I had always heard that Rosebud was William Randolph Hearst's pet name for his girlfriend's clitoris.
I've heard this too. But how in the world does something like this become public knowledge? Moguls through the ages are know for inovation and excellence in their chosen professions, but are almost never admired for their personal lives. I mean, who knows what Bill calls Melinda's private parts?
Did you confirm this with BofA or is this a guess on your part? Have you considered maybe it is the checking and credit card system that are seperately maintained? Regardless, thank you for the most intelligent reply thus far.
I was just told that because I live in California and opened my account in this state, my account information should not be affected by a breach in New Jersey, where the incident occured. Can anyone corroborate this?
Generally I would agree with you, but Humanity ceased to be "natural" a long time ago. Our instincts and behaviours are no longer aligned with optimal survival strataties as "nature" understands it. Just a few of many examples: How healthy is it to pursue the bone-thin supermodel figure that passes for beauty in today's ad-driven media? As the causes of numerous world conflicts throughout history, how useful, really, is religion to survival in the bio-evolutionary sense?
Natural selection? Human Beings? No longer relevent.
The solution to world problems like overcrowding and world hunger is not to let disease and ill health cut population down to size. That is simply barbaric in this day and age. As humanity progress, I believe we should seek social solutions for social problems rather than let nature prune our civilization as if we were a herd of hoofed herbavores. Otherwise, the whole lot of slashdot readers would have become extinct through vicious sexual selection preasures.
but orbits can be changed, right? With some well timed engine burns, the shuttle or any potential space tug could insert itself into any orbit, including that of the Hubble - and ferry it to where ever else it would be useful or secure. I don't know how many degrees the orbits of Hubble, ISS, and normal shuttle runs usually differ, but it is hard to believe we are restricted to just one particular plane per mission when space flight in earth orbit is concerned. I don't claim to be smarter than the NASA scientists who are supposed to have sweated this, but I would very much like to be taught why such a plan would be unfeasible.
The timing of this couldn't be better for me. I have a question for the more knowledgable electronic music/.ers among us. Does anyone know the instruments Jan Hammer is playing in the music video of the "miami vice" theme given below?
Well, this is wonderful! I recall one of the reasons for *not* servicing Hubble was that it was too risky for the shuttle to go higher than it normally flys, especially after Columbia. What is wrong with letting friction do it's work and bring Hubble down to a safer altitude where it is safer to work on? Instead of building a rocket to crash Hubble into the ocean, it can be used to boost the repaired Hubble back into it's old service orbit.
I don't see why they need to do anything to the Hubble at all. They don't have money to keep it operational, but there is funding to hire engineers, procure raw materials, build a rocket, launch it, dock the damn thing, and ram it into the atmosphere? Why not just do nothing and leave it up there? Kind of like what the navy does with old ships - keep it in the mothball fleet but don't necesarily strick it from the registry. Who knows what uses it may have in the futher? I suppose one would argue it is a possible collision risk to other operational satelites which might have intersecting orbits, but what's one more object to the thousands already being tracked by military radars?
...Lorenzo prayed to the Virgin Mary. He prayed that the tampons would work but then wondered if the Virgin got her period and whether it was appropriate for him to be praying to her about tampons. He tried to think of a different saint to pray to but couldn't come up with an appropriate one.
One more thought. You claim old ideas die because the old guard who support them grow old and die. You have to wonder why no young blood would bother picking up the torch unless there was something seriously lacking when compared with alternatives. Science isn't like modern consumer culture where everyone cluelessly flocks to the newest fashionable thing without thinking about it's merits. It takes intelligence, rationality, and integrity to do science among today's peer group (*most* of whom are mature and mutually supportive).
some influential scientists with an ego bigger than Jupiter refuse to admit that their theories were wrong.
This isn't science. This is personality and politics. It is a part of every human endeavor, not just academia.
but there are so many papers being killed because of several ultraconservative scientists.
