I think you and I both know that your explanation isn't what really happened.
It would be nice if the lines were so easy to follow, but they aren't. Fossils that are similar to one another have been found, but none that actually attest to one organism changing into another. Remember the whole neanderthol man? It was a hoax. There have been no fossils that show a link between two seperate species. Plenty of variation within a species, yes, but not between *seperate* species.
Oh, and as far as the bacteria getting pesticide resistance.. have they changed into anything else? Are there any single-cell bacteria that have converted themselves into multi-cell versions? nope. They've grown immune to the effects of a poison. woohoo. They aren't changing form are they? They've just changed the way they take toxins in and deal with them.
Westley grew immune to the effects of iocaine powder, but he and buttercup didn't have mutants.:)
I know it's the most accepted... but that's not really a reason. That's just another way of making yourself a follower.
I mean, -scientifically- it may be the best theory, but science has routinely shown itself to be wrong. I'll base my life decisions on science-fact. No problems there. But really, why should I insist on believing science-theory? Just because it's science? Just because that's all someone else can think of? Just because a relatively small amount of the world's population (scientists) accept it? Why should I assume that a scientist know's best? They're only human, after all.:)
I've looked at the evidence. It's nowhere near conclusive. The theory of evolution has so many holes that if it was anything else, it would have been dismissed a long time ago.
I believe the problem is in evolution's competition. The only reason that science has accepted evolution so easily, is that it provides a means for combating creationism. Every proof that scientists cite as evidence for evolution has a problem. But those that are against religion have to have *something* to grasp on to. In this case, it was evolution.
Well, Loki has been doing well in that area. They're endeavoring to release games before the windows version comes out. I know it was that way with Railroad Tycoon II.
--- btw, it's good to see someone else who has discovered the genius of Nick Drake.
It's kinda like those that say "because evolution *could* work, it must have happened."
Takes all kinds.
Evolution to this day has been represented as truth, though it isn't proven. Charles Darwin himself, after writing 'Origin of the Species', said that he was way off.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the integration of samba browsing in the file manager yet. To me, that's one of the most important things Corel did in their distro. I don't know for sure if it's open source, but it's definitely a good thing.
In my office, we constantly use network neighborhood for file sharing. It's the easiest way to visualize the network, and actually have people remember where to go if they need a file again. I keep it secure, and they keep working.
Up till now, one drawback of Linux was the time I would have to put into setting up samba for people so they could get to certain files. I've never *really* understood why smbmount is so hard to use, but it is anyway. To me, Corel did something here that should've been done a *long* time ago. Being disconnected from the windows computers in the office just makes it harder for anyone to see the point. Now if it were only installable on other distros...
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
You're denouncing religion because of Catholic beliefs. Is that all you've ever heard?
I don't do good because I'm afraid of being tortured forever. "Hell" in the Catholic sense isn't true. It isn't scriptural. It's a lie that the Catholic church made up to scare their followers into obediance. They no more represent God than a manhole cover.
I do good because I love God. I don't want to sound like a fanatic or something, but that's the truth. I've come to know God through study of not only the Bible, but of science. I've been studying science all of my life, and all it has done is reinforce my belief in God.
I don't believe in God because I have a fear of being insignificant. But as far as my life having a meaning... I can't explain it to someone who refuses to look at it candidly.
I'm not going to tell you that if you don't repent you'll go to hell. That isn't true, and I think you realize that as much as me. I just hope that the next time you have a chance, you'll listen.
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
So in order to prove the existence of something you can't see, you look at it's effects on something else.
That's similar to wind. You can't see it, but you can see it's effect on other things.
I can't see God, but I can see his effect. Even if you narrow it down to the instant that everything came into existence with a big bang, that's still the effect of God. And I know we weren't there, but that isn't a reason to go against common sense.
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
I've heard many argue that before. The universe is so big, that there's bound to be *some*where in it that life succeeded.
why?
Given all of the reasoning against life forming, why would it form? It isn't like there are billions of puddles of goo in the universe solely devoted to mixing amino acids. And to argue that it could happen over billions of years isn't an answer. I'll say it again, all of that has to happen *at the same time*. So what if a gene happens to be formed? That's a far cry from the complex formulas that life requires.
Do you think that life is the norm? Do you think that life *has* to come about?
Maybe you just can't believe that we won't find life on other planets, because it makes you feel too empty. There's no shame in that, really. But instead of dismissing everything else, why not be open minded about it. Why dismiss the existence of God? Are you afraid?
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 2
Interesting argument, but you really didn't really provide a counterpoint.
I admit that complex patterns can form from nothing.. That's the nature of molecules. Ice crystals can form and make some very beautiful patterns, but that's it.
Life is different. Freezing water has all that it needs to form those crystals in itself. It's just the reactions of molecules to freezing and each other. But life requires that certain things be there before it actually forms.
