How exactly does the question of who introduced the concept make a difference as to it's validity?
It doesn't except the arguement is over evolution which is a scientific concept. It would be like a two having an conversation over cars and the one suddenly says that all red sedans are macro cars and all blue sedans micro cars and that blue sedans can be easily observed but red sedans is questionable because it's different.
First off, there is no scientific basis for this differentiation, the people who coined the terms and support the split are not scientists or have done any work int hat field. It's tantamount to having a career mechanic come into a surgury room and start cutting and proclaim he has fixed the mans leaky heart valve. He might have done so but chances are he killed the patient. The differentation is a cosmetic thing used to put to questiont he theory of evolution. It works onyl to those who know little about biology.
There most certainly is a difference. It's a clarification of terms to define the argument. They don't dispute that you can have mulitple breeds of dog (or cat or elephant or any other species) We do dispute that you can have large irreversible shifts in a population resulting in the introduction of a significantly more advanced species genetically.
First off, evolution is not about advancement. It is about adaptation. You don't change to get better, you actually almost never change. It's the population that evolves and changes. You have a population, they live for a while. Some new selective force comes and kills certain individuals. Those genes are no longer passed on. Over a short or long time (both happen) the population as a whole differs. Accumaulations of these changes leads to speciation when the species cannot or will not mate with other closely related individuals. IE. we biologically can't mate with a ape. Certain birds won't mate with other closely related birds even though artificial means can create viable young. The source of differences are mutations. Mutations occur at a regular rates with soem more common then others. most mutations are fatal or non-sensical (do nothing), some entirely detrimental, a rare few are detrimental but carries some benificial phenotypic change. For instance I have alpha thalasemia, which has some health setbacks but makes me virtually immune to malaria, an important trait in south west asia. If for some reason this muation made my skin horribly acned and non-afflicted peopel wouldn't mate with me while other afflicted people would we would speciate as well as look different.
The Macro/Micro split is that creationists want to introduce the idea that this can't or isn't how things like an arm form. How ever many creature have vestigual features that suggest this is exactly how they lost them, and it's not a leap at all to figure this is how they got them. it's like claiming that you may be able to code a calculator in C but you can't program a 3d game engine because it's too complex. No real rationale is given. The difference is time span and complexity of accumulated changes, not mechanism.
That is the crux of the argument. And it required a definition of terms to keep the discussion on target. The fact that you can't allow for the difference demonstrates the flaw in Evolutionary theory.
This is what you do when you have the weaker position in a debate, you introduce terms (macro/micro) to partly confuse the judges (they happen to be idiots) and try and wittle your opponents case away. It's a logical fallacy, your no longer argueing about the same thing. The creationists use it to mitigate a iron clad case to say "wait, you proved that. I can't disprove it. But I'll just confuse the case and I'll win anyways". Also known as the chewbacca defence. To people who know the subject you sound liek an idiot but the jury of the american press/people don't know it that well and in the idea of "fairness" they give both side equal credit. But it's grossly unequal. Evolution is the theory
king-manic, it's interesting that you keep on bringing up the idea of aliens delivering human DNA to the planet from outside. As an intellectual concept, it seems almost equivalent to the idea of a God shaping humans out of dirt. It doesn't say anything more than the God theory about where the contents of the meteorite (or whatever) might have come from, it just posits that "one day, it wasn't here, the next day, it was." To the degree that evolution is compatible with alien delivery of DNA, it (a) is similarly compatible with Intelligent Design and Creation by Divine Fiat, and (b) isn't really proving anything about what actually did happen.
I actually only bring it up because it is a fringe theory that is more valid that ID. Although ID doesn't actually say much. ID is the kludge that keeps intelligent Fundementalists from packing up and folding. Divine fiat is fine, I actually beleive god made it all, however I don't beleive that he would salt the evidence so we would come to the wrong conclusion or he would create life in a way that we would intuitivly want. He doesn't play dice. "He plays some strange card game where only he knows the rules and he smiles a lot"-Neil Gaiman. I myself do not put too much credience into the alien seed theory of life.
I'm assuming IS = ID Demonstrate how this is unprovable.
Intelligent design does not make any predictions, does not have any premises that can be disproved or supported thus it is unprovable.
Evolution: the question of whether this is well supported (regarding its occurence on a macro scale) is hardly settled. Even among the rank and file of your Biology Experts. Many people have come up with proposed mechanism's but no one has been able to prove the mechanism occured. The most they can come up with is "the pieces of this mechanism exist in nature. Therefore this mechanism is a possible explanation for our existence." No one has been able to point to any definitive proof that they did occur. Only as to their relative likelihood. And no, Assuming that since life exists is proof that they did occur doesn't logically follow. You can prove life exists. You haven't been able to prove how it got here yet though. So any idea is fair game. Even if that idea can't yet be proven. I'll make you a deal: you show how Macro Scale Evolution can be proven to the same degree that gravity can. And I'll accept your argument.
actually no. Macro evoltuion/micro evolution are not concepts in evolutionary theory. They are ideas introduced by the ID/creationist camp after they could not directly assault evolution. It is a rhetorical trick. Split the definitioninto and disprove one side of yoru split. Outside of the US macro/micro evolution are almost unheard of. There is no differences, macro vs micro are entirely a american construct made to partially support creationism/ID.
Alien Seeding: I'll agree with you there. Given the right theory it is provable with evidence. (Aliens showing up and telling about our ancestors in the stars for instance.) Of course ID is provable in roughly that same way so I guess you could say it is just about as provable.
ID is not even close.
If we were seed from alien life, then 1- we would find meteors with organics molecules/life in them. We have. 2- Meteorites would have to survive intact and not obliterate the organisms/organic molecules inside. We have proved they can. 3- We coudl one day find life elsewhere with a similiar make up, this would hevily support this idea.
If ID were true, then 1- err... nothing because it doesn't have any implications, it's a rationalization.
I'm saying that using Evolutions as an Origin theory opens the door to other origin theories in the argument. You have in fact just proved my point. You assume that evolution can't be taught as anything other than an origin theory.
No, I'm saying evolution is part of a origin theory. However this particular origin theory is our best guest given the current evidence at what actually happened. The others are as well but with a lot less information. There is no equating them, the study of the origin of life is also a branch of biology and it has nothing to do with "metaphysics" since it is entirly about organic chemistry. Evolution is a lead off point for it.
If that is true then expect counter theories to be provided on origins. Whether those theories are intelligent design or a lotus blossom on an ocean.
Alright, so I have a well thought out theory based on reams of scientific evidence and somehow you would like me to equate it to "we were vomitted out of the great creator after he had some cheese". That rationale hodls any water.
Because the Question of Origins is a metaphysical question not scientific.
Metaphysics? why is that question metaphysical? what makes it so? it's a question that can be answered with enough evidence, so what seperate "how did we get here" from "why is the sky blue"? Why should we seperate them? What makes that question untouchable but the question of "why does my son have red hair when me and my wife are blonde".
And you still haven't made an argument for it to be otherwise.
Because it is answerable and thus not simply philisophy for the sake of philosophy. It has tangeable scientific value and it is something which we can eventually answer. It is part of the study of biology/physics. It contributes to our knowledge of the world in a meaningful scientific way while lotus blossums/adam and eve/turtles/ect are more abstract and contribute only in a philisphical/religious/historical way. Because unlike the other origin stories you can actually disprove/prove this because the story has implications you can investigate.
I haven't touched on any of the questions of whether ID, Evolution, Alien seeding, or any other answer to the question of Origin's are provable or logically valid. But if you wan't to diverge into those area's then feel free to do so. I'd be happy to meet you on those grounds too.
IS: unprovable Evolution: provable/well supported Alein seeding: depending on which theory provable
Your reading things into what I wrote. All I said was that if you treat evolution as an origin theory don't complain if someone else comes offers a counter theory to yours. If you treat is as origin theory then you open the door to Intelligent Design. If you want ID to stay in the Philosophy or Religion Class then keep evolutions out of the origins discussion when teaching it in the science class.
