Pfft. I'll assume that an even lower than the penetration level of tape drives in corporate servers. Again, you can buy them, but that's no guarantee you will. Or, to put it another way: Do you have an MO drive? How about even one of your friends?
More like: "You can buy them, but there's no guarantee you will. Think magneto optical drives." Do you have one? I know I don't, and I was quite interested in them about 15 years ago. It was in production then, and may very well still be now, but I'd say their market penetration has lagged behind just about every other storage media that was available at the time, with the exception to Plextor's phased optical drive (offerred in competition to CDs).
I think you may have replied to the wrong comment, since I don't mention God in that entire post, but that's okay. I talked about God plenty elsewhere. Science may not have set out to destroy religion, but a number of scientists over the years have ridiculed and discredited the concept of god. And they may even be correct. But as has been said elsewhere "Is there a god?" is not a question that science can answer - it's not falsifiable. So it's better left to philosophers, who tend to have different rules for how things are addressed. And philosophers should avoid examining how the natural world came to be - their tools are inadequate for the task.
Hey, stick to The Rules. No new, paradigm-changing technologies are allowed to be announced as arriving in less than 5 years.
For that matter, they can't be more than 5 years out either! Your rules seem to be a little too simplified. Here's the list I've refined over the years.
<=18 months - technically possible, but not necessarily economically feasible. You can buy them, but there's no guarantee you will. Think magneto optical drives. Almost guaranteed to be available in your lifetime. 3 years - rarely used. See 5 years. 5 years - Technically possible, probably been tested in the lab. You'll probably see this in your lifetime, if it doesn't fall off the face of the earth. 10 years - Theoretically possible, not tested in a lab. In about 10 years this will be announced again as being available in 10 years (again) or 5 years (progress, yay!). You might see this in your lifetime. The odds increase if you're under 30. 15 years - rarely used. Just like 10 years, but even the researchers are being cautious about it. 20 years - Nothing in the laws of physics say it isn't possible. This is still pure research. People studying this can be found with uncombed hair leaning back in their chairs staring at the ceiling. When their eyes are open. Things in this category stay in this category until such time as a breakthrough is made, at which time they may be announced as available in 10 years. Think commercial fusion power. You probably won't see this in your lifetime. >20 years - not used. Things that would fall in this category haven't been seriously thought of (except by crackpots and sci-fi writers). You almost certainly won't see this in your lifetime. Unless it's a time machine.
Imagine if we tried that mentality on the shuttle. Er, we don't know what this thing will do in space, well, let's launch it and hope we don't just send 9 astronauts to their doom! First try: It's seven astronauts. Need Another Seven Astronauts.
Too old-school?
Okay, second try: Imagine if we did. Why, we'd be zipping those babies up there with big ol' blocks of ice banging into it willy-nilly, and never fear the damage it may cause!
As for the idea that the "community scoffed at the idea of washing hands between various medical activities" for a long time, the germ theory of disease was introduced in 1862 (by Pasteur), and Lister started with antiseptics in 1867, which was fairly rapidly accepted. In 1900, it had more or less turned upside down the practice of medicine, moving doctors from working at home to working in hospitals.
Actually, science has been around a long time. The Scientific Method had its framework established in 1637, about two centuries before it met your criteria. Moreover, engineering (great pyramids), astronomy (Mesopotamia, China, etc.), and physics (Galileo) predate your opinions of the birth of science by centuries or millenia. Next, medicine was a lot more advanced than you give it credit for, with Muslims being far in advance of traditional European medicine for centuries. References here and here. The second link puts you at least 600 years after medical science was a force in parts of the world. The fact that Arabian medicine was built on Greek and Roman medicine, whereas European medicine wasn't until much later may tack on another 1000 years in some people's opinions. While the second date is up for grabs, it's worth nothing that European schools started using a 400-year-old book as a significant education text "in the late 15th century" (and it's described as being in part a compilation of previous knowledge). And the last paragraph on internal medicine? Yep, it mentions hygiene as a health tool, and in use by both laypersons and medical practitioners. Sadly, they don't give a time for when this was accepted (and I don't feel like doing more research, but the decline of Islamic science is generally accepted at about 700 years ago, so you're off on the hygiene point that started all this by at least 500 years, perhaps as many as 900. So yes, I'm sceptical of scientists being unprejudiced, or having comprehensive knowledge in their fields, and while knowledge may have increased I don't think human nature has improved significantly. After all, we're still arguing about books that are 5000+ years old. Also, by my standards, someone who has studied sufficiently to achieve a doctorate (that is what 'doctor' implies) in a scientific field isn't a layperson, but a scientist. If he doesn't behave as one while practicing his skills, that's him failing his education. Granted, he may not be a research scientist, but a scientist nonetheless. Now I won't even get into the other things you mention which you seem to be woefully uninformed in (hospitals, for one). Hopefully the links provide clarity.
