I've been doing this for a while in konqueror. Had it set up so that if I type, for example, 'slashdot' in the address bar it would use google's "I'm feeling lucky". Worked like a charm for most of the major sites I visit.
Carved onto stone tablets, of course. Everyone knows this form of record lasts the longest.
Re:Reiserfs, storage and why do you want this?
on
Database File System
·
· Score: 1
Because other applications will almost certainly want these types of features too: movies, text documents, html files, pdf's, images, etc. So why have every application develop their own database and metadata? Make it standard and implement at a core level so that work isn't duplicated.
Poor Americans, having to put up with their cheap prices and near unlimitted bandwidth. Not to mention web hosts offering large bandwidth for low prices.
Down here in Australia we are enjoying our bandwidth caps, along with high web host prices - living off the scraps off the American table as our local telecommunications monopoly keeps control on what's available. As I understand it, we (Australia) have to pay the bill for all data passing between Australia and the US - but I could be mistaken on this.
http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/ and http://public.www.planetmirror.com/ both seem to do fine offering free downloads.
As for game relevant downloads, my host offers them for free. But some stuff from Fileplanet they aren't allowed to mirror: files.bigpond.com and games.bigpond.com
" Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. "
Same argument could be used about locks on cars and houses. It's not that the law stops bad people, it just hinders them. But, obviously, some laws are useless in regards to helping the good and slowing the bad.
Other hosts should be permitted to mirror those patches - then we wouldn't need Fileplanet. It's like selling an aquaduct to a people who had a stream running through their village - it's just that you redirected the stream so they'd need to buy your aquaduct.
Ah good, a chance for me to gripe about how FilePlanet sucks. Talk about a worthless service. If FilePlanet didn't exist then other mirrors would be permitted to share files, meaning I could download from my favourite local host. But no, I HAVE to use FilePlanet, and they're not willing to let others host it. After all, a company selling air wouldn't want clean oxygen to be available elsewhere.
So, whenever I want something that FilePlanet got their grubby hands on, I have to sit in a stupid queue for 10+ minutes, sometimes longer, instead of downloading from a mirror in my country for free.
Sender ID has already gained market support. Both ISPs, such as AOL, and mail software and support companies, such as Cloudmark Inc. and Tumbleweed Communications Corp., have announced support for it. Microsoft has also announced that it will start using Sender ID for inbound e-mail to its hotmail.com, msn.com and microsoft.com domains in October.
Practically speaking, what does this mean? That we won't be able to send emails to hotmail.com, msn.com and microsoft.com unless we use Sender ID enabled mail servers? What exactly does Sender ID do that will cause a problem of incompatibility for the open source community? I understand that Sendmail and others won't be able to implement it as is, but what does not being able to implement it mean?
I felt pretty much the same way as you did. I persevered though and once I reached the second half of the game everything changed. The game began to grow on me. By the time I finished, I was very happy.
At the beginning after the first couple of hours I was disappointed at the repetitiveness and linearity. That was gone by the end. The linearity was still there, but the repetitiveness was removed a bit and the game got a lot more interesting.
It has a life span of only around 2 months which scientists say may be an advantage because it can evolve rapidly.
*may* be an advantage? That's awfully certain. Not to mention that by this logic bacteria have a greater advantage over pretty much all other life, since they can "evolve" so rapidly. So, living longer lives is no longer an 'advantage'? The article itself says:
"It's interesting that these animals experience several generations a year," said Dr Watson. "This suggests they could evolve quickly as well."
Just had a thought, perhaps a clearer definition of what is meant by common ancestry would be that "All living things with the same cellular makeup share a common ancestor". I'm not fully aware of the proper terminology, so hopefully you understand what I mean. If you do think that finding life that spontaneously came into existence independant from most life on earth today does falsify common ancestry, then your definition must strictly be "All living things share a common ancestor." And if that scenario does falsify this claim, then the only thing that it is saying is that life only came into existence once in the universe. It says nothing else.
That's why a new, clearer definition is probably needed. If you can suggest better wording, I'd appreciate it.
