Anyone who likes the Beatles already has all their albums on CD. Anyone who listens to them on an MP3/WMA/AAC player has already ripped them to the format of their choice. A significant number of the 4,000 or so songs on my phone (not iPhone) are the Beatles. When I get a new phone (not iPhone), I'll pull out microSD-HC card and put it in the new phone.
This is only news of interest to kids who haven't heard of the Beatles before. Or to people who don't mind paying for the same music over and over again.
The big problem is that those really big interceptor missiles (you know the ones that are about the size of a Minuteman III) could be modified to perform other tasks. Russia really doesn't want to see former Soviet block states with their own ballistic missile fleets.
Considering that Obama wants to dismantle part of our defense capability, notably our missile system...
He canceled the not-yet-built expensive, fixed site ABM system that doesn't work but was really good at getting the Russians to threaten to invade our allies with a ship based one that also doesn't work but can move to be in position between the targets and trouble spots. I'm not sure that can be called dismantling our defense capability.
We've never had a working system for intercepting ICBMs. We might be able to handle IRBMs with the planned system, but ICBMs, no.
'Cept if it was a demonstration to China, why do it 35 mi off the coast of LA? It seems unlikely to be seen from China there.
In addition to being a demonstration, it would also be a test. A test launch will be done where the tracking cameras are, which would be VAFB, Torrance, Big Sur, the Channel Islands, San Diego... I still haven't heard whether it was heading north or south.
I think it's some neocon in Washington trying to sabatage Obamas Indonesia trip.. link
I doubt it. The best Cheney's men in the navy could do right now is sabotage a launch. But I will agree with you that an SLBM test launch in the Pacific while the president is Asia is an attempt to make a statement to our friends, enemies and undecideds in the region. That statement being "please remember what I can do if you make me mad" It would be nice to know the track so we could decide if it was heading to the Aleutians or to somewhere else.
Even that's not amazing. It would be amazing if it made a different mistake every time.
The simple model of transcription had always been that single nucleotides in DNA are matched to the complementary nucleotide on the RNA strand. But, of course, nobody thought the simple model was always correct. You've got the interaction of a DNA strand trying to fold back on itself and an RNA strand trying to fold back on itself, and a big honking RNA polymerase molecule with an extremely complicated electric field. It's to complicated for the simple model to work. Maybe on occasion the order of the codons a few hundred bases from the transcription site will interact with the RNA polymerase to insert a different base than expected. (Just throwing that out as a possibility. It could be any of a million things, like an induced change in the structure of RNA polymerase.) That's fine, as long as it happens the same way every time. In that case it's not an error in the DNA or the RNA. It's an error in our oversimplified model of how RNA transcription works. So now we need a better model that can predict how a DNA sequence will be transcrived. Don't look now, science is working the way it should!
I hate that they are even using the word dogma. Because actually dogma is never based on or swayed by evidence. And in this case the dogma was "it's simpler than any realistic biochemical system." I'd like to see a poll of how many biochemist, molecular geneticists, virologists and microbiologists actually believed this dogma.
The are producing something, liquidity. Liquidity has value. It's like saying cab drivers don't do "real" work, they just redistribute people who do.
So if I steal the mail from several Realtors' mailboxes, hack their emails and bug their phones so I can undercut bids and resell at a profit, I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm creating liquidity! What a great business model.
They are not creating wealth, they are redistributing it.
Redistribution is such a nice word for theft. Ah, who cares, it's getting redistributed to the rich, and that's OK. We'd better not see a botnet redistributing wealth to the poor. That would be communism.
Windows 1.0 was a complete joke - it didn't even support overlapping windows.
Patent dispute.:( What Windows 1.0 DID support was actual cooperative multitasking, even of well behaved DOS applications (any DOS or BIOS call caused a context switch in those). It was nice to have a minimized game of c-robots running in the background while doing other work. Unfortunately, DOS multitasking was removed in Windows 2.0 and didn't come back until Windows 386, and then only on a 386.
As I said, Christians have rationalized that the bible is literally true, but when it says that the earth has four corners, then you're allowed to interpret it. Like all believers, when the bible contains something that can't be reconciled with reality you rationalize it by says "four corners" doesn't mean four corners. That somehow the four corners of a field mean something different than the four corners of the Earth.
You can't have it both ways, if the Bible is literally true then the Earth has four corners, snakes eat dust, and grasshoppers have four legs. If the earth is an oblate spheroid, snakes are carnivorous, and grasshoppers have six legs, then the Bible is not literally true.
I don't have time to go over each of your examples, other than to say that the least trustworthy person to ask about what the Bible means is a Christian, because they have to find any way to rationalize their irrational belief. Regardless of the truth they will find something to rationalize their belief. It usually only takes few seconds to find the irrational leap in their writings.
The religious like to throw this one out hoping it will stick. Most communist leaders have not been atheists. They just demand that the populace be atheist. Such demands place no constraints on the leaders.