If you review the last few posts you will find you are guilty of the same sin. If I treat gravity as a origin theory it does not invalidate nor modify gravity theory. You are using a logical fallacy to argue yoru point. Your tryign to recast the arguement. However evolution is the origin theory that is well supported. It can be used as such since it does have a valid scientific principal that does in fact relate to the origin of life. Combined with organic chemistry it provided a way and a means to start and perpetuate and modify life. ID/creationism/turtle all the way down/ect.. does not. Your attempt to equate the two are ridiculous.
Let me check.... Nope not upset. Just like a good stimulating intellectual discussion. Provided the other person in the discussion is interested in actually having one. Instead of saying "you idea of origins doesn't fit the scientific method" instead of coming up with a valid argument against it. The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom. Let me say that again. The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom. Biology curriculum insist on putting it there though then everyone complains when there answer to the idea gets challenged in that same classroom.
You brought it up. So expect other people to challenge you on it.
"The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom. Let me say that again. The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom."
why? The big bang/organic chemistry/bucky balls ect.. have no place in science? why? explain? whats your rationale?
"Instead of saying "you idea of origins doesn't fit the scientific method" instead of coming up with a valid argument against it."
actually, that is a valid arguement against it.
" Provided the other person in the discussion is interested in actually having one"
neither of us will change our ideas. It is simply an argument for the spectators.
"Biology curriculum insist on putting it there though then everyone complains when there answer to the idea gets challenged in that same classroom."
It belongd there, it is almost the entirty of biology. The principal trunk of the field. Evolution has been scrutinized, revised, assualted, and withstood. It is as far as we know the best theory about biological changes in life and organic checmistry provides possible answers into a origin of life. IS/creationism/ect.. are all politically motivated. Why do we need to equate them?
"You brought it up. So expect other people to challenge you on it."
I have challenged many many creationist/ID supporters and every single one has shut up and gone away. They dont' have any valid arguments so they use crutches like logically fallacies to argue their point. Evolution is like gravity, you can't assualt it scientifically. Your trying a more orthoganal arguement and trying to reason that it should not be taught because it is an origin theory however this doesn't make any sense. There isn't any rationale. You are argueing entirly from a politically/religiously motivated point of view and you don't care for the truth because it doesn't support your case. Should we stop teaching organic chem because it contributes to an orgin theory, how about quantum physics, statistics? geology? Eartha nd Atmospheric sciences? all of these contribute to one theory about the origin of life. Evolution also contributes but is not the whoel theory. What makes any of this non scientific? Whats yrou rationale for making such a absurd arguement?
Actually I've studied it a great deal. As I said... If you can teach it without going into how it is an explanation for origins then feel free to teach it without it's conterpoint. When you go into a school however and listen to the curriculum it is all about origins. And if you insist on teaching origins in that setting then you better be prepared for the counter arguments. Evolution does indeed exist as a method for biological change. It is observable. It is not however the only possible explanation for "the origins of all life" and if you intend to present it in the classroom as such then don't get upset if someone want's to present the only possible counter argument. I can see where you got confused though.
I wasn't referring to evolution the observed phenomena. I was referring to Evolution (The proof that we don't have a creator). If you don't think it's taught that way then your either blind or self-deluded.
Here is your problem, you havent' assualted the theory, you only state you object to it's implications. This has nothing to do with the science behind it, only your inability to accept it as part of you belief system.
It does in fact give a possible origin of life. The exact origin is nebulous. Either life evolved here on earth, or else it evolved else where and was transported here via meteor. As far we know both cases are equally valid. There is somewhat mroe unlikely possibilities that is was intentially transported. Biologists/chemists have been workign on the viability of it just happening and according to our modern organic chemistry, over large periods of time it is very likely.
This does not say that god didn't create it all, since the universe is apparently deterministic and that at some point it was "created" he/she/it problably set it up so that life would be favorable. You can't prove or disprove that though so it has no place in science.
Your problem isn't with "evolution as a origin theory" your problem is that you need to have god directly intervene to create people or else your religion has somewhat less meaning. You can't just say "well evolution is a origin story so it must be lumped in with other origin stories". The chinese origin story abotu a lotus blossum on the sea of the universe is a quaint story, evolution is a well supported branch of biology. Not theory, it's a whole freaking branch. It's actually the lions share of biology.
I wasn't referring to evolution the observed phenomena. I was referring to Evolution (The proof that we don't have a creator). If you don't think it's taught that way then your either blind or self-deluded.
Evolution explains a mechanism. This mechanism removes the need to have a "origin" story or to have direct divine intrvention. This upsets you. This does not however change anything. God is God. Whether he used evolution to create things or he blinks them into exsistance with the wriggle of his/her/it's nose is of no consequence. You are argueing for confusing and denying a valid scientific idea because it doesn't fit with your particular brand of theism. This is stupid. Evolution should be taught, ID/creationism should not. If you deny there is a god and use evolution to support you claim fine, I'll simply state that god works in mysterious ways, and that since the universe is deterministic it meant that the liklihood of some external force causing it all to happen is not provable/disprovable and that I will continue beliving in a god thank you very much.
You however must have some sort of weak assed faith that folds like a house of cards when faced with uncomfortable facts. I suggests you try and find truth instead of comfort.
That's because evolutions at it's heart is based on just one thing: "There is no Creator."
So the only possible counterpoint is: "There is a Creator."
And since using "God" as a counter argument doesn't fit into the Scientific Method you have the convenient fall back of dismissing the only possible counter argument as "not science."
So, if I may, I'd like to point out that the question of "where it all started" doesn't belong in a Science classroom. It belongs in a Philosophy or World religion classroom. If you are going to teach it in the Science class though, then don't use that as a convenient excuse to exclude the only possible counter argument. That's just Intellectual dishonesty. Evpolution as a non origin's study, if you can keep it that way, is perfectly acceptable in the classroom. It's not presented that way currently though, nor is there any discernable desire to do so.
You dont' know anything about evolution don't you?
Evolution is based on the principal that "traits that can be passed onto progeny(genes) that are also hetrogenious(not all members have the same genes) and mutable(mutations) in some way will result in groups of living things changing over time to response to selective factors(observed often)". The assumptions about god are immaterial. God may have started it, there may be no god. Neither possibility changes evolution.
Your idea about evolution is deeply deeply flawed. It doesn't reflect it's current form or any of it's previous iterations. You are operating under a deep logical fallacy. Evolution has nothing to do with denying a god, only explaining a mechanism for biological change. It is often used as evidence to refute the exsistance of a god how ever God is not an idea that can be directly refuted. I am in fact a christian but I don't beleive in this IS/creationist propaganda.
ID/creationism aren't scientific at all. They are a politically/religiously motivated PR campiagn to assert a certain religions dominance in the American society. They have nothing to do with science and outisde of the US they are not given any credience.
Like I pointed out, it doesn't matter if a alien species/God/FSM/cthulu/me came to earth, tampered with the genetic material and created man, because the basic mechanisms of evolution stand.
A perfect case in point is the current debate over teaching evolution in public schools. You'd think that it was a religious debate on both sides, the way they act. Since they currently have the upper hand, they are determined not to give any ground, the mere mention that evolution has some competing theories is completely unacceptable, it must be taught as absolute fact with no questioning allowed. We simply can't allow young impressionable minds access to any facts that might contradict evolution, they might start questioning the "one true religion", and the scientific community can't bear the thought of that.
Regardless of your beliefs regarding evolution, disallowing any mention of other ideas is not education, it's indoctrination. If scientists that believe in evolution wanted to do what's right, they'd insist on a larger discussion about what various cultures historically believed about their origins and how our understanding has evolved and the questions that still exist. It could be done in a way that is not endorsing any particular "religion" and would certainly lead to some interesting class discussions.
