Apart from the fact that the worst flu comes from birds (which are more closely related to dinosaurs than mammals), that is.
Your argument, while well formulated, is wrong - an organism isn't fundamentatlly better protected against microbes that are specific to their own species. The immune system is best at protecting against attacks from enemies it already knows from previous experience, it's as simple as that. That is why emerging diseases are so devastating.
It is true that eg. a virus is best at attacking certain hosts, but as we have seen many times in the past, they can evolve and jump to another species, and we know of no reson why a virus shouldn't be able to jump between widely seperated species. We simply don't know.
As for whether a Martian microbe would be able to get a foothold on Earth: there are places on Earth that might be favourable to it - a dry, cold valley on Antartica, for instance. Again, we simply have no knowledge about it. And while some - like the Bush administration - seem to be in favour of just rushing in and get stung, I personally think it is better to at least try to think a little ahead and avoid some of the most obvious risks.
I have only pointed out that putting GM crops out in the open environment is a senselessly stupid thing to do. Personally I am not convinced at all that growing things in a greenhouse is much better - the point being that it takes very little to transport genetic material out; a single bee would be able to do it. This is not like a dead poison or radioactivity - a small leakage, while bad, would only be a small leakage. Genetic material, in contrast, is likely to multiply - this is what life is all about. Even if only one strand of DNA escaped, it might be enough to allow it to run riot all over the planet, in the worst case.
Rice is eaten raw when it is used in the form of ground up rice flour and not cooked.
As for cooked proteins, does the word 'prion' ring a bell? It not a law of nature that proteins loose their shape or their function just because they are heated.
The problem with GM is not so much the danger of accidentally misusing the products, but the very real danger of genetic pollution, which can happen in many more ways than most people imagine. Just to mention a couple:
1. Bacteria and other microorganisms routinely swap genetic material or even incorporate genetic materials from cells of other species, plants included. This is why the multiresistent bugs are not just an isolated problem - it has been found that the resistance to antibiotics can wander between different species.
2. Many of our most important crop plants have near relatives in the wild. Imagine eg. that we have a genetically modified oat field, which produces some dangerous substance. Wild oat is a common weed in oat fields, so we will very soon have a wild plant which produces a dangerous substance. Wild oat spreads very easily - the seeds are light and blow around in the wind - so soon this trait gets into oat meant for human consumption. Even worse - we don't even need a scenario where a wild species acts as intermediary - many crops are wind pollinated, and their pollen can travel for huge distances, perhaps all around the globe.
Only a ruthless, boneheaded and ignorant idiot would let genetically modified crops loose on the world at present, when we don't know nearly enough about the consequences. Unfortunately this is the kind of people that are in power.
The fundamental problem with 'terraforming' Mars is that the planet doesn't have enough of a magnetic field to deflect the solar wind, which is why it doesn't have an athmosphere now: it simply gets shaved off by the Sun. So before we try to create an athmosphere we ought to provide a sustainable magnetic field the size of a planet.
Apart from that - what extraordinary hubris is this? We can hardly manage to lift our arses off the ground or cooperate with our fellow human beings, but now we want to dream about something this size?
First of all, I'm surprised to see this mentioned in this list. Not because it isn't an essential and relevant result, but because most people here simply don't have a clue about abstract mathematics.
As many people have experienced, studying the higher mathematics is incrediby rewarding, intellectually, especially the parts that have nothing to do with numbers (ie. most). Even if you don't get into the intricacies of stringent proofs of theorems, it is still a world of such incredible wonder. Are you fascinated by science fiction and fantasy? Then mathematics should be able to captivate you; personally I can't think of anything more mindblowing than such things as topology, geometry and algebra.
Ah, but that's where you are wrong. Heisenberg's inequality is derived from the underlying wave mechanics, which states, popularly, that all particles have a wave length proportional to it's momentum. If you look into the history of quantum mechanics, you will see that this is how Heisenberg's uncertainty principle came about. Ask somebody else if you don't trust me on this.
What you are saying here is simply repeating the dogma of 'the quantum religion'. But it is true, in a sense, that the universe work in this way - at least when it comes to waves packets.
Sigh. I really wish there would be fewer, but weightier attempts at making science understandable to people. The trend in recent years to try to make everything in the form of infotainment simply hurts everybody's understanding of things - people end up having a kind of view of science that only fits into a Superman cartoon - you know, where 'mutations' can magically change a person into a slimy monster, temporarily, and where 'X ray vision' can look through 10 miles of granite, but not 1 millimeter of lead, etc etc. Even Startrek did a better job of popularising science than much of what I have seen recently.
As for the fundamental understanding of time and space - there is literally nobody, I'd claim, who understands this, which is why we see such concepts launched as eg. 'quantisation of space and time', which is profoundly nonsensical. (the reason, if you must know, is that since we live 'inside' space, we have some considerable difficulty seeing space from 'outside', which is where this discontinuity would be apparent).