I'm not interested in getting into a deep debate here, but I will respond to some things:
Since you bring creation/intelligent design into the argument, I do hasten to add that even such a discovery would not be evidence for creation by God. It would be evidence of something extremely unlikely: either the organism's ancestors developed in complete isolation from the entire rest of the biosphere for billions of years (this is difficult for bacteria, they have a tendency to get everywhere, and share genes pretty promiscuously), or it came from outer space (or maybe something else, but it wouldn't automatically prove Creation).
You are absolutely right. And this is one of the many reasons why common ancestry is unfalsifiable. We discover a lifeform that spontaneously came into existence and evolved independant of all other life on earth, and all it tells us is that _that_ lifeform doesn't share a common ancestor. The Darwinist hypothesis that all living things with homologous features share a common ancestor would remain unthreatened. It would simply affirm for the Darwinist the likelihood of abiogenesis occuring more than once in the universe. That is all. It does nothing overall to falsify the theory.
The second thing I'd like to point out. Homologous features do not affirm common ancestry any more than it does a common designer. That was my initial point. What would creationists expect to see? Homologous features cannot be used as a proof for evolution when it is equally valid as a proof of creation. ie, both theories can explain these facts of life. Therefore, homologous features can be seen as something expected (but not required) for darwinism, and something expected (but not required) of creationism. It cannot be touted as a proof or evidence of common ancestry when it can be used just as equally as a proof or evidence of a common designer. So common ancestry cannot be falsified, not even by discovering a lifeform that does not share common ancestry with everything else on earth. The basic points of Darwinism would still stand strong.
Which leads me to the same question again - how can you falsify common ancestry?
I know I'm unlikely to convince you of the validity of evolutionary theory here, but I thought I'd let you know that we (the biologists of the world) aren't just taking this thing on some kind of faith. We have standards of proof, and evolution continues to to live up to those standards, time and time again. When we interpret new findings in the light of evolution, and disregard a possible "creationist" explanation, it's not because we're part of a big conspiracy, or that we want to convert everyone to atheism.
I am so VERY sick of people claiming that we call conspiracy. I do not think that people's conviction that the sun revolved around the earth was a conspiracy. I do not think that it was conspiracy that caused people to oppose Galileo. I never call conspiracy. I think it's just a normal fact of life and the nature of humans. Why does it have to be a conspiracy? People make mistakes. People can be convinced, en masse, of a lie - even supposedly intelligent people. While on the topic, it is also worth pointing out that scientists are not the only intelligent people on this planet.
I have been following this debate for a long time, and I find this constant: not a single evolutionist have I met yet who understands the creationist position. Which begs the question, how can they reject that which they never took the time to understand? I'm talking basic misunderstandings. So often people are surprised to hear me not reject natural selection. Many other things I've said which have made them wonder why I don't fit their perception of a creationist.
Erm...creationists have included natural selection in their model for a long time. I'm not sure who you've been talking to. I'm talking at a bare minimum 40 years. I've never researched exactly how long, so I wouldn't be surprised to find that creationists have included natural selection for much further back than that.
This is such an interesting fact of this whole debate - so regularly I find people like yourself who are surprised that I support natural selection, or some other fact of life. Yet these things I say are nothing new for creationists. So there are one of two possible explanations that I can see:
1. Those that oppose creationists do so because they have failed to try and understand that alternative which is offered. Natural selection is such a fundamental part of the creationist theory, so much so that saying you did not realise creationists accept it indicates you don't even know the basics of that which you reject. Know your enemy.
2. Those that oppose creationists have encountered many creationists who claim ridiculous things such as "natural selection isn't true". I've heard rumors of these ignorant creationists, but never met them myself. I do not doubt their existence, I just wonder why I never see them.
How come you say that natural selection occurs? Don't you mean that evolution occurs?
Natural selection is a process by which more beneficial traits are selected for, and harmful ones are selected against.
Darwin's theory explained far more than selection. Creationists include natural selection in their model. Darwin hypothesised that all living things share a common ancestor. Creationists reject that. Natural selection can be (and is) true and demonstrated, while common ancestry is not a necessary consequence of natural selection. The teaching of common ancestry relies on natural selection, but natural selection does not rely on common ancestry.