There are a few things wrong with your arguement. 1- There are no valid alternatives to evolution, only ID/creationism. Evolution has help up to a lot of tests, we haven't formulated anything close to be as solid as evolution. Refinements to evolution are introduced all the time but evolution stands. Just like GR isn't 100% right but it still stands as a basic accepted theory. 2- You imply not offering alternatives is indoctrination however if there are no competing theories then you cannot offer alternatives. For instance The theory of thermodynamics has no competing theories so teaching that fairies may possibly transfer heat from one thing to another and that the entire universe is slowly heating up until it becomes one massive inferno would be absurd. 3- It might be fine in religion, but has no place in science. 4- your political/social motive is obvious as your ignorance of the subject. There is no alternative to evolution. Only refinements. If it turns out humans were introduced to earth via a alience specieis it still doesn't change evolution, onyl refine the theory and change our information abotu humans. Evolution is observable, well supported, although often refined.
Based on the moderation that followed, I would say that "some people" don't like it when popular theories get questioned. Which just goes to show you--once a scientific "fact" has been established, our attachment to it becomes as dogmatic as any theological notion...
Except scientific dogma can be changed with enough evidence. Taking a span of 1-20 years. Religious dogma either never changes or takes soemthign like the reformation or civil war. So the gulf is immense.
In your statement above, replace intelligent design with macro evolution and religious fundamentalist with mainstream scientist and see how it reads. The guys fought against OTHERS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY for YEARS trying to show that they were right. Religious fundamentalists arent the only ones to exhibit such closed minded properties. As I have stated in other posts, scientists have funding that are dependent on 'success'. I work at a research lab in academia. People aren't always after the truth. They are after way to make the funding keep coming in. I am not saying everyone is like this, but a scientific view that goes against the mainstream tends to loose funding. Your view of science of this happy place where everyone accepts new ideas no matter your background is somewhat naive.
They are not the same. Scientific inertia is different from religious dogma. The cause is the same but one never changes (or chages orthoganally to the evidence) while another will eventually change with enoughe evidence.
The Bastion of freedom comment was his not mine. I agree with you, except on lower standard of living, quality of life, then Europe. I've lived in Frankfurt Germany in what was considered a great apartment, it cost $1400 a month. It sucked, I own my own home with 2 acres. Cities everywhere pretty much suck in my opinion. In the US there is poverty, and in most cases it didn't have to happen.
Both metrics measure the average amount of things available to you. Standards of living is monetary and the average for an american vs a European or canadian is close but quality of life is a metric of what niceties of life are available, like park space and recreational time. In this catagory the US is far behind the rest of the western world. Remember, this is average not your quality.
People make decisions, some of those decisions have long term negative impact. Very true, there are some who repeatidly make exactly the same mistakes ad naseum for generations. That is the nature of poverty. However, education does help. And the more education that is availabel the less poverty there will be. The less poverty there will be the less violent crime and crime in general. Choosing to act like your friends, not finishing school etc. In this country we have people living of others with no intent on changing anything. I substituted at a local high school, the school is 70% kids who were tranfered and bussed in to increase diversity. All it really did was make the school overcrowded. Many of the students I taught were 16 and pregnant, there communication skills were non-existent and they refused to put in any effort.
This is generally a cultural problem, certain groups within cities don't beleive education benifits them. This needs to be addressed in different ways. One of which is media. There should be a lot more focus on achievment and much less on lottery type acheivments like the lottery, beign famour, ect...
They have follwed the same example set by their parents and they made decisions that will effect their children. No one did it to them, yet they expect the state to care for them. The US has spent 20 trillion dollars to fight poverty and give educational benefits to the poor.
I'm going to assume you invented that number since you don't provide a time period or anythign about adjustments for inflation ect... The US does spend on poverty provention,I dont' beleive the exact sum is not 20 trillion this year, or this decade.
It's not money well spent, what have we accomplished? Socialism provides no motivation to work. You cannot solve poverty by throwing money at people. I've seen examples of socialism at work, if it weren't for private contractors, Nasa couldn't build a paper airplane under budget and able to fly. Government employees seem to learn laziness, the minute they have that secure job.
The laziness of security is partly true, the inertia of anything that gets big is always a factor. But massive private inductry is not the answer. Many small businesses are the answer. For some indutries that works. Look at Canada, basically socialists. Less so then europe but much more so then Canada. The doctors aren't lazy. But they are government employees. Has one of the highest small business ratios in the western world. They seem to do alright. Poverty is solved by a push for education, a culture that pushes education, and resources available to exploit your educated work force. See China. Their poverty rate is small (the actually numbers are huge. but remember there are 1.3 billion chinese citizens, so 50 million people is still a lower rate then the US)
In Germany I read about a women getting denied unemployment benifits. Seems the enlightened germans made prostitution legal. So now the brothels can offer jobs to women on unemployment. The women lost her benefits by refusing a job as a prostitute. So how is that better than here? What I'm tired of is all the bashing of the US, I really am tired of all the
One nitpick, which actually, completely demolishes your ill-concieved point.
Video games are interactive, books are not. Whether one is worse than another is debatable, but since they are CLEARLY DIFFERENT your point that
"If one thinks we should ban violent media to protect children, then we should ban the bible"
is completely wrong, as they are not the same.
Otherwise a nice post though.
Books and letters have started wars and cultural reformations. Videogames have caused... err.... sloth. I'll pick videogames. You don't have much of a point either, because it's interactive it actually dulls the violence into nothingness. When I play Resident evil I am doing horrible things to humanoid forms. However I don't view it as any different then mario brothers where I do comical things to inhuman forms. I'm not fixated on what happens liek in a movie (ie clock work orange) but instead on achieving goals set int he game. Those goals basically translate into problem solving, wealth management, hand eye co-ordination, and memory. Being interactive doesn't add anythign to the equation.
So it's alright for others to point out America's faults but when the conversation turns the other way. Listen, I spent 20 years defending this country, I have friends that died at khobar towers. You are an anonymous troll who instead of making the US into the bastion of Freedom, as you say would rather we be become self loathing cowards.
Critisizing the US is not the same as wanting them to be self loathing cowards. The AC was an idiot but there are legitimate critisisms of any and all countries. The US is not a "Bastion of Freedom" either. The perception of the US world wide is that it is a place of opportunity but that Americans tend to be arrogant and self centered as a nation. There is more freedom in the US then say China, but there is a lower standard of living, quality of life, then Europe. There are less taxes, but also a smaller social safety net. There is more crime and corruption is pretty on par with almost any mature democracy. The US isn't horrible, but it isn't some bastion of freedom and peace.
A few factual corrections: Bolded sentences are my addition Fanboy alert!
Ok, let's look at this objectively (that might be hard for you). TFA
TFA only states that is what a microsoft rep says, the blu-ray people countered that by claimign it's all FUD. We wont' actually know until either HD DVD or blu ray products come out. So far it's all unsubstaitated hype/FUD
says they're backing HD-DVD because it's producable NOW. Blu-Ray is really expensive and they haven't hit the expected storage.
This is actually untrue, the blu-ray discs have had prototypes up to 100 gigs with workign models in the 30 - 50 gig range. What the microsoft people actually claim is that blu-ray doesn't yet have a manufacturing proccess for making the discs cheap yet. This is actually true, however HD DVD's have the same issue. Comercial products won't be out for it until febuary. Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will play HD content fine. Difference is in DRM and backwards compatiblity. DRM exsists in both
Considering the bitrate at 1080 is 25 Mbs, it allows for 20 HOURS of content on a 30GB HD-DVD producable TODAY. You mean febuary 2006.
Even with special features/audio/whatever, there's more than enough space there. I fail to see an advantage of Blu-Ray over HD-DVD considering the restrictions on it. Not mentioned in the articles but there are many atvantages mainly due to the "hackish" nature of the HD DVD format compared the the blu ray format. The jury is still out though, since neither product exsist for comercial consumption yet. Take the MS PR with a grain of salt
Content will not "look better" on Blu-Ray than HD-DVD. It'll look the same.
Likely yes. It's going to be the volume of content that differes. 80 gigs vs 50 gigs is substantial.
XBox360 will be $300 bare. It will also be a nextgen DVD player (as HD-DVD is also nextgen). ? the bare addition is a plain old DVD player, HD-DVD will be in the next expanded version. The deluxe version has an HD but still onyl a DVD drive. Microsoft has not yet commited to including a HD DVD in any of the xbox products. It may not do so until febuary 2006. It will likly be a deluxe product. The bare and deluxe versions are both DVD machines.