The truth is - physics is stuck in a rut, and we need a fundamental change in viewpoint before we can progress any further. String theory and quantum mechanics are all very well, but they all build on ideas that are now about a century old, and which have been stretched to their limits. The Copenhagen interpretation hasn't really helped either - this massive block of philosophy stating that 'there is nothing smaller than whichever quantum limit' has been a religion that has done a lot to block our progress towards a better understanding of things on a small scale. In case you'd care to know - all quantum mechanics really says (in this respect) is that because of the dual wave-particle nature of matter, it is impossible to measure things on an arbitrarily small scale using only particle interactions; this clearly doesn't mean that there is nothing going on there.
To compare: imagine that we try to observe ships in the ocean by standing on the beach and making waves - we wouldn't be able to 'see' ships smaller than the length of the waves. So to se better, we create shorter waves, but since they contain more energy, they push the smallest ships around, so we can't locate them precisely. Does this means that there's nothing smaller than what we can observe? Of course not - we just need to find another way to observe them. The limitations in quantum mechanics are more about limitations in the observation methods than about reality.
The trend in GNOME/KDE has long been towards integrating SW rather than making independent apllications. To me this is a distinct weakness, and one that makes me consider abandoning those desktops altogether.
To me useability means flexibility, which implies configurability and openness. And openness in particular means proper, exhaustive documentation - low level as well as intermediate and high level documentation. Which is more or less non-existent in current versions of Linux desktops and applications.
Another prerequisite for flexibility is modularity - not Windows style modularity, but a style of coding where modules are predominantly simple and have simple interfaces. Compare the mish-mash that is Windows, with all it's knitted spaghetti of interconnectedness, to UNIX in the old days (and, thank God, still today). The elegant simplicity of filter programs or the way inetd works illustrate what I'm talking about. This is what we need - somthing that 'as simple as possible, but no simpler', to misappropriate a well known quote.
"Great. any ideas on how to address those problems,..."
Ok, here goes:
Famine: it's not just a question of people 'living in the wrong place' - from which they are supposed to just move away. It is unfortunately a fact that many or even most of the poor living conditions are caused or aggravated by what the rich countries in the West have done and continue to do. I think you know this, or at least, I don't think you have any excuse for not knowing. We in the rich countries can help avert famines in the world by changing our practices - like eg removing state subsidies for farmers and other superfluous industries.
Disease: yes, fact of life. However, something is seriously wrong when the largest part of medical research is about how to repair the ailments that people in rich countries bring on themselves by overeating, or such luxuries as cosmetic treatments. The morally right way to prioritise would be to invest heavily in the big killers such as malaria; this is not profitable, though - which is to say it doesn't help rich people get richer.
War: most wars are caused by social inequality. When people feel that their lot in life is desperately hopeless, they want to strike out; aggression is a natural reaction to being cornered - you want to take your enemy down with you. It is very easy to persuade desperate people that killing somebody else is the right way to go about things. Cure social inequality and most wars will never happen. Again, this doesn't profit the few extremely rich, which is why it doesn't happen.
Finally - trying to stop asteroids from hitting Earth is a dubious activity. There is no reason to believe that we can do it, we just have some very far fetched ideas. Do you imagine that you can sort of push them around with an atomic bomb? Asteroids and comets are likely to be similar to a big pile of gravel, they don't seem to be just big rocks. And using our nukes against one would be like pushing a supertanker with a flyswatter.
On top of that, why run after asteroids and not, say, climate change, which has the same destructive potential and is far more likely to happen? I'll tell you why: fighting the real problems in the world would hurt Big Money, but playing 'Pigs in Space' will occupy the public's mind once they lose interest in the 'war' on terror. And it seems to be a good excuse for extending military power into space.
The fundamental problem is what I call the great capitalist lie: that unimpeded amassing of wealth by a few is good for the world. Don't get me wrong - I'm not against people being able to get richer by working hard and being clever, but the current situation is as far removed from that idea of real capitalism as it can be. What we have now is a huge pyramid game: the person at the top receives money from a number of people lower down, who receive money from a much larger group lower down, who... - the problem is: there's only a limited number of people in the world, so there is bound to be a huge number of people who end up losing everything. And that's certainly not what the American dream is about, is it?
"The real question is this: would you rather program against the pitiful number API's that come with C#, or the huge Free Software diversity that you get with C? The death of C has been greatly exaggerated. It will adapt - it always has."
No - that's not the real question; it's: 'Oh no, not yet another C-like language!?'