As for definite answer on God: Give us a clear definition of God, and we can help give you answers. However, as far as I can tell, "Is there a God" isn't a clear question (it gives no predictions), so there's no answer. To quote Pauli: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." (ie, it does not contain any predictive power.)
It's been said before, but I'll say it again. The question of God's existence should be asked of philosophers, and questions of the nature of our physical realm should be left to the scientists. One who tries to answer a question better left to the other group often looks a fool. I can't prove God exists, you can't prove he doesn't. Philosophers can't prove the earth is only 6000 (or 10000, or 100000) years old, and scientists certainly have plenty of evidence to indicate it isn't. Moreover, the scientists' theory works well enough to accurately predict other things, so even if it's incorrect, it's a useful tool. As it's improved, perhaps more people will agree with it. Or
You point out a key flaw, and one which I'm aware I'm susceptible to - there are people who try to interpret or discredit the Bible who've never cracked one open, and there are those whose education limits them to translations, or the interpretations of others who worked from the original. I know a bit of Hebrew, no ancient Hebrew, no ancient Greek, and not nearly enough Latin to do reasonable translations. This leaves me with reading translated texts, and having to deal with the preconceptions (cultural and academic) of both the original author and the translator(s). I haven't the time, money, or academic aptitude to become fluent enough in ancient languages to do a complete study myself, leaving me the option to use translated texts and interpretations of the original text. We're somewhat lacking in the cultural knowledge of people from prior to the Greeks, although I've learned what I could in my spare time. Now, if you have some interesting knowledge of the word 'and' in ancient Hebrew, and some references to support it. I'm always happy to pick up new tidbits.
Um, yeah, okay. Which part of "they tend to be right more in their fields of study, not unlike any other expert" did you not understand? Yep, that's right, all of it.
First off, heaven and earth both have multiple meanings. The King James Version of the Bible uses heaven to describe the sky (also uses firmament), visible space (sun, moon, stars, etc.), and what we commonly refer to as Heaven. Earth can refer to both dry land and the whole world. Then there's the whole meaning of 'create'. It can refer to the making of something from nothing, and it can mean making something from raw materials. From what I read of the Bible, taken literally, sky and land (and Adam and Eve) are made from raw materials, while plants and animals, if made from pre-existing raw materials are done so in a rather hands-off manner. The question of light being created is a lot more tricky and open to interpretation. Fortunately, it has no bearing on the age of the planet.
Well, I'm glad I looked at your web page before I replied. I'd hate to unwittingly make an ass out of myself. I prefer to do it on purpose. I didn't pretend to give a complete physical theory of how all this could work, and I think the spontaneous creation of complex organisms is a little more difficult to explain than how to keep light out of a specific area. I honestly can't think of a plausible answer to the question of how to get a planet that would both have no light reaching it and be warm enough to have a cloudy atmosphere. Most of my ideas that would cause one would negate the other. Of course, no light in a local region isn't the same as no light anywhere in the universe. And the Bible doesn't say people or our world was created before anything else. In fact, it appears angels were there first. Certainly Satan was there fairly soon after the creation of the earth, even by young earth standards. I'm not trying to weasel out here, but what I was pointing out was that young earth creationists (or anyone else using the Bible literally) that say that the creation of Adam is approximately the same as the creation of the planet is a flawed statement, using the Bible as a reference. If we were going to be discussing every improbable physical event in the Bible, we'd have to set aside a few years. Frankly, I'd rather surf/.
