Star: Any massive gaseous body emitting more energy due to nuclear fusion then by thermal radiation alone.
Planet: Any body orbiting a star which is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation. (by this definition our solar system has 13 (14 now?) planets including Charon, Ceres, Sedna and Quaoar)
Planetoid: Any body not orbiting a star which is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation. There is conjecture on this one. It once was just a synonym for asteroid, however now many call Ceres, Sedna and Quaoar planitoids or even minor planets, but I don't since they all meet my definition of a planet.
Planetesimal: Any celestial object that does not have suffecient mass to form into a spherical shape. All asteroids and comets are planetesimals.
Protoplanet: Any body in a solar nebula which is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation and does not produce energy by nuclear fusion.
Moon: An object which is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation which orbits a planet. By this definition Phobos and Demos are not moons.
Satellite: An object whose mass is not sufficent to form into a spherical shape which orbits a planet.
Double-Planet: Two Planets of comparable mass orbiting one another in a system orbiting a star, who are both tidally coupled so as to always show the same face to each other in a system with a center of gravity that is not within either body. The center of gravity of the Earth/Moon system is about 2900 km or about 75% of the radius from the center of the Earth. Also, the Earth doesn't always show the same face to the moon. The Earth/Moon system is NOT a double-planet. The Pluto/Charon system is a double planet as they always show the same face to each other and the center of gravity of the Pluto/Charon system does not lay within either body.
Got to careful with that one.... how many levels of "but I just guessed" are in all of these fears. (not just by you but everyone down the chain)
There is a lot we don't know about the effects of radiation. but there are many things we do know. This who article (not just your statement) smells of the stench of "but I just guessed" -- Look at the story that was submitted "As this study has not been not done -- yet" so, lets worry everyone about such a minor issue that we don't even know exists.
Not trying to put you down or anything, but if we add all of these layers of "Junk Science" together and listened to all of this dribble we'd all be helpless hypochondriacs.
I'll wait until the study is actually done myself. Lets see if they can find any evidence, not just an answer like "there might be a correlation">
On XT clones it overclocked the computer. Such a computer could keep up with a 286 (sorta kinda). It also (not surprisingly) caused a lot of systems to be unstable if you left it on for any significant period of time which is why it was a switch and not a permanent mod. I guess a heatsink would've helped in this matter.
WRONG!
With the Turbo button on, it was the NORMAL clock speed of your CPU. turning the Turbo off SLOWED (Underclocked) your computer to 4.7 MHz.
IPTV forever frees the broadcasters from the shackles of fair use: with Microsoft's help, they can dictate whatever terms they like for viewing.
That has to be the most insightful thing I've read this morning, right after I used up my mod point... that's when the good stuff gets posted.
IPTV also frees the system manfacturers from the shackles of competing with an installed base: at any time, they can declare your particular display, computer, hard drive, etc. to be noncompliant and the system will stop working until you upgrade.
Could you imagine... You get a copy of Star Wars Episode III.... you try to play it, and you get a message: "Your hardware will not allow you to view this film as I intended, Please purchase THX compatible... blah blah blah... ---Love George
As a matter of fact you have listed many theories based on other theories all of which are unproven.
In order for you whole concept to work, at some point you have to take on faith what kicked the whole thing off. Where did the DNA come from? Where did the mechanism for replicating said DNA come from? You have a chicken & the egg problem here. At some point your theory requires that life suddenly sprang up.
How does inanimate matter just become life? The analogy of a tornado hitting a junkyark hits this nail on the head. Until someone can prove "life from lifelessness" the rest of your theory might just as well go away. That little bump from non-living things to living things is one hell of a leap of faith at this point with absolutely nothing than speculation to back it up.
You can't even prove that one species really does come from another, you can't prove that living things sprang up from non-living things, you can't prove that mutations are beneficial. You can't even give an example of a new gene evolving. Even the closest example you can give on mutation is completely unvarifiable, and it is unlikely that even if something had happened it was nothing more than activating a gene that was already part of the genome. -I can turn a lightbulb off and on too, doing so will never make it anything other than a lightbulb.
