2) The Kyoto Treaty does nothing. Treaties do nothing. Treaties are merely agreements by countries to do something or (as in this case) not do something. Under the Kyoto Treaty China may slightly increase its total CO2 output in a controlled manner whilst countries which are much worse polluters reduce theirs. To suggest that this move towards a sharing of the control of emissions is somehow worse than no treaty, i.e. complete unrestraint is either blatant trolling or stupidity so vast I can barely believe the AC has the intelligence to turn their computer on.
3) There is plenty of evidence - for example the correlation of warming with CO2 concentration over the past few centuries. The theory has not been proved true beyond all reasonable doubt but there is a lack of other models to explain the data and you will find few climatologists who do not believe humans have a significant effect on climate change.
The sugar pills might help. ISTR (too lazy to google) a study that showed that placebos helped people even if they were informed that they were receiving a placebo.
I don't understand the comment about keeping track of whether or not pawns have moved. If a pawn is still in the player's second rank, it hasn't moved. If it isn't, then it has moved. (Pawns can only move forward.)
Mea culpa. Realised it after posting but didn't bother correcting myself.
I have made offers to debate by email before, which no-one takes up (who is the coward?)
You have already said that you are not interested in discussion, just supplying information. I would be happy to debate with you by email, but it is I think less brave than presenting your argument in public, not to mention more efficient as you will not have to repeat yourself.
I am entitled to disagree whether or not I make a convincing argument to you
That is true, you are entitled to make an argument and I am not the world's judge on whether it is convinving. However I do not accept that you are entitled to make a statement and make no argument for it at all, or at least that you can do so and can expect to be taken at all seriously.
To be fair, this is partially understandable as I have not heard of a single piece of evidence supporting a young earth. Occasionally creationists can make a poor argument against some small piece of evidence that supports the scientific view, but they have nothing that actually supports their model.
There are a few other conditions you have to keep track of - whether pawns have moved or not, whether kings/rooks have moved or castling has occurred, whether the last pawn move allowed en passent, and draw conditions as has been mentioned elsewhere. Hard to work out how much those would push up the possibilities, but it doesn't seem like it would be in the region of 10^150.
Can't help feeling I'm missing something... have to dig out a R&N later and check the reference.
Some of your arguments have already been disputed, but not this one so far:
There is much evidence that the universe is old, but not the earth. And that's not something I'm willing to go into detail in on slashdot for the afforementioned reasons.
Coward. Doesn't your religion demand that you 'enlighten' me? Otherwise you could be condemning me to eternal hell or whatever.
The tiresome argument of "there's so much evidence" just doesn't cut it. I've looked around for the evidence, and found it wanting. Why shouldn't I be entitled to disagree if I think that the evidences used are circumstantial at best?
You are only entitled to disagree if you can make a convincing argument against the evidence. If you are not prepared to defend your stance then don't write about it on a discussion website. Your arguments are so flimsy I suspect that you are just trolling. If you genuinely believe in what you are writing, then how about trying to explain (picking two examples from thousands) cave formation or ice cores under your young earth dogma?
They missed asking the basic question - why was the game delayed? - and the supplemental: how did you not manage to realise that the game would require another 3 months development until only a week before the supposed release date?
In what way was I lazy? I suggest it is you who is lazy, in being dogmatic and refusing to accept the possibility of the majority scientific view being correct! Even the stories you link to admit the 'theory is controversial' and 'Most anthropologists seem to accept the conclusion of molecular evolutionists that the recently obtained sequences of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA prove that Neanderthals and Cromagnons did not interbreed'. Also, 'all those hybrid skeletons'? Only a single (possible) example is mentioned in the sources you point to.
In any case, skeletal comparisons are rather subjective, and far inferior to DNA comparisons. In comparing mitochondrial DNA between Neanderthals and modern humans, no overlap has been found (e.g.).
The single 'hybrid' skeleton may have been a distinct species, may have been an infertile cross, may have been genetically deformed, or may have been an early hybrid before the two species fully diverged. Before accepting the possibility that it is a true hybrid I would like to see genetic evidence that shows this is possible.
What evidence has been found that Neanderthals bred with humans? None that I know of. The genetic record, and current thinking, suggests that no modern humans have a Neanderthal genetic legacy. If early Homo sapiens sapiens did mate with Neanderthals, offspring were probably infertile. The last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us seems to be ~ 500,000 years ago (4 * the estimated common human ancestor).
It takes up too much space for one thing; unles you're going to use Liquid Hydrogen which takes a lot of energy to keep cool.