First, I didn't try to account for almost all of the physical evidence that contradicts the creation story. What I did say is that determining the age of the planet based on the age of the person created at the end of the process could be inaccurate, especially given the text states the pre-existence of matter in the area. Second, I agree. Arguing about this is generally pointless. Neither side has any willingness to change their minds, and the moral elements of the Bible are far more important. And on that note, let the flamewar about the moral failures of the Bible begin!
Interesting idea, except for two things. First, night (darkness) is before light. Second, a day is described as "the evening and the morning". It should be noted that Jews mark the change of day as sunset, while Muslims mark it at 6 pm, which is approximately sunset in equatorial regions.
It was this "scientific minority" you speak of that happened to be right. This was not an isolated incident, either; it has happened fairly regularly throughout history. This is also the community that scoffed at the idea of washing hands between various medical activities, and the idea that tiny little things you couldn't see could kill you. And yet, the majority believes in them today. Which goes to show that scientists are human too, and prone to fuck up. They tend to be right more in their fields of study, not unlike any other expert, which is not to say they have the definitive answer on god.
A couple of theologians named Ussher and Lightfoot (not Gordon) ran the numbers between Adam and a known historical event (the Babylonian exile), using all the "This dipshit begat that dipshit" lines and arrived at an approximation of 6000 years (October 23, 4004 B.C. to be exact). A similar timeline had been roughly accepted long before either theologian, but they "locked it down." If you read Genesis, the first couple of chapters, you come to a surprising conclusion. It talks about God creating light, but not water or dirt. In fact, "It was without form, and void." The linked passage (linked references, how novel!) mentions the existence of water before light is even created. So it would be more correct to say that earth existed, but was dead? A planet without a star? I don't know, but it doesn't sound like He started from scratch (or pure energy). So it's more correct to say the timeline they developed is from the creation of Adam and Eve than anything else. If you choose to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, add a week, but keep in mind the raw materials were there before the creation process started. Go ahead, take the 5 minutes required to read the creation story, and another 15 minutes to analyse it (not a stretch for people who've spent 30 years analysing Star Wars), you will find strong evidence in the wording that (submerged) earth, water, and air were all there in the first place. P.S. Most of my irritation isn't directed at you, but at the others who blindly assert their opinions without any citation or analysis and no facts to back it up, in keeping with the best dogmatists. Yours was the comment that was most relevant to what I wanted to point out.
Attention, ladies! My seed cures diseases. I expect you'll be getting a C&D order from Stephen Colbert due to IP infringement of his product. Of course, this being/., compliance should be trivial.
I understand that reality may not be quite as tidy, but it still seems like a virtualized system would be much more secure that a non-virtualized system, if only because the increased level of knowledge involved means a smaller number of hackers capable of exploiting both layers. What am I missing? What you are missing is that hackers with different skillsets might talk to each other. This is similar to defeating DRM, another security model. Once it's broken by one person, there's nothing to stop him from sharing it with everyone else.
Consider it a mercy killing. Which is legal here, but carrying a little piece of rice paper is not. Hmm, you'd think a bunch of old people would be more worried about making it legal to kill old and/or debilitated people than they would be about teenagers smoking pot.
I think one of the things that helps Canadians embrace technology is that we have a low density on average, and we have relatively few highly dense population centres. It gives us the ability to roll out new tech infrastructure to a majority of people with little wasted lines. Also, you can connect the denser areas in fairly direct lines, with maybe 5 branches. Here's a map that will give you an idea. This is an ideal situation for fibre. And given how spread-out the population centres are, it supports our economy to have those population centres connected by technology. There's nothing like money to give the government and business a reason to do something. All this leads to huge penetration with e-banking, ATM density, interac usage, and other technologies that fall directly into the average person's lap.
Sadly, until religion and politics are eliminated, Utopia will never be reached... Nice strawmen you got there. Neither religion nor politics have a bearing on the fact that people treat people who are different poorly. Where is the religiopolitical reason for teasing the red-headed kids, the ones that talk a little funny, the ones who look at things differently, the ones that have different priorities. I'll bet most geeks have been teased because they're geeks. I was, and it had nothing to do with my religious leanings or the people teasing me. The things people use to justify the actions they want to take are called excuses, not reasons. Adults are just a little more refined about how they do it. The simple fact is, far too many people take their beliefs as facts without seeing if the evidence supports it first.
