universe is equally as ludicrous.
However, there are actually major significant differences in that one is "specific" and the other "general", one is taking from the fact that there are observations of complexity and related questions that can be answered by an intelligent influence. We are not endeavoring to say that the spaghetti monster, Jehovah, Allah, or Bob made the world.
Rather, noting the mere observational simularity between intelligent programming as done by man, and the similarities in natural programmed elements. And the fact that there is a designer in the first, maintain an open possibility that there might be a designer for the latter.
Now, do I believe in the purple invisible dragon. Not personally. But if you showed a red invisible dragon I would be much more inclined to believe in a purple one. ]]]
Regarding your list: Will I state that I specifically believe in such...no. But will I agree that there are yet fantastical creatures still undiscovered on earth. Some of which might have led to such interpretations. And will I further agree to the possibility, that as there is life on earth that there might be life elsewhere. Therefore, there might be amazing creatures on other worlds the likes of which we have yet to even concieve....and perhaps a few not to far from some of those descriptions. Perhaps.
So if you were to apply it in general. We know lizard like creatures flew the sky once. We knew large lizard like creatures walked the earth. Perhaps, one day we might find a large lizard like creature with a very long neck and perhaps a very long tail. We have found teradactyls with long tails. And we've seen geese & other birds with long necks.
Will they be purple or invisible. Unlikely. I've never met an invisible animal. Ah...but I've seen some chameleons which blend into their habitats but can be bright red and purple when angry or expressive.
So, no...I don't really believe in invisible purple dragons per say. I'm not opposed to purple reptiles. Nor chameleon reptiles. Nor even the potential discovery of some prehistoric dragon like reptile.
But, no one is asking you to believe in the world created by the 7th re-incarnation of Bhudda. Or Jesus Christ! Nor are they even demanding that you believe that the evolutionary procedures you believe in were products of design. They're simply asking for YOU to stop saying "there is no way the world is round"...let them research and perhaps they'll find and if not...well...how many physicists have died searching for "Unified Field Theory"....???
- The Saj
Further regarding your lists...might I add Hobbits?
Hmm...as I recall, Slashdot just recently had a post on the seeming discovery of Hobbit like humanoids.
This isn't regarding public performance, as a CD/vinyl DJ would be equally obligated. This is solely an additional fee leveraged against digital music. Just as online radio stations have to pay "recording fees" but broadcast stations do not.
There is no fairness, it is merely a way to "hurt" the digital music market and grab more money. Nothing more...
No, however I might want a BMW for cruising around. But sometimes I need a FORD truck to haul my work around (SQL, Office Apps, business interactions, etc.)
And any pundit who fails to realize that needs to wake up and smell the coffee, a latte it is not.
"Science isn't excluding God out of spite. Many scientists do believe in God. It is just that the practice of science excludes God because he/she/it is not scientifically observable."
My dear sir, you've been mislead by fundamental dogmatic fools...
How do you know that God is not scientifically observable? simply because you do not know of the means to scientifically observe God does not preclude that such means in fact do exist. If they did...then science would surely be in a trouble. It was not too long ago that atoms were not observable. And the concept of atoms traces back to the Greeks...mayber earlier. But it took nearly 2 millenia before we would advance our knowledge and technical skills to observe an atom. Even if you look to the mathematically theorized existance and observations of atoms which came before the actual physical observations; even these pre-dated by merely a few decades.
So for approx 2,000 yrs we could not observe that which we had conceptualized existed. We could neither prove nor disprove. Did that invalidate any scientific validity to the pursuit of the knowledge of the atom? if not, then how can you claim such an argument in your above post...it's not logical.
Who is to say that in another 2,000 or perhaps another 20,000 years we will not advance our knowledge and technical skills so as to apply science in a fashion so as to enable that we can scientifically observe God. Perhaps he is observable but such observations merely require a level of knowledge we do not yet posses.
Pride, ignorance, and exclusion have been the repeated pitfalls of science. Why would you repeat such mistakes?
The simplest way to handle ID is to re-stress the scientific method and denote that "yes, there is immense complexity in what we observe in our physical, chemical and biological observations. Some liken such to coincidence, chance and/or statistical probabilities and others believe such order and complexity to possible point to elements by design. Currently, we do not have the knowledge, nor technical skills to make an outright conclusion. What we do have is the scientific method and we should continue to observe an conduct analysis of what we observe according to that method."
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but overall we're talking a few ms of performance gain over two decades. That's not much. Where as capacity has increased in magnitudes speed performance has really only improved by a few multiples. If I compare my hard drive from 1993 (100mb) to the current 100g-300g drives of today; capacity is way higher but performance has improved it has not done so on par with capacity nor akin to processors.
