Not to reply to myself 8-), but it's also very popular at "Ashland Coffee and Tea" (in Ashland, Va, self-proclaimed "Center of the Universe" and home of Randolph-Macon College). There's been a huge set of bookshelves there for years. Their motto: "Take a book, leave two."
on the island of Grand Cayman at the Spanish Bay Reef Resort. They have a bookcase euphemistically called 'the library' where guests can borrow/take/leave books. Many people leave inscriptions on the inner covers telling who they are and where they're from. It's odd to pick up a few books and realize that they're each in a different language. In case you're not the literary type, SBR is a laid-back, all-inclusive diver's paradise!
...picked up a diesel pickup, filled it with 100% biodiesel and have been driving it around with no problems for 500,000 miles. Now that's what I call good fuel economy! 500,000 miles/tankful! 8-)
Modulation schemes have nothing to do with whether a particular transmission is line-of-sight or not. Carrier frequency does. I assume by "FM radio" you mean commercial broadcast FM as in 88-108 MHz. Why then was I receiving 96.5 WFLB (which is in Fayetteville, NC) in Richmond, VA the other morning (which has a 96.5 of its own)? Hint - Tropospheric Ducting (or tropo-ducto, as I call it, since it's nearly indistinguishable from magic - presto-chango and all that).
In general, as frequency increases, so does the line-of-sight nature of the RF. Light, being extremely high frequency RF, is very much line-of-sight. AM Radio, being between 540 kHz and 1600 kHz, can span the globe because of groundwave bending and ionospheric ducting. Amateur radio operators deal with lots of different propagation modes all the time.
Common misconception. There's nothing magical going on between water and 2.4GHz - water molecules happen to absorb a good bit of energy at that frequency that gets translated into heat, and it happens to be in an ISM band.
If water was resonant at 2.4GHz, you would boil all of the water out of your food within the first 10 seconds or so of cooking - not the desired result. You want the water to absorb the energy slowly enough to give the heat time to conduct into the rest of the food. See this and this article.
I personally think it's about time we found out how much you can stash in there.
Do you think/dev/null is a/dev of holding? Will the data all disappear when it reaches capacity?
Speaking of 'of holding', one of the funniest references I recall was on the Twin Peaks mailing list way back when. Someone pointed out that a Laura said she kept some casette tapes in her bedpost, but that her bedpost was too small. The author suggested that she must have 'a bedpost of holding'.
Oxygen is poisonous.
Try to breath in a 100% oxygen atmosphere.
Breathing 100% oxygen at standard atmospheric pressure is lethal. Breathing pure O2 at 2.6 PSI is just peachy. As I was taught, what really matters is the partial pressure of a gas. At standard sea-level conditions, (14.7 PSI, 101.3 kPa), the air you breath is about 18% O2. That makes the oxygen partial pressure.18 * 14.7 PSI = 2.6 PSI. As long as the partial pressure of O2 doesn't go over that figure by too much, regardless of the absolute pressure, you're OK.
So that's what my wife is made of! I have to keep the furnace on 'broil' in the winter, and I've seen her step into the shade of a palm tree in the Caribbean and start shivering. Who should I send a skin sample to?
Not all people who like Star Trek consider themselves 'trekkies', nor do all trekkies necessarily think Star Trek is 'high brow'.
I watch (and enjoy) Star Trek because it is so campy and overdone. Shatner is hilarious with his 'dramatic' pauses, and McCoy is just horrible by any definition. Add to it the recent revelation that Spock was drunk as a skunk most of the time, and that makes it all the more pathetic (and funny). I watch Star Trek for the same reasons I watch MST3K - campy, silly, and funny to laugh at.
I laughed so hard I nearly peed myself. A mule is the offspring of a Horse and Donkey, fer cryin' out loud! I'm pretty sure it's a female horse (mare) and male donkey (jack).
I'd pay good money to see the offspring of a horse and goat!
I don't think the pulling of negative G's caused your blackout. Negative G's tend to cause 'red out', where the blood is forced into the brain (and eyes) causing much worse problems than blacking out. It sounds like the rollercoaster's previous dip is what caused your blackout, and it happened to occur at the next peak as apoxia took hold of your brain. Just MHO.
Despite this, the U.S. meaning is still rare outside journalism
and finance, its introduction having served merely to create
confusion. Throughout the U.K., a common response to the question
"What do you understand by 'a billion'?" would be: "Well, I mean a
million million, but I often don't know what other people mean."
Few schoolchildren are confident of the meaning, though, again,
10^12 seems to be preferred. Many well-educated adults, aware of
both meanings, either avoid the term altogether or use it only in
the unambiguous phrases "English billion" and "American billion".
English-speaking South Africans, Australians, and New Zealanders
are similarly reluctant to use a term that has become ambiguous.
Scientists have long preferred to express numbers in figures
rather than in words, so it is easy to avoid "billion" in contexts
where precision is required. The plural is still used freely with
the colloquial meaning of "a very large number".