If we accept the word of this scientist that around 300 genes are needed to form life, then we should consider what happening at the base level. Atoms and molecules don't exist in nature as genes. They exist as atoms and molecules. It's been a while since I studied cellular biology, but in order to create the building blocks of DNA, around 27 specific amino acids have to be present. With those present, the next step is to somehow form them into the genes that would eventually create the DNA needed to form a cell. If I'm wrong on the number of AA's, or the sequence of events, please let me know.
Now, it's been proven before in laboratory tests that the most amino acids scientists could "spontaneously" produce was around 7 or 8. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
Now let's look at the odds... What are the chances for the right number and type of amino acids getting together to form even ONE gene? From that point, what are the chances that this would happen 300 or so times in order to put together a strand of DNA that would support life? Keep in mind, that it would need to be quick enough so that the rest of the genes wouldn't decay before the last ones were formed.
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
This is actually a good step in proving religous beliefs. And before you moderate this down...
The fact that it's taken this long for humans to get to the point of identifying the building blocks of life is one thing. Add to that the fact that these are the building blocks for one of the simplest living things that exists.
If this is the case, and it is, then how likely is it that all of the life that is on the earth came about from an accident?
If humans eventually manage to create life from scratch, they are only proving that their previous assumptions about life's beginnings are false. Their arguments are based on an event that is so improbable nothing else with these odds would be given consideration. Yet they believe it because they don't want to think their lives are dependent on a God. But if they *do* create life, they are simply proving that life comes about when there is a creator, and not by accident.
Actually, most of the others are completely different technologies.
If I remember correctly, one was utilizing nanotubes... That's not going to happen for quite a while. In fact, I doubt it'll ever make the big time usage the inventors would like it to have.
The other involves tiny balls suspended in oil that flip according to their current charge. From the methods I've seen, this is the one that could possibly make it into consumer hands. I'm visualizing a page of the stuff in an otherwise normal book. Just a page, maybe a few, but not the entire book. btw, this is the one that Sears (or was it JC Penney) used in that blue and white sign that appeared on/. some months ago.
In any case, I think this particular tech was mislabeled. They mention that OTHER people are working on flexible display technologies. This would instead allow a device's case to also be it's processing board.
In the article, it mentions OTHER people working on the display technologies. So this is basically a way to make a circuit design that isn't like the traditional.
Granted, it would be cool to have a device that utilizes it's case for computing power. Just imagine what a device the size of a palm could do with this technology.
It seems like this will be of most benefit to Handspring with the Visor, instead of Palm.
They included another serial interface? The Palm will need a redesign in order to use that. But the Visor... The expansion slot is looking even better.
In any event, I think color would just be plain cool.
I think as long as the thing looks good, people will start wearing them. In the age we live in, people aren't so afraid of looking like a geek.. in fact, laptops are now seen as stylish.
Why would something that you wear be any different? It just has to look cool, and people will do it.
I was just thinking of the intro video to Civ:CTP, the scientist in the alien embryo lab was wearing some futuristic looking glasses. They were colored, and they looked really cool.
Just make me a display in some glasses that I can take off as easily as reading glasses. Given a technology boost, they could even be used with a wireless link. (Bluetooth?) Then you wouldn't have some funky pack on your belt.. just some spec's that are indiscernable from normal glasses.
I really think it would be good to have separate choices for those experienced and inexperienced. Kinda like the "custom" install, but a little more straightforward. For instance, if the person installing Linux clicked on "New to Linux", the installer could automatically exclude the enabling of telnet. It would just take a custom script, right? That could easily be done with all the unfamiliar features of Linux.
Of course, there should also be an install choice for someone that knows what they're doing.
It seems we're following in someone else's footsteps with the basic install options. Let's put together an install that customizes *itself* to the user's ability.
Try reading the article next time. *Intel* cited them as a competitor.
But flames aside, I thought the same thing. (About Intel that is) Why would they cite Transmeta as a competitor if the only thing they're producing is rumor? And how could the DOJ accept that as a valid argument?
It seems like there may be more knowledge outside Transmeta than we all think...
Um, I think they're talking about the *device* doing that work. If it's all done in hardware, the amount of memory it requires to run would be less. Kinda like when you add a 3D card... less processor time is devoted to that task.
Slashdot Mirror
and this will prove..?
I think you and I both know that your explanation isn't what really happened.
:)
It would be nice if the lines were so easy to follow, but they aren't. Fossils that are similar to one another have been found, but none that actually attest to one organism changing into another. Remember the whole neanderthol man? It was a hoax. There have been no fossils that show a link between two seperate species. Plenty of variation within a species, yes, but not between *seperate* species.
Oh, and as far as the bacteria getting pesticide resistance.. have they changed into anything else? Are there any single-cell bacteria that have converted themselves into multi-cell versions? nope. They've grown immune to the effects of a poison. woohoo. They aren't changing form are they? They've just changed the way they take toxins in and deal with them.
