Methane doesn't brake down our ozone layer. It actually creates ozone by reacting with oxygen (O2). The only problem is that it creates it too low in the atmosphere.
It's also a greenhouse gas which brakes down into large quantities of CO2 which is another greenhouse gas so I know it's all that safe either.
Well, ALSA has 3D audio support for Sound Blaster Live! cards (I get 4 channel sound from my DVDs when played with Mplayer using the alsa audio output on my SB Live! 5.1).
And since version 2, WineX has been able to translate DirectSound 3D into ALSA's 3D API.
That may cause problems for X drivers that cannot be ran multiple instances.
I'm using ATI's flgrx drivers and if I start a second xsession, going back to the first one will freeze the computer. (This does not occur if I use the vesa driver instead)
The problem is that it concentrates on one pollutant which in fact is not the most dangerous greenhouse gas.
What? CO2 is in fact the most produced greenhouse gas in CO2 equivalent KGs. Granted, 1 Kg of Methane in the atmosphere has the same effect as 21 KG of CO2 but there isn't enough being emitted to even come close to all the CO2 being pumped out. So that's why Kyoto is concentrating on CO2.
The thing is, the CPD is using a public entity's (the University) property to conduct the debate and also, the aforementioned public entity is raising money for it on their behalf.
One has to give either the big bang OR God as the authority over their beliefs.
That is not true. One can believe in God and accept the big-bang, for instance, they may believe that God created the universe by creating the big-bang. Also, please don't confuse God belief with literal Bible belief. People who believe in God don't necessarily believe literally in the Bible or in the God of the Bible.
As for skewed peer review, a common belief in scientist before the big-bang theory was published was that the universe had eternally existed. Even Einstein, whose theories helped develop the big-bang theory, could not accept that universe had a beginning but yielded once he read the mathematical evidence.
p.s. I'm just curious, you who seems to believe in the Bible, have you read it? I mean all of it, cover to cover.
The big-bang theory has gained it's current accepted status through theoretical and observational evidence.
It comes out of Einstein's equations, we observe the expansion of space and the decrease of density in the universe through our telescopes and radioscopes. It predicted the presence of a background radiation which we observed years afterwards. In science, theories get heavily peer reviewed by experts related fields before earning acceptance by the scientific community. They must successfully predict future observations or experiments.
It is of no concern to them if the theory happens to contradict the personal belief (based in faith) of a couple people. For the record, many people who accept the big-bang, including world renowned cosmologist, also believe in a God.
If you look at the definition of the big-bang in any modern cosmology book, it does indicate it as being the beginning of time. It's not that there's no time before the big bang, it's that there's no before the big bang.
I am not trying to avoid answering the question, I'm just arguing based on the scientific definition of scientific terms and big-bang is defined that way. I didn't make up the 'no such thing as before the big bang' clause to avoid answering the question, it has been defined that way by the people who thought up the theory.
I think part of the problem is how the big-bang concept is popularized to the masses. It's compared to an explosion but explosion are events that occur after some point in time at some location in space. This can be misleading because the big-bang does not occur at some location in space and after some point in time, it is the starting point of both space and time.
It is absurd to talk about our natural laws without linear time because they all depend on time. Cause and effect, which you mentioned earlier, occurs through linear time, thermodynamics and the gain of entropy, need time to take place. Existence is from the big-bang on-wards, it doesn't make sense saying that this physical law is violated at some point in time that didn't exist because our physical laws are part of and only apply to what exists.
I see, you meant evolution in a more general sense than just evolution of living species on Earth.
However, you shouldn't put the big bang or any natural beginning/early/creation of the universe in the evolution group because it may lead to confusion. When we talk of the evolution of the cosmos, we usually mean how the universe changed from an early stage (big cloud of gas) to a latter one (stars). We usually separate beginning (creation) with evolution (changes from that beginning to a latter stage).
So to go back to what you meant, you are saying that the big bang violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that it implies that the universe gained order at its creation so that it may start gradually loosing it afterwards? But to gain something means to go from not having something before and up to a certain point in time to having acquired it just after that point in time. However, time itself begins with the big-bang, there is no before the big-bang, the big-bang is time 0+.
How can you gain something when there is no 'before'? Or to put is another way: how can you say that the universe had some higher disorder 'before the big-bang' then during the big-bang when there is no such thing as 'before the big-bang'. Before is a temporal concept, it only applies in linear time.
You agree, this discussion is about whether evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is NOT about whether there is a God or how the universe was created.
You see, for this closed system (which the universe must be, if there is no God) something would have to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
What does this have to do with evolution violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
The universe had to begin with order at some point. I submit, that order could never occur without being created that way.
What does this have to do with evolution violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Please explain, how does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is that entropy always increases as a whole in a closed system. How does evolution, a gain in order, result in a net gain in order in some closed system?
Slashdot Mirror
I found this on kernel.org:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/
It's empty at the moment but we'll probably be seeing the source code appearing in it soon.
Here, I pay around 7.5 Canadian Cents/kWh with Hydro-Quebec.
Methane doesn't brake down our ozone layer. It actually creates ozone by reacting with oxygen (O2). The only problem is that it creates it too low in the atmosphere.
It's also a greenhouse gas which brakes down into large quantities of CO2 which is another greenhouse gas so I know it's all that safe either.
