This is obviously intended to sit in a hometheater kind of situation. We all know how clear the picture is when its outputted by a TV. To get any kind of crispness, the display has to be at 512x386. Other than games (although its a little low for that too), the resolution isnt much good.
Then again, people who can drop enough cash to meet alienware prices can probably afford a HDTV setup as well... Then it might be diffferent
Its not a lowly specced machine by anymeans. Maybe it make a good lan box, or anything else where a small form factor is called for. Beowolf cluster anyone?:)
Seriously, what can it do that any other PC cant?
I bet a lot of spoiled brats are gonna get one for brag-value...
Once, the FBI tricked two Russian computer experts, Vasily Gorshkov and Alexey Ivanov, into traveling to the United States so they could be arrested rather than extradited. The Russians were indicted in April 2001 on charges they hacked into dozens of U.S. banks and e-commerce sites, and then demanding money for not publicizing the break-ins.
FBI agents, posing as potential customers from a mock company called Invita Computer Security, lured the Russians to Seattle and asked the pair for a hacking demonstration, then arrested them. Gorshkov was sentenced to three years in prison; Ivanov has pleaded guilty but hasn't been sentenced.
Why not just extradite them? The US has a extrdition treaty with Russia I'm sure. Now I'm not saying that arresting them was "wrong", but why resort to deceptive law enforcement tactics like this?
Legend says that my 8th grade science teacher "caused" the 89 quake. He was telling a class about earthquakes, and said something along the lines of "we could have an earthquake right now," hit a desk with his fist, and right at that moment the ground started shaking...
Whats the use of holding on to so much money? So much could be done with that $40 billion. Even if Gates spent 75% of it, I doubt he or MS would be in any kind of shortage of cash.
So why not sink that money into doing something useful? Donate some to NASA since they seem to be short of money. Or even just sink it into improving their own products.
What is the use of having all that money though, if its not going to be used on anything? There is so much that could be done.
The days dont have to be the same length at all. I believe what 2 Peter 3:8 is saying is that to god there is no sense of continuity in time. Try not to think of the "days" as distinct amounts of time, but rather as individual steps, or stages.
From the review thinggy: "People are the products of an evolutionary history that leaves even their best- designed features, such as the eye, with bugs that any competent engineer would iron out."
That is an intresting thought. It is ofcourse true, the human body is far from perfect. So since god is perfect, humans could not have been created in his image.
I feel my previous comments have been somewhat misleading, im not so concerned with how and if humans evolved from monkeys, and how they evolved from whatever. What I am more intrested in is how life came about in the first place. My usage of the word "evolution" has been somewhat out of context. What I've been arguing is that some external, transcendent intelligent had to be there to start the ball rolling.
Whether monkeys are ancestors of humans is a whole seperate beast.
In anycase, this whole discussion is getting off topic. I'm tired and dont really know what to believe. I haven't seen any concrete evidence for either side. Ill run to the library when I get a chance and look into that book. I know there are books out by well educated biologists arguing the creationist side. I bet their arguments are just as convincing, but without tangible evidence (the "missing link"), its all a matter of faith really.
de novo = latin for "of new" or from scratch or something along those lines I assume? Correct me if I'm wrong.
"The manufacture of a de novo organism by human beings will simply provide further demonstration that divine influence is not necessary to explain the origin of life on earth."
and
"The point here is not that these scientists are god(s), but that the existence of a god is not a prerequisite for the existence of life."
Perhaps not divine influence or god, but some sort of external intelligence in any case.
"What language would you use to characterize a person who clings to a notion despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?"
It sounds as if you are saying that there is "overwhelming evidence" that supports evolution, and I am "clinging" onto creation even in the face of that. I am not a creation zealot by any means, I'm not a religious person at all.
I don't see overwhelming evidence for evolution, but then again, there isnt any for creation either. Aren't there a lot of gaps in the line of fossils, the "missing links." Once that evidence is found, evolution will have a much stronger argument, but until that I dont really see any concrete evidence for either side.
