What kind of fucked up world are we living in where people actually try to pass off science as a religion and try to pass off religion as science. Where people dismiss scientific theories out of hand yet try and create "scientific formula's" about the second coming of Christ based on snippets from a 2000 year old text which has been added to and subtracted from and translated and retranslated and had it's simplest of meanings hotly debated by various groups for two millennia. You know the actual "translation" of texts would be a science, but the meanings are so beyond the scope of science that it's folly to even try. Faith.. is not, nor has it been, nor will it EVER be a matter of science.
If one's faith in God is so flimsy that belief can be threatened by scientific theory, then you are on the wrong path... Part of what God represents is *truth* and the pursuit of the *truth* of all things is the pursuit of God.
The "transmitter" uses the Fermilab accelerator ring to generate neutrinos. 6km of particle accelerator.
The "receiver" is a neutrino detector the size of a large house.
The data rate is so low that it took 20 minutes to transmit one word.
Neutrinos still interact with other particles very infrequently. These researchers have no way around that. They just used a very powerful beam and a huge detector to pick up the very rare events. It's a stunt, not an advance.
...and how different is that from say a computer in the 1940's... baby steps sir.. baby steps.
This succintly describes the rise of the Nazis in Germany between the World Wars.
It also describes Gandhi's non-violence movement to free India.. The statement was about how people act and react not about good/evil of a particular movement.
So you believe that someone who "goes it alone" because that's what they believe in, automatically makes them a 'politician'... I'm with you on not trusting politicians, but I think you're off the mark when it comes to 'leaders' vs 'politicians'... The politician tries to bring the people to his will for his personal gain, while the true leader inspires people because his motives and *actions* are for the people themselves.
Out of morbid curiosity... whats your "truth" that people need to understand? When people use buzzwords like "mainstream media" and talk about people needing to be more selfish.. I can already smell the position your coming from.
While I agree with your sentiment, what a movement needs is a main figure who will "make real sacrifices". People are not stupid and will no go out on a limb if they feel they are going to be out there alone. If you get at least one person who feels strongly enough about something to actually go it alone, others will and do follow suit.
It really follows a bell curve, you get the people who feel strongly about it first. When you have enough of them, you get people who agree with you and feel the time is right now that more people are being active, after the peak you get the people who don't really care but will go with the crowd and at the far end the people who probably disagreed but won't go against the crowd.
The fuel is there, there just needs to be enough "spark" to get critical mass.
Just need to play devils advocate here, so I guess it needs to be said that maybe the five bureaucrats, might be in charge of more than just the development of one app.
Now I'm all for efficiency in government, but it seems there's no pleasing some people. You want government to spend less, you got it, can't complain about overspending. so then you move onto something you CAN complain about. Just cut to the chase already and say you want government for defense and nothing more and save everyone some reading and typing.
If the compartments were sealed at the top the water within would not be able to distribute freely along the length of the vessel. There would be a mass of unstable liquid concentrated in one small section of the boat that would cause it to sink anyway.
In the same way that when you fill one compartment of an ice cube tray, it lists horribly then sinks?
Pay attention, folks. Important things are going on. Our understanding of matter at the atomic level is improving daily. We will have a model of how matter organizes itself into life. Eventually, we'll be able to theoretically (not just empirically) understand the immensly complex goings-on of a single cell, then how cells work as a human being. We'll have much better control of diseases including aging.
It's a bright future for people who like life. People who are happy with their handful of decades followed by decline and don't have the courage to live longer can ignore these things.
"During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them."
Sorry, I just couldn't help but think of that line when I read it.
It all depends on who is perceived to be in power. In Russia right now you have massive oligarchs, and 'hacking the west' seems more of an aim to cement their wealth and by, extension their power. The Chinese seem to be much more 'party' run, while the people in power undoubtedly have superior wealth to that of the common citizenry, they seem to be more interested in control and wealth is just a means to an end in that regard. The Chinese seem to have 'the ends justify the means' more engrained in their culture than most, IMHO. China wants power, everyone else seems to be out to make a buck for themselves.
Unless those upgrade are a locked in proprietary type. For example an Xbox with a proprietary "CPU cartridge" that connects to the motherboard. They already do it that way for the hard drives. Granted it's not a homogeneous platform anymore, but developers can code for the proprietary upgrades.