They're saving nothing on buying the $500 wannabe PC replacement. All the things Sony wants it to do (word processing/whatever) have been tried before, and they failed. They'll fail again. People won't be able to get their documents off to print them/whatever. That's a whole different rant.
err.. isn't that what the xbox is? a PC replacement candidate? The big issue is that MS must fight the sony hype or else the expectations of how good the PS3 will be will drown the xbox 360 like it did the dreamcast. From some points of view the dreamcast was a better machine but still got eaten alive by the PS2. MS is doign a PR trick to blunt the effective selling power of one of the features of the PS3 (the blu-ray reader). However the splitting of their product (core and deluxe) is generally regaurded as a bad idea and the further fragmentation HD DVd would introduce would be the same mistakes sega made with the segacd and 32x.
Not sure if you're a Sony fanboy or an MS hater. Either way you've not considered it very well.
Given the fatcual problems in your article I'd say your a XBOX fanboy for sure. I am pretty neutral. The PS3 isn't going to be some unholy CG rendering machine but neither is it going to be a flop. Sony has taken a few risks but less so then Microsoft has. the tiered product line and the explicit lack of a HD DVD/Blu-ray drive in their first product line will mean no one will buy one until it does except earlier adopters. But if you shaft them by making only a few DVD games or shafting early adopters of the HD DVD version by making only a few HD
Actually, yes, for awhile. The primary problem is that we have too many moist mucous membranes that will loose fluid. A face mask, covering ones nose and mouth would let one stay alive in space, even without a suit. However, one's eardrums would burst and one's eyes would boil away and probably burst as well. Add pain to the mixture as you think appropriate.
Arguably, one could make a space suit that was simply a skin tight layer + helmet. The problem with that would be that it would have to be *perfectly* skin tight. I.e. Any gas between the suit and you, and you will be VERY uncomfortable, as the gas makes the suit expand like a balloon. Assuming that was worked out, it would have of number advantages over conventional space suits. The joints would be MUCH more flexible, and less complex, as they wouldn't require complicated pressure equalization systems to allow the joints to move.
Hey, I just thought out how to get around the skintight issue. Cover the human in vaseline, or some other viscous nonvolatile (which means the vaseline wouldn't work very long, depending how much was evaporating through the suit) fluid, to fill in all the empty spaces left by the suit!
So you get a system that is = person + skin tight body suit + nonvolatile fluid + bubble helmet + Air supply. I'm certain it would work, just not sure for how long. The limiting factor is how fast you lose volatiles, but it could easily be made to work as long as the longest spacewalks the US has ever attempted, and would be a hell of a lot lighter, simpler, and cheaper.
The fact that the average temperature of all space is 4' kelvin is also an issue. although it's vastly warmer near leo it's still cold enough to have the person get serious frost bite after 0.01 seconds and the limbs would start freezing soon after. This would be the dark side, the light side woudl experience the same or much warmer temperatures depending on the color of your suit.
Also, radiation is an issue.
Add to this fact that it's not so much space making you explode it's the air in your lungs pushing out and nothing pushing in. This makes breathing very very hard. You would have to have the air mask at enough pressure to inflate the lungs, but not too much to have them tear the lungs as nothign outside is pushing back.
So what you actually need is:
person + skin tight body suit + nonvolatile fluid + bubble helmet + Air supply + radiation shielding + rigid structure to allow bretahing + isulation and heating
Closer then you think. China sunk a huge sum into US bonds, this helped boye the US economy. If the US economy tanked then China would lose a market, so they wisely bought US bonds to avert this. This set of republicans have been a fiscal disaster. Cutting taxes, increasin spending and comitting to a massively expensive war. You better hope the war succeeds and you get that oil because you will be in a huge deficit for a while to come. Bush may have put the seal on the death of the american empire.
Now you're getting it. A less effective government will be less intrusive, and that's Good.
Is it? Got an example? Has a larger government involvement in Canada made the people less happy? less prosperous? Your throwing out a old libertarian line thats just pith and nothing more. The government should do it's job. Soem industries shoudl belong to the government. Anythign essential like education, healthcare, power, gas, water, and law enforcement. The US has mostly gotten out of many of these essential industries and created semi-monopolies that do not work in the interests of their customers. Look at the statistics.
The rest of the western world is happier, healthier, smarter, almost as rich, higher quality of life, longer life, less affected by crime, and less affected by poverty then the americans. The americans have the lowest tax rates and smallest footprint of government. Has any of your philosophies bore any fruit? America is closer to the libertarian ideal then any other country but yet has nothign to show for it.
Remember that Democrats and Republicans are both authoritarian parties intent on wealth redistribution. Neither party restricts the other, they actually both help increase the tax base and takes care of each other's cronies.
The US has the lowest tax rate of any western nation. The US has one of the highest rates of poverty, lowest coverage of medicare, relativly low quality of life, and highest incidence of violent crime among the western nations. This includes Japan, Canada, the EU, the UK, Ireland, Australia, and South Korea. I don't think an "increase" of wealth distribution is a bad thing. In canada our taxes are higher, our people are healthier and happier, we have essentially the same productivity per person. Our economy is strong and robust. Each canadian has a very similiar but slightly lower buying power to a American. The american dream has convinced you to vote against your own interest because many american beelive they will someday be part of the tax bracket where having a low tax rate matters. I happily pay more taxes in the knowledge I will be middle class and the laws shoudl benifit me most because my segment contributes the most back in taxes and in other forms.
Only if the cable breaks at the bottom. If the cable breaks at the top or in the middle, most of it ends up whipping around the planet like a cheese slicer.
I think your confusing the real "nanotubules" with the fictional "monofiliment". It won't be like a cheese slicer, it will fall to earth. If it's a ribbon then it will fall very slowly. If it's a rope, it's reach some terminal velocity and be the equivilent to the being hit with a light piece fo rope goign very fast. Remember that they use this stuff because it is 1: strong 2: light so the amount of damage should it break would be minimal.
Hurricanes aren't solely destructive because of the wind. A lot of that destructive power comes from the things the wind is carrying. At a minimum you have water, which makes the wind a bit dense. But in reality, you have all sorts of debris. Roof shingles, plants, etc.
Carbon nano-tubes have great strenths, but most things under linear stretching don't require a lot of lateral impact to cause them to break.
they would build it in the ocean, there would be no flying debris, just winds, water, and flying whales.
The design in TFA is a 1m-wide, paper-thin ribbon. A structure like that would be easily buffetted by a hurricane's 200mph gusts, causing it to rapidly twist and turn.
The problem is that nanotubes undergo buckling under torsional stress, which is exactly what that kind of twisting and snapping back and forth in strong, gusty winds would do. Worse, hurricanes can spawn tornados (waterspouts), which would place very high torsional stresses on the elevator.
Contrary to what you say, hurricanes and the intense torsional stresses they could apply to a thin, stretched ribbon might be a very serious problem for a space elevator.
(This is why plans for an elevator stick it in the eastern half of an ocean, since hurricanes and typhoons move east-to-west as they build. Regardless, this could be a potential problem, even for the weaker storms such areas get.)
The cable would be under a great deal of tension, I'm not sure if the lateral force for huricane winds would cause it to be blown around. Since the majority of the cable would also not be in the part of the atmosphere that a hurricane affects. They would problably also build it out in the ocean so flying debris isn't as much of a problem.
Overnight it would become the primary world terrorist target.
Terrorists are about as dire of a problem as Video game homicides. It's a negligable threat. It deserves about 1/1000th the press it's gotten. It killes less people a year world wide then Cirohsis but get 100x as much funding.
Slashdot Mirror
How exactly does the question of who introduced the concept make a difference as to it's validity?
It doesn't except the arguement is over evolution which is a scientific concept. It would be like a two having an conversation over cars and the one suddenly says that all red sedans are macro cars and all blue sedans micro cars and that blue sedans can be easily observed but red sedans is questionable because it's different.