There is no evedence of mutations writing new genes. There isn't anything above speculation on this. Without new genes you can't change something from one thing to another.
The theory of evolution more closely resembles a theological structure than it does science.
Creationism does not have any problem with survival of the fittest (or luckiest) and no problems with genetic variation. Creationism notes the similarities of the species and Creationism even believes in the existance of mutations. Those are the things you keep using to demonstrate evolution. They don't.
The problem with evolution is that it asks us to believe that the cumulative effects of errors (mistakes) over time causes living things to become more complex more ordered and more highly structured. There is nothing else in nature that does this. Why should we believe that life does?
This mechanism depends on diploid chromosome sets and dominance/recessiveness of genes.
Where did the chromosomes come from? where did the genes come from? In order for this way of thinking to work, life would have to make the new genes in anticipation of needing them in the future... And you want me to believe that inanimate chemicals anticipated they needed to become alive and throughout the ages life anticipated it will need to have intructions to deal with a change it has not yet encountered?????
Lab experiments with fruit flies have, over the course of 10 generations, produced fruit flies that lived twice as long as normal
Natural Selection does nothing to prove evolution. Are all still fruit flies? Better sanitation has also made man kind live longer.
What about the crops farmers raise?
Natural Selection, or Selective Breeding does not prove Evolution.
...the whole field maturing (turning yellow) at the same time......That doesn't happen without man's intervention.
I've seen trees in the wild all change color at the same time without any intervention from man.
Your list thus far supports variation and natural selection. I haven't said anything is wrong with variation or natural selection. They are both absolutely required! Without them, errors would crop up and the entire genome would collapse
Variation != Evolution
Your fruit flies are all still fruit flies. Corn is still corn. Regardless to how long t lives or how big it grows, these are all still within the limits of a kind. The information on how to grow big, small, long, short, tall whatever was all in the genome prior to these selections
"Scientifically the existence of this DNA does not mean it is a consequence of modification in the plant. It could have been generated by a spontaneous mutation, which often happens in plants." -Andrea Dahmen spokeswoman for The European Commission. August 20, 2001 in an EU study of the safety of Roundup Ready Soybeans.
Hell they don't even know that what they did is what caused the change? What kind of Science are you using to back up your claims????
Maybe it would help if we had a map of the genome so we could compare. Maybe a gene that already existed was switched on. --Wait that would mean that the information was already in the genome prior to the experiment!...We just don't know. hmmm if we don't know what good is the evidence.
You're trying to prove a theory by theorizing. You can't say that the theory stands because you assume similar things may have the same ancestors. Your proof is no better than a creationist's faith. Your proof is just that, Faith.
In order for this to work right, you would have to make a prediction based on evolution and then perform an experiment and verify your results. As I stated, many have tried and none have succeeded.
What you have done is found a bunch of evidence and then come up with a theory as to why you found what you have found. Then you went back and looked at your evidence and said it all supports your theory...Well NO SHIT SHERLOCK! --That's not how science works.
I never asked you to believe in creationism, I asked you to open your mind to the possibility that evolution is not the last word.
Find me a an example of one species evolving into another one. Not just a guess, but proof.
It's a lot better than I thought it would be. Actually the replies to my post were rather tame. Even the jokes had some taste. I was expecting to have all sorts of nasty flaming posts, but was surprised to have fairly decent replies.
Maybe. However, I think that several similar bits of DNA with apparently random changes (ie not at all affecting the resulting organism) throughout the species would prove evolution.
Yes it might. We don't have such evidence at this time. We would have to be careful withthe "apparently random" aspect though.
This Neanderthol DNA might be the first step in such a study. We will need a huge sample of Sequenced Genomes from many organisms throughout time to work with.
All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation.
Almost all mutations that survive are benefitial mutations. Blind cave fish, bacteria unable to control the production of antipenicillin, slight changes to the protein coat of viruses, etc are benefitial mutations. I am, however, aware thath these are all destructive mutations, and none of them can account for macroevolution.
The problem is proving it. We have no experiments that back this [evolution theory] up (I'll add a "yet" to that) And like you stated, none of the mutations are beneficial nor could any of them be applied to "macro"evolution.