Sounds to me like the carriers and Google butted heads on some code, and this is Google putting the pressure on the carriers to open up parts of their software, but that is purely speculation on my part. I'm just curious how this is going to play out with Sprint's rollout of the LTE Google Nexus.
The crux of the argument IMHO is whether or not the person from whom the data was taken still had access to the data after the fact. Data is tricky because it can be both taken or copied depending on who has control over the data. In a game, data can be stolen from one individual because he has no access to the data after the fact stemming from the fact that the game creator likely has control of the data on their servers.
It guess it could be best viewed as, if somone electronically transfers funds from your bank account, it would be considered theft. No physical property was taken, but at the same time you lost access to your 'wealth'.
I do design work and find that most magazines especially if they pertain to computers are very nice. The paper is usually a very heavy stock glossy with a larger format. Also, there are a lot of detailed 'how to' articles with examples. The only real downside is that they seem at least 2 to 3 times as expensive and US counterparts, always on par price wise with a good paperback novel. I used to sit in the bookstore and drink coffee while reading those magazines but never buying. They were a good source of information, but they were IMHO too expensive to buy.
Well it's a little bit of both actually. Personally speaking I don't believe that climate change deniers are doing so from a science standpoint but rather from an ideological standpoint. You have a vast majority of scientists providing data about climate change and some very vocal naysayers trying to disprove not the findings themselves but the methods by which the results are achieved or the time frame in which the results occurred. In other words climate deniers aren't challenging the data, they're challenging the data collection. Which seems a very left handed way to try and disprove something using a scientific method.
I'm all for gathering as much data as possible because it can only lead to more accurate models, but it seems that climate deniers are putting the cart before the horse.
Slashdot Mirror
That cheesy song that you can't get out of your head... that's right... FOREVER!
What kind of fucked up world are we living in where people actually try to pass off science as a religion and try to pass off religion as science. Where people dismiss scientific theories out of hand yet try and create "scientific formula's" about the second coming of Christ based on snippets from a 2000 year old text which has been added to and subtracted from and translated and retranslated and had it's simplest of meanings hotly debated by various groups for two millennia. You know the actual "translation" of texts would be a science, but the meanings are so beyond the scope of science that it's folly to even try. Faith.. is not, nor has it been, nor will it EVER be a matter of science.
If one's faith in God is so flimsy that belief can be threatened by scientific theory, then you are on the wrong path... Part of what God represents is *truth* and the pursuit of the *truth* of all things is the pursuit of God.
Damn I thought you were trolling with that Ezekiel quote... maybe I need to read the Bible more!
So back 70 years, across the border, when the NAZI's were burning books... it was a economic move! I so understand it now!
Some crucial details were left out.
The "transmitter" uses the Fermilab accelerator ring to generate neutrinos. 6km of particle accelerator.
The "receiver" is a neutrino detector the size of a large house.
The data rate is so low that it took 20 minutes to transmit one word.
Neutrinos still interact with other particles very infrequently. These researchers have no way around that. They just used a very powerful beam and a huge detector to pick up the very rare events. It's a stunt, not an advance.
...and how different is that from say a computer in the 1940's... baby steps sir.. baby steps.
Well it's not called the Red Planet for nothing...
This succintly describes the rise of the Nazis in Germany between the World Wars.
It also describes Gandhi's non-violence movement to free India.. The statement was about how people act and react not about good/evil of a particular movement.
So you believe that someone who "goes it alone" because that's what they believe in, automatically makes them a 'politician'... I'm with you on not trusting politicians, but I think you're off the mark when it comes to 'leaders' vs 'politicians'... The politician tries to bring the people to his will for his personal gain, while the true leader inspires people because his motives and *actions* are for the people themselves.
Out of morbid curiosity... whats your "truth" that people need to understand? When people use buzzwords like "mainstream media" and talk about people needing to be more selfish.. I can already smell the position your coming from.
While I agree with your sentiment, what a movement needs is a main figure who will "make real sacrifices". People are not stupid and will no go out on a limb if they feel they are going to be out there alone. If you get at least one person who feels strongly enough about something to actually go it alone, others will and do follow suit.