First off, there is no scientific basis for this differentiation, the people who coined the terms and support the split are not scientists or have done any work int hat field. It's tantamount to having a career mechanic come into a surgury room and start cutting and proclaim he has fixed the mans leaky heart valve. He might have done so but chances are he killed the patient. The differentation is a cosmetic thing used to put to questiont he theory of evolution. It works onyl to those who know little about biology.
There most certainly is a difference. It's a clarification of terms to define the argument. They don't dispute that you can have mulitple breeds of dog (or cat or elephant or any other species) We do dispute that you can have large irreversible shifts in a population resulting in the introduction of a significantly more advanced species genetically.
First off, evolution is not about advancement. It is about adaptation. You don't change to get better, you actually almost never change. It's the population that evolves and changes. You have a population, they live for a while. Some new selective force comes and kills certain individuals. Those genes are no longer passed on. Over a short or long time (both happen) the population as a whole differs. Accumaulations of these changes leads to speciation when the species cannot or will not mate with other closely related individuals. IE. we biologically can't mate with a ape. Certain birds won't mate with other closely related birds even though artificial means can create viable young. The source of differences are mutations. Mutations occur at a regular rates with soem more common then others. most mutations are fatal or non-sensical (do nothing), some entirely detrimental, a rare few are detrimental but carries some benificial phenotypic change. For instance I have alpha thalasemia, which has some health setbacks but makes me virtually immune to malaria, an important trait in south west asia. If for some reason this muation made my skin horribly acned and non-afflicted peopel wouldn't mate with me while other afflicted people would we would speciate as well as look different.
The Macro/Micro split is that creationists want to introduce the idea that this can't or isn't how things like an arm form. How ever many creature have vestigual features that suggest this is exactly how they lost them, and it's not a leap at all to figure this is how they got them. it's like claiming that you may be able to code a calculator in C but you can't program a 3d game engine because it's too complex. No real rationale is given. The difference is time span and complexity of accumulated changes, not mechanism.
That is the crux of the argument. And it required a definition of terms to keep the discussion on target. The fact that you can't allow for the difference demonstrates the flaw in Evolutionary theory.
This is what you do when you have the weaker position in a debate, you introduce terms (macro/micro) to partly confuse the judges (they happen to be idiots) and try and wittle your opponents case away. It's a logical fallacy, your no longer argueing about the same thing. The creationists use it to mitigate a iron clad case to say "wait, you proved that. I can't disprove it. But I'll just confuse the case and I'll win anyways". Also known as the chewbacca defence. To people who know the subject you sound liek an idiot but the jury of the american press/people don't know it that well and in the idea of "fairness" they give both side equal credit. But it's grossly unequal. Evolution is the theory
king-manic, it's interesting that you keep on bringing up the idea of aliens delivering human DNA to the planet from outside. As an intellectual concept, it seems almost equivalent to the idea of a God shaping humans out of dirt. It doesn't say anything more than the God theory about where the contents of the meteorite (or whatever) might have come from, it just posits that "one day, it wasn't here, the next day, it was." To the degree that evolution is compatible with alien delivery of DNA, it (a) is similarly compatible with Intelligent Design and Creation by Divine Fiat, and (b) isn't really proving anything about what actually did happen.
I actually only bring it up because it is a fringe theory that is more valid that ID. Although ID doesn't actually say much. ID is the kludge that keeps intelligent Fundementalists from packing up and folding. Divine fiat is fine, I actually beleive god made it all, however I don't beleive that he would salt the evidence so we would come to the wrong conclusion or he would create life in a way that we would intuitivly want. He doesn't play dice. "He plays some strange card game where only he knows the rules and he smiles a lot"-Neil Gaiman. I myself do not put too much credience into the alien seed theory of life.
I'm assuming IS = ID Demonstrate how this is unprovable.
Intelligent design does not make any predictions, does not have any premises that can be disproved or supported thus it is unprovable.
Evolution: the question of whether this is well supported (regarding its occurence on a macro scale) is hardly settled. Even among the rank and file of your Biology Experts. Many people have come up with proposed mechanism's but no one has been able to prove the mechanism occured. The most they can come up with is "the pieces of this mechanism exist in nature. Therefore this mechanism is a possible explanation for our existence." No one has been able to point to any definitive proof that they did occur. Only as to their relative likelihood. And no, Assuming that since life exists is proof that they did occur doesn't logically follow. You can prove life exists. You haven't been able to prove how it got here yet though. So any idea is fair game. Even if that idea can't yet be proven. I'll make you a deal: you show how Macro Scale Evolution can be proven to the same degree that gravity can. And I'll accept your argument.
actually no. Macro evoltuion/micro evolution are not concepts in evolutionary theory. They are ideas introduced by the ID/creationist camp after they could not directly assault evolution. It is a rhetorical trick. Split the definitioninto and disprove one side of yoru split. Outside of the US macro/micro evolution are almost unheard of. There is no differences, macro vs micro are entirely a american construct made to partially support creationism/ID.
Alien Seeding: I'll agree with you there. Given the right theory it is provable with evidence. (Aliens showing up and telling about our ancestors in the stars for instance.) Of course ID is provable in roughly that same way so I guess you could say it is just about as provable.
ID is not even close.
If we were seed from alien life, then
1- we would find meteors with organics molecules/life in them. We have.
2- Meteorites would have to survive intact and not obliterate the organisms/organic molecules inside. We have proved they can.
3- We coudl one day find life elsewhere with a similiar make up, this would hevily support this idea.
If ID were true, then
1- err... nothing because it doesn't have any implications, it's a rationalization.
I'm saying that using Evolutions as an Origin theory opens the door to other origin theories in the argument. You have in fact just proved my point. You assume that evolution can't be taught as anything other than an origin theory.
No, I'm saying evolution is part of a origin theory. However this particular origin theory is our best guest given the current evidence at what actually happened. The others are as well but with a lot less information. There is no equating them, the study of the origin of life is also a branch of biology and it has nothing to do with "metaphysics" since it is entirly about organic chemistry. Evolution is a lead off point for it.
If that is true then expect counter theories to be provided on origins. Whether those theories are intelligent design or a lotus blossom on an ocean.
Alright, so I have a well thought out theory based on reams of scientific evidence and somehow you would like me to equate it to "we were vomitted out of the great creator after he had some cheese". That rationale hodls any water.
Because the Question of Origins is a metaphysical question not scientific.
Metaphysics? why is that question metaphysical? what makes it so? it's a question that can be answered with enough evidence, so what seperate "how did we get here" from "why is the sky blue"? Why should we seperate them? What makes that question untouchable but the question of "why does my son have red hair when me and my wife are blonde".
And you still haven't made an argument for it to be otherwise.
Because it is answerable and thus not simply philisophy for the sake of philosophy. It has tangeable scientific value and it is something which we can eventually answer. It is part of the study of biology/physics. It contributes to our knowledge of the world in a meaningful scientific way while lotus blossums/adam and eve/turtles/ect are more abstract and contribute only in a philisphical/religious/historical way. Because unlike the other origin stories you can actually disprove/prove this because the story has implications you can investigate.
I haven't touched on any of the questions of whether ID, Evolution, Alien seeding, or any other answer to the question of Origin's are provable or logically valid. But if you wan't to diverge into those area's then feel free to do so. I'd be happy to meet you on those grounds too.
IS: unprovable
Evolution: provable/well supported
Alein seeding: depending on which theory provable
Your reading things into what I wrote. All I said was that if you treat evolution as an origin theory don't complain if someone else comes offers a counter theory to yours. If you treat is as origin theory then you open the door to Intelligent Design. If you want ID to stay in the Philosophy or Religion Class then keep evolutions out of the origins discussion when teaching it in the science class.
If you review the last few posts you will find you are guilty of the same sin. If I treat gravity as a origin theory it does not invalidate nor modify gravity theory. You are using a logical fallacy to argue yoru point. Your tryign to recast the arguement. However evolution is the origin theory that is well supported. It can be used as such since it does have a valid scientific principal that does in fact relate to the origin of life. Combined with organic chemistry it provided a way and a means to start and perpetuate and modify life. ID/creationism/turtle all the way down/ect.. does not. Your attempt to equate the two are ridiculous.