What's the point, actually? C# is not something new, it's just an attempt to 'get the colour exactly the right shade of pink'. The truth is - C (the language) is precisely what it should be. So perhaps it would be nice to protect the more inept programmers against themselves, but that is simply a question of the runtime- and development environment, or perhaps some improved libraries.
As I always say: a good programmer can write good code in any language, and a bad programmer will not write good code in any language; it's as simple as that, really. This is because good programming is about good coding and debugging practice, both of which are independent of whichever language you use.
It is at best stupid to talk about how 'C is dying' anyway, seeing as it is still the most popular language in many areas, as well as the single biggest inspirator for 'new' languages.
I can't remember how many times the impending deaths of such things as COBOL, FORTRAN, BASIC, mainframes etc etc have been announced, but they are still going strong all of them.
Following the same arguments, C# and.net are obsolete and dying too..
It's very nice to hear that yet another compay have changed their mind about Linux - the more, the better, perhaps.
But when it comes to flash video - that's one thing I can live without. I'm too tired to look things up right now, but I don't recall having heard anything good about Macromedia - my overall impression of them seems to be negative. For comparison - other companies that I am sceptical about include Microsoft and Oracle, both of whom I recall having actually heard (reliable) positive information about.
The purpose of a scientific theory is to give the best - and simplest - explanation that fits the obsevations, within the limits of current knowledge. In this respect Ptolemaios'es theory was good: maths with equations, algebra, differential theory etc didn't exist, only simple geometry. He formulated a theory within this framework that actually fitted fairly well; and as it turned out, the reality wasn't radically different. Planets do (almost) move on cirles, and seen from Earth, they do indeed (almost) move on epicycles.
As for dark matter - the evidence suggests that something holds the universe together, something we haven't been able to detect so far. Ie. there is some unexplained gravity (~ space-time curvature) in the universe; that gravity is equivalent with mass is a fundamental concept in modern physics. All in all, I'd say that the existence of dark matter is beyond reasonable doubt.
As for the scientists that have their doubts - that's what a scientist get paid for: having doubts. Apart from that - there are also people with a scientific education, who never the less reject the evolution theory and believe the world was created in 6 times 24 hours. What is good science is not determined by whether there are some sceptics, but whether it stands up to continued scrutiny by large numbers of scientists.
Er, got to admit, I couldn't be bothered to read the article, as I suspect it is pretty much the same story as always, but I was struck by this quote:
'out here in the countryside, surrounded by soaring snowcapped mountains and little else, he's bored a lot -...'
I must say, if I had the privilege of living in snow and mountains I would be far too busy to be bored - I'd be out there, skiing and generally enjoying nature.
You said: "2. As a noble gas, Xenon is mostly inert..."
This of course only applies to the not yet ionised atoms. The reason Xenon is an inert element is that it's electron configuration makes less chemically reactive.
Firstly, the furore about Lomborg - at least in Danish media - has at least as much to do with the strong political tint (not to say taint) of his work and his person. And as true and noble as it is to say that we live in a free society and he's entitled to his political opinions, it still becomes a problem when a person presents an underlying political or financial agenda as 'science' - even if he only presents facts. In this case it is more a case of considering what he leaves out.
Secondly, the present case of criticism is only a tip of the iceberg; his assignment to this post as well as the institute have been very controversial for a long time because they are politically and ideologically rather than scientifically founded. This is not a case of 'a honest, striving scientist who has made a stunning, controversial discovery' - he was assigned to this institute because the present very right-wing Danish government wanted him to make the views of the environmental scientists look dubious. It's easy to see why: controlling the many sources of environmental destruction is costly and would be unpopular - it would hurt the industry and the farmers.
And as the debate here demonstrates, it works - because people in general are not scientists, and besides, it is a very uncomfortable thought that you will have to give up your car, your electrical luxuries, the extreme abundance of food etc, so people are scrambling to grab hold of any straw that might protect them against the horrors of losing these perceived comforts.
Quite contrary to common belief - yours and others - 'the environmentalists' don't feel a great joy in announcing the end of what has been the way of life in the West for most of the last century. They are genuinely concerned and they really care about you and I and life on this planet. I don't think they are generally leftists, though they are most likely not on the extreme right.
Finally - whether anybody listens or not, and whether we get a grip on our senses or not; if we don't change the reckless way we just spend and throw away, we will get to choke in our own filth and perhaps we will wipe out all higher life forms in the process. Take a look at Mars and Venus - this is climate gone wrong; one is a hot, high pressure hell, the other is an ice cold desert. Earth rests in a delicate balance between those extremes and we don't even know how delicate that balance is. All we do is stick our head under the arm and race ahead - now convince me that that is likely to end well.
"Now Chinese business men will be able to peruse the 5 websites their government allows them to view..."
Yes, I really feel for the poor Chinese who can't access the mindless PR0N sites and what other sediments the great minds of the 'fwee world' have deposited at the bottom of the Information Sewer (TM).