In this case, the fact is natural selection. Natural selection does not have to mean a progression though. If we hypothesise that all creatures were created perfect, but have since been degenerating, then natural selection is not about improving the species. Instead, natural selection becomes a process by which the degeneration of a creature, or species, is slowed. For example, without natural selection we might reason that humans would be far inferior to what we are today, and that with natural selection we still degenerate, but at a much slower rate. Much like watering a plant. Without water the plant would quickly wither and die. With water it will still die one day, but the time is postponed. So, too, may natural selection fill the role of slowing degeneration.
Nevertheless, I'm just trying to show you how natural selection does not necessarily mean common ancestry.
Actually, common ancestry predicts that when we discover a new species (whether it be goat or bacterium), we should find that if we sequence its DNA, it shares a certain degree of similarity to that of known organisms.
This is no more a proof of common ancestry than it is of common design. One does not look at the various cars on the market today and postulate that they share a common ancestor. One concludes, rather, that they have a common creator. There are many components and designs that are shared in common with various vehicles, and other parts that are unique to each type. If one wants precedence for what a similar genetic makeup means, one should look at what humans have created - it demonstrates a common designer, not a common ancestor.
Your "eyes" analogy is flawed because there is no evidence of any glow-producing mechanism in modern human eyes (ok, I know it's just an amusing analogy but it does not accurately describe what you're arguing against).
Your points are reasonable, but it is not what my analogy was trying to demonstrate. I wanted simply to point out how proof of one definition of a word does not constitute proof of other definitions of that same word. Evolution means a diversity of things, some with proofs, some with evidences, and some without either. Just because one definition of the word "evolution" is a fact (change in allele frequencies) does not mean that another definition is likewise proven (common ancestry).
Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. The difference is falsifiability
And how, exactly, would one falsify the claim that all living things share a common ancestor? Normally falsifiability requires a repeatable, empirical experiment. Repeatable being beneficial, but not necessary - if the experiment is unrepeatable then it is far less demonstrated as a theory. What experiment do you recommend for falsifying common ancestry?
Don't confuse faith with ignorance. You don't even know me.
Faith can and does mean two separate things:
1. A belief in something when there is no proof. eg, "I have faith that my sister will return home one day because I have no proof that she will." Some people use this for belief in God: "I have faith that God exists because there is no proof - if I had proof then there would be no need for faith." This is a common usage of the word faith, but is utterly incorrect.
2. A belief in something when you have proof. eg, the famous tightrope walker. You see him walk across a chasm many times, with objects, wheelburrows, and even animals. Then he asks if you will let him carry you across in the wheelburrow. If you decide to, you are putting your faith in him. Not because you don't know if he can do it - you have faith in him precisely because he has demonstrated and proven himself worth trusting. This is the correct definition of Biblical faith. We have faith in God because He has proven Himself trustworthy, time after time after time.
Yes, what you say is correct. The unfortunate thing about this debate is the use of one word to mean multiple things. For example, imagine that a religion called 'H' claims that all humans once had glowing green eyes. Imagine this religion also claims that some humans today have green eyes that do not glow.
Religion 'H' then offers proof of people having green eyes, then goes on to say, 'H' has been proven - while in fact, only a subset of what 'H' claims has been demonstrated.
Evolution is the same. This both means changes in allele frequencies over time (proven), and common ancestry of all living things (unproven). The term micro evolution has been coined to refer to the former, while macro evolution to refer to the latter - but even these terms are deceptive because people say if the micro happens then why shouldn't it lead to the macro? What there needs to be is two separate words. This is why I tend to refer to the theory of common ancestry as Darwinism - which is the term for the most common theory of evolution today.
So I appreciate your example, and yes, that this specific form of evolution (change in allele frequencies) can make predictions. However, the claim of common ancestry predicts nothing - and that was what I was referring to.
While I agree that Darwinist evolution is certainly not a fact, it is often pointed out (rightly) that the term 'theory' does not indicate doubt about what is claimed. There are many problems with Darwinism, but the use of the word 'theory' is not an admittance of any weakness. For more details, the wikipedia has an entry on scientific theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Evolution that teaches common ancestry of all living things is a theory that explains everything and predicts nothing.