So why don't we just pack up, move to Mars, and start our utopia there? After all, that's what the Pilgrams did when they hopped into the Mayflower. Because there are no natives to exploit.
Ooo, my first (intentional) troll! I feel special!
How is this different from every generation before it? The technology sector has always been relatively small. Now we have people who are more adept at technology. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to want to make that their life. *pulls out a car analogy* There was a time when cars were new, fun, and accessible (or so I hear). There were a lot of 'gearheads' or 'grease monkeys' who thought this was great and would make their own, or rebuild ones they bought back to original quality (or better). And yet the world is not covered with car factories.
The guts of the Empire State Building have been replaced several times - not to mention the work needed to bring various bits up to modern safety codes and to provide services and amenities expected in a high prestige office building today. You seem top be mistaking renovations with rebuilding. Moving a few walls around is nothing, adding cabling and piping is more difficult but no more integral. Hauling a castle from Europe to North America would more accurately count as rebuilding. From the research I was able to do on the internet (I'm not able to find exact details of the construction history of the structure that doesn't include me buying books I have little interest in) even the crash of a B-52 into the building required no structural repairs. From everything I can discover the superstructure has been untouched since original construction, which is the norm for most major structures - it's just too expensive to maintain, if it's even possible. Quaint little things like ramps, bathrooms, and moving walls around is about the equivalent in the grand scheme of things to the limestone coating the Great Pyramids used to have. Pretty, but not a fundamental part of the structure, and easily changed or removed.
Everything is easy on paper if you simply your analogies to the point of absurdity. The real world is rather messier. You apparently have never looked into the details of construction for major structures. If you can't see an obvious correlation between plastic rods and connectors and I-beams, connector plates, and bolts/rivets used in conventional construction, then I can't go further. Having had the opportunity to work with both, I'd have to say it's only the detail that change. Granted, Meccano has some similarities to the real world, too, but more in the connectors than in the structural elements.
You still need a vehicle to boost the satellite into orbit - which is what I was talking about. And the shuttle doesn't match that criteria either - it's lifted by the massive boosters it rests on. There's no reason a heavy lifter for large satellites or crew capsules couldn't be used to lift parts of a manned space station. That vehicle, not unlike a cargo ship, could be used multiple times. Even if each one is single-use, knowledge and performance parameters from each launch could be used to increase the reliability of those boosters, not unlike what happens with the boosters in use now.
So what happens when the lattice superstructure needs to be replaced? The cables, ducting, etc... that it will have to carry to support the ability to remove pieces in the middle will themselves wear out over time. First, how many times has the empire state building been rebuilt? Yep, never has. There is going to be a point with anything where replacing it wholesale is less hassle than maintaining it. The superstructure would likely fit in this category. That said, again using the K'nex analogy, there's no reason you couldn't replace parts of it in sequence until you'd replaced the entire thing with little or no reduction in performance, if it was designed right - just remove one piece, put in the new one, then take care of the next piece in the list. You never have to have more than one piece missing at a time, and if you've designed it so that it's unstable until fully complete it's a failure already.
Which means a vehicle which flys very rarely indeed - which means a vehicle that is incredibly expensive, a vehicle that makes Shuttle look like a Yugo. Worse yet, a vehicle that flys rarely is less reliable because the skills of the assembly and launch crews atrophy between launches, and fewer launches mean fewer chances to debug the vehicle.
The trick to making spaceflight cheap is to make a versatile and reuseable design with minimal man-hours of maintenance between flights - and then fly the living hell out of it to amortize your fixed costs across as many flights as possible. (In other words, exactly the same methods used by every other form of transportation.) I think the premise the gp was proposing is that a sattelite shouldn't be a vehicle. It should only be launched once, which counts as flying the same way putting a container on a cargo ship counts as sailing. Keep in mind, when we build houses, we generally don't build them with an eye to easy mobility. Those that are built for mobility (mobile homes, motorhomes) are generally lacking compared to both dwellings (size, cost per square foot) and vehicles (max speed, fuel efficiency).