Other than theorized in the context of evolution, all evidence we have regarding mutations are mutations==bad. We only know that everytime we discover a mutation that it's bad. We have proof that organisms even have ways of repairing damaged DNA. Our "self replicating systems" couldn't function if we didn't.
"There is no evidence whatsoever that one species has ever evolved into another one"
There are mountains of such evidence.
And yet you fail to give us even one example.
"Evolution is a very good working theory, but there are a lot of holes in it as it is now"
Evolution is a fabulous, extensively supported theory. Like any scientific theory, there are plenty of interesting details we haven't worked out yet. Holes? No.
If there weren't any holes in it, it wouldn't still be a theory.
"All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation."
False.
And still you fail to provide a single example.
"I, myself am not saying creation or evolution are right"
But you're implying they are both of similar nature, which is false. Evolution is a scientific theory which can be used to make predictions about things we don't know yet, and we can then go check those things out. Evolution has predicted correctly vast numbers of times. You need not have any faith at all; you can go check these predictions your very own self. "God did it that way" makes no predictions; it can not be contradicted by any evidence; it cannot be supported by any evidence. It is not science.
What has evolution predicted? What experiment was carried out to show this?
Again you miss the point. The point is that evidence for variation within a kind is not proof of any change of one kind into another kind. The leap you are making from variations within a kind to mean that evolution from one kind to another is in itself A LEAP OF FAITH. -Sounds similar to creationism to me.
You can not scientifically just make such leaps of faith.
There is no evidence whatsoever that one species has ever evolved into another one.
This is simply not true. Darwin, in his book Origin of Species shows evidence which supports that species evolve into others. In one case he mentions several species of birds found on a remote island. They all have the same coloration and size, but differ in the shape of their beaks and the food they eat. This is evidence that these separate species evolved from a single species of bird.
That evidence is based on an observation by Darwin and it does point to variation, it however does not prove evolution. You could argue it is strong enough evidence to create a theory called evolution, however it is not proof of said theory.
Since when is there genetic material in fossils? Fossils are mineral deposits, not bone.
Not all Neanderthal remains are fossils. In fact even non-fossilized remains of other hominids are found. Also, as reported on slashdot some time back, dinosaur soft-tissue remains have been found. -Brain tissue to be precise.
Most things that die do not become fossils. Many remains in oxygen deprived wet (bogs) can survive for 1000s of years. Critters can also be preserved in tar for some time or even mummified.
It will be more important to find out for sure if Neanderthals could interbreed with "modern man". Many believe Neanderthals to be essentially the same as man, and the differences between Neanderthals and "modern man" may be accounted for by simple variation within the same kind.
Even if we could interbreed,... we may not have. Even to this day there are people who will not mix with other races. It may be some similar taboo has kept this group of humans separate from the rest of us.
It is important to note that though creationists may reject evolution, they have no problems with natural selection and variations within a species. They just don't go for the Ape beget a person or a cat beget a dog...
Creationists still have a major argument against evolution too. There is no evidence whatsoever that one species has ever evolved into another one. You can claim all you want that the types of species we have shows evolution but there is no direct evidence. A creationist can dispel any arguments about evolution based on similarity of species simply by similarities, they were all designed by the same creator.
Of coarse creationists can't prove that evolution is false. What creationists can show is that by interpreting the exact same evidence it is possible to draw a completely different -yet scientifically valid explanation of what is happening here.
Evolution is a very good working theory, but there are a lot of holes in it as it is now. You can not use variation or natural selection by themselves to prove evolution as a whole. All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation.
I, myself am not saying creation or evolution are right. I am looking at this scientifically and both arguments require an aweful lot of faith.
When figuring out what type of transformer you need to match, the turns ratio is the square root of the impedance ratio.
The problem comes in that a transformer will cause an equivalent voltage increase, much more than you want. a 1:1 ratio 600-ohm-to-600-ohm audio transformer is what you want.
So rather than an impedance matching coil, a 10K Ohm in series with a 500 Ohm potentiometer is what you want. -That's why everyone keeps telling you to try a Resistor and a Pot. You want to match the levels here and you don't want to send too much voltage into the wrong thing.