- but I simply can't see why this is useful. OK, it's kind of exciting in a way, I suppose. The question is: What's the purpose? Isn't this just yet another useless gadget type thing? In what way will being able to see a 3D desktop make it easier and more satisfying to use a computer, as compared to eg. a piece of paper?
Let's face it - a computer is simply a way of managing information. The information we can handle mentally is either 1-dimensional (eg. strings of text) or 2-dimensional (images). We can just about get a feel for 3-dimensional data by using our stereoscopic vision, but it is only a trick of processing in the brain, and it is actually difficult if not impossible for us to perceive things in true 3D. So the idea of a '3D interface' is bad thinking.
* the US is never right about anything it does,"
* Europe calls it a "crime against humanity" when the US executes 71 people in 2002
* groups like our faithful slashdot posters and Amnesty International constantly bitch and whine about how evil the US is, and
* basically ALL the problems of the world are America's fault"
Yeah, whine, whine, whine. Basically, a lot of people in the world who used to admire USA are getting more and more disappointed. America is getting worse quickly. Since the Sep. 11 attack you guys have been behaving like spoiled brats and shown all the world that you are immature, selfish, manipulative and don't care bloody shit about other people and nations.
Ok, so the actions of your government isn't necessarily in 100% agreement with the opinions of the average American citizen; but you people are ultimately responsible for your government, no matter whether they got to power because you elected them or because you didn't care enough. You've got DEMOCRACY, right?
And just to remind you:
- The US waste resources at an absurd rate. Fossil fuel, drinking water, minerals etc; these are all 'the planet's savings', and you are flushing them down the drains.
- The US have for at least half a century used their powers (political, economical, military) to try to control international affairs as well as internal affairs in individual countries, and you guys are not at all above such means as selling weapons to both sides in a conflict, outright and shameless lying, and general bullying.
- These factors as well as others combined with your oh-so-holy stance on such issues as human rights, freedom, democracy and religion (as long as it is ultra right wing 'Christianity') make it hard for the rest of the world to take you serious when you air your high and mighty opinions about how other countries ought to manage their own businesses.
In short: clean up own act! You are not an iota better than China.
As for China: Yes, they still have many problematic issues. But they, as opposed to USA, are improving things day by day. The way things are going, they will soon become better than USA on all counts; they already are on some. Eg. how many dirty tyrants are supported by China compared to USA?
People in the world outside America notice these things, you know. If you want respect, be respectable; if you want admiration, be admirable; and if you want to be 'the leaders of the free world' - prove that you are worthy.
"Maybe I'm wearing a tin-foil hat, but I sure don't believe China wants open formats. They would rather dominate the market so that they can get all of the royalty fees from other nation's vendors."
Yes, you're wearing a tinfoil hat. But as we say - a thief believes every man steals. Being American, you are used to the fact that American companies and the American government want to dominate the world and rake in all the wealth they can get - that what capitalism is all about.
As for Chinese films - I have seen them, have you? Even the most terrible Chinese B-film (or perhaps that would be 'xia' rather than 'B') isn't worse than the corresponding American type of film.
China has produced some breathtakingly beautiful films, and the good news for us in The West is that we haven't seen it all before. Different culture, you see.
"Seriously though, if the leader of the free world runs IIS, I'm scared. .."
Hmm, I just realised that I don't live in 'the free world', then. George Wanker Bush isn't our leader over here in UK - not formally, at least, though Tony seems to get a hardon every time they meet.
As you say very truly - Zealots are potentially 'terrorists'. But that is only in the sense that eg. you are potentially a murderer (you COULD pick up a knife and you COULD be extremely angry etc...) or I am a potential Windows fan (I MIGHT get a brain damage).
But, seriously, is it even remotely reasonable to start talking about this, given the circumstances? I don't think so. Since the attacks in New York people (read: Americans) have started using the 'T-word' as the all-conquering argument for or against almost anything you might have an opinion about. This is not because there is 'more terror' than before, it's simply a way to make an opponent look bad.
So let's get real - and grow up! We're not politicians, for f*ck's sake! We all have brains, or at least rudimentary nervous systems, and it's not an act of terror to use them; not yet, at least.
It would seem that I am the only one who has wondered about:
1. the utter stupidity of a thing like this. We don't need a sofa that 'thinks' for us. Thinking is what makes us human, for f*ck's sake, just like being able to move around is makes us animals rather than plants.
2. Why was this put in the category of 'Science'? It clearly belongs either under 'Stupid Hoaxes' or 'Lame PR Stunts'
Slashdot Mirror
Apart from the fact that the worst flu comes from birds (which are more closely related to dinosaurs than mammals), that is.