Not a single person today can predict what the future holds based on evolution for two reasons:
1. It predicts everything. Intelligence of humans lowering while physical strength increasing can be explained just as an increase of intelligence and decrease in physical prowess can be. Nothing can be predicted.
2. No one has actually seen anything like the evolution of intelligence, or anything else for that matter. We see today that horses breed horses, and dogs breed dogs. As Stephen Gould pointed out, the fossil record shows stasis (little change) and saltation (sudden appearance) - probably why he proposed the hopeful monster.
So, in answer to your question, there is no point asking 'why'. Common ancestry evolution predicts nothing - anyone can make up an explanation why, and it will seem feasible simply because people aren't all geniuses (by today's standards) and because humans are heads and shoulders above all the animals. It's an explanation after the fact.
The foundation of common ancestry evolution is centred around God.
Let me explain, through an application of Occam's razor. Assume that God does not exist. What seems the most likely explanation of the origin of life and its consequent formation into what we see today? Undoubtedly, Darwinism.
Assume that God does exist. Assume that God does not exist. What seems the most likely explanation of the origin of life and its consequent formation into what we see today? Undoubtedly, special creation.
So the debate is far from scientific - it is a debate rooted in the question of whether God exists or not, and what His role in Creation is. I do not deny that natural selection occurs, species are formed and adapt, and that a change in allele frequencies occur. I deny the likelihood that all living things share a common ancestor. Knowing beyond doubt that God exists means that Occam's razor principle leads me to accept the simplest answer - God specially created all living things, including your appendix.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been doing this for a while in konqueror. Had it set up so that if I type, for example, 'slashdot' in the address bar it would use google's "I'm feeling lucky". Worked like a charm for most of the major sites I visit.
Carved onto stone tablets, of course. Everyone knows this form of record lasts the longest.
Because other applications will almost certainly want these types of features too: movies, text documents, html files, pdf's, images, etc. So why have every application develop their own database and metadata? Make it standard and implement at a core level so that work isn't duplicated.
I've had an idea to do something like this too for a while. Great idea.
Down here in Australia we are enjoying our bandwidth caps, along with high web host prices - living off the scraps off the American table as our local telecommunications monopoly keeps control on what's available. As I understand it, we (Australia) have to pay the bill for all data passing between Australia and the US - but I could be mistaken on this.
As for game relevant downloads, my host offers them for free. But some stuff from Fileplanet they aren't allowed to mirror: files.bigpond.com and games.bigpond.com
Same argument could be used about locks on cars and houses. It's not that the law stops bad people, it just hinders them. But, obviously, some laws are useless in regards to helping the good and slowing the bad.
Other hosts should be permitted to mirror those patches - then we wouldn't need Fileplanet. It's like selling an aquaduct to a people who had a stream running through their village - it's just that you redirected the stream so they'd need to buy your aquaduct.
Seems like all of us with a gmail account were given 6 invites within the last 24 hours or so.
So, whenever I want something that FilePlanet got their grubby hands on, I have to sit in a stupid queue for 10+ minutes, sometimes longer, instead of downloading from a mirror in my country for free.
Thanks for nothing.
Practically speaking, what does this mean? That we won't be able to send emails to hotmail.com, msn.com and microsoft.com unless we use Sender ID enabled mail servers? What exactly does Sender ID do that will cause a problem of incompatibility for the open source community? I understand that Sendmail and others won't be able to implement it as is, but what does not being able to implement it mean?
These look particularly good:p hp?prev iew=1&id=14958&file1=14958-1.jpg&file2=&file3=&nam e=E-Gnome+Dropshadows&PHPSESSID=6bc847f92378423559 c4dcafca392d23c reen_type=1&scre en_id=1759409500411796a9ba106&m=screen
http://www.gnome-look.org/content/preview.
http://www.lynucs.org/index.php?s
Anyone know what the MacOSX like theme(s) they are using are? The drop shadows give a fantastic touch.
I haven't checked them out for a while, but these guys seemed to have good prices: http://www.powernotebooks.com/
At the beginning after the first couple of hours I was disappointed at the repetitiveness and linearity. That was gone by the end. The linearity was still there, but the repetitiveness was removed a bit and the game got a lot more interesting.