What will happen when you make the circuit this way is you will find you have more control of the audio when using the sliders in the mixer control panel. Without these, you will find the "sweet" spot will be an unattainable value... either too high or too low and impossible to find a value just right in between. With this circuit, you will find the "sweet" spot will have been spread out so you have a larger area of useful adjustment in the audio mixer control. ---And if you can adjust your mic/spkr levels finely enough you can eliminate those icky echoes.
Slashdot Mirror
It is true that Jupiter gives off more energy than it receives from the sun. BUT of the energy emitted is not from fusion.
Jupiter is too small to produce a core temperature high enough to create fusion. It takes about 3 million degrees to start the fusion of hydrogen.
That means Jupiter is definately a planet by my definitions.
I like the name Minerva myself. We need another chick-planet anyways.
Star: Any massive gaseous body emitting more energy due to nuclear fusion then by thermal radiation alone.
Planet: Any body orbiting a star which is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation. (by this definition our solar system has 13 (14 now?) planets including Charon, Ceres, Sedna and Quaoar)
Planetoid: Any body not orbiting a star which is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation. There is conjecture on this one. It once was just a synonym for asteroid, however now many call Ceres, Sedna and Quaoar planitoids or even minor planets, but I don't since they all meet my definition of a planet.
Planetesimal: Any celestial object that does not have suffecient mass to form into a spherical shape. All asteroids and comets are planetesimals.
Protoplanet: Any body in a solar nebula which is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation and does not produce energy by nuclear fusion.
Moon: An object which is roughly spherical due to self-gravitation which orbits a planet. By this definition Phobos and Demos are not moons.
Satellite: An object whose mass is not sufficent to form into a spherical shape which orbits a planet.
Double-Planet: Two Planets of comparable mass orbiting one another in a system orbiting a star, who are both tidally coupled so as to always show the same face to each other in a system with a center of gravity that is not within either body. The center of gravity of the Earth/Moon system is about 2900 km or about 75% of the radius from the center of the Earth. Also, the Earth doesn't always show the same face to the moon. The Earth/Moon system is NOT a double-planet. The Pluto/Charon system is a double planet as they always show the same face to each other and the center of gravity of the Pluto/Charon system does not lay within either body.
Got to careful with that one.... how many levels of "but I just guessed" are in all of these fears. (not just by you but everyone down the chain)
There is a lot we don't know about the effects of radiation. but there are many things we do know. This who article (not just your statement) smells of the stench of "but I just guessed" -- Look at the story that was submitted "As this study has not been not done -- yet" so, lets worry everyone about such a minor issue that we don't even know exists.
Not trying to put you down or anything, but if we add all of these layers of "Junk Science" together and listened to all of this dribble we'd all be helpless hypochondriacs.
I'll wait until the study is actually done myself. Lets see if they can find any evidence, not just an answer like "there might be a correlation">
What's new about this? I saw this on an episode of PM Magazine in like 1980 or something... They did it for small windowless offices in Tokyo.
"...to complete my robot, he he he he,... my girl robot. This is going ot be the best prom ever."
When all else fails...
Amateur Radio!
This is so dupe... I read these whole books on-line over a year ago from a link on /.
Add whatever support you want, but make sure I can turn it off so I don't click on a link to get 50,000 other advertizement pages.
I can see the advantages of this right away. I can also see the problems this will cause. I choose not to participate.
WRONG!
With the Turbo button on, it was the NORMAL clock speed of your CPU. turning the Turbo off SLOWED (Underclocked) your computer to 4.7 MHz.
That has to be the most insightful thing I've read this morning, right after I used up my mod point... that's when the good stuff gets posted.
IPTV also frees the system manfacturers from the shackles of competing with an installed base: at any time, they can declare your particular display, computer, hard drive, etc. to be noncompliant and the system will stop working until you upgrade.Could you imagine... You get a copy of Star Wars Episode III.... you try to play it, and you get a message: "Your hardware will not allow you to view this film as I intended, Please purchase THX compatible... blah blah blah... ---Love George
Pure speculation based on an unproven theory.
As a matter of fact you have listed many theories based on other theories all of which are unproven.