Your argument, while well formulated, is wrong - an organism isn't fundamentatlly better protected against microbes that are specific to their own species. The immune system is best at protecting against attacks from enemies it already knows from previous experience, it's as simple as that. That is why emerging diseases are so devastating.
It is true that eg. a virus is best at attacking certain hosts, but as we have seen many times in the past, they can evolve and jump to another species, and we know of no reson why a virus shouldn't be able to jump between widely seperated species. We simply don't know.
As for whether a Martian microbe would be able to get a foothold on Earth: there are places on Earth that might be favourable to it - a dry, cold valley on Antartica, for instance. Again, we simply have no knowledge about it. And while some - like the Bush administration - seem to be in favour of just rushing in and get stung, I personally think it is better to at least try to think a little ahead and avoid some of the most obvious risks.
Do I?
I have only pointed out that putting GM crops out in the open environment is a senselessly stupid thing to do. Personally I am not convinced at all that growing things in a greenhouse is much better - the point being that it takes very little to transport genetic material out; a single bee would be able to do it. This is not like a dead poison or radioactivity - a small leakage, while bad, would only be a small leakage. Genetic material, in contrast, is likely to multiply - this is what life is all about. Even if only one strand of DNA escaped, it might be enough to allow it to run riot all over the planet, in the worst case.
First your questions:
Rice is eaten raw when it is used in the form of ground up rice flour and not cooked.
As for cooked proteins, does the word 'prion' ring a bell? It not a law of nature that proteins loose their shape or their function just because they are heated.
The problem with GM is not so much the danger of accidentally misusing the products, but the very real danger of genetic pollution, which can happen in many more ways than most people imagine. Just to mention a couple:
1. Bacteria and other microorganisms routinely swap genetic material or even incorporate genetic materials from cells of other species, plants included. This is why the multiresistent bugs are not just an isolated problem - it has been found that the resistance to antibiotics can wander between different species.
2. Many of our most important crop plants have near relatives in the wild. Imagine eg. that we have a genetically modified oat field, which produces some dangerous substance. Wild oat is a common weed in oat fields, so we will very soon have a wild plant which produces a dangerous substance. Wild oat spreads very easily - the seeds are light and blow around in the wind - so soon this trait gets into oat meant for human consumption. Even worse - we don't even need a scenario where a wild species acts as intermediary - many crops are wind pollinated, and their pollen can travel for huge distances, perhaps all around the globe.
Only a ruthless, boneheaded and ignorant idiot would let genetically modified crops loose on the world at present, when we don't know nearly enough about the consequences. Unfortunately this is the kind of people that are in power.
The fundamental problem with 'terraforming' Mars is that the planet doesn't have enough of a magnetic field to deflect the solar wind, which is why it doesn't have an athmosphere now: it simply gets shaved off by the Sun. So before we try to create an athmosphere we ought to provide a sustainable magnetic field the size of a planet.
Apart from that - what extraordinary hubris is this? We can hardly manage to lift our arses off the ground or cooperate with our fellow human beings, but now we want to dream about something this size?
First of all, I'm surprised to see this mentioned in this list. Not because it isn't an essential and relevant result, but because most people here simply don't have a clue about abstract mathematics.
As many people have experienced, studying the higher mathematics is incrediby rewarding, intellectually, especially the parts that have nothing to do with numbers (ie. most). Even if you don't get into the intricacies of stringent proofs of theorems, it is still a world of such incredible wonder. Are you fascinated by science fiction and fantasy? Then mathematics should be able to captivate you; personally I can't think of anything more mindblowing than such things as topology, geometry and algebra.
Ah, but that's where you are wrong. Heisenberg's inequality is derived from the underlying wave mechanics, which states, popularly, that all particles have a wave length proportional to it's momentum. If you look into the history of quantum mechanics, you will see that this is how Heisenberg's uncertainty principle came about. Ask somebody else if you don't trust me on this.
What you are saying here is simply repeating the dogma of 'the quantum religion'. But it is true, in a sense, that the universe work in this way - at least when it comes to waves packets.
Sigh. I really wish there would be fewer, but weightier attempts at making science understandable to people. The trend in recent years to try to make everything in the form of infotainment simply hurts everybody's understanding of things - people end up having a kind of view of science that only fits into a Superman cartoon - you know, where 'mutations' can magically change a person into a slimy monster, temporarily, and where 'X ray vision' can look through 10 miles of granite, but not 1 millimeter of lead, etc etc. Even Startrek did a better job of popularising science than much of what I have seen recently.
As for the fundamental understanding of time and space - there is literally nobody, I'd claim, who understands this, which is why we see such concepts launched as eg. 'quantisation of space and time', which is profoundly nonsensical. (the reason, if you must know, is that since we live 'inside' space, we have some considerable difficulty seeing space from 'outside', which is where this discontinuity would be apparent).