The point is not the composition of the particles (which has nothing to do with the results of the collision), but the total energy impact. Impacts of similar energy with smaller nuclei happen in the atmosphere frequently. Lead was used in this case to increase the energy of the collision by increasing the mass of the colliding particles.
The only significant difference between this and a high energy cosmic ray collision is that it occurs in a large detector that is in the frame of the center of mass of the collision.
It's time axis is perpendicular to ours. From our point of view the new universe existed for an infinitesimal time. I don't think there's any way to tell how long it existed from its point of view.
Please don't mod this insightful, I'm trying to be funny.
It's not merely a bang. It's a set of physical phenomena that heretofore have not been seen except at the inception of this universe.
Except, of course, that your statement is not true. Collisions of similar or much higher magnitude happen quite frequently, even here on earth (or at least in the atmosphere). This would be better described as a recreation of a high energy cosmic ray collision rather than as a mini big bang.
The headline is just about as accurate as it can be, and isn't hyperbolic in the slightest.
You don't ignore the flaws or resolve them, you rationalize them, finding any possible way to generate possible consistency. You start with the presupposition of infallibility, so any contorted path to something that seems like consistency is preferable to the logical conclusion of fallibility.
Well, I think you know that's false because, only up until the last few hundred years, people took the scriptures at their word.
You are assuming that, and ignoring nearly every writing of Christians prior to that. Do you think people were stupid 2000 years ago? Christian scholars throughout the ages could look to nature and see that it was not what in agreement with the bible. Believing in the literal truth of the bible would be like believing in a flat earth, no learned person could do it. (Yes, we've know the earth was round for about 2500 years, despite how it is described in the bible.) And a lot of them have argued that Jesus didn't believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis myth.
The Christian church existed long before the decision of what was to be included in the Bible was made. Even now sects disagree. The decisions were most decidedly made by fallible men. Most Christians didn't have to opportunity to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible because most of them couldn't read, and services were given in languages they didn't understand.
The truth is you belong to a 150 old heretical offshoot of Christianity that bears no resemblance to what Christianity was 500 years ago or 1000 years ago or 2000 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll remember this day forever. Not.
Anyone who likes the Beatles already has all their albums on CD. Anyone who listens to them on an MP3/WMA/AAC player has already ripped them to the format of their choice. A significant number of the 4,000 or so songs on my phone (not iPhone) are the Beatles. When I get a new phone (not iPhone), I'll pull out microSD-HC card and put it in the new phone.
This is only news of interest to kids who haven't heard of the Beatles before. Or to people who don't mind paying for the same music over and over again.
Wasn't Oracle going to kill all good stuff from Sun according to the slashdot hivemind?
What does "not allowed to be used in production" mean to you?
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
Apparently the quiz is to rewrite their Quiz to be more scalable.
Doesn't matter. I own www.lollookatmysandwich.com and I'm very litigious.
And with less spam control. I've been getting Nigeria spam in friend requests lately.
Are you making an anti-semantic comment?
The big problem is that those really big interceptor missiles (you know the ones that are about the size of a Minuteman III) could be modified to perform other tasks. Russia really doesn't want to see former Soviet block states with their own ballistic missile fleets.
This is Los Angeles. You're lucky if you can get video of the other side of the street, much less a rocket 35 miles away.
Considering that Obama wants to dismantle part of our defense capability, notably our missile system...
He canceled the not-yet-built expensive, fixed site ABM system that doesn't work but was really good at getting the Russians to threaten to invade our allies with a ship based one that also doesn't work but can move to be in position between the targets and trouble spots. I'm not sure that can be called dismantling our defense capability.
We've never had a working system for intercepting ICBMs. We might be able to handle IRBMs with the planned system, but ICBMs, no.
'Cept if it was a demonstration to China, why do it 35 mi off the coast of LA? It seems unlikely to be seen from China there.
In addition to being a demonstration, it would also be a test. A test launch will be done where the tracking cameras are, which would be VAFB, Torrance, Big Sur, the Channel Islands, San Diego... I still haven't heard whether it was heading north or south.
I think it's some neocon in Washington trying to sabatage Obamas Indonesia trip .. link
I doubt it. The best Cheney's men in the navy could do right now is sabotage a launch. But I will agree with you that an SLBM test launch in the Pacific while the president is Asia is an attempt to make a statement to our friends, enemies and undecideds in the region. That statement being "please remember what I can do if you make me mad" It would be nice to know the track so we could decide if it was heading to the Aleutians or to somewhere else.
I believe the term they are looking for is "secret" or "classified".
Just like AIM used to be.
And I predict they with name themselves "graveyard.com"
Even that's not amazing. It would be amazing if it made a different mistake every time.