*may* be an advantage? That's awfully certain. Not to mention that by this logic bacteria have a greater advantage over pretty much all other life, since they can "evolve" so rapidly. So, living longer lives is no longer an 'advantage'? The article itself says:
"It's interesting that these animals experience several generations a year," said Dr Watson. "This suggests they could evolve quickly as well."
Which makes a bit more sense.
That's why a new, clearer definition is probably needed. If you can suggest better wording, I'd appreciate it.
You are absolutely right. And this is one of the many reasons why common ancestry is unfalsifiable. We discover a lifeform that spontaneously came into existence and evolved independant of all other life on earth, and all it tells us is that _that_ lifeform doesn't share a common ancestor. The Darwinist hypothesis that all living things with homologous features share a common ancestor would remain unthreatened. It would simply affirm for the Darwinist the likelihood of abiogenesis occuring more than once in the universe. That is all. It does nothing overall to falsify the theory.
The second thing I'd like to point out. Homologous features do not affirm common ancestry any more than it does a common designer. That was my initial point. What would creationists expect to see? Homologous features cannot be used as a proof for evolution when it is equally valid as a proof of creation. ie, both theories can explain these facts of life. Therefore, homologous features can be seen as something expected (but not required) for darwinism, and something expected (but not required) of creationism. It cannot be touted as a proof or evidence of common ancestry when it can be used just as equally as a proof or evidence of a common designer. So common ancestry cannot be falsified, not even by discovering a lifeform that does not share common ancestry with everything else on earth. The basic points of Darwinism would still stand strong.
Which leads me to the same question again - how can you falsify common ancestry?
I am so VERY sick of people claiming that we call conspiracy. I do not think that people's conviction that the sun revolved around the earth was a conspiracy. I do not think that it was conspiracy that caused people to oppose Galileo. I never call conspiracy. I think it's just a normal fact of life and the nature of humans. Why does it have to be a conspiracy? People make mistakes. People can be convinced, en masse, of a lie - even supposedly intelligent people. While on the topic, it is also worth pointing out that scientists are not the only intelligent people on this planet.
I have been following this debate for a long time, and I find this constant: not a single evolutionist have I met yet who understands the creationist position. Which begs the question, how can they reject that which they never took the time to understand? I'm talking basic misunderstandings. So often people are surprised to hear me not reject natural selection. Many other things I've said which have made them wonder why I don't fit their perception of a creationist.
This is such an interesting fact of this whole debate - so regularly I find people like yourself who are surprised that I support natural selection, or some other fact of life. Yet these things I say are nothing new for creationists. So there are one of two possible explanations that I can see:
1. Those that oppose creationists do so because they have failed to try and understand that alternative which is offered. Natural selection is such a fundamental part of the creationist theory, so much so that saying you did not realise creationists accept it indicates you don't even know the basics of that which you reject. Know your enemy.
2. Those that oppose creationists have encountered many creationists who claim ridiculous things such as "natural selection isn't true". I've heard rumors of these ignorant creationists, but never met them myself. I do not doubt their existence, I just wonder why I never see them.
Natural selection is a process by which more beneficial traits are selected for, and harmful ones are selected against.
Darwin's theory explained far more than selection. Creationists include natural selection in their model. Darwin hypothesised that all living things share a common ancestor. Creationists reject that. Natural selection can be (and is) true and demonstrated, while common ancestry is not a necessary consequence of natural selection. The teaching of common ancestry relies on natural selection, but natural selection does not rely on common ancestry.
In this case, the fact is natural selection. Natural selection does not have to mean a progression though. If we hypothesise that all creatures were created perfect, but have since been degenerating, then natural selection is not about improving the species. Instead, natural selection becomes a process by which the degeneration of a creature, or species, is slowed. For example, without natural selection we might reason that humans would be far inferior to what we are today, and that with natural selection we still degenerate, but at a much slower rate. Much like watering a plant. Without water the plant would quickly wither and die. With water it will still die one day, but the time is postponed. So, too, may natural selection fill the role of slowing degeneration.
Nevertheless, I'm just trying to show you how natural selection does not necessarily mean common ancestry.