Let me check.... Nope not upset. Just like a good stimulating intellectual discussion. Provided the other person in the discussion is interested in actually having one. Instead of saying "you idea of origins doesn't fit the scientific method" instead of coming up with a valid argument against it. The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom. Let me say that again. The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom. Biology curriculum insist on putting it there though then everyone complains when there answer to the idea gets challenged in that same classroom.
You brought it up. So expect other people to challenge you on it.
"The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom. Let me say that again. The question of "how it all started" doesn't not belong in a science classroom."
why? The big bang/organic chemistry/bucky balls ect.. have no place in science? why? explain? whats your rationale?
"Instead of saying "you idea of origins doesn't fit the scientific method" instead of coming up with a valid argument against it."
actually, that is a valid arguement against it.
" Provided the other person in the discussion is interested in actually having one"
neither of us will change our ideas. It is simply an argument for the spectators.
"Biology curriculum insist on putting it there though then everyone complains when there answer to the idea gets challenged in that same classroom."
It belongd there, it is almost the entirty of biology. The principal trunk of the field. Evolution has been scrutinized, revised, assualted, and withstood. It is as far as we know the best theory about biological changes in life and organic checmistry provides possible answers into a origin of life. IS/creationism/ect.. are all politically motivated. Why do we need to equate them?
"You brought it up. So expect other people to challenge you on it."
I have challenged many many creationist/ID supporters and every single one has shut up and gone away. They dont' have any valid arguments so they use crutches like logically fallacies to argue their point. Evolution is like gravity, you can't assualt it scientifically. Your trying a more orthoganal arguement and trying to reason that it should not be taught because it is an origin theory however this doesn't make any sense. There isn't any rationale. You are argueing entirly from a politically/religiously motivated point of view and you don't care for the truth because it doesn't support your case. Should we stop teaching organic chem because it contributes to an orgin theory, how about quantum physics, statistics? geology? Eartha nd Atmospheric sciences? all of these contribute to one theory about the origin of life. Evolution also contributes but is not the whoel theory. What makes any of this non scientific? Whats yrou rationale for making such a absurd arguement?
Actually I've studied it a great deal. As I said... If you can teach it without going into how it is an explanation for origins then feel free to teach it without it's conterpoint. When you go into a school however and listen to the curriculum it is all about origins. And if you insist on teaching origins in that setting then you better be prepared for the counter arguments. Evolution does indeed exist as a method for biological change. It is observable. It is not however the only possible explanation for "the origins of all life" and if you intend to present it in the classroom as such then don't get upset if someone want's to present the only possible counter argument. I can see where you got confused though.
I wasn't referring to evolution the observed phenomena. I was referring to Evolution (The proof that we don't have a creator). If you don't think it's taught that way then your either blind or self-deluded.
Here is your problem, you havent' assualted the theory, you only state you object to it's implications. This has nothing to do with the science behind it, only your inability to accept it as part of you belief system.
It does in fact give a possible origin of life. The exact origin is nebulous. Either life evolved here on earth, or else it evolved else where and was transported here via meteor. As far we know both cases are equally valid. There is somewhat mroe unlikely possibilities that is was intentially transported. Biologists/chemists have been workign on the viability of it just happening and according to our modern organic chemistry, over large periods of time it is very likely.
This does not say that god didn't create it all, since the universe is apparently deterministic and that at some point it was "created" he/she/it problably set it up so that life would be favorable. You can't prove or disprove that though so it has no place in science.
Your problem isn't with "evolution as a origin theory" your problem is that you need to have god directly intervene to create people or else your religion has somewhat less meaning. You can't just say "well evolution is a origin story so it must be lumped in with other origin stories". The chinese origin story abotu a lotus blossum on the sea of the universe is a quaint story, evolution is a well supported branch of biology. Not theory, it's a whole freaking branch. It's actually the lions share of biology.
I wasn't referring to evolution the observed phenomena. I was referring to Evolution (The proof that we don't have a creator). If you don't think it's taught that way then your either blind or self-deluded.
Evolution explains a mechanism. This mechanism removes the need to have a "origin" story or to have direct divine intrvention. This upsets you. This does not however change anything. God is God. Whether he used evolution to create things or he blinks them into exsistance with the wriggle of his/her/it's nose is of no consequence. You are argueing for confusing and denying a valid scientific idea because it doesn't fit with your particular brand of theism. This is stupid. Evolution should be taught, ID/creationism should not. If you deny there is a god and use evolution to support you claim fine, I'll simply state that god works in mysterious ways, and that since the universe is deterministic it meant that the liklihood of some external force causing it all to happen is not provable/disprovable and that I will continue beliving in a god thank you very much.
You however must have some sort of weak assed faith that folds like a house of cards when faced with uncomfortable facts. I suggests you try and find truth instead of comfort.
That's because evolutions at it's heart is based on just one thing: "There is no Creator."
So the only possible counterpoint is: "There is a Creator."
And since using "God" as a counter argument doesn't fit into the Scientific Method you have the convenient fall back of dismissing the only possible counter argument as "not science."
So, if I may, I'd like to point out that the question of "where it all started" doesn't belong in a Science classroom. It belongs in a Philosophy or World religion classroom. If you are going to teach it in the Science class though, then don't use that as a convenient excuse to exclude the only possible counter argument. That's just Intellectual dishonesty. Evpolution as a non origin's study, if you can keep it that way, is perfectly acceptable in the classroom. It's not presented that way currently though, nor is there any discernable desire to do so.
You dont' know anything about evolution don't you?
Evolution is based on the principal that "traits that can be passed onto progeny(genes) that are also hetrogenious(not all members have the same genes) and mutable(mutations) in some way will result in groups of living things changing over time to response to selective factors(observed often)". The assumptions about god are immaterial. God may have started it, there may be no god. Neither possibility changes evolution.
Your idea about evolution is deeply deeply flawed. It doesn't reflect it's current form or any of it's previous iterations. You are operating under a deep logical fallacy. Evolution has nothing to do with denying a god, only explaining a mechanism for biological change. It is often used as evidence to refute the exsistance of a god how ever God is not an idea that can be directly refuted. I am in fact a christian but I don't beleive in this IS/creationist propaganda.
ID/creationism aren't scientific at all. They are a politically/religiously motivated PR campiagn to assert a certain religions dominance in the American society. They have nothing to do with science and outisde of the US they are not given any credience.
Like I pointed out, it doesn't matter if a alien species/God/FSM/cthulu/me came to earth, tampered with the genetic material and created man, because the basic mechanisms of evolution stand.
A perfect case in point is the current debate over teaching evolution in public schools. You'd think that it was a religious debate on both sides, the way they act. Since they currently have the upper hand, they are determined not to give any ground, the mere mention that evolution has some competing theories is completely unacceptable, it must be taught as absolute fact with no questioning allowed. We simply can't allow young impressionable minds access to any facts that might contradict evolution, they might start questioning the "one true religion", and the scientific community can't bear the thought of that.
Regardless of your beliefs regarding evolution, disallowing any mention of other ideas is not education, it's indoctrination. If scientists that believe in evolution wanted to do what's right, they'd insist on a larger discussion about what various cultures historically believed about their origins and how our understanding has evolved and the questions that still exist. It could be done in a way that is not endorsing any particular "religion" and would certainly lead to some interesting class discussions.
There are a few things wrong with your arguement.
1- There are no valid alternatives to evolution, only ID/creationism. Evolution has help up to a lot of tests, we haven't formulated anything close to be as solid as evolution. Refinements to evolution are introduced all the time but evolution stands. Just like GR isn't 100% right but it still stands as a basic accepted theory.
2- You imply not offering alternatives is indoctrination however if there are no competing theories then you cannot offer alternatives. For instance The theory of thermodynamics has no competing theories so teaching that fairies may possibly transfer heat from one thing to another and that the entire universe is slowly heating up until it becomes one massive inferno would be absurd.
3- It might be fine in religion, but has no place in science.