The truth is - physics is stuck in a rut, and we need a fundamental change in viewpoint before we can progress any further. String theory and quantum mechanics are all very well, but they all build on ideas that are now about a century old, and which have been stretched to their limits. The Copenhagen interpretation hasn't really helped either - this massive block of philosophy stating that 'there is nothing smaller than whichever quantum limit' has been a religion that has done a lot to block our progress towards a better understanding of things on a small scale. In case you'd care to know - all quantum mechanics really says (in this respect) is that because of the dual wave-particle nature of matter, it is impossible to measure things on an arbitrarily small scale using only particle interactions; this clearly doesn't mean that there is nothing going on there.
To compare: imagine that we try to observe ships in the ocean by standing on the beach and making waves - we wouldn't be able to 'see' ships smaller than the length of the waves. So to se better, we create shorter waves, but since they contain more energy, they push the smallest ships around, so we can't locate them precisely. Does this means that there's nothing smaller than what we can observe? Of course not - we just need to find another way to observe them. The limitations in quantum mechanics are more about limitations in the observation methods than about reality.
The trend in GNOME/KDE has long been towards integrating SW rather than making independent apllications. To me this is a distinct weakness, and one that makes me consider abandoning those desktops altogether.
To me useability means flexibility, which implies configurability and openness. And openness in particular means proper, exhaustive documentation - low level as well as intermediate and high level documentation. Which is more or less non-existent in current versions of Linux desktops and applications.
Another prerequisite for flexibility is modularity - not Windows style modularity, but a style of coding where modules are predominantly simple and have simple interfaces. Compare the mish-mash that is Windows, with all it's knitted spaghetti of interconnectedness, to UNIX in the old days (and, thank God, still today). The elegant simplicity of filter programs or the way inetd works illustrate what I'm talking about. This is what we need - somthing that 'as simple as possible, but no simpler', to misappropriate a well known quote.
"Great. any ideas on how to address those problems,..."
... - the problem is: there's only a limited number of people in the world, so there is bound to be a huge number of people who end up losing everything. And that's certainly not what the American dream is about, is it?
Ok, here goes:
Famine: it's not just a question of people 'living in the wrong place' - from which they are supposed to just move away. It is unfortunately a fact that many or even most of the poor living conditions are caused or aggravated by what the rich countries in the West have done and continue to do. I think you know this, or at least, I don't think you have any excuse for not knowing. We in the rich countries can help avert famines in the world by changing our practices - like eg removing state subsidies for farmers and other superfluous industries.
Disease: yes, fact of life. However, something is seriously wrong when the largest part of medical research is about how to repair the ailments that people in rich countries bring on themselves by overeating, or such luxuries as cosmetic treatments. The morally right way to prioritise would be to invest heavily in the big killers such as malaria; this is not profitable, though - which is to say it doesn't help rich people get richer.
War: most wars are caused by social inequality. When people feel that their lot in life is desperately hopeless, they want to strike out; aggression is a natural reaction to being cornered - you want to take your enemy down with you. It is very easy to persuade desperate people that killing somebody else is the right way to go about things. Cure social inequality and most wars will never happen. Again, this doesn't profit the few extremely rich, which is why it doesn't happen.
Finally - trying to stop asteroids from hitting Earth is a dubious activity. There is no reason to believe that we can do it, we just have some very far fetched ideas. Do you imagine that you can sort of push them around with an atomic bomb? Asteroids and comets are likely to be similar to a big pile of gravel, they don't seem to be just big rocks. And using our nukes against one would be like pushing a supertanker with a flyswatter.
On top of that, why run after asteroids and not, say, climate change, which has the same destructive potential and is far more likely to happen? I'll tell you why: fighting the real problems in the world would hurt Big Money, but playing 'Pigs in Space' will occupy the public's mind once they lose interest in the 'war' on terror. And it seems to be a good excuse for extending military power into space.
The fundamental problem is what I call the great capitalist lie: that unimpeded amassing of wealth by a few is good for the world. Don't get me wrong - I'm not against people being able to get richer by working hard and being clever, but the current situation is as far removed from that idea of real capitalism as it can be. What we have now is a huge pyramid game: the person at the top receives money from a number of people lower down, who receive money from a much larger group lower down, who
"The real question is this: would you rather program against the pitiful number API's that come with C#, or the huge Free Software diversity that you get with C? The death of C has been greatly exaggerated. It will adapt - it always has."
No - that's not the real question; it's: 'Oh no, not yet another C-like language!?'
What's the point, actually? C# is not something new, it's just an attempt to 'get the colour exactly the right shade of pink'. The truth is - C (the language) is precisely what it should be. So perhaps it would be nice to protect the more inept programmers against themselves, but that is simply a question of the runtime- and development environment, or perhaps some improved libraries.