Er, why do you need to cool the H2 to minimise volume? Why not just keep it under pressure?
but I remember you needed roughly twice the electricity to make the Hydrogen than you get back when you run the car. That's fine if you're running on Hydroelectric dams, but what about all the cars in areas where they have coal or Nuclear Power Plants?
You have to compare this ratio to the amount of energy you can extract from the tank of dead dinosaur in a car. Generating power centrally in power stations should in theory be more efficient at extracting energy, and also means that there are individual sources where pollution can be more easily controlled - hopefully meaning that pollution can both be reduced and directed where it is least harmful.
Just remember, 30 years ago, some of these same crackpot hippy 'scientists' were predicting an impending ICE AGE! So which is it?
Anyone who deals in logic and facts will recognise ad hominem attacks and also realise that through the scientific process theories change as new evidence is discovered.
That has been the prediction for quite a while. The limits have been predicted to be ten years away for a long time. In any case, you're only talking about miniaturisation. What about advances in chemistry, or parallelisation? Or, in the long-term, quantum computing? Or totally different directions for computing such as non-binary or asynchronous? Or new applications such as useable VR?
And of course there are breakthroughs to be made in software as well as hardware, AI being the obvious field with the most potential, but also comms, graphics, etc.
There's no clamor for it, either
I'm clamouring for it if it's any help:)
Outside of biotech, it's hard to find any bright spots.
To be fair, 'biotech' covers a huge field, from medicine to GM food. And there's also nanotech as has been pointed out, robotics, too many minor fields to mention, and all the sciences we haven't thought of yet.
Re:Code belongs to copyright holder, not community
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
The essence of communism is that I can take your property whether you ocnsent or not.
Well, not really. Communism says that words like "your" has no meaning when it comes to property, as property is collectively owned. Property is only owned by someone under capitalism because of the government rules that says it is. From some communist viewpoints, simply owning something is taking the community's property without consent.
I've never acquired a taste for Earl Grey - probably having been brought up drinking PG Tips or whatever has ruined my palate or something. I'm currently drinking 'Rocket Fuel' tea. Extra caffeine and guarana. It's surprisingly nice. Quite addictive and gives you a noticeable buzz. It's the reason I'm still coding at ~0450.
I was in a class called 'Images of Africa in Film and Literature.' I read some good books and saw some interesting films. Generally, I was enjoying it. Then one day, someone (maybe me?) refered to nigger South Africans. The prof got upset. "We just don't use that word," he said. The jist of his argument against the word was that many ignorant people use it as an insult.
These stereotypes are, of course, not encouraged by the academic community which studies Africa. But Jesus H. Fucking Christ, nigger just means someone who was is black!
After that, I just really lost interest in the class and respect for that prof. I just did enough to get by, and I still got an A.
So in conclusion, thought/word/language police, FUCK OFF!
Compare this to native English, where "toilet" is one of the crudest possible ways to refer to a restroom. Familiarity breeds contempt, in any language.
Er....? I assume you are from the US. In 'native' English in the UK it is perfectly acceptable to refer to a "restroom" as a toilet, and probably the most common term.
And there are of course there are cruder ways to refer to 'toilet' - loo, bog, shitter, dump station, etc.
What made movies great, were the limitations, and the cleverness that had to be employed to tell the story inspite of those.
This is oddly true. People are much more creative when they have some limitations to work around. It's probably a survival instinct - when in a tight spot, start thinking laterally.
Couple of examples:
1. a) Code an interesting game, no restrictions. b) Code an interesting game in 4KB.
2. a) Write a cool story. b) Write a cool story involving a sea cucumber, a machete, a snooker ball, and a DNA splicing machine.
I think I know which of these instructions would come up with more creative results.
So SCO, allegedly a Microsoft puppet and quietly backed by Sun, is suing IBM because it supposedly contributed Linux kernel code which was actually committed by Hewlett-Packard but does in fact have an SGI copyright tag. Not that it matters, because it all comes from old BSD code anyway. Meanwhile RedHat, the FSF, OSI and EFF all attack SCO.
Have I missed anyone out? It seems as if everyone in the software world is getting involved. It's like software's WW2. Presumably Apple is Switzerland.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I'll bite.
1) Wha...?
2) The Kyoto Treaty does nothing. Treaties do nothing. Treaties are merely agreements by countries to do something or (as in this case) not do something. Under the Kyoto Treaty China may slightly increase its total CO2 output in a controlled manner whilst countries which are much worse polluters reduce theirs. To suggest that this move towards a sharing of the control of emissions is somehow worse than no treaty, i.e. complete unrestraint is either blatant trolling or stupidity so vast I can barely believe the AC has the intelligence to turn their computer on.