In order for you whole concept to work, at some point you have to take on faith what kicked the whole thing off. Where did the DNA come from? Where did the mechanism for replicating said DNA come from? You have a chicken & the egg problem here. At some point your theory requires that life suddenly sprang up.
How does inanimate matter just become life? The analogy of a tornado hitting a junkyark hits this nail on the head. Until someone can prove "life from lifelessness" the rest of your theory might just as well go away. That little bump from non-living things to living things is one hell of a leap of faith at this point with absolutely nothing than speculation to back it up.
You can't even prove that one species really does come from another, you can't prove that living things sprang up from non-living things, you can't prove that mutations are beneficial. You can't even give an example of a new gene evolving. Even the closest example you can give on mutation is completely unvarifiable, and it is unlikely that even if something had happened it was nothing more than activating a gene that was already part of the genome. -I can turn a lightbulb off and on too, doing so will never make it anything other than a lightbulb.
There is no evedence of mutations writing new genes. There isn't anything above speculation on this. Without new genes you can't change something from one thing to another.
The theory of evolution more closely resembles a theological structure than it does science.
Creationism does not have any problem with survival of the fittest (or luckiest) and no problems with genetic variation. Creationism notes the similarities of the species and Creationism even believes in the existance of mutations. Those are the things you keep using to demonstrate evolution. They don't.
The problem with evolution is that it asks us to believe that the cumulative effects of errors (mistakes) over time causes living things to become more complex more ordered and more highly structured. There is nothing else in nature that does this. Why should we believe that life does?
This mechanism depends on diploid chromosome sets and dominance/recessiveness of genes.Where did the chromosomes come from? where did the genes come from? In order for this way of thinking to work, life would have to make the new genes in anticipation of needing them in the future... And you want me to believe that inanimate chemicals anticipated they needed to become alive and throughout the ages life anticipated it will need to have intructions to deal with a change it has not yet encountered?????
How many times must a tornado hit a junk yard before it makes a jet-plane out of all the junk?
You can't have random chemicals just make themselves into things and gradually become better. Entropy rules.
Natural Selection does nothing to prove evolution. Are all still fruit flies? Better sanitation has also made man kind live longer.
What about the crops farmers raise?Natural Selection, or Selective Breeding does not prove Evolution.
I've seen trees in the wild all change color at the same time without any intervention from man.
Your list thus far supports variation and natural selection. I haven't said anything is wrong with variation or natural selection. They are both absolutely required! Without them, errors would crop up and the entire genome would collapse
Variation != Evolution
Your fruit flies are all still fruit flies. Corn is still corn. Regardless to how long t lives or how big it grows, these are all still within the limits of a kind. The information on how to grow big, small, long, short, tall whatever was all in the genome prior to these selections
"Scientifically the existence of this DNA does not mean it is a consequence of modification in the plant. It could have been generated by a spontaneous mutation, which often happens in plants." -Andrea Dahmen spokeswoman for The European Commission. August 20, 2001 in an EU study of the safety of Roundup Ready Soybeans.
Hell they don't even know that what they did is what caused the change? What kind of Science are you using to back up your claims????
Maybe it would help if we had a map of the genome so we could compare. Maybe a gene that already existed was switched on. --Wait that would mean that the information was already in the genome prior to the experiment!...We just don't know. hmmm if we don't know what good is the evidence.
You're trying to prove a theory by theorizing. You can't say that the theory stands because you assume similar things may have the same ancestors. Your proof is no better than a creationist's faith. Your proof is just that, Faith.
In order for this to work right, you would have to make a prediction based on evolution and then perform an experiment and verify your results. As I stated, many have tried and none have succeeded.
What you have done is found a bunch of evidence and then come up with a theory as to why you found what you have found. Then you went back and looked at your evidence and said it all supports your theory...Well NO SHIT SHERLOCK! --That's not how science works.
I never asked you to believe in creationism, I asked you to open your mind to the possibility that evolution is not the last word.
Find me a an example of one species evolving into another one. Not just a guess, but proof.
It's a lot better than I thought it would be. Actually the replies to my post were rather tame. Even the jokes had some taste. I was expecting to have all sorts of nasty flaming posts, but was surprised to have fairly decent replies.