4- your political/social motive is obvious as your ignorance of the subject. There is no alternative to evolution. Only refinements. If it turns out humans were introduced to earth via a alience specieis it still doesn't change evolution, onyl refine the theory and change our information abotu humans. Evolution is observable, well supported, although often refined.
Dark Matter is far from an accepted Hypothesis, yet seemingly intelligent people defend it on the basis that it's the best thing going.
People like some romantic ideas. For instance: Free will, Ether, Non-Deterministic Universe, FLT, Ghosts, ect...
Dark Matter happens to fit this notion, like either it sort of makes a loose intuitive sense and the exotic term help keep it in peoples minds.
Based on the moderation that followed, I would say that "some people" don't like it when popular theories get questioned. Which just goes to show you--once a scientific "fact" has been established, our attachment to it becomes as dogmatic as any theological notion...
Except scientific dogma can be changed with enough evidence. Taking a span of 1-20 years. Religious dogma either never changes or takes soemthign like the reformation or civil war. So the gulf is immense.
In your statement above, replace intelligent design with macro evolution and religious fundamentalist with mainstream scientist and see how it reads. The guys fought against OTHERS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY for YEARS trying to show that they were right. Religious fundamentalists arent the only ones to exhibit such closed minded properties. As I have stated in other posts, scientists have funding that are dependent on 'success'. I work at a research lab in academia. People aren't always after the truth. They are after way to make the funding keep coming in. I am not saying everyone is like this, but a scientific view that goes against the mainstream tends to loose funding. Your view of science of this happy place where everyone accepts new ideas no matter your background is somewhat naive.
They are not the same. Scientific inertia is different from religious dogma. The cause is the same but one never changes (or chages orthoganally to the evidence) while another will eventually change with enoughe evidence.
The Bastion of freedom comment was his not mine. I agree with you, except on lower standard of living, quality of life, then Europe. I've lived in Frankfurt Germany in what was considered a great apartment, it cost $1400 a month. It sucked, I own my own home with 2 acres. Cities everywhere pretty much suck in my opinion. In the US there is poverty, and in most cases it didn't have to happen.
Both metrics measure the average amount of things available to you. Standards of living is monetary and the average for an american vs a European or canadian is close but quality of life is a metric of what niceties of life are available, like park space and recreational time. In this catagory the US is far behind the rest of the western world. Remember, this is average not your quality.
People make decisions, some of those decisions have long term negative impact.
Very true, there are some who repeatidly make exactly the same mistakes ad naseum for generations. That is the nature of poverty. However, education does help. And the more education that is availabel the less poverty there will be. The less poverty there will be the less violent crime and crime in general.
Choosing to act like your friends, not finishing school etc. In this country we have people living of others with no intent on changing anything. I substituted at a local high school, the school is 70% kids who were tranfered and bussed in to increase diversity. All it really did was make the school overcrowded. Many of the students I taught were 16 and pregnant, there communication skills were non-existent and they refused to put in any effort.
This is generally a cultural problem, certain groups within cities don't beleive education benifits them. This needs to be addressed in different ways. One of which is media. There should be a lot more focus on achievment and much less on lottery type acheivments like the lottery, beign famour, ect...
They have follwed the same example set by their parents and they made decisions that will effect their children. No one did it to them, yet they expect the state to care for them. The US has spent 20 trillion dollars to fight poverty and give educational benefits to the poor.
I'm going to assume you invented that number since you don't provide a time period or anythign about adjustments for inflation ect... The US does spend on poverty provention,I dont' beleive the exact sum is not 20 trillion this year, or this decade.
It's not money well spent, what have we accomplished? Socialism provides no motivation to work. You cannot solve poverty by throwing money at people. I've seen examples of socialism at work, if it weren't for private contractors, Nasa couldn't build a paper airplane under budget and able to fly. Government employees seem to learn laziness, the minute they have that secure job.
The laziness of security is partly true, the inertia of anything that gets big is always a factor. But massive private inductry is not the answer. Many small businesses are the answer. For some indutries that works. Look at Canada, basically socialists. Less so then europe but much more so then Canada. The doctors aren't lazy. But they are government employees. Has one of the highest small business ratios in the western world. They seem to do alright. Poverty is solved by a push for education, a culture that pushes education, and resources available to exploit your educated work force. See China. Their poverty rate is small (the actually numbers are huge. but remember there are 1.3 billion chinese citizens, so 50 million people is still a lower rate then the US)
In Germany I read about a women getting denied unemployment benifits. Seems the enlightened germans made prostitution legal. So now the brothels can offer jobs to women on unemployment. The women lost her benefits by refusing a job as a prostitute. So how is that better than here? What I'm tired of is all the bashing of the US, I really am tired of all the
One nitpick, which actually, completely demolishes your ill-concieved point.
Video games are interactive, books are not. Whether one is worse than another is debatable, but since they are CLEARLY DIFFERENT your point that
"If one thinks we should ban violent media to protect children, then we should ban the bible"
is completely wrong, as they are not the same.
Otherwise a nice post though.
Books and letters have started wars and cultural reformations. Videogames have caused... err.... sloth. I'll pick videogames. You don't have much of a point either, because it's interactive it actually dulls the violence into nothingness. When I play Resident evil I am doing horrible things to humanoid forms. However I don't view it as any different then mario brothers where I do comical things to inhuman forms. I'm not fixated on what happens liek in a movie (ie clock work orange) but instead on achieving goals set int he game. Those goals basically translate into problem solving, wealth management, hand eye co-ordination, and memory. Being interactive doesn't add anythign to the equation.
Slavery was much different in ancient times. The American slavery was often much more brutal. But slavery in general is bad.
So it's alright for others to point out America's faults but when the conversation turns the other way. Listen, I spent 20 years defending this country, I have friends that died at khobar towers. You are an anonymous troll who instead of making the US into the bastion of Freedom, as you say would rather we be become self loathing cowards.
Critisizing the US is not the same as wanting them to be self loathing cowards. The AC was an idiot but there are legitimate critisisms of any and all countries. The US is not a "Bastion of Freedom" either. The perception of the US world wide is that it is a place of opportunity but that Americans tend to be arrogant and self centered as a nation. There is more freedom in the US then say China, but there is a lower standard of living, quality of life, then Europe. There are less taxes, but also a smaller social safety net. There is more crime and corruption is pretty on par with almost any mature democracy. The US isn't horrible, but it isn't some bastion of freedom and peace.
A few factual corrections:
Bolded sentences are my addition
Fanboy alert!
Ok, let's look at this objectively (that might be hard for you). TFA
TFA only states that is what a microsoft rep says, the blu-ray people countered that by claimign it's all FUD. We wont' actually know until either HD DVD or blu ray products come out. So far it's all unsubstaitated hype/FUD
says they're backing HD-DVD because it's producable NOW. Blu-Ray is really expensive and they haven't hit the expected storage.
This is actually untrue, the blu-ray discs have had prototypes up to 100 gigs with workign models in the 30 - 50 gig range. What the microsoft people actually claim is that blu-ray doesn't yet have a manufacturing proccess for making the discs cheap yet. This is actually true, however HD DVD's have the same issue. Comercial products won't be out for it until febuary.
Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will play HD content fine. Difference is in DRM and backwards compatiblity.
DRM exsists in both
Considering the bitrate at 1080 is 25 Mbs, it allows for 20 HOURS of content on a 30GB HD-DVD producable TODAY.
You mean febuary 2006.
Even with special features/audio/whatever, there's more than enough space there. I fail to see an advantage of Blu-Ray over HD-DVD considering the restrictions on it.
Not mentioned in the articles but there are many atvantages mainly due to the "hackish" nature of the HD DVD format compared the the blu ray format. The jury is still out though, since neither product exsist for comercial consumption yet. Take the MS PR with a grain of salt
Content will not "look better" on Blu-Ray than HD-DVD. It'll look the same.
Likely yes. It's going to be the volume of content that differes. 80 gigs vs 50 gigs is substantial.
XBox360 will be $300 bare. It will also be a nextgen DVD player (as HD-DVD is also nextgen).