;-)
1993: I had a 33mhz
2003: I bought a 2.4ghz (2400mhz)
Basically after 10 yrs processors are approx. 100 x faster. Hard drives may be a 100x larger but they're no where near a 100x times faster. Even in another 10 yrs most experts are stating there will be minimal performance improvement.
Compact Flash, well you already after a few years have 80x cards.
How much actuall improvement to speed performance of hard drives have we seen over the years?
;)
Okay, so 10 yrs I had a 7,200rpm drive. And today...I still have a 7,200rpm drive. (Er, actually 5,400rpm laptop drive). So the bus has gotten wider, but the truth...the drive can seldom push the data fast enough to fill these new FAST busses.
How fast has Flash memory improved in performance? In five years...do you think you will be buying an 80x CompactFlash card? In truth, I imagine we'll be seeing 240x if not faster.
Furthermore, hard drive performance hits upon a number of mechanical barriers that are extremely difficult to get passed. They can increase density but the performance end of things is much harder to advance. Memory on the other hand tends to improve with density. Performance is steadily increasing. For example, what speed was your RAM 10 yrs ago? what speed is it today? Will Flash memory be what fills Compact Flash cards in 5 yrs or will the new CF cards utilize magnentic MRAM or other advancement. The idea of utilizing a new device for access is to me a very good step in the right direction.
My believe is Microsoft has made one mis-step, they did not push the concept far enough to where I've been wanting to see things go. Or perhaps they have come to the same thought I have and this is a trail run before they invest in it.
I've long said I want a decentralized computing platform. For example, let me have a PDA phone that I can dock when I get to work and then from there utilize a faster desktop workstation processor and monitor. Dock my PDA to my DSLR. Connect my PDA via wireless access to a data storage device. Ride Verizon EvDO to my storage device. Or dock when I am at home or work. Instead of these all being distinct devices I'd very much like to see a composite computing. Where the connectivity allows for the productivity.
It's the future, I know we will eventually arrive there...just a matter of when!
- Saj
ROTFLMAO
(and you know what else I've noticed....is that during those cooling cycles all of our pollution clouds the sky or something cause I'd swear that it gets darker much earlier too)
Okay, so it's the warmest century in the northern hemisphere since 800A.D.
( I mean, this is an improvement. I mean, people claiming a lack of science and rationality on the opposing viewpoint while looking at only 200 yrs of data seemed a bit moronic IMHO. So now, we've expanded our range of evidence to finally have some shred of evidence which might insinuate that we are warmer than the last 1,000 yrs.
Okay, but what about prior to that? 4,000 yrs, 10,000yrs, 120,000 yrs?
How do we compare?
I mean, any study that looks at lest than 10,000 years seems pretty unscientific and damnably stupid to me. As I recall, many of the ice age cycles are in excess of such a length of time.
Okay, and I am still left wondering about the recent announcement of the polar ice caps melting ON MARS!!!!!! Which would insinuate that the global warming is in fact a solar based occurrence. All that said, i still think we need to clean up our act, reduce pollution, and stop de-forestation. However, crap science should not be the justification for doing so.
Hey, want to know the future?
1) PAST: Scientists predict global ice age
2) PRESENT: Scientists predict global warming
After that fails what will be next? Well here it is...
3) FUTURE: Scientists predict instability of weather, saying temperatures will cycle rapidly from warming to cooling periods over periods of 2-3 to 200-300 yrs. Weather will be unstable alternating between an increase of storms followed by years of tranquility.
Yes you've heard it first. I expect such to become the new motif around 2020-2025. w(o)(o)t you heard it here on Slashdot first!
- The Saj
You see, I love the mechanical click-wheel. It's the thing I most like about the iPod. And why I've contemplated getting one over say the Archos or DishNetwork's variant of Archos' unit.
Now, they're going to get rid of the click wheel, my guess, they'll go widescreen and sideways. Which is what I've always said a video unit should be.
But using the screen, great...now you NEVER get rid of finger-prints. (This will be Apple's big boon-doggle.) Rather, they should have just moved the click-wheel to the backside. Oh well...guess I don't need to buy one now.
Yeah, well, the last guy was even more dodgy. Please define the meaning of the word "is"
Actually, most mis-information I've seen has been the mis-presentation of true data.
"Wikipedia says the controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it"
It needs to go both ways. Blocking the Presidential staff or Congress from editing the bios and removing inflammatory content is only fair if they also block members of political groups such as MoveOn.org or New Republicans. Of course, it's near impossible to do so. But if they're not careful they may open themselves up for a libel lawsuit.
The Pay-for Uber-Filter....
Then will come the increasing pay scale filter. In otherwords, who ever has the higher fee plan (sender/receiver) will win on whether the email goes through or not.
You'd be amazed...with the number of people who are afraid of clowns, and robotic clowns all the more,...the famed mechanical rubber chicken can be frightful to many.