Westley grew immune to the effects of iocaine powder, but he and buttercup didn't have mutants.
ok, so why believe it?
:)
I know it's the most accepted... but that's not really a reason. That's just another way of making yourself a follower.
I mean, -scientifically- it may be the best theory, but science has routinely shown itself to be wrong. I'll base my life decisions on science-fact. No problems there. But really, why should I insist on believing science-theory? Just because it's science? Just because that's all someone else can think of? Just because a relatively small amount of the world's population (scientists) accept it? Why should I assume that a scientist know's best? They're only human, after all.
I've looked at the evidence. It's nowhere near conclusive. The theory of evolution has so many holes that if it was anything else, it would have been dismissed a long time ago.
I believe the problem is in evolution's competition. The only reason that science has accepted evolution so easily, is that it provides a means for combating creationism. Every proof that scientists cite as evidence for evolution has a problem. But those that are against religion have to have *something* to grasp on to. In this case, it was evolution.
Well, Loki has been doing well in that area. They're endeavoring to release games before the windows version comes out. I know it was that way with Railroad Tycoon II.
---
btw, it's good to see someone else who has discovered the genius of Nick Drake.
Quite right!
It's kinda like those that say "because evolution *could* work, it must have happened."
Takes all kinds.
Evolution to this day has been represented as truth, though it isn't proven. Charles Darwin himself, after writing 'Origin of the Species', said that he was way off.
It's silly what some people will believe.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the integration of samba browsing in the file manager yet. To me, that's one of the most important things Corel did in their distro. I don't know for sure if it's open source, but it's definitely a good thing.
In my office, we constantly use network neighborhood for file sharing. It's the easiest way to visualize the network, and actually have people remember where to go if they need a file again. I keep it secure, and they keep working.
Up till now, one drawback of Linux was the time I would have to put into setting up samba for people so they could get to certain files. I've never *really* understood why smbmount is so hard to use, but it is anyway. To me, Corel did something here that should've been done a *long* time ago. Being disconnected from the windows computers in the office just makes it harder for anyone to see the point. Now if it were only installable on other distros...
You're denouncing religion because of Catholic beliefs. Is that all you've ever heard?
I don't do good because I'm afraid of being tortured forever. "Hell" in the Catholic sense isn't true. It isn't scriptural. It's a lie that the Catholic church made up to scare their followers into obediance. They no more represent God than a manhole cover.
I do good because I love God. I don't want to sound like a fanatic or something, but that's the truth. I've come to know God through study of not only the Bible, but of science. I've been studying science all of my life, and all it has done is reinforce my belief in God.
I don't believe in God because I have a fear of being insignificant. But as far as my life having a meaning... I can't explain it to someone who refuses to look at it candidly.
I'm not going to tell you that if you don't repent you'll go to hell. That isn't true, and I think you realize that as much as me. I just hope that the next time you have a chance, you'll listen.
So in order to prove the existence of something you can't see, you look at it's effects on something else.
That's similar to wind. You can't see it, but you can see it's effect on other things.
I can't see God, but I can see his effect. Even if you narrow it down to the instant that everything came into existence with a big bang, that's still the effect of God. And I know we weren't there, but that isn't a reason to go against common sense.
I've heard many argue that before. The universe is so big, that there's bound to be *some*where in it that life succeeded.
why?
Given all of the reasoning against life forming, why would it form? It isn't like there are billions of puddles of goo in the universe solely devoted to mixing amino acids. And to argue that it could happen over billions of years isn't an answer. I'll say it again, all of that has to happen *at the same time*. So what if a gene happens to be formed? That's a far cry from the complex formulas that life requires.
Do you think that life is the norm? Do you think that life *has* to come about?
Maybe you just can't believe that we won't find life on other planets, because it makes you feel too empty. There's no shame in that, really. But instead of dismissing everything else, why not be open minded about it. Why dismiss the existence of God? Are you afraid?
Interesting argument, but you really didn't really provide a counterpoint.
I admit that complex patterns can form from nothing.. That's the nature of molecules. Ice crystals can form and make some very beautiful patterns, but that's it.
Life is different. Freezing water has all that it needs to form those crystals in itself. It's just the reactions of molecules to freezing and each other. But life requires that certain things be there before it actually forms.
If we accept the word of this scientist that around 300 genes are needed to form life, then we should consider what happening at the base level. Atoms and molecules don't exist in nature as genes. They exist as atoms and molecules. It's been a while since I studied cellular biology, but in order to create the building blocks of DNA, around 27 specific amino acids have to be present. With those present, the next step is to somehow form them into the genes that would eventually create the DNA needed to form a cell. If I'm wrong on the number of AA's, or the sequence of events, please let me know.