Publications consulted:
OED, Editions 1 and 2.
Robert, Dictionnaire historique de la langue francaise.
P Pamart, "A propos d'une reforme des mesures legales", in "Vie et
Langage", (125)1962, pp 435-437.
I was planning on doing this to all my stuff, anyway. I even looked up the chip to use. I was going to build a hand-held transmitter so I could find that pesky blue screwdriver by waving the transmitter around. I was also going to put coils around the ceilings of each room, so I could interrogate each room separately. Cool, huh? Want to find a particular item in a stack of boxes? No problem, wave the transmitter or interrogate the room and find the box the item is in.
I didn't mean to imply that I don't believe the non-coding DNA is there - it is. My point is that to claim it 'useless' is a bit arrogant and premature seeing as we don't have a complete understanding of the big picture yet. It was like the guy who discovered electrons - he declared them useless a bit prematurely.
The timing example is just that, an example. I'm certainly not a geneticist, so naturally any example I think up is liable to be "laughable" and very simplistic.
Believe it or not, I really do agree with you. My point was that the proper answer to the question given in the survey is "neither", not true or false. Evolution has not been "proven" so as to make it an immutable fact as their assertion implies; certainly neither has creation, nor can it be. Note that most of the other theories you mentioned have supplanted other previously 'immutable' theories.
My point is not to support creationism; rather my point is that the question cannot be answered as asked.
As for you ad hominem-esque link, it's interesting that they state:
Evolution is a scientific theory, but the ordinary definition of "theory" as "hunch," or "guess" does not apply in the world of science. There, the word "theory" means an explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, which has been confirmed by verifiable fact (and the absence of incompatible fact).
I was taught that 'theory' means just that - we have an idea of how something works, but haven't or can't yet prove it, and so far nothing has disproved it. I can state by "observation, experimentation, and reasoning" that there's no such thing as air, and in fact, there may be no "incompatible fact[s]" - yet. When air was discovered, their long-held, deeply rooted theory had to be tossed.
I guess my main problem with science today is the arrogance with which scientists are so absolutely sure they're correct right up until they're proven wrong. I'd rather theories be treated as such - not treated as a fact. This effect, by the way, is probably not the fault of the scientists, but perhaps the media.
By the way, I double-majored in CompSci and Physics, so I'm firmly in the camp of The Scientific Method.
I'm not saying that there is causality - I am saying that we undertook the project of mapping the genome precisely to find out if there is causality between a particular gene and disease. I don't think we know enough about side-effects of what we assume is an eye-color-only gene. It may have effects in other areas of the body. IIRC many genes regulate the synthesis of proteins that circulate throughout the bloodstream. These proteins may have far-reaching effects aside from the obvious "primary" effect (such as hair color, etc).
Parenthetically, I also find it absurd that 90% of the genome has been declared 'junk', just because we haven't found a purpose for it that we deem 'useful'. It could be there for something as simple as timing during transcription. I'd say waiting is a perfectly good use!
How can you make the assertion "Besides, much of our diversity is in things which don't matter from a medical point of view: what makes our eyes and hair different colors, our faces different shapes, and other superficial largely irrelevant differences" when the whole point of this exercise is to determine whether or not those "..superficial [and] largely irrelevant differences.." really "..don't matter from a medical point of view..."!!!
but it appears to me that the question about evolution was poorly constructed. From the article, they asked a true/false question with the assertion, "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals". As a logical individual, I would have to answer false to this, since they didn't ask if I believed their assertion, but whether or not their assertion was true. (Remember that evolution and creationism are theories, not facts). Answering false isn't exactly correct either, since either hasn't been disproven, but answering false seems less incorrect than answering true. I would also answer false to "Were humans plopped down on earth exactly as-is". I can't prove either assertion, so I can't logically say either is true or false.
Slashdot Mirror
Pyle was shocked to find the sharks heading due west instead, eventually ending up in Hawaii, 2,500 miles away.
Maybe sharks like to surf the big waves, too.
what are the french made of...?
I knew they were spineless, but I didn't realize they were completely boneless! B-)
What's a frostall? Is that where you keep your 70's wig?
Modulation schemes have nothing to do with whether a particular transmission is line-of-sight or not. Carrier frequency does. I assume by "FM radio" you mean commercial broadcast FM as in 88-108 MHz. Why then was I receiving 96.5 WFLB (which is in Fayetteville, NC) in Richmond, VA the other morning (which has a 96.5 of its own)? Hint - Tropospheric Ducting (or tropo-ducto, as I call it, since it's nearly indistinguishable from magic - presto-chango and all that).
In general, as frequency increases, so does the line-of-sight nature of the RF. Light, being extremely high frequency RF, is very much line-of-sight. AM Radio, being between 540 kHz and 1600 kHz, can span the globe because of groundwave bending and ionospheric ducting. Amateur radio operators deal with lots of different propagation modes all the time.