Please explain to me why the martian polar ice caps have been melting and receeding at a brisk pace over the past 3 yrs of their being monitored? is this due to global warming?
Oh and key word, "past few years"...however, historically this past century or so was considered an extremely stable one.
Please explain to me why the martian polar ice caps have been melting and receeding at a brisk pace over the past 3 yrs of their being monitored? is this due to global warming?
Really, did they offer an explanation for why the Martian polar caps are receeding? they keep making computer models that are nearly 100% inaccurate then they tweak them to match their desired results. Amazing!!!!!
They ignore history for thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of years. Does anyone even have a !@#$% clue what effect the current magnetic pole shift has on temperatures?
And as I pointed out above, the polar ice caps are melting....on Mars!!!!! What's your explanation for that? Blame it on the fact that President Bush increased the number of vehicles on Mars by 200% (yes, I am sure the two little solar powered rovers have caused the ice caps to melt all by themselves).
Now, this is NOT an excuse to ignore the damage to the environment but it's merely a request STOP posting every 2 days the same repeat article with little factual support.
Try dynamic applications that allow drag'n'drop functionality, alterations without reloading the page. AJAX like functionality. If you think Flash is only an animation "gimmick" tool. You are naively wrong.
The Big Fish....the little fry, just have no right to pursue it. So, does anyone expect this to turn out any other way than in the MPAA's favor?
He who has the $$$ gets the rest of the $$$$$$$$$$
SONY, should have been hit with a fine or penalty for every instance of the ROOT kit installed. Were they? Nope...but they'll turn around and sue a 12 yr old.
I believe the set-up is as follows:
- Disney gains Pixar (the vast majority of hit (bread & butter) Disney films in the past decade have been from Pixar).
- Steve Jobs loses control of Pixar but gains a seat on the board + becomes #1 share-holder.
- Steve negotiates sweet deal with Disney (and don't ABC or something), for said movies to be made available on Apple iPod. (And you know that Yuppieville will start filling their 8 yr old's iPods with with Pixar films before every road trip). Lots of $$$ for Apple and even more cash for Disney.
- Disney's stocks increase, meanwhile Steve jobs acquires additional stock 5% to approx. 6-8%. The increased success of Disney stock builds near unanimous support for Steve Jobs to be CEO of Disney. (If you know anything about Steve Jobs his IDOL is Walt Disney! So this has likely been his life dream/goal since being young.
- Steve Jobs as CEO re-vitalizes Disney. Disney theme parks return to being places full of wonder, awe, amazing new technologies on Display for the common people to see. (And yes, all the displays have little rainbow colored Apples on them.)
In truth, I think Disney greatly needs an eccentric visionary like Steve Jobs to return it back to "dreams". To Steve Jobs, Disney is not just about $$$. It's about dreams. And for the past few decades Disney's dream has solely been $$$. The end result, no vision, no dreams. Nothing to stir up the human sole. Less interest and love for Disney. Equating to less $$$. Steve Jobs has the philosophy the $$$ will come as a by-product of the vision. And I believe he's right. In truth, I think there is an opportunity to see Disney re-vitalized in a kinda second birth. Steve Jobs loves show-casing. Loves grand-standing (in the style of a circus leader). A revitalized Disney allows him to do such. And would bring back a central character for the first time since the passing of Walt Disney himself.
I actually hope this all goes thru....
- Saj
How many livejournalers are unstable?
Whatch, some overly depressed LJ'er is going to flip out and take a sledgehammer to the skulls of the perpetrators. Very dangerous to mess with the jouranls of unstable people.
*click*
*cluck*
*cluck*
*cluck*
*cluck*
Just ignore the sound of me loading rounds into my clip...you didn't hear that...
a) recruiter was an ass
b) numerous white programmers & network engineers are unemployed, hence "white" means jack shit
c) a lot has to do with regions, where you live...perhaps the above is true in deep south. But in the northeast an african IT professional is much more likely to be hired over a caucasian.
Might point is the term ID is very broad. Covers 6-day "creationists" to "evolution by intelligence".
The first might be out of the scope of science for the most part, but I find the latter to be addressable in the confines of science as evolution.
DNA coding, influence of programming or random formation. There is not a thread of evidence that I know of that truly supports that such DNA formation was purely random. Oh, sure, the chemical reactions can occur. In fact, there have been experiments in labs to show such. Please note, all of these experiments add credence to "intelligent" influences. (In said cases it was human intellect as opposed to a possible superior intellect.)
Funny thing, I.D. is often accepted by multitudes if we just call the intelligence aliens. (See "Mission to Mars")
"Do you believe in purple invisible dragon ? Why Not ? Why believing in the existence of God and not a purple invisible Dragon and why believe in Alien ?"