Now, it's been proven before in laboratory tests that the most amino acids scientists could "spontaneously" produce was around 7 or 8. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
Now let's look at the odds... What are the chances for the right number and type of amino acids getting together to form even ONE gene? From that point, what are the chances that this would happen 300 or so times in order to put together a strand of DNA that would support life? Keep in mind, that it would need to be quick enough so that the rest of the genes wouldn't decay before the last ones were formed.
This is actually a good step in proving religous beliefs. And before you moderate this down...
The fact that it's taken this long for humans to get to the point of identifying the building blocks of life is one thing. Add to that the fact that these are the building blocks for one of the simplest living things that exists.
If this is the case, and it is, then how likely is it that all of the life that is on the earth came about from an accident?
If humans eventually manage to create life from scratch, they are only proving that their previous assumptions about life's beginnings are false. Their arguments are based on an event that is so improbable nothing else with these odds would be given consideration. Yet they believe it because they don't want to think their lives are dependent on a God. But if they *do* create life, they are simply proving that life comes about when there is a creator, and not by accident.
Why not just up the number of characters in both username and password, and then require that they also do the alpha-numeric thing?
That would probably bug people less than requiring one more step in the login.
But then, if I was breaking in, trying to get the value for yet another field could definitely be annoying.
If you are the one designing *and* building a part, it's normally better to do it in 2D. That's been my experience, at least.
When you cut a 2D shape out of a 3D piece of metal, a 3D drawing won't help you. You need a 2D drawing in order to know how to make the 3D part.
I figure you posted as AC because you thought you were being smart. sorry.
Actually, most of the others are completely different technologies.
/. some months ago.
If I remember correctly, one was utilizing nanotubes... That's not going to happen for quite a while. In fact, I doubt it'll ever make the big time usage the inventors would like it to have.
The other involves tiny balls suspended in oil that flip according to their current charge. From the methods I've seen, this is the one that could possibly make it into consumer hands. I'm visualizing a page of the stuff in an otherwise normal book. Just a page, maybe a few, but not the entire book. btw, this is the one that Sears (or was it JC Penney) used in that blue and white sign that appeared on
In any case, I think this particular tech was mislabeled. They mention that OTHER people are working on flexible display technologies. This would instead allow a device's case to also be it's processing board.
AFAIK, IMHO.
In the article, it mentions OTHER people working on the display technologies. So this is basically a way to make a circuit design that isn't like the traditional.
Granted, it would be cool to have a device that utilizes it's case for computing power. Just imagine what a device the size of a palm could do with this technology.
Still, it doesn't solve the display problems.
It seems like this will be of most benefit to Handspring with the Visor, instead of Palm.
They included another serial interface? The Palm will need a redesign in order to use that. But the Visor... The expansion slot is looking even better.
In any event, I think color would just be plain cool.
"according to Microsoft, Linux has not affected sales of Windows NT."
Um, anyone else see a problem with that statement?
I think as long as the thing looks good, people will start wearing them. In the age we live in, people aren't so afraid of looking like a geek.. in fact, laptops are now seen as stylish.
Why would something that you wear be any different? It just has to look cool, and people will do it.
I was just thinking of the intro video to Civ:CTP, the scientist in the alien embryo lab was wearing some futuristic looking glasses. They were colored, and they looked really cool.
Just make me a display in some glasses that I can take off as easily as reading glasses. Given a technology boost, they could even be used with a wireless link. (Bluetooth?) Then you wouldn't have some funky pack on your belt.. just some spec's that are indiscernable from normal glasses.
I really think it would be good to have separate choices for those experienced and inexperienced. Kinda like the "custom" install, but a little more straightforward. For instance, if the person installing Linux clicked on "New to Linux", the installer could automatically exclude the enabling of telnet. It would just take a custom script, right? That could easily be done with all the unfamiliar features of Linux.
Of course, there should also be an install choice for someone that knows what they're doing.
It seems we're following in someone else's footsteps with the basic install options. Let's put together an install that customizes *itself* to the user's ability.
Makes sense to me, IMHO.
I don't know about that... I've had at least two good ideas in my lifetime.
Try reading the article next time.
*Intel* cited them as a competitor.
But flames aside, I thought the same thing. (About Intel that is) Why would they cite Transmeta as a competitor if the only thing they're producing is rumor? And how could the DOJ accept that as a valid argument?
It seems like there may be more knowledge outside Transmeta than we all think...
I've got a Mach64 based Rage Pro Turbo also. Oh well, guess I'll live.
I really wish I could have 3D support, though.
Um, I think they're talking about the *device* doing that work. If it's all done in hardware, the amount of memory it requires to run would be less. Kinda like when you add a 3D card... less processor time is devoted to that task.
Or am I missing something?
I think it's next Tuesday. That's what they're saying at PDA Buzz.
Here's that one
I think it runs around $5000