Not to be a troll, but could you name them? I genuinely would like to know. For what it is worth, I'd like to point out that it is just as important to do good science as it is to explain good science. If you've done briliant research but has been terrible at communicating it, what good is it for your discoveries and/or insights to be misunderstood or underepresented? Relativity didn't miraculously come into being because Einstein dreamt it up. Gravity and light has always behaved the way they do, but that behaviour became important to us once a very smart man had the insight to articulate it and describe that behaviour. No self respecting scientists would ignore the supperior descriptive and/or predictive power of a newer idea simply out of loyalty to an established idea. Raising criticism and attacking new ideas is an important process in helping them develope and mature. It is what real science is about.
Call me crazy, but the way you've phrased your comment brings to mind a morbid image of scientists literally having their mortal lives being snuffed out to make room for a new generation of ideas and investigators. I need to get some sleep and dream of more pleasant things.
Science tries to fit it into its mechanical view of the world, and it believes that it will someday unlock its secrets through employing scientific method, and if you don't believe in its belief, you are some kind of fundamentalist nut.
AFAIK there is no established scientific definition for consciousness. As such, it is very difficult to talk about something you can't describe properly. I have been following this specific topic out of personal interest over many years and so far as I know, no scientist studying this has ever called anyone a fundamentalist nut. On the contrary, researchers are actively welcoming interest and effort from other disciplines because they are acutely aware of the deficiencies of traditional methods in science. But being creative in applying science is not the same as relaxing scientific vigor. No self-respecting researcher would willingly embrace unorthodox methods if it meant compromising scientific integrity.
My point is that religion & science are two of a kind, not parts of a whole. They each aim to completely describe the universe in their own way. In this regard, I find them both lacking.
I don't think it is particularly productive to cast the character of science or religion in stone like this. You have to keep in mind that ideas like these are intellectual tools. As human beings, we are the tool users who are completely within our potential to fashion better tools by improving the ones we have or choosing a different one altogether. True, neither science nor religion is complete, but why do they need to be? In the words of Stephen Jay Gould, "religion tells us how to go to heaven, science tells us how the heaven goes." One need not usurpe the role of the other.
Science is lacking because it fails to even begin to explain some of the most basic and important things in our universe.
That is because we as tool users are not yet proficient enough to use the tools of science successfully. Don't blame the instrument for the fault of the craftsman. More than a hundred years ago, stuffy european scientists, drunk over the success of classical mechanics were worried we might have figured out everything there is to know. We might never have enough tools and/or knowledge to figure out all the answers to all the questions worth asking, but that shouldn't stop us from attempting to build new tools and seek more knowledge.
You might say that science will be able to explain those things given enough time, but isn't that really just another belief? What if it can't? How many times in history have scientific explanations been proven to be totally untrue? How long will it take for currently held scientific explanations to be proven untrue?
The way, you've framed these questions begs a question of my own. How useful is it for science to be true? See, science is self correcting. If a scientific idea isn't true, it is usually for a critical reason that can be used to pursue a "truer" idea. The power of science is not it's uncanny ability to be "true", but the opportunity it offers to move forward toward a more accurate understanding of a particular subject or problem. The history of science is replete with examples of how better, more acurate understanding of phenomenons or ideas has been built upon examinations of how previous attempts at understanding something has failed. In diciplines such as microbiology and atomic physics during the previous century, improved understanding of previously flawed explanations has been the foundation of technologies that are now heavily integrated parts of our modern society. As learning continue to expand and grow, we will likewise continue to be changed by the technology it spawns. The result of science being challenged and criticized is better science. Now, let us look at religion. What is the result of religion being challenced and criticized for being wrong? Countless innocents being persecuted through the ages. wars. crusades. intolo
Perhaps you've mislead yourself as well as everyone else by expecting such things to be "correct". Science isn't always "correct" so much as "accurate". There are many things we will never know for certain, but investigation using the scientifice method has provided us with some ideas that are pretty darn close. In terms of accuracy, evolution has pretty much left any alternatives (including creationism, intelligent design, whatever) in the dust. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Qestions still remain, but those are being worked on as refinements and touch-ups jobs rather than serious reformulations or back-to-the-drawing-board type jobs.