What if you want to use XBox live? My understanding is that the service checks your BIOS and bans you if you don't have the official MS one.
Ok then, how about this cartridge with two Pokémon episodes. That's like 44 minutes.
The GBA and DS also do video, but I've never heard of anything longer than 30 minutes being stuffed into the cartridges, and it's all animated.
Actually, you can by catridges with a full length Pokémon episode on it.
Then Pentium Pro also has its infamous bug.
First of all, most ISPs require you to authetenticate in some way.
In my experience, most ISPs only require you to be on their network in order to use their SMTP server. No authentication required.
Oops! Correction: it has already been released.
Maybe you're thinking about Payback.
It's a yet to be released GTA clone for the GBA.
Maybe if the data you want is in the Hard Drive's cache, the transfer rate could be higher than 817 Mb/s.
Well, ALSA has 3D audio support for Sound Blaster Live! cards (I get 4 channel sound from my DVDs when played with Mplayer using the alsa audio output on my SB Live! 5.1).
And since version 2, WineX has been able to translate DirectSound 3D into ALSA's 3D API.
Does Diablo 2 use DirectSound 3D or just EAX?
That may cause problems for X drivers that cannot be ran multiple instances.
I'm using ATI's flgrx drivers and if I start a second xsession, going back to the first one will freeze the computer. (This does not occur if I use the vesa driver instead)
I don't know about NVIDIA drivers though.
You can download them on Pixar's website.
The problem is that it concentrates on one pollutant which in fact is not the most dangerous greenhouse gas.
What? CO2 is in fact the most produced greenhouse gas in CO2 equivalent KGs. Granted, 1 Kg of Methane in the atmosphere has the same effect as 21 KG of CO2 but there isn't enough being emitted to even come close to all the CO2 being pumped out. So that's why Kyoto is concentrating on CO2.
I remember that zelda64.com use to foward you to a porn site a few years ago.
The thing is, the CPD is using a public entity's (the University) property to conduct the debate and also, the aforementioned public entity is raising money for it on their behalf.
It has already been done:
maconwinonmac.jpg
It's being worked on:
http://softpear.sourceforge.net/index.php
That is not true. One can believe in God and accept the big-bang, for instance, they may believe that God created the universe by creating the big-bang. Also, please don't confuse God belief with literal Bible belief. People who believe in God don't necessarily believe literally in the Bible or in the God of the Bible.
As for skewed peer review, a common belief in scientist before the big-bang theory was published was that the universe had eternally existed. Even Einstein, whose theories helped develop the big-bang theory, could not accept that universe had a beginning but yielded once he read the mathematical evidence.
p.s. I'm just curious, you who seems to believe in the Bible, have you read it? I mean all of it, cover to cover.
It comes out of Einstein's equations, we observe the expansion of space and the decrease of density in the universe through our telescopes and radioscopes. It predicted the presence of a background radiation which we observed years afterwards. In science, theories get heavily peer reviewed by experts related fields before earning acceptance by the scientific community. They must successfully predict future observations or experiments.
It is of no concern to them if the theory happens to contradict the personal belief (based in faith) of a couple people. For the record, many people who accept the big-bang, including world renowned cosmologist, also believe in a God.
This conversation is interesting, do you mind continuing it by email after this Slashdot article gets archived?
My email:
newtonip at yahoo.com
I am not trying to avoid answering the question, I'm just arguing based on the scientific definition of scientific terms and big-bang is defined that way. I didn't make up the 'no such thing as before the big bang' clause to avoid answering the question, it has been defined that way by the people who thought up the theory.
I think part of the problem is how the big-bang concept is popularized to the masses. It's compared to an explosion but explosion are events that occur after some point in time at some location in space. This can be misleading because the big-bang does not occur at some location in space and after some point in time, it is the starting point of both space and time.
It is absurd to talk about our natural laws without linear time because they all depend on time. Cause and effect, which you mentioned earlier, occurs through linear time, thermodynamics and the gain of entropy, need time to take place. Existence is from the big-bang on-wards, it doesn't make sense saying that this physical law is violated at some point in time that didn't exist because our physical laws are part of and only apply to what exists.
However, you shouldn't put the big bang or any natural beginning/early/creation of the universe in the evolution group because it may lead to confusion. When we talk of the evolution of the cosmos, we usually mean how the universe changed from an early stage (big cloud of gas) to a latter one (stars). We usually separate beginning (creation) with evolution (changes from that beginning to a latter stage).
So to go back to what you meant, you are saying that the big bang violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that it implies that the universe gained order at its creation so that it may start gradually loosing it afterwards? But to gain something means to go from not having something before and up to a certain point in time to having acquired it just after that point in time. However, time itself begins with the big-bang, there is no before the big-bang, the big-bang is time 0+.
How can you gain something when there is no 'before'? Or to put is another way: how can you say that the universe had some higher disorder 'before the big-bang' then during the big-bang when there is no such thing as 'before the big-bang'. Before is a temporal concept, it only applies in linear time.
You see, for this closed system (which the universe must be, if there is no God) something would have to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
What does this have to do with evolution violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
The universe had to begin with order at some point. I submit, that order could never occur without being created that way.
What does this have to do with evolution violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Please explain, how does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is that entropy always increases as a whole in a closed system. How does evolution, a gain in order, result in a net gain in order in some closed system?