? the bare addition is a plain old DVD player, HD-DVD will be in the next expanded version. The deluxe version has an HD but still onyl a DVD drive. Microsoft has not yet commited to including a HD DVD in any of the xbox products. It may not do so until febuary 2006. It will likly be a deluxe product. The bare and deluxe versions are both DVD machines.
They're saving nothing on buying the $500 wannabe PC replacement. All the things Sony wants it to do (word processing/whatever) have been tried before, and they failed. They'll fail again. People won't be able to get their documents off to print them/whatever. That's a whole different rant.
err.. isn't that what the xbox is? a PC replacement candidate? The big issue is that MS must fight the sony hype or else the expectations of how good the PS3 will be will drown the xbox 360 like it did the dreamcast. From some points of view the dreamcast was a better machine but still got eaten alive by the PS2. MS is doign a PR trick to blunt the effective selling power of one of the features of the PS3 (the blu-ray reader). However the splitting of their product (core and deluxe) is generally regaurded as a bad idea and the further fragmentation HD DVd would introduce would be the same mistakes sega made with the segacd and 32x.
Not sure if you're a Sony fanboy or an MS hater. Either way you've not considered it very well.
Given the fatcual problems in your article I'd say your a XBOX fanboy for sure. I am pretty neutral. The PS3 isn't going to be some unholy CG rendering machine but neither is it going to be a flop. Sony has taken a few risks but less so then Microsoft has. the tiered product line and the explicit lack of a HD DVD/Blu-ray drive in their first product line will mean no one will buy one until it does except earlier adopters. But if you shaft them by making only a few DVD games or shafting early adopters of the HD DVD version by making only a few HD
Actually, yes, for awhile. The primary problem is that we have too many moist mucous membranes that will loose fluid. A face mask, covering ones nose and mouth would let one stay alive in space, even without a suit. However, one's eardrums would burst and one's eyes would boil away and probably burst as well. Add pain to the mixture as you think appropriate.
Arguably, one could make a space suit that was simply a skin tight layer + helmet. The problem with that would be that it would have to be *perfectly* skin tight. I.e. Any gas between the suit and you, and you will be VERY uncomfortable, as the gas makes the suit expand like a balloon. Assuming that was worked out, it would have of number advantages over conventional space suits. The joints would be MUCH more flexible, and less complex, as they wouldn't require complicated pressure equalization systems to allow the joints to move.
Hey, I just thought out how to get around the skintight issue. Cover the human in vaseline, or some other viscous nonvolatile (which means the vaseline wouldn't work very long, depending how much was evaporating through the suit) fluid, to fill in all the empty spaces left by the suit!
So you get a system that is = person + skin tight body suit + nonvolatile fluid + bubble helmet + Air supply. I'm certain it would work, just not sure for how long. The limiting factor is how fast you lose volatiles, but it could easily be made to work as long as the longest spacewalks the US has ever attempted, and would be a hell of a lot lighter, simpler, and cheaper.
The fact that the average temperature of all space is 4' kelvin is also an issue. although it's vastly warmer near leo it's still cold enough to have the person get serious frost bite after 0.01 seconds and the limbs would start freezing soon after. This would be the dark side, the light side woudl experience the same or much warmer temperatures depending on the color of your suit.
Also, radiation is an issue.
Add to this fact that it's not so much space making you explode it's the air in your lungs pushing out and nothing pushing in. This makes breathing very very hard. You would have to have the air mask at enough pressure to inflate the lungs, but not too much to have them tear the lungs as nothign outside is pushing back.
So what you actually need is:
person + skin tight body suit + nonvolatile fluid + bubble helmet + Air supply + radiation shielding + rigid structure to allow bretahing + isulation and heating
basically a space suit.
Its not just computer jargon that is confusing
I still don't know what TPS stands for.,
For me it's Telus Plaza South.
Hu Jintao / Wen Jiabao '08 ?
Closer then you think. China sunk a huge sum into US bonds, this helped boye the US economy. If the US economy tanked then China would lose a market, so they wisely bought US bonds to avert this. This set of republicans have been a fiscal disaster. Cutting taxes, increasin spending and comitting to a massively expensive war. You better hope the war succeeds and you get that oil because you will be in a huge deficit for a while to come. Bush may have put the seal on the death of the american empire.
Now you're getting it. A less effective government will be less intrusive, and that's Good.
Is it? Got an example? Has a larger government involvement in Canada made the people less happy? less prosperous? Your throwing out a old libertarian line thats just pith and nothing more. The government should do it's job. Soem industries shoudl belong to the government. Anythign essential like education, healthcare, power, gas, water, and law enforcement. The US has mostly gotten out of many of these essential industries and created semi-monopolies that do not work in the interests of their customers. Look at the statistics.
The rest of the western world is happier, healthier, smarter, almost as rich, higher quality of life, longer life, less affected by crime, and less affected by poverty then the americans. The americans have the lowest tax rates and smallest footprint of government. Has any of your philosophies bore any fruit? America is closer to the libertarian ideal then any other country but yet has nothign to show for it.
Remember that Democrats and Republicans are both authoritarian parties intent on wealth redistribution. Neither party restricts the other, they actually both help increase the tax base and takes care of each other's cronies.
The US has the lowest tax rate of any western nation. The US has one of the highest rates of poverty, lowest coverage of medicare, relativly low quality of life, and highest incidence of violent crime among the western nations. This includes Japan, Canada, the EU, the UK, Ireland, Australia, and South Korea. I don't think an "increase" of wealth distribution is a bad thing. In canada our taxes are higher, our people are healthier and happier, we have essentially the same productivity per person. Our economy is strong and robust. Each canadian has a very similiar but slightly lower buying power to a American. The american dream has convinced you to vote against your own interest because many american beelive they will someday be part of the tax bracket where having a low tax rate matters. I happily pay more taxes in the knowledge I will be middle class and the laws shoudl benifit me most because my segment contributes the most back in taxes and in other forms.
Only if the cable breaks at the bottom. If the cable breaks at the top or in the middle, most of it ends up whipping around the planet like a cheese slicer.
I think your confusing the real "nanotubules" with the fictional "monofiliment". It won't be like a cheese slicer, it will fall to earth. If it's a ribbon then it will fall very slowly. If it's a rope, it's reach some terminal velocity and be the equivilent to the being hit with a light piece fo rope goign very fast. Remember that they use this stuff because it is
1: strong
2: light
so the amount of damage should it break would be minimal.
No, but I'll bet a 2x4 at 90 miles per hour will.
Hurricanes aren't solely destructive because of the wind. A lot of that destructive power comes from the things the wind is carrying. At a minimum you have water, which makes the wind a bit dense. But in reality, you have all sorts of debris. Roof shingles, plants, etc.
Carbon nano-tubes have great strenths, but most things under linear stretching don't require a lot of lateral impact to cause them to break.
they would build it in the ocean, there would be no flying debris, just winds, water, and flying whales.
The design in TFA is a 1m-wide, paper-thin ribbon. A structure like that would be easily buffetted by a hurricane's 200mph gusts, causing it to rapidly twist and turn.
The problem is that nanotubes undergo buckling under torsional stress, which is exactly what that kind of twisting and snapping back and forth in strong, gusty winds would do. Worse, hurricanes can spawn tornados (waterspouts), which would place very high torsional stresses on the elevator.
Contrary to what you say, hurricanes and the intense torsional stresses they could apply to a thin, stretched ribbon might be a very serious problem for a space elevator.
(This is why plans for an elevator stick it in the eastern half of an ocean, since hurricanes and typhoons move east-to-west as they build. Regardless, this could be a potential problem, even for the weaker storms such areas get.)
The cable would be under a great deal of tension, I'm not sure if the lateral force for huricane winds would cause it to be blown around. Since the majority of the cable would also not be in the part of the atmosphere that a hurricane affects. They would problably also build it out in the ocean so flying debris isn't as much of a problem.
Overnight it would become the primary world terrorist target.
Terrorists are about as dire of a problem as Video game homicides. It's a negligable threat. It deserves about 1/1000th the press it's gotten. It killes less people a year world wide then Cirohsis but get 100x as much funding.