3) There is plenty of evidence - for example the correlation of warming with CO2 concentration over the past few centuries. The theory has not been proved true beyond all reasonable doubt but there is a lack of other models to explain the data and you will find few climatologists who do not believe humans have a significant effect on climate change.
The sugar pills might help. ISTR (too lazy to google) a study that showed that placebos helped people even if they were informed that they were receiving a placebo.
I don't understand the comment about keeping track of whether or not pawns have moved. If a pawn is still in the player's second rank, it hasn't moved. If it isn't, then it has moved. (Pawns can only move forward.)
Mea culpa. Realised it after posting but didn't bother correcting myself.
I have made offers to debate by email before, which no-one takes up (who is the coward?)
You have already said that you are not interested in discussion, just supplying information. I would be happy to debate with you by email, but it is I think less brave than presenting your argument in public, not to mention more efficient as you will not have to repeat yourself.
I am entitled to disagree whether or not I make a convincing argument to you
That is true, you are entitled to make an argument and I am not the world's judge on whether it is convinving. However I do not accept that you are entitled to make a statement and make no argument for it at all, or at least that you can do so and can expect to be taken at all seriously.
To be fair, this is partially understandable as I have not heard of a single piece of evidence supporting a young earth. Occasionally creationists can make a poor argument against some small piece of evidence that supports the scientific view, but they have nothing that actually supports their model.
There are a few other conditions you have to keep track of - whether pawns have moved or not, whether kings/rooks have moved or castling has occurred, whether the last pawn move allowed en passent, and draw conditions as has been mentioned elsewhere. Hard to work out how much those would push up the possibilities, but it doesn't seem like it would be in the region of 10^150.
Can't help feeling I'm missing something... have to dig out a R&N later and check the reference.
Some of your arguments have already been disputed, but not this one so far:
There is much evidence that the universe is old, but not the earth. And that's not something I'm willing to go into detail in on slashdot for the afforementioned reasons.
Coward. Doesn't your religion demand that you 'enlighten' me? Otherwise you could be condemning me to eternal hell or whatever.
The tiresome argument of "there's so much evidence" just doesn't cut it. I've looked around for the evidence, and found it wanting. Why shouldn't I be entitled to disagree if I think that the evidences used are circumstantial at best?
You are only entitled to disagree if you can make a convincing argument against the evidence. If you are not prepared to defend your stance then don't write about it on a discussion website. Your arguments are so flimsy I suspect that you are just trolling. If you genuinely believe in what you are writing, then how about trying to explain (picking two examples from thousands) cave formation or ice cores under your young earth dogma?
They missed asking the basic question - why was the game delayed? - and the supplemental: how did you not manage to realise that the game would require another 3 months development until only a week before the supposed release date?
In what way was I lazy? I suggest it is you who is lazy, in being dogmatic and refusing to accept the possibility of the majority scientific view being correct! Even the stories you link to admit the 'theory is controversial' and 'Most anthropologists seem to accept the conclusion of molecular evolutionists that the recently obtained sequences of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA prove that Neanderthals and Cromagnons did not interbreed'. Also, 'all those hybrid skeletons'? Only a single (possible) example is mentioned in the sources you point to.
In any case, skeletal comparisons are rather subjective, and far inferior to DNA comparisons. In comparing mitochondrial DNA between Neanderthals and modern humans, no overlap has been found (e.g.).
The single 'hybrid' skeleton may have been a distinct species, may have been an infertile cross, may have been genetically deformed, or may have been an early hybrid before the two species fully diverged. Before accepting the possibility that it is a true hybrid I would like to see genetic evidence that shows this is possible.
What evidence has been found that Neanderthals bred with humans? None that I know of. The genetic record, and current thinking, suggests that no modern humans have a Neanderthal genetic legacy. If early Homo sapiens sapiens did mate with Neanderthals, offspring were probably infertile. The last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us seems to be ~ 500,000 years ago (4 * the estimated common human ancestor).
It takes up too much space for one thing; unles you're going to use Liquid Hydrogen which takes a lot of energy to keep cool.
Er, why do you need to cool the H2 to minimise volume? Why not just keep it under pressure?
but I remember you needed roughly twice the electricity to make the Hydrogen than you get back when you run the car. That's fine if you're running on Hydroelectric dams, but what about all the cars in areas where they have coal or Nuclear Power Plants?