I think a more interesting question is *why* you believe as you do. What evidence do you cite for the "engineering" aspect of life? What deficiencies do you see in evolutionary theory that is better addressed by alternatives? Does your answer involve any expectation of what "ought" to be? What is the basis for such expectations?
I feel most of the opinions here so far are pretty on target. This is nothing more than a ploy by Nero to expose more linux using eyeballs to the Nero brand name, which as has already been pointed out, is not really useful to anyone. Nero's new offering doesn't really distinguish itself in any way among the existing burning tools for the Linux platform. Their distribution policy doesn't really extend the user base beyond those already using Nero under Windows, so what is the point from their perspective???
Forget Star Trek. I want to see the revival of Captain Power! Does anyone else remember this toy maker sponsored show? What a shame that show didn't get a chance to develop a fan following.
Though the included software is all relatively recent, developement on maintaining GNUWin has halted as of Nov of last year. They are currently looking for contributors who are motivated enough to help lead and continue the project.
Anyone wants to start a betting pool on how long it takes big-budget action movies to start featuring exploding hydrogen fuel tanks when car chases end in collisions?
However way you slice it, the laws of physics have nothing to do with an omnipotent bearded old man and his alleged semitic (but suprisingly caucasian) mortal son. With out a single piece of scientific knowledge in the bible, there isn't any way for a fundamentalist to explain that away.
The Devil dwells only in the growing dark corners of our heart when we loose the courage to pursue enlightenment. Be curious, ask questions, seek knowledge, for the truth shall set you free!
We now return you to your normal secular discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard this too. But how in the world does something like this become public knowledge? Moguls through the ages are know for inovation and excellence in their chosen professions, but are almost never admired for their personal lives. I mean, who knows what Bill calls Melinda's private parts?
Did you confirm this with BofA or is this a guess on your part? Have you considered maybe it is the checking and credit card system that are seperately maintained? Regardless, thank you for the most intelligent reply thus far.
I was just told that because I live in California and opened my account in this state, my account information should not be affected by a breach in New Jersey, where the incident occured. Can anyone corroborate this?
Ugh! I can't believe I missed a second opportunity.
mod -1 redundant
Generally I would agree with you, but Humanity ceased to be "natural" a long time ago. Our instincts and behaviours are no longer aligned with optimal survival strataties as "nature" understands it. Just a few of many examples: How healthy is it to pursue the bone-thin supermodel figure that passes for beauty in today's ad-driven media? As the causes of numerous world conflicts throughout history, how useful, really, is religion to survival in the bio-evolutionary sense?
Natural selection? Human Beings? No longer relevent.
The solution to world problems like overcrowding and world hunger is not to let disease and ill health cut population down to size. That is simply barbaric in this day and age. As humanity progress, I believe we should seek social solutions for social problems rather than let nature prune our civilization as if we were a herd of hoofed herbavores. Otherwise, the whole lot of slashdot readers would have become extinct through vicious sexual selection preasures.
but orbits can be changed, right? With some well timed engine burns, the shuttle or any potential space tug could insert itself into any orbit, including that of the Hubble - and ferry it to where ever else it would be useful or secure. I don't know how many degrees the orbits of Hubble, ISS, and normal shuttle runs usually differ, but it is hard to believe we are restricted to just one particular plane per mission when space flight in earth orbit is concerned. I don't claim to be smarter than the NASA scientists who are supposed to have sweated this, but I would very much like to be taught why such a plan would be unfeasible.
The timing of this couldn't be better for me. I have a question for the more knowledgable electronic music /.ers among us. Does anyone know the instruments Jan Hammer is playing in the music video of the "miami vice" theme given below?