The simple model of transcription had always been that single nucleotides in DNA are matched to the complementary nucleotide on the RNA strand. But, of course, nobody thought the simple model was always correct. You've got the interaction of a DNA strand trying to fold back on itself and an RNA strand trying to fold back on itself, and a big honking RNA polymerase molecule with an extremely complicated electric field. It's to complicated for the simple model to work. Maybe on occasion the order of the codons a few hundred bases from the transcription site will interact with the RNA polymerase to insert a different base than expected. (Just throwing that out as a possibility. It could be any of a million things, like an induced change in the structure of RNA polymerase.) That's fine, as long as it happens the same way every time. In that case it's not an error in the DNA or the RNA. It's an error in our oversimplified model of how RNA transcription works. So now we need a better model that can predict how a DNA sequence will be transcrived. Don't look now, science is working the way it should!
I hate that they are even using the word dogma. Because actually dogma is never based on or swayed by evidence. And in this case the dogma was "it's simpler than any realistic biochemical system." I'd like to see a poll of how many biochemist, molecular geneticists, virologists and microbiologists actually believed this dogma.
The are producing something, liquidity. Liquidity has value. It's like saying cab drivers don't do "real" work, they just redistribute people who do.
So if I steal the mail from several Realtors' mailboxes, hack their emails and bug their phones so I can undercut bids and resell at a profit, I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm creating liquidity! What a great business model.
They are not creating wealth, they are redistributing it.
Redistribution is such a nice word for theft. Ah, who cares, it's getting redistributed to the rich, and that's OK. We'd better not see a botnet redistributing wealth to the poor. That would be communism.
Windows 1.0 was a complete joke - it didn't even support overlapping windows.
Patent dispute. :( What Windows 1.0 DID support was actual cooperative multitasking, even of well behaved DOS applications (any DOS or BIOS call caused a context switch in those). It was nice to have a minimized game of c-robots running in the background while doing other work. Unfortunately, DOS multitasking was removed in Windows 2.0 and didn't come back until Windows 386, and then only on a 386.
As I said, Christians have rationalized that the bible is literally true, but when it says that the earth has four corners, then you're allowed to interpret it. Like all believers, when the bible contains something that can't be reconciled with reality you rationalize it by says "four corners" doesn't mean four corners. That somehow the four corners of a field mean something different than the four corners of the Earth.
You can't have it both ways, if the Bible is literally true then the Earth has four corners, snakes eat dust, and grasshoppers have four legs. If the earth is an oblate spheroid, snakes are carnivorous, and grasshoppers have six legs, then the Bible is not literally true.
I don't have time to go over each of your examples, other than to say that the least trustworthy person to ask about what the Bible means is a Christian, because they have to find any way to rationalize their irrational belief. Regardless of the truth they will find something to rationalize their belief. It usually only takes few seconds to find the irrational leap in their writings.
The religious like to throw this one out hoping it will stick. Most communist leaders have not been atheists. They just demand that the populace be atheist. Such demands place no constraints on the leaders.
The point is not the composition of the particles (which has nothing to do with the results of the collision), but the total energy impact. Impacts of similar energy with smaller nuclei happen in the atmosphere frequently. Lead was used in this case to increase the energy of the collision by increasing the mass of the colliding particles.
The only significant difference between this and a high energy cosmic ray collision is that it occurs in a large detector that is in the frame of the center of mass of the collision.
It's time axis is perpendicular to ours. From our point of view the new universe existed for an infinitesimal time. I don't think there's any way to tell how long it existed from its point of view.
Please don't mod this insightful, I'm trying to be funny.
It's not merely a bang. It's a set of physical phenomena that heretofore have not been seen except at the inception of this universe.
Except, of course, that your statement is not true. Collisions of similar or much higher magnitude happen quite frequently, even here on earth (or at least in the atmosphere). This would be better described as a recreation of a high energy cosmic ray collision rather than as a mini big bang.
The headline is just about as accurate as it can be, and isn't hyperbolic in the slightest.
Except that it's total hyperbole.
Well, I think you know that's false because, only up until the last few hundred years, people took the scriptures at their word.
You are assuming that, and ignoring nearly every writing of Christians prior to that. Do you think people were stupid 2000 years ago? Christian scholars throughout the ages could look to nature and see that it was not what in agreement with the bible. Believing in the literal truth of the bible would be like believing in a flat earth, no learned person could do it. (Yes, we've know the earth was round for about 2500 years, despite how it is described in the bible.) And a lot of them have argued that Jesus didn't believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis myth.
The Christian church existed long before the decision of what was to be included in the Bible was made. Even now sects disagree. The decisions were most decidedly made by fallible men. Most Christians didn't have to opportunity to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible because most of them couldn't read, and services were given in languages they didn't understand.
The truth is you belong to a 150 old heretical offshoot of Christianity that bears no resemblance to what Christianity was 500 years ago or 1000 years ago or 2000 years ago.