As I always say: a good programmer can write good code in any language, and a bad programmer will not write good code in any language; it's as simple as that, really. This is because good programming is about good coding and debugging practice, both of which are independent of whichever language you use.
Agree!
.net are obsolete and dying too..
It is at best stupid to talk about how 'C is dying' anyway, seeing as it is still the most popular language in many areas, as well as the single biggest inspirator for 'new' languages.
I can't remember how many times the impending deaths of such things as COBOL, FORTRAN, BASIC, mainframes etc etc have been announced, but they are still going strong all of them.
Following the same arguments, C# and
It's very nice to hear that yet another compay have changed their mind about Linux - the more, the better, perhaps.
But when it comes to flash video - that's one thing I can live without. I'm too tired to look things up right now, but I don't recall having heard anything good about Macromedia - my overall impression of them seems to be negative. For comparison - other companies that I am sceptical about include Microsoft and Oracle, both of whom I recall having actually heard (reliable) positive information about.
'I feel very lucky to have been born in the US.'
So do I - I feel really lucky that you were born there and not eg in Europe where we'd rather be without too many extremists.
The purpose of a scientific theory is to give the best - and simplest - explanation that fits the obsevations, within the limits of current knowledge. In this respect Ptolemaios'es theory was good: maths with equations, algebra, differential theory etc didn't exist, only simple geometry. He formulated a theory within this framework that actually fitted fairly well; and as it turned out, the reality wasn't radically different. Planets do (almost) move on cirles, and seen from Earth, they do indeed (almost) move on epicycles.
As for dark matter - the evidence suggests that something holds the universe together, something we haven't been able to detect so far. Ie. there is some unexplained gravity (~ space-time curvature) in the universe; that gravity is equivalent with mass is a fundamental concept in modern physics. All in all, I'd say that the existence of dark matter is beyond reasonable doubt.
As for the scientists that have their doubts - that's what a scientist get paid for: having doubts. Apart from that - there are also people with a scientific education, who never the less reject the evolution theory and believe the world was created in 6 times 24 hours. What is good science is not determined by whether there are some sceptics, but whether it stands up to continued scrutiny by large numbers of scientists.
Er, got to admit, I couldn't be bothered to read the article, as I suspect it is pretty much the same story as always, but I was struck by this quote:
...'
'out here in the countryside, surrounded by soaring snowcapped mountains and little else, he's bored a lot -
I must say, if I had the privilege of living in snow and mountains I would be far too busy to be bored - I'd be out there, skiing and generally enjoying nature.
You said: "2. As a noble gas, Xenon is mostly inert..."
This of course only applies to the not yet ionised atoms. The reason Xenon is an inert element is that it's electron configuration makes less chemically reactive.
There are several points where you go wrong.
Firstly, the furore about Lomborg - at least in Danish media - has at least as much to do with the strong political tint (not to say taint) of his work and his person. And as true and noble as it is to say that we live in a free society and he's entitled to his political opinions, it still becomes a problem when a person presents an underlying political or financial agenda as 'science' - even if he only presents facts. In this case it is more a case of considering what he leaves out.
Secondly, the present case of criticism is only a tip of the iceberg; his assignment to this post as well as the institute have been very controversial for a long time because they are politically and ideologically rather than scientifically founded. This is not a case of 'a honest, striving scientist who has made a stunning, controversial discovery' - he was assigned to this institute because the present very right-wing Danish government wanted him to make the views of the environmental scientists look dubious. It's easy to see why: controlling the many sources of environmental destruction is costly and would be unpopular - it would hurt the industry and the farmers.
And as the debate here demonstrates, it works - because people in general are not scientists, and besides, it is a very uncomfortable thought that you will have to give up your car, your electrical luxuries, the extreme abundance of food etc, so people are scrambling to grab hold of any straw that might protect them against the horrors of losing these perceived comforts.
Quite contrary to common belief - yours and others - 'the environmentalists' don't feel a great joy in announcing the end of what has been the way of life in the West for most of the last century. They are genuinely concerned and they really care about you and I and life on this planet. I don't think they are generally leftists, though they are most likely not on the extreme right.
Finally - whether anybody listens or not, and whether we get a grip on our senses or not; if we don't change the reckless way we just spend and throw away, we will get to choke in our own filth and perhaps we will wipe out all higher life forms in the process. Take a look at Mars and Venus - this is climate gone wrong; one is a hot, high pressure hell, the other is an ice cold desert. Earth rests in a delicate balance between those extremes and we don't even know how delicate that balance is. All we do is stick our head under the arm and race ahead - now convince me that that is likely to end well.
"Now Chinese business men will be able to peruse the 5 websites their government allows them to view..."