You have to compare this ratio to the amount of energy you can extract from the tank of dead dinosaur in a car. Generating power centrally in power stations should in theory be more efficient at extracting energy, and also means that there are individual sources where pollution can be more easily controlled - hopefully meaning that pollution can both be reduced and directed where it is least harmful.
Just remember, 30 years ago, some of these same crackpot hippy 'scientists' were predicting an impending ICE AGE! So which is it?
Anyone who deals in logic and facts will recognise ad hominem attacks and also realise that through the scientific process theories change as new evidence is discovered.
What's particularly bizarre is that he wrote an apology for Franco. Not exactly the side of the Spanish civil war you'd expect an 'anarchist' to take!
Soon, computing will stall out too
:)
That has been the prediction for quite a while. The limits have been predicted to be ten years away for a long time. In any case, you're only talking about miniaturisation. What about advances in chemistry, or parallelisation? Or, in the long-term, quantum computing? Or totally different directions for computing such as non-binary or asynchronous? Or new applications such as useable VR?
And of course there are breakthroughs to be made in software as well as hardware, AI being the obvious field with the most potential, but also comms, graphics, etc.
There's no clamor for it, either
I'm clamouring for it if it's any help
Outside of biotech, it's hard to find any bright spots.
To be fair, 'biotech' covers a huge field, from medicine to GM food. And there's also nanotech as has been pointed out, robotics, too many minor fields to mention, and all the sciences we haven't thought of yet.
The essence of communism is that I can take your property whether you ocnsent or not.
Well, not really. Communism says that words like "your" has no meaning when it comes to property, as property is collectively owned. Property is only owned by someone under capitalism because of the government rules that says it is. From some communist viewpoints, simply owning something is taking the community's property without consent.
s/England/UK
Couldn't the same thing be said of heroin?
Altruism? To increase our cultural influence? To encourage other countries to do this?
I've never acquired a taste for Earl Grey - probably having been brought up drinking PG Tips or whatever has ruined my palate or something. I'm currently drinking 'Rocket Fuel' tea. Extra caffeine and guarana. It's surprisingly nice. Quite addictive and gives you a noticeable buzz. It's the reason I'm still coding at ~0450.
Flamebait? It's called satire you fuckwit moderators and I was making a serious point.
I was in a class called 'Images of Africa in Film and Literature.' I read some good books and saw some interesting films. Generally, I was enjoying it. Then one day, someone (maybe me?) refered to nigger South Africans. The prof got upset. "We just don't use that word," he said. The jist of his argument against the word was that many ignorant people use it as an insult.
These stereotypes are, of course, not encouraged by the academic community which studies Africa. But Jesus H. Fucking Christ, nigger just means someone who was is black!
After that, I just really lost interest in the class and respect for that prof. I just did enough to get by, and I still got an A.
So in conclusion, thought/word/language police, FUCK OFF!
Compare this to native English, where "toilet" is one of the crudest possible ways to refer to a restroom. Familiarity breeds contempt, in any language.
Er....? I assume you are from the US. In 'native' English in the UK it is perfectly acceptable to refer to a "restroom" as a toilet, and probably the most common term.
And there are of course there are cruder ways to refer to 'toilet' - loo, bog, shitter, dump station, etc.
He also spent some time at the University of Wales Aberystwyth. If he's learning Welsh Aberystwyth may be a better option.
What made movies great, were the limitations, and the cleverness that had to be employed to tell the story inspite of those.
This is oddly true. People are much more creative when they have some limitations to work around. It's probably a survival instinct - when in a tight spot, start thinking laterally.
Couple of examples:
1.
a) Code an interesting game, no restrictions.
b) Code an interesting game in 4KB.
2.
a) Write a cool story.
b) Write a cool story involving a sea cucumber, a machete, a snooker ball, and a DNA splicing machine.
I think I know which of these instructions would come up with more creative results.
So SCO, allegedly a Microsoft puppet and quietly backed by Sun, is suing IBM because it supposedly contributed Linux kernel code which was actually committed by Hewlett-Packard but does in fact have an SGI copyright tag. Not that it matters, because it all comes from old BSD code anyway. Meanwhile RedHat, the FSF, OSI and EFF all attack SCO.
Have I missed anyone out? It seems as if everyone in the software world is getting involved. It's like software's WW2. Presumably Apple is Switzerland.
I'm somewhat bemused to discover that British pubs are still dispensing pints.
There's special exemptions in the metric legislation for beer and milk to be sold in pints for cultural reasons.