This is no more a proof of common ancestry than it is of common design. One does not look at the various cars on the market today and postulate that they share a common ancestor. One concludes, rather, that they have a common creator. There are many components and designs that are shared in common with various vehicles, and other parts that are unique to each type. If one wants precedence for what a similar genetic makeup means, one should look at what humans have created - it demonstrates a common designer, not a common ancestor.
Your points are reasonable, but it is not what my analogy was trying to demonstrate. I wanted simply to point out how proof of one definition of a word does not constitute proof of other definitions of that same word. Evolution means a diversity of things, some with proofs, some with evidences, and some without either. Just because one definition of the word "evolution" is a fact (change in allele frequencies) does not mean that another definition is likewise proven (common ancestry).
And how, exactly, would one falsify the claim that all living things share a common ancestor? Normally falsifiability requires a repeatable, empirical experiment. Repeatable being beneficial, but not necessary - if the experiment is unrepeatable then it is far less demonstrated as a theory. What experiment do you recommend for falsifying common ancestry?
Faith can and does mean two separate things:
1. A belief in something when there is no proof. eg, "I have faith that my sister will return home one day because I have no proof that she will." Some people use this for belief in God: "I have faith that God exists because there is no proof - if I had proof then there would be no need for faith." This is a common usage of the word faith, but is utterly incorrect.
2. A belief in something when you have proof. eg, the famous tightrope walker. You see him walk across a chasm many times, with objects, wheelburrows, and even animals. Then he asks if you will let him carry you across in the wheelburrow. If you decide to, you are putting your faith in him. Not because you don't know if he can do it - you have faith in him precisely because he has demonstrated and proven himself worth trusting. This is the correct definition of Biblical faith. We have faith in God because He has proven Himself trustworthy, time after time after time.
Religion 'H' then offers proof of people having green eyes, then goes on to say, 'H' has been proven - while in fact, only a subset of what 'H' claims has been demonstrated.
Evolution is the same. This both means changes in allele frequencies over time (proven), and common ancestry of all living things (unproven). The term micro evolution has been coined to refer to the former, while macro evolution to refer to the latter - but even these terms are deceptive because people say if the micro happens then why shouldn't it lead to the macro? What there needs to be is two separate words. This is why I tend to refer to the theory of common ancestry as Darwinism - which is the term for the most common theory of evolution today.
So I appreciate your example, and yes, that this specific form of evolution (change in allele frequencies) can make predictions. However, the claim of common ancestry predicts nothing - and that was what I was referring to.
While I agree that Darwinist evolution is certainly not a fact, it is often pointed out (rightly) that the term 'theory' does not indicate doubt about what is claimed. There are many problems with Darwinism, but the use of the word 'theory' is not an admittance of any weakness. For more details, the wikipedia has an entry on scientific theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Not a single person today can predict what the future holds based on evolution for two reasons:
1. It predicts everything. Intelligence of humans lowering while physical strength increasing can be explained just as an increase of intelligence and decrease in physical prowess can be. Nothing can be predicted.
2. No one has actually seen anything like the evolution of intelligence, or anything else for that matter. We see today that horses breed horses, and dogs breed dogs. As Stephen Gould pointed out, the fossil record shows stasis (little change) and saltation (sudden appearance) - probably why he proposed the hopeful monster.
So, in answer to your question, there is no point asking 'why'. Common ancestry evolution predicts nothing - anyone can make up an explanation why, and it will seem feasible simply because people aren't all geniuses (by today's standards) and because humans are heads and shoulders above all the animals. It's an explanation after the fact.
Let me explain, through an application of Occam's razor. Assume that God does not exist. What seems the most likely explanation of the origin of life and its consequent formation into what we see today? Undoubtedly, Darwinism.
Assume that God does exist. Assume that God does not exist. What seems the most likely explanation of the origin of life and its consequent formation into what we see today? Undoubtedly, special creation.
So the debate is far from scientific - it is a debate rooted in the question of whether God exists or not, and what His role in Creation is. I do not deny that natural selection occurs, species are formed and adapt, and that a change in allele frequencies occur. I deny the likelihood that all living things share a common ancestor. Knowing beyond doubt that God exists means that Occam's razor principle leads me to accept the simplest answer - God specially created all living things, including your appendix.