[[[
Common argument, and falls under the "sphagheti monster fallacy". Which states that I believe the "sphagheti monster" created the universe. Since I can neither prove nor disprove this. Your scenario regarding your God creating the universe is equally as ludicrous.
However, there are actually major significant differences in that one is "specific" and the other "general", one is taking from the fact that there are observations of complexity and related questions that can be answered by an intelligent influence. We are not endeavoring to say that the spaghetti monster, Jehovah, Allah, or Bob made the world.
Rather, noting the mere observational simularity between intelligent programming as done by man, and the similarities in natural programmed elements. And the fact that there is a designer in the first, maintain an open possibility that there might be a designer for the latter.
Now, do I believe in the purple invisible dragon. Not personally. But if you showed a red invisible dragon I would be much more inclined to believe in a purple one.
]]]
Regarding your list: Will I state that I specifically believe in such...no. But will I agree that there are yet fantastical creatures still undiscovered on earth. Some of which might have led to such interpretations. And will I further agree to the possibility, that as there is life on earth that there might be life elsewhere. Therefore, there might be amazing creatures on other worlds the likes of which we have yet to even concieve....and perhaps a few not to far from some of those descriptions. Perhaps.
So if you were to apply it in general. We know lizard like creatures flew the sky once. We knew large lizard like creatures walked the earth. Perhaps, one day we might find a large lizard like creature with a very long neck and perhaps a very long tail. We have found teradactyls with long tails. And we've seen geese & other birds with long necks.
Will they be purple or invisible. Unlikely. I've never met an invisible animal. Ah...but I've seen some chameleons which blend into their habitats but can be bright red and purple when angry or expressive.
So, no...I don't really believe in invisible purple dragons per say. I'm not opposed to purple reptiles. Nor chameleon reptiles. Nor even the potential discovery of some prehistoric dragon like reptile.
But, no one is asking you to believe in the world created by the 7th re-incarnation of Bhudda. Or Jesus Christ! Nor are they even demanding that you believe that the evolutionary procedures you believe in were products of design. They're simply asking for YOU to stop saying "there is no way the world is round"...let them research and perhaps they'll find and if not...well...how many physicists have died searching for "Unified Field Theory"....???
- The Saj
Further regarding your lists...might I add Hobbits?
Hmm...as I recall, Slashdot just recently had a post on the seeming discovery of Hobbit like humanoids.
This isn't regarding public performance, as a CD/vinyl DJ would be equally obligated. This is solely an additional fee leveraged against digital music. Just as online radio stations have to pay "recording fees" but broadcast stations do not.
There is no fairness, it is merely a way to "hurt" the digital music market and grab more money. Nothing more...
Well, according to the article, it does not sound like a "performance license" (which ANY DJ vinyl, CD, or a restaurant with a jukebox) must pay.
This appears to be, from the article, a specific license tax on just those who utilize digital delivery systems.
This is a short story written in 1954...if you are unfamiliar with it. You must read. It is GOOGLE!
No, however I might want a BMW for cruising around. But sometimes I need a FORD truck to haul my work around (SQL, Office Apps, business interactions, etc.)
And any pundit who fails to realize that needs to wake up and smell the coffee, a latte it is not.
"Science isn't excluding God out of spite. Many scientists do believe in God. It is just that the practice of science excludes God because he/she/it is not scientifically observable."
My dear sir, you've been mislead by fundamental dogmatic fools...
How do you know that God is not scientifically observable? simply because you do not know of the means to scientifically observe God does not preclude that such means in fact do exist. If they did...then science would surely be in a trouble. It was not too long ago that atoms were not observable. And the concept of atoms traces back to the Greeks...mayber earlier. But it took nearly 2 millenia before we would advance our knowledge and technical skills to observe an atom. Even if you look to the mathematically theorized existance and observations of atoms which came before the actual physical observations; even these pre-dated by merely a few decades.
So for approx 2,000 yrs we could not observe that which we had conceptualized existed. We could neither prove nor disprove. Did that invalidate any scientific validity to the pursuit of the knowledge of the atom? if not, then how can you claim such an argument in your above post...it's not logical.
Who is to say that in another 2,000 or perhaps another 20,000 years we will not advance our knowledge and technical skills so as to apply science in a fashion so as to enable that we can scientifically observe God. Perhaps he is observable but such observations merely require a level of knowledge we do not yet posses.
Pride, ignorance, and exclusion have been the repeated pitfalls of science. Why would you repeat such mistakes?
The simplest way to handle ID is to re-stress the scientific method and denote that "yes, there is immense complexity in what we observe in our physical, chemical and biological observations. Some liken such to coincidence, chance and/or statistical probabilities and others believe such order and complexity to possible point to elements by design. Currently, we do not have the knowledge, nor technical skills to make an outright conclusion. What we do have is the scientific method and we should continue to observe an conduct analysis of what we observe according to that method."