2 Peter 3:8 - "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
Basically, god transcends time, thus those 6 days genesis refers to dont have to be 24 hours each. Each day could be 1000 years, or 1 million years, or whatever other figure you want to use.
not only does that theory please everyone, but taking into account all the evidence, it seems like a very sensible theory indeed.
Perhaps indeed god created life, and then allowed it to evolve, perhaps with a gentle nudge to guide the evolving life in the right direction. Religious zealots are going to come up and say that the universe was created 4000 years ago in 6 days, so there hasnt been enough time for evolution to take place. According to 2 Peter 3:8: "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So the seven days genesis talks about arent seven days of 24 hours each, rather they could be any period time, 7000 years, or 16 million or however old the universe is believed to be.
Anyways, this rant is way off topic, better end it now...
When they do *create* that single-celled organism, will they have proven evolution? Notice the key word there - "created." In essence, those scientists will be "god," and if anything, they will have disproven evolution.
People seem to have the mindset that creationism = religion, and that anyone who argues creation rather than evolution is a religious zealot. I think its safe to say most aren't; I certainly am not. Creation science has nothing to do with religion.
"Scientists still have not managed to create life in a test tube. When they do, then you can wave it in the creationists' faces."
No you wont. If scientists manage to create amino acids, or life in a test environment, you will have proven creation not evolution. Notice what you said - "Scientists still have not managed to create life." In essence, the scientists are then the trancendent entity that created life. You cannot prove Darwinist theory by means of an experiment, because the scientists will then be "god."
This is a wonderful idea, i love it. You expressed your idea, so you should hold the copyright, but if I'm understanding the parent post right, you wouldn't own the copyight until you paid the tax. This could be problematic - I could take someone's idea, where the copyright tax hasnt been paid, claim it as my own, pay the tax, and then own the copyright.
A logical extension to this plan would be to add a certain free term to it, 10 years, 20 years, perhaps the lifetime of the author.
Perhaps copyright should be divided into two classes, personal and corporate. Personal copyrights wouldnt have a tax imposed until the author's death, or some specified amount of time, whichever is longer. Corporate copyrights would have a shorter free period. The catch is that for personal copyrights, once the tax starts, the rate of increase would be higher, to balance the longer freee period.
This would hopefully allow authors to rightfully benefit from their works. Corporations could hold on to their property, and profit from it, but eventually they would have the financial incentive to release it as public domain.
There seems to be no motivation for putting money into the space program though. It seems as if public intrest in the space program is near zero outside the/. crowd. I can see incresed funding for the space program resulting in accusations of the government wasting money, when there are more important things to spend on (Afghanastan, war on terror).
Slashdot Mirror
So, if the stomach got in the say, you pulled that out of your ass? :P
This is obviously intended to sit in a hometheater kind of situation. We all know how clear the picture is when its outputted by a TV. To get any kind of crispness, the display has to be at 512x386. Other than games (although its a little low for that too), the resolution isnt much good.
:)
Then again, people who can drop enough cash to meet alienware prices can probably afford a HDTV setup as well... Then it might be diffferent
Its not a lowly specced machine by anymeans. Maybe it make a good lan box, or anything else where a small form factor is called for. Beowolf cluster anyone?
Seriously, what can it do that any other PC cant?
I bet a lot of spoiled brats are gonna get one for brag-value...
Why not just extradite them? The US has a extrdition treaty with Russia I'm sure. Now I'm not saying that arresting them was "wrong", but why resort to deceptive law enforcement tactics like this?
Legend says that my 8th grade science teacher "caused" the 89 quake. He was telling a class about earthquakes, and said something along the lines of "we could have an earthquake right now," hit a desk with his fist, and right at that moment the ground started shaking...
Also in sunnyvale. The house just sorta shook, i though "WTF?" to myself, an went back to /.
Kinda dissapointing actually, nothing even fell down.
Whats the use of holding on to so much money? So much could be done with that $40 billion. Even if Gates spent 75% of it, I doubt he or MS would be in any kind of shortage of cash. So why not sink that money into doing something useful? Donate some to NASA since they seem to be short of money. Or even just sink it into improving their own products. What is the use of having all that money though, if its not going to be used on anything? There is so much that could be done.