Yes, I really feel for the poor Chinese who can't access the mindless PR0N sites and what other sediments the great minds of the 'fwee world' have deposited at the bottom of the Information Sewer (TM).
- but I simply can't see why this is useful. OK, it's kind of exciting in a way, I suppose. The question is: What's the purpose? Isn't this just yet another useless gadget type thing? In what way will being able to see a 3D desktop make it easier and more satisfying to use a computer, as compared to eg. a piece of paper?
Let's face it - a computer is simply a way of managing information. The information we can handle mentally is either 1-dimensional (eg. strings of text) or 2-dimensional (images). We can just about get a feel for 3-dimensional data by using our stereoscopic vision, but it is only a trick of processing in the brain, and it is actually difficult if not impossible for us to perceive things in true 3D. So the idea of a '3D interface' is bad thinking.
"Someone explain to me how
* the US is never right about anything it does,"
* Europe calls it a "crime against humanity" when the US executes 71 people in 2002
* groups like our faithful slashdot posters and Amnesty International constantly bitch and whine about how evil the US is, and
* basically ALL the problems of the world are America's fault"
Yeah, whine, whine, whine. Basically, a lot of people in the world who used to admire USA are getting more and more disappointed. America is getting worse quickly. Since the Sep. 11 attack you guys have been behaving like spoiled brats and shown all the world that you are immature, selfish, manipulative and don't care bloody shit about other people and nations.
Ok, so the actions of your government isn't necessarily in 100% agreement with the opinions of the average American citizen; but you people are ultimately responsible for your government, no matter whether they got to power because you elected them or because you didn't care enough. You've got DEMOCRACY, right?
And just to remind you:
- The US waste resources at an absurd rate. Fossil fuel, drinking water, minerals etc; these are all 'the planet's savings', and you are flushing them down the drains.
- The US have for at least half a century used their powers (political, economical, military) to try to control international affairs as well as internal affairs in individual countries, and you guys are not at all above such means as selling weapons to both sides in a conflict, outright and shameless lying, and general bullying.
- These factors as well as others combined with your oh-so-holy stance on such issues as human rights, freedom, democracy and religion (as long as it is ultra right wing 'Christianity') make it hard for the rest of the world to take you serious when you air your high and mighty opinions about how other countries ought to manage their own businesses.
In short: clean up own act! You are not an iota better than China.
As for China: Yes, they still have many problematic issues. But they, as opposed to USA, are improving things day by day. The way things are going, they will soon become better than USA on all counts; they already are on some. Eg. how many dirty tyrants are supported by China compared to USA?
People in the world outside America notice these things, you know. If you want respect, be respectable; if you want admiration, be admirable; and if you want to be 'the leaders of the free world' - prove that you are worthy.
"Maybe I'm wearing a tin-foil hat, but I sure don't believe China wants open formats. They would rather dominate the market so that they can get all of the royalty fees from other nation's vendors."
Yes, you're wearing a tinfoil hat. But as we say - a thief believes every man steals. Being American, you are used to the fact that American companies and the American government want to dominate the world and rake in all the wealth they can get - that what capitalism is all about.
As for Chinese films - I have seen them, have you? Even the most terrible Chinese B-film (or perhaps that would be 'xia' rather than 'B') isn't worse than the corresponding American type of film.
China has produced some breathtakingly beautiful films, and the good news for us in The West is that we haven't seen it all before. Different culture, you see.
"Seriously though, if the leader of the free world runs IIS, I'm scared. . ."
Hmm, I just realised that I don't live in 'the free world', then. George Wanker Bush isn't our leader over here in UK - not formally, at least, though Tony seems to get a hardon every time they meet.
As you say very truly - Zealots are potentially 'terrorists'. But that is only in the sense that eg. you are potentially a murderer (you COULD pick up a knife and you COULD be extremely angry etc...) or I am a potential Windows fan (I MIGHT get a brain damage).
But, seriously, is it even remotely reasonable to start talking about this, given the circumstances? I don't think so. Since the attacks in New York people (read: Americans) have started using the 'T-word' as the all-conquering argument for or against almost anything you might have an opinion about. This is not because there is 'more terror' than before, it's simply a way to make an opponent look bad.
So let's get real - and grow up! We're not politicians, for f*ck's sake! We all have brains, or at least rudimentary nervous systems, and it's not an act of terror to use them; not yet, at least.
It would seem that I am the only one who has wondered about:
1. the utter stupidity of a thing like this. We don't need a sofa that 'thinks' for us. Thinking is what makes us human, for f*ck's sake, just like being able to move around is makes us animals rather than plants.
2. Why was this put in the category of 'Science'? It clearly belongs either under 'Stupid Hoaxes' or 'Lame PR Stunts'
'In soviet russia, crack smokes SCO!'
Whose crack is smoking, did you say?