Heck, make it modular - remove pieces as they wear out and let them drop back if you want to. That's a great idea. Until you have to replace a module in the middle - then it becomes very difficult, very expensive, and very risky. Things can and have been designed to be modular before. I'm no engineer, but I imagine if a space station was made with airlocks between each module and had a lattice superstructure, you could take pieces out of any location with relatively little effort and not have the entire structure fall apart. Think K'nex, not Lego.
Slashdot Mirror
Pfft. I'll assume that an even lower than the penetration level of tape drives in corporate servers. Again, you can buy them, but that's no guarantee you will. Or, to put it another way: Do you have an MO drive? How about even one of your friends?
More like: "You can buy them, but there's no guarantee you will. Think magneto optical drives." Do you have one? I know I don't, and I was quite interested in them about 15 years ago. It was in production then, and may very well still be now, but I'd say their market penetration has lagged behind just about every other storage media that was available at the time, with the exception to Plextor's phased optical drive (offerred in competition to CDs).
I think you may have replied to the wrong comment, since I don't mention God in that entire post, but that's okay. I talked about God plenty elsewhere.
Science may not have set out to destroy religion, but a number of scientists over the years have ridiculed and discredited the concept of god. And they may even be correct. But as has been said elsewhere "Is there a god?" is not a question that science can answer - it's not falsifiable. So it's better left to philosophers, who tend to have different rules for how things are addressed. And philosophers should avoid examining how the natural world came to be - their tools are inadequate for the task.
For that matter, they can't be more than 5 years out either! Your rules seem to be a little too simplified. Here's the list I've refined over the years.
<=18 months - technically possible, but not necessarily economically feasible. You can buy them, but there's no guarantee you will. Think magneto optical drives. Almost guaranteed to be available in your lifetime.
3 years - rarely used. See 5 years.
5 years - Technically possible, probably been tested in the lab. You'll probably see this in your lifetime, if it doesn't fall off the face of the earth.
10 years - Theoretically possible, not tested in a lab. In about 10 years this will be announced again as being available in 10 years (again) or 5 years (progress, yay!). You might see this in your lifetime. The odds increase if you're under 30.
15 years - rarely used. Just like 10 years, but even the researchers are being cautious about it.
20 years - Nothing in the laws of physics say it isn't possible. This is still pure research. People studying this can be found with uncombed hair leaning back in their chairs staring at the ceiling. When their eyes are open. Things in this category stay in this category until such time as a breakthrough is made, at which time they may be announced as available in 10 years. Think commercial fusion power. You probably won't see this in your lifetime.
>20 years - not used. Things that would fall in this category haven't been seriously thought of (except by crackpots and sci-fi writers). You almost certainly won't see this in your lifetime. Unless it's a time machine.
Too old-school?
Okay, second try: Imagine if we did. Why, we'd be zipping those babies up there with big ol' blocks of ice banging into it willy-nilly, and never fear the damage it may cause!
Yeah, that's more like it.
As for the idea that the "community scoffed at the idea of washing hands between various medical activities" for a long time, the germ theory of disease was introduced in 1862 (by Pasteur), and Lister started with antiseptics in 1867, which was fairly rapidly accepted. In 1900, it had more or less turned upside down the practice of medicine, moving doctors from working at home to working in hospitals.
Actually, science has been around a long time. The Scientific Method had its framework established in 1637, about two centuries before it met your criteria. Moreover, engineering (great pyramids), astronomy (Mesopotamia, China, etc.), and physics (Galileo) predate your opinions of the birth of science by centuries or millenia.
Next, medicine was a lot more advanced than you give it credit for, with Muslims being far in advance of traditional European medicine for centuries. References here and here. The second link puts you at least 600 years after medical science was a force in parts of the world. The fact that Arabian medicine was built on Greek and Roman medicine, whereas European medicine wasn't until much later may tack on another 1000 years in some people's opinions. While the second date is up for grabs, it's worth nothing that European schools started using a 400-year-old book as a significant education text "in the late 15th century" (and it's described as being in part a compilation of previous knowledge). And the last paragraph on internal medicine? Yep, it mentions hygiene as a health tool, and in use by both laypersons and medical practitioners. Sadly, they don't give a time for when this was accepted (and I don't feel like doing more research, but the decline of Islamic science is generally accepted at about 700 years ago, so you're off on the hygiene point that started all this by at least 500 years, perhaps as many as 900. So yes, I'm sceptical of scientists being unprejudiced, or having comprehensive knowledge in their fields, and while knowledge may have increased I don't think human nature has improved significantly. After all, we're still arguing about books that are 5000+ years old.