The days dont have to be the same length at all. I believe what 2 Peter 3:8 is saying is that to god there is no sense of continuity in time. Try not to think of the "days" as distinct amounts of time, but rather as individual steps, or stages.
That is an intresting thought. It is ofcourse true, the human body is far from perfect. So since god is perfect, humans could not have been created in his image.
I feel my previous comments have been somewhat misleading, im not so concerned with how and if humans evolved from monkeys, and how they evolved from whatever. What I am more intrested in is how life came about in the first place. My usage of the word "evolution" has been somewhat out of context. What I've been arguing is that some external, transcendent intelligent had to be there to start the ball rolling.
Whether monkeys are ancestors of humans is a whole seperate beast.
In anycase, this whole discussion is getting off topic. I'm tired and dont really know what to believe. I haven't seen any concrete evidence for either side. Ill run to the library when I get a chance and look into that book. I know there are books out by well educated biologists arguing the creationist side. I bet their arguments are just as convincing, but without tangible evidence (the "missing link"), its all a matter of faith really.
I don't see overwhelming evidence for evolution, but then again, there isnt any for creation either. Aren't there a lot of gaps in the line of fossils, the "missing links." Once that evidence is found, evolution will have a much stronger argument, but until that I dont really see any concrete evidence for either side.
Basically, god transcends time, thus those 6 days genesis refers to dont have to be 24 hours each. Each day could be 1000 years, or 1 million years, or whatever other figure you want to use.
Perhaps indeed god created life, and then allowed it to evolve, perhaps with a gentle nudge to guide the evolving life in the right direction. Religious zealots are going to come up and say that the universe was created 4000 years ago in 6 days, so there hasnt been enough time for evolution to take place. According to 2 Peter 3:8: "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So the seven days genesis talks about arent seven days of 24 hours each, rather they could be any period time, 7000 years, or 16 million or however old the universe is believed to be.
Anyways, this rant is way off topic, better end it now...
When they do *create* that single-celled organism, will they have proven evolution? Notice the key word there - "created." In essence, those scientists will be "god," and if anything, they will have disproven evolution. People seem to have the mindset that creationism = religion, and that anyone who argues creation rather than evolution is a religious zealot. I think its safe to say most aren't; I certainly am not. Creation science has nothing to do with religion.
"Scientists still have not managed to create life in a test tube. When they do, then you can wave it in the creationists' faces."
No you wont. If scientists manage to create amino acids, or life in a test environment, you will have proven creation not evolution. Notice what you said - "Scientists still have not managed to create life." In essence, the scientists are then the trancendent entity that created life. You cannot prove Darwinist theory by means of an experiment, because the scientists will then be "god."
This is a wonderful idea, i love it. You expressed your idea, so you should hold the copyright, but if I'm understanding the parent post right, you wouldn't own the copyight until you paid the tax. This could be problematic - I could take someone's idea, where the copyright tax hasnt been paid, claim it as my own, pay the tax, and then own the copyright.
A logical extension to this plan would be to add a certain free term to it, 10 years, 20 years, perhaps the lifetime of the author.
Perhaps copyright should be divided into two classes, personal and corporate. Personal copyrights wouldnt have a tax imposed until the author's death, or some specified amount of time, whichever is longer. Corporate copyrights would have a shorter free period. The catch is that for personal copyrights, once the tax starts, the rate of increase would be higher, to balance the longer freee period.
This would hopefully allow authors to rightfully benefit from their works. Corporations could hold on to their property, and profit from it, but eventually they would have the financial incentive to release it as public domain.
which is ofcourse why funding was cut. noone cares
There seems to be no motivation for putting money into the space program though. It seems as if public intrest in the space program is near zero outside the /. crowd. I can see incresed funding for the space program resulting in accusations of the government wasting money, when there are more important things to spend on (Afghanastan, war on terror).
whee
ill second that... the code is wonderfully written. now if i only knew what half of it did....