Jan.Hammer.-.Miami.Vice.(Theme).mpg
Well, this is wonderful! I recall one of the reasons for *not* servicing Hubble was that it was too risky for the shuttle to go higher than it normally flys, especially after Columbia. What is wrong with letting friction do it's work and bring Hubble down to a safer altitude where it is safer to work on? Instead of building a rocket to crash Hubble into the ocean, it can be used to boost the repaired Hubble back into it's old service orbit.
I don't see why they need to do anything to the Hubble at all. They don't have money to keep it operational, but there is funding to hire engineers, procure raw materials, build a rocket, launch it, dock the damn thing, and ram it into the atmosphere? Why not just do nothing and leave it up there? Kind of like what the navy does with old ships - keep it in the mothball fleet but don't necesarily strick it from the registry. Who knows what uses it may have in the futher? I suppose one would argue it is a possible collision risk to other operational satelites which might have intersecting orbits, but what's one more object to the thousands already being tracked by military radars?
my favorite part of the story:
...Lorenzo prayed to the Virgin Mary. He prayed that the tampons would work but then wondered if the Virgin got her period and whether it was appropriate for him to be praying to her about tampons. He tried to think of a different saint to pray to but couldn't come up with an appropriate one.
One more thought. You claim old ideas die because the old guard who support them grow old and die. You have to wonder why no young blood would bother picking up the torch unless there was something seriously lacking when compared with alternatives. Science isn't like modern consumer culture where everyone cluelessly flocks to the newest fashionable thing without thinking about it's merits. It takes intelligence, rationality, and integrity to do science among today's peer group (*most* of whom are mature and mutually supportive).
some influential scientists with an ego bigger than Jupiter refuse to admit that their theories were wrong.
This isn't science. This is personality and politics. It is a part of every human endeavor, not just academia.
but there are so many papers being killed because of several ultraconservative scientists.
Not to be a troll, but could you name them? I genuinely would like to know. For what it is worth, I'd like to point out that it is just as important to do good science as it is to explain good science. If you've done briliant research but has been terrible at communicating it, what good is it for your discoveries and/or insights to be misunderstood or underepresented? Relativity didn't miraculously come into being because Einstein dreamt it up. Gravity and light has always behaved the way they do, but that behaviour became important to us once a very smart man had the insight to articulate it and describe that behaviour. No self respecting scientists would ignore the supperior descriptive and/or predictive power of a newer idea simply out of loyalty to an established idea. Raising criticism and attacking new ideas is an important process in helping them develope and mature. It is what real science is about.
Call me crazy, but the way you've phrased your comment brings to mind a morbid image of scientists literally having their mortal lives being snuffed out to make room for a new generation of ideas and investigators. I need to get some sleep and dream of more pleasant things.
Science tries to fit it into its mechanical view of the world, and it believes that it will someday unlock its secrets through employing scientific method, and if you don't believe in its belief, you are some kind of fundamentalist nut.
AFAIK there is no established scientific definition for consciousness. As such, it is very difficult to talk about something you can't describe properly. I have been following this specific topic out of personal interest over many years and so far as I know, no scientist studying this has ever called anyone a fundamentalist nut. On the contrary, researchers are actively welcoming interest and effort from other disciplines because they are acutely aware of the deficiencies of traditional methods in science. But being creative in applying science is not the same as relaxing scientific vigor. No self-respecting researcher would willingly embrace unorthodox methods if it meant compromising scientific integrity.
My point is that religion & science are two of a kind, not parts of a whole. They each aim to completely describe the universe in their own way. In this regard, I find them both lacking.
I don't think it is particularly productive to cast the character of science or religion in stone like this. You have to keep in mind that ideas like these are intellectual tools. As human beings, we are the tool users who are completely within our potential to fashion better tools by improving the ones we have or choosing a different one altogether. True, neither science nor religion is complete, but why do they need to be? In the words of Stephen Jay Gould, "religion tells us how to go to heaven, science tells us how the heaven goes." One need not usurpe the role of the other.