Also, by my standards, someone who has studied sufficiently to achieve a doctorate (that is what 'doctor' implies) in a scientific field isn't a layperson, but a scientist. If he doesn't behave as one while practicing his skills, that's him failing his education. Granted, he may not be a research scientist, but a scientist nonetheless.
Now I won't even get into the other things you mention which you seem to be woefully uninformed in (hospitals, for one). Hopefully the links provide clarity.
As for definite answer on God: Give us a clear definition of God, and we can help give you answers. However, as far as I can tell, "Is there a God" isn't a clear question (it gives no predictions), so there's no answer. To quote Pauli: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." (ie, it does not contain any predictive power.)
It's been said before, but I'll say it again. The question of God's existence should be asked of philosophers, and questions of the nature of our physical realm should be left to the scientists. One who tries to answer a question better left to the other group often looks a fool. I can't prove God exists, you can't prove he doesn't. Philosophers can't prove the earth is only 6000 (or 10000, or 100000) years old, and scientists certainly have plenty of evidence to indicate it isn't. Moreover, the scientists' theory works well enough to accurately predict other things, so even if it's incorrect, it's a useful tool. As it's improved, perhaps more people will agree with it. Or
You point out a key flaw, and one which I'm aware I'm susceptible to - there are people who try to interpret or discredit the Bible who've never cracked one open, and there are those whose education limits them to translations, or the interpretations of others who worked from the original. I know a bit of Hebrew, no ancient Hebrew, no ancient Greek, and not nearly enough Latin to do reasonable translations. This leaves me with reading translated texts, and having to deal with the preconceptions (cultural and academic) of both the original author and the translator(s).
I haven't the time, money, or academic aptitude to become fluent enough in ancient languages to do a complete study myself, leaving me the option to use translated texts and interpretations of the original text. We're somewhat lacking in the cultural knowledge of people from prior to the Greeks, although I've learned what I could in my spare time. Now, if you have some interesting knowledge of the word 'and' in ancient Hebrew, and some references to support it. I'm always happy to pick up new tidbits.
Um, yeah, okay. Which part of "they tend to be right more in their fields of study, not unlike any other expert" did you not understand? Yep, that's right, all of it.
First off, heaven and earth both have multiple meanings. The King James Version of the Bible uses heaven to describe the sky (also uses firmament), visible space (sun, moon, stars, etc.), and what we commonly refer to as Heaven. Earth can refer to both dry land and the whole world. Then there's the whole meaning of 'create'. It can refer to the making of something from nothing, and it can mean making something from raw materials. From what I read of the Bible, taken literally, sky and land (and Adam and Eve) are made from raw materials, while plants and animals, if made from pre-existing raw materials are done so in a rather hands-off manner. The question of light being created is a lot more tricky and open to interpretation. Fortunately, it has no bearing on the age of the planet.
Well, I'm glad I looked at your web page before I replied. I'd hate to unwittingly make an ass out of myself. I prefer to do it on purpose. /.
I didn't pretend to give a complete physical theory of how all this could work, and I think the spontaneous creation of complex organisms is a little more difficult to explain than how to keep light out of a specific area. I honestly can't think of a plausible answer to the question of how to get a planet that would both have no light reaching it and be warm enough to have a cloudy atmosphere. Most of my ideas that would cause one would negate the other. Of course, no light in a local region isn't the same as no light anywhere in the universe. And the Bible doesn't say people or our world was created before anything else. In fact, it appears angels were there first. Certainly Satan was there fairly soon after the creation of the earth, even by young earth standards.