If water was resonant at 2.4GHz, you would boil all of the water out of your food within the first 10 seconds or so of cooking - not the desired result. You want the water to absorb the energy slowly enough to give the heat time to conduct into the rest of the food. See this and this article.
Do you think /dev/null is a /dev of holding? Will the data all disappear when it reaches capacity?
Speaking of 'of holding', one of the funniest references I recall was on the Twin Peaks mailing list way back when. Someone pointed out that a Laura said she kept some casette tapes in her bedpost, but that her bedpost was too small. The author suggested that she must have 'a bedpost of holding'.
Breathing 100% oxygen at standard atmospheric pressure is lethal. Breathing pure O2 at 2.6 PSI is just peachy. As I was taught, what really matters is the partial pressure of a gas. At standard sea-level conditions, (14.7 PSI, 101.3 kPa), the air you breath is about 18% O2. That makes the oxygen partial pressure .18 * 14.7 PSI = 2.6 PSI. As long as the partial pressure of O2 doesn't go over that figure by too much, regardless of the absolute pressure, you're OK.
So that's what my wife is made of! I have to keep the furnace on 'broil' in the winter, and I've seen her step into the shade of a palm tree in the Caribbean and start shivering. Who should I send a skin sample to?
Not all people who like Star Trek consider themselves 'trekkies', nor do all trekkies necessarily think Star Trek is 'high brow'.
I watch (and enjoy) Star Trek because it is so campy and overdone. Shatner is hilarious with his 'dramatic' pauses, and McCoy is just horrible by any definition. Add to it the recent revelation that Spock was drunk as a skunk most of the time, and that makes it all the more pathetic (and funny). I watch Star Trek for the same reasons I watch MST3K - campy, silly, and funny to laugh at.
Ouch! That's not saying much for your sister. So does she look more like the horse or the goat?
I laughed so hard I nearly peed myself. A mule is the offspring of a Horse and Donkey, fer cryin' out loud! I'm pretty sure it's a female horse (mare) and male donkey (jack).
I'd pay good money to see the offspring of a horse and goat!
Usage as I stated seems to be quite prevalent, regardless of your assertion that my information is out of date.
Please see:
Maybe he's in the UK where a billion (UK) = trillion (US). Their billion is a million-million, not a thousand-million.
Me too! That's really irritating.
Certain forms of hydrogen are extremely dangerous to handle.
Especially that nasty Dihydrogen Monoxide!!!
The timing example is just that, an example. I'm certainly not a geneticist, so naturally any example I think up is liable to be "laughable" and very simplistic.
I think we're violently agreeing! 8-)
My point is not to support creationism; rather my point is that the question cannot be answered as asked.
As for you ad hominem-esque link, it's interesting that they state:
I was taught that 'theory' means just that - we have an idea of how something works, but haven't or can't yet prove it, and so far nothing has disproved it. I can state by "observation, experimentation, and reasoning" that there's no such thing as air, and in fact, there may be no "incompatible fact[s]" - yet. When air was discovered, their long-held, deeply rooted theory had to be tossed.I guess my main problem with science today is the arrogance with which scientists are so absolutely sure they're correct right up until they're proven wrong. I'd rather theories be treated as such - not treated as a fact. This effect, by the way, is probably not the fault of the scientists, but perhaps the media.
By the way, I double-majored in CompSci and Physics, so I'm firmly in the camp of The Scientific Method.
I'm not saying that there is causality - I am saying that we undertook the project of mapping the genome precisely to find out if there is causality between a particular gene and disease. I don't think we know enough about side-effects of what we assume is an eye-color-only gene. It may have effects in other areas of the body. IIRC many genes regulate the synthesis of proteins that circulate throughout the bloodstream. These proteins may have far-reaching effects aside from the obvious "primary" effect (such as hair color, etc).
Parenthetically, I also find it absurd that 90% of the genome has been declared 'junk', just because we haven't found a purpose for it that we deem 'useful'. It could be there for something as simple as timing during transcription. I'd say waiting is a perfectly good use!
How can you make the assertion "Besides, much of our diversity is in things which don't matter from a medical point of view: what makes our eyes and hair different colors, our faces different shapes, and other superficial largely irrelevant differences" when the whole point of this exercise is to determine whether or not those "..superficial [and] largely irrelevant differences.." really "..don't matter from a medical point of view..."!!!
but it appears to me that the question about evolution was poorly constructed. From the article, they asked a true/false question with the assertion, "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals". As a logical individual, I would have to answer false to this, since they didn't ask if I believed their assertion, but whether or not their assertion was true. (Remember that evolution and creationism are theories, not facts). Answering false isn't exactly correct either, since either hasn't been disproven, but answering false seems less incorrect than answering true. I would also answer false to "Were humans plopped down on earth exactly as-is". I can't prove either assertion, so I can't logically say either is true or false.