Yes it might. We don't have such evidence at this time. We would have to be careful withthe "apparently random" aspect though.
This Neanderthol DNA might be the first step in such a study. We will need a huge sample of Sequenced Genomes from many organisms throughout time to work with.
All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation.The problem is proving it. We have no experiments that back this [evolution theory] up (I'll add a "yet" to that) And like you stated, none of the mutations are beneficial nor could any of them be applied to "macro"evolution.
Other than theorized in the context of evolution, all evidence we have regarding mutations are mutations==bad. We only know that everytime we discover a mutation that it's bad. We have proof that organisms even have ways of repairing damaged DNA. Our "self replicating systems" couldn't function if we didn't.
And yet you fail to give us even one example.
"Evolution is a very good working theory, but there are a lot of holes in it as it is now"If there weren't any holes in it, it wouldn't still be a theory.
"All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation."And still you fail to provide a single example.
"I, myself am not saying creation or evolution are right"What has evolution predicted? What experiment was carried out to show this?
Again you miss the point. The point is that evidence for variation within a kind is not proof of any change of one kind into another kind. The leap you are making from variations within a kind to mean that evolution from one kind to another is in itself A LEAP OF FAITH. -Sounds similar to creationism to me.
You can not scientifically just make such leaps of faith.
That evidence is based on an observation by Darwin and it does point to variation, it however does not prove evolution. You could argue it is strong enough evidence to create a theory called evolution, however it is not proof of said theory.
Please enlighten me, what experiments produced what beneficial mutations?
Not all Neanderthal remains are fossils. In fact even non-fossilized remains of other hominids are found. Also, as reported on slashdot some time back, dinosaur soft-tissue remains have been found. -Brain tissue to be precise.
Most things that die do not become fossils. Many remains in oxygen deprived wet (bogs) can survive for 1000s of years. Critters can also be preserved in tar for some time or even mummified.
It will be more important to find out for sure if Neanderthals could interbreed with "modern man". Many believe Neanderthals to be essentially the same as man, and the differences between Neanderthals and "modern man" may be accounted for by simple variation within the same kind.
Even if we could interbreed,... we may not have. Even to this day there are people who will not mix with other races. It may be some similar taboo has kept this group of humans separate from the rest of us.
It is important to note that though creationists may reject evolution, they have no problems with natural selection and variations within a species. They just don't go for the Ape beget a person or a cat beget a dog...
Creationists still have a major argument against evolution too. There is no evidence whatsoever that one species has ever evolved into another one. You can claim all you want that the types of species we have shows evolution but there is no direct evidence. A creationist can dispel any arguments about evolution based on similarity of species simply by similarities, they were all designed by the same creator.
Of coarse creationists can't prove that evolution is false. What creationists can show is that by interpreting the exact same evidence it is possible to draw a completely different -yet scientifically valid explanation of what is happening here.
Evolution is a very good working theory, but there are a lot of holes in it as it is now. You can not use variation or natural selection by themselves to prove evolution as a whole. All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation.
I, myself am not saying creation or evolution are right. I am looking at this scientifically and both arguments require an aweful lot of faith.
When figuring out what type of transformer you need to match, the turns ratio is the square root of the impedance ratio.
The problem comes in that a transformer will cause an equivalent voltage increase, much more than you want. a 1:1 ratio 600-ohm-to-600-ohm audio transformer is what you want.
So rather than an impedance matching coil, a 10K Ohm in series with a 500 Ohm potentiometer is what you want. -That's why everyone keeps telling you to try a Resistor and a Pot. You want to match the levels here and you don't want to send too much voltage into the wrong thing.
What will happen when you make the circuit this way is you will find you have more control of the audio when using the sliders in the mixer control panel. Without these, you will find the "sweet" spot will be an unattainable value... either too high or too low and impossible to find a value just right in between. With this circuit, you will find the "sweet" spot will have been spread out so you have a larger area of useful adjustment in the audio mixer control. ---And if you can adjust your mic/spkr levels finely enough you can eliminate those icky echoes.
If you divide the 100 Million by the percent of the internet that gets though the Great Firewall of China, what's the real number?