It really follows a bell curve, you get the people who feel strongly about it first. When you have enough of them, you get people who agree with you and feel the time is right now that more people are being active, after the peak you get the people who don't really care but will go with the crowd and at the far end the people who probably disagreed but won't go against the crowd.
The fuel is there, there just needs to be enough "spark" to get critical mass.
Just need to play devils advocate here, so I guess it needs to be said that maybe the five bureaucrats, might be in charge of more than just the development of one app. Now I'm all for efficiency in government, but it seems there's no pleasing some people. You want government to spend less, you got it, can't complain about overspending. so then you move onto something you CAN complain about. Just cut to the chase already and say you want government for defense and nothing more and save everyone some reading and typing.
If the compartments were sealed at the top the water within would not be able to distribute freely along the length of the vessel. There would be a mass of unstable liquid concentrated in one small section of the boat that would cause it to sink anyway.
In the same way that when you fill one compartment of an ice cube tray, it lists horribly then sinks?
but the "bats**t barbie" thing is offensive, sexist, unfair and largely untrue, just like many (most?) liberal criticisms of Palin.
If you read this post, it gives you autism!
Pay attention, folks. Important things are going on. Our understanding of matter at the atomic level is improving daily. We will have a model of how matter organizes itself into life. Eventually, we'll be able to theoretically (not just empirically) understand the immensly complex goings-on of a single cell, then how cells work as a human being. We'll have much better control of diseases including aging.
It's a bright future for people who like life. People who are happy with their handful of decades followed by decline and don't have the courage to live longer can ignore these things.
"During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them."
Sorry, I just couldn't help but think of that line when I read it.
I'm curious as to why you put "poor" in quotes?
I'm curious what other country a person could live in that uses the word "y'all"
It all depends on who is perceived to be in power. In Russia right now you have massive oligarchs, and 'hacking the west' seems more of an aim to cement their wealth and by, extension their power. The Chinese seem to be much more 'party' run, while the people in power undoubtedly have superior wealth to that of the common citizenry, they seem to be more interested in control and wealth is just a means to an end in that regard. The Chinese seem to have 'the ends justify the means' more engrained in their culture than most, IMHO. China wants power, everyone else seems to be out to make a buck for themselves.
A good question to ask would be.. do you consider the people of India to be 'black'? Then re-ask your questions.
Unless those upgrade are a locked in proprietary type. For example an Xbox with a proprietary "CPU cartridge" that connects to the motherboard. They already do it that way for the hard drives. Granted it's not a homogeneous platform anymore, but developers can code for the proprietary upgrades.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that having multiple cores on a phones CPU actually *increased* battery life somewhat.
Sounds to me like the carriers and Google butted heads on some code, and this is Google putting the pressure on the carriers to open up parts of their software, but that is purely speculation on my part. I'm just curious how this is going to play out with Sprint's rollout of the LTE Google Nexus.
The crux of the argument IMHO is whether or not the person from whom the data was taken still had access to the data after the fact. Data is tricky because it can be both taken or copied depending on who has control over the data. In a game, data can be stolen from one individual because he has no access to the data after the fact stemming from the fact that the game creator likely has control of the data on their servers.
It guess it could be best viewed as, if somone electronically transfers funds from your bank account, it would be considered theft. No physical property was taken, but at the same time you lost access to your 'wealth'.
I do design work and find that most magazines especially if they pertain to computers are very nice. The paper is usually a very heavy stock glossy with a larger format. Also, there are a lot of detailed 'how to' articles with examples. The only real downside is that they seem at least 2 to 3 times as expensive and US counterparts, always on par price wise with a good paperback novel. I used to sit in the bookstore and drink coffee while reading those magazines but never buying. They were a good source of information, but they were IMHO too expensive to buy.
Ironic, considering Confucianism isn't actually a religion.
Well it's a little bit of both actually. Personally speaking I don't believe that climate change deniers are doing so from a science standpoint but rather from an ideological standpoint. You have a vast majority of scientists providing data about climate change and some very vocal naysayers trying to disprove not the findings themselves but the methods by which the results are achieved or the time frame in which the results occurred. In other words climate deniers aren't challenging the data, they're challenging the data collection. Which seems a very left handed way to try and disprove something using a scientific method.
I'm all for gathering as much data as possible because it can only lead to more accurate models, but it seems that climate deniers are putting the cart before the horse.