Science is lacking because it fails to even begin to explain some of the most basic and important things in our universe.
That is because we as tool users are not yet proficient enough to use the tools of science successfully. Don't blame the instrument for the fault of the craftsman. More than a hundred years ago, stuffy european scientists, drunk over the success of classical mechanics were worried we might have figured out everything there is to know. We might never have enough tools and/or knowledge to figure out all the answers to all the questions worth asking, but that shouldn't stop us from attempting to build new tools and seek more knowledge.
You might say that science will be able to explain those things given enough time, but isn't that really just another belief? What if it can't? How many times in history have scientific explanations been proven to be totally untrue? How long will it take for currently held scientific explanations to be proven untrue?
The way, you've framed these questions begs a question of my own. How useful is it for science to be true? See, science is self correcting. If a scientific idea isn't true, it is usually for a critical reason that can be used to pursue a "truer" idea. The power of science is not it's uncanny ability to be "true", but the opportunity it offers to move forward toward a more accurate understanding of a particular subject or problem. The history of science is replete with examples of how better, more acurate understanding of phenomenons or ideas has been built upon examinations of how previous attempts at understanding something has failed. In diciplines such as microbiology and atomic physics during the previous century, improved understanding of previously flawed explanations has been the foundation of technologies that are now heavily integrated parts of our modern society. As learning continue to expand and grow, we will likewise continue to be changed by the technology it spawns. The result of science being challenged and criticized is better science. Now, let us look at religion. What is the result of religion being challenced and criticized for being wrong? Countless innocents being persecuted through the ages. wars. crusades. intolo
Perhaps you've mislead yourself as well as everyone else by expecting such things to be "correct". Science isn't always "correct" so much as "accurate". There are many things we will never know for certain, but investigation using the scientifice method has provided us with some ideas that are pretty darn close. In terms of accuracy, evolution has pretty much left any alternatives (including creationism, intelligent design, whatever) in the dust. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Qestions still remain, but those are being worked on as refinements and touch-ups jobs rather than serious reformulations or back-to-the-drawing-board type jobs. I think a more interesting question is *why* you believe as you do. What evidence do you cite for the "engineering" aspect of life? What deficiencies do you see in evolutionary theory that is better addressed by alternatives? Does your answer involve any expectation of what "ought" to be? What is the basis for such expectations?
I feel most of the opinions here so far are pretty on target. This is nothing more than a ploy by Nero to expose more linux using eyeballs to the Nero brand name, which as has already been pointed out, is not really useful to anyone. Nero's new offering doesn't really distinguish itself in any way among the existing burning tools for the Linux platform. Their distribution policy doesn't really extend the user base beyond those already using Nero under Windows, so what is the point from their perspective???
Forget Star Trek. I want to see the revival of Captain Power! Does anyone else remember this toy maker sponsored show? What a shame that show didn't get a chance to develop a fan following.
I guess it is just me, but it seems windows and linux has started to blur into one another in the last few years.
the open cd
http://theopencd.org/
and GNUWin II
http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/en/index.html
Though the included software is all relatively recent, developement on maintaining GNUWin has halted as of Nov of last year. They are currently looking for contributors who are motivated enough to help lead and continue the project.
no kidding? Arnie's comes back disguised as a car in T3?
Since when has reality and accuracy been an obstacle for the folks in Tinseltown? :-P
Anyone wants to start a betting pool on how long it takes big-budget action movies to start featuring exploding hydrogen fuel tanks when car chases end in collisions?
However way you slice it, the laws of physics have nothing to do with an omnipotent bearded old man and his alleged semitic (but suprisingly caucasian) mortal son. With out a single piece of scientific knowledge in the bible, there isn't any way for a fundamentalist to explain that away.
The Devil dwells only in the growing dark corners of our heart when we loose the courage to pursue enlightenment. Be curious, ask questions, seek knowledge, for the truth shall set you free! We now return you to your normal secular discussion.