I'm not trying to weasel out here, but what I was pointing out was that young earth creationists (or anyone else using the Bible literally) that say that the creation of Adam is approximately the same as the creation of the planet is a flawed statement, using the Bible as a reference. If we were going to be discussing every improbable physical event in the Bible, we'd have to set aside a few years. Frankly, I'd rather surf
First, I didn't try to account for almost all of the physical evidence that contradicts the creation story. What I did say is that determining the age of the planet based on the age of the person created at the end of the process could be inaccurate, especially given the text states the pre-existence of matter in the area. Second, I agree. Arguing about this is generally pointless. Neither side has any willingness to change their minds, and the moral elements of the Bible are far more important.
And on that note, let the flamewar about the moral failures of the Bible begin!
Interesting idea, except for two things. First, night (darkness) is before light. Second, a day is described as "the evening and the morning". It should be noted that Jews mark the change of day as sunset, while Muslims mark it at 6 pm, which is approximately sunset in equatorial regions.
So it's more correct to say the timeline they developed is from the creation of Adam and Eve than anything else. If you choose to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, add a week, but keep in mind the raw materials were there before the creation process started.
Go ahead, take the 5 minutes required to read the creation story, and another 15 minutes to analyse it (not a stretch for people who've spent 30 years analysing Star Wars), you will find strong evidence in the wording that (submerged) earth, water, and air were all there in the first place.
P.S. Most of my irritation isn't directed at you, but at the others who blindly assert their opinions without any citation or analysis and no facts to back it up, in keeping with the best dogmatists. Yours was the comment that was most relevant to what I wanted to point out.
I think one of the things that helps Canadians embrace technology is that we have a low density on average, and we have relatively few highly dense population centres. It gives us the ability to roll out new tech infrastructure to a majority of people with little wasted lines. Also, you can connect the denser areas in fairly direct lines, with maybe 5 branches. Here's a map that will give you an idea. This is an ideal situation for fibre. And given how spread-out the population centres are, it supports our economy to have those population centres connected by technology. There's nothing like money to give the government and business a reason to do something.
All this leads to huge penetration with e-banking, ATM density, interac usage, and other technologies that fall directly into the average person's lap.
Ooo, my first (intentional) troll! I feel special!
How is this different from every generation before it? The technology sector has always been relatively small. Now we have people who are more adept at technology. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to want to make that their life.
*pulls out a car analogy*
There was a time when cars were new, fun, and accessible (or so I hear). There were a lot of 'gearheads' or 'grease monkeys' who thought this was great and would make their own, or rebuild ones they bought back to original quality (or better). And yet the world is not covered with car factories.
Quaint little things like ramps, bathrooms, and moving walls around is about the equivalent in the grand scheme of things to the limestone coating the Great Pyramids used to have. Pretty, but not a fundamental part of the structure, and easily changed or removed. Everything is easy on paper if you simply your analogies to the point of absurdity. The real world is rather messier. You apparently have never looked into the details of construction for major structures. If you can't see an obvious correlation between plastic rods and connectors and I-beams, connector plates, and bolts/rivets used in conventional construction, then I can't go further. Having had the opportunity to work with both, I'd have to say it's only the detail that change. Granted, Meccano has some similarities to the real world, too, but more in the connectors than in the structural elements.
The trick to making spaceflight cheap is to make a versatile and reuseable design with minimal man-hours of maintenance between flights - and then fly the living hell out of it to amortize your fixed costs across as many flights as possible. (In other words, exactly the same methods used by every other form of transportation.) I think the premise the gp was proposing is that a sattelite shouldn't be a vehicle. It should only be launched once, which counts as flying the same way putting a container on a cargo ship counts as sailing. Keep in mind, when we build houses, we generally don't build them with an eye to easy mobility. Those that are built for mobility (mobile homes, motorhomes) are generally lacking compared to both dwellings (size, cost per square foot) and vehicles (max speed, fuel efficiency). Heck, make it modular - remove pieces as they wear out and let them drop back if you want to. That's a great idea. Until you have to replace a module in the middle - then it becomes very difficult, very expensive, and very risky. Things can and have been designed to be modular before. I'm no engineer, but I imagine if a space station was made with airlocks between each module and had a lattice superstructure, you could take pieces out of any location with relatively little effort and not have the entire structure fall apart. Think K'nex, not Lego.