There are many holes in evolutionary theory and do you think those holes are discussed openly? Hardly. Finding scientists who speak out on such shortcomings are hard to find but they do exist and they will talk. There are also holes in theories such as how the Earth formed. Those holes make evolution impossible. Despite those shortcomings, scientists still put faith into evolution. Yes, faith.
Here are some examples (not all directly tied to evolution):
There are many examples of animals which could not have developed gradually through evolution without dying off because without all their current physical properties the animals would not survive for evolution to try again.
The existence of the Oort cloud, which is the cop out for explaining why comets always seem to exist over billions of years of revolving around stars which completely melt the comets into nothing, has never been proven. Scientists assume it has to be out there in order to provide an excuse for comets not melting completely given a universe billions of years old. If the excuse wasn't there then they would have to come up with something else to keep evolution's requisiste timeline propped up. Even so, it is being propped up by the faith of those scientists who think the Oort cloud is out there but have not seen it.
Geological formations show various kinds of evidence all pointing towards rapid erosion by lots and lots of fast moving water. Of course, this is indicative of a Great Flood, not millions of years of erosion which would be a pre-requisite to giving evolution time to work its magic. Geologists can't explain why formations show evidence of rapid erosion from water instead of slow gradual erosion from water. They realize it is a major problem for their theories, yet despite that they still believe in the opposite of what the evidence obviously shows in order to keep evolution afloat.
Even star formation hasn't been 100% confirmed. Assumptions are used to make the existing theories fit what we think we observe.
These areas of study which go against current theories require faith by scientists. This faith is what is currently being taught in schools. And yet I thought faith wasn't allowed to be taught in the school system.
I've gone a step further in my insurrection compared to you so I'll surely be flamed for my post but I'm glad you got an Interesting for yours. Typically, insurrection around here requires a troll or flamebait mod accompanied by a closed mind. See my sig which is a quote from Simon Singh (author of many books on cosmology).
There are parallel examples, like marsupials that parallel other sorts of mammals that are placental. They look and act roughly similar and occupy similar niches in their local environment.
Those animals are parallel but not from separate origins. Evolution says there is a single origin. And given that I have to ask why was there only one. If scientists think evolution can happen again on another planet then why did it only happen once on this planet?
The reason we light up the street is because it prevents accidents. Yes, we could save power by turning off the streetlights, but that defeats the purpose of the streetlights, and results in more accidents.
Good argument until you consider there are no streetlights on the interstate. Are there more accidents on the interstate because there are no streetlights or just because people can go faster on the interstate? Or maybe there aren't more accidents on the interstate anyway compared to within the city in which case your argument is definitely not good enough to support not turning off streetlights at 2AM to save money.
Despite what the article states about the focus of these fusion centers on anti-terrorism, they do a lot of things which focus on domestic crimes. This can be anything from serial killers, drug trafficking, to serial robberies. This data is being aggregated at the fusion centers and the OneDOJ (among others) program is going to aggregate it again to make better sense of it so that inter-state crimes can be better investigated and solved by sharing the information. These fusion centers receive a lot of flak when viewed strictly from the perspective of anti-terrorism because they are collecting data that isn't necessarily connected to terrorist acts. That data is for other criminal activity. The data is collected based on pre-existing police reports, investigations, etc. so the gov't isn't doing anything extraordinary here besides tearing down walls between federal, state, local, and tribal agencies in order to better solve past crimes and maybe, hopefully, prevent further ones by performing statistical analysis on the criminal data.
For example, by seeing that a new business opening up is located in the same part of a city as a string of new criminal activity the local police department can have more patrols out to make sure the criminals realize they are being watched. Obviously that is at the local level but this type of data mining on *existing data* helps the feds too.
A flaw in our understanding of it. Quit making flames for the sake of making flames because there is no basis in the article for what you said. You'll look less stupid in the process.
Gee, if I didn't know any better this is one of those "Create the problem so I can save you from that that problem" thing. I forgot the psychological term for this but this is exactly what this is.
That ones easy, "life" (ie collections of reproducing molecules) developed once somehow and then out competed all later/other types of life for resources. I mean some little molecule thats something near alive can form in this room right now but its not gunna get enough "food" because me and my bacteria friends are going to be far better at getting, keeping, and utilizing those resources. Thats the nontechnical answer.
And do you have proof of this easy answer? The problem is somewhere a little molecule that *is* alive can form somewhere and it *does* get enough food. Bacteria mutate into other types of bacteria all the time *and* they survive to wreak havoc for people who create antibiotics for reach strain so what is so different about life forms originating out of the soup multiple times many years ago? You aren't consistent.
Regarding your sig, isn't every species essentially a different evolutionary tract in a varying stage? If not, what would qualify for your criteria of being different? Silicon-based lifeforms?
I don't mean the basis for the life form (carbon vs silicon vs whatever) but the origin. What I mean is why aren't there multiple parallel tracts having *different* origins? The tracts that supposedly exist are all based on a single organic origin (where ever that was), not multiple, therefore evolution only kicked into gear once (with not even a sign of any failings to suggest multiple tries but with only a single success). So if evolution is possible and if we are here because it occurred once already then why hasn't it occurred more than once on this planet? With random chance occurring a 2nd time it would mean we should be able to see totally different sets of species existing on this planet originating from a totally independent source. If people say that is too far fetched then why do we keep looking elsewhere? Yeah it would be great if life somewhere else was found (I don't believe it will be) however the first thing that should be done is determining the likelihood of that being possible so as to not waste time/money searching. Evolution with multiple sources of origin obviously hasn't occurred here but yet scientists think it can (or has) occur somewhere else in the universe on planets less perfect than our own?
Maybe I need to better word my sig to make all that more clear.
The first lifeforms on our own planet didn't use O2 for respiration. It took a very, very, very long time for the Earth's original atmosphere to be converted to the 70% nitrogen, 20% oxygen atmosphere we're comfortable breathing now. Even today we have a very popular organism that doesn't require O2 to function, and the wonderful result of lacking O2 is ethanol.
I assume when you say "very, very, very long time" you mean millions or billions of years. The problem is that various geological (surface and sub-surface) formations show quick, catastrophic development (erosion specifically) measured over periods of days or months, not slow erosion measured over billions of years.
Coal seams, which are always flat, also indicate rapid (days/months) development. In that case the rapid development prevented slow erosion over billions of years from ever taking place which would be expected if the coal seams were ever on the surface of earth during the various periods of history. Another example are river valleys which are in many cases V-shaped instead of U-shaped indicating fast erosion by rapidly moving water.
Geologists are aware of this severe erosion problem with their theories and have no answer for what could cause such very very rapid erosion. Yet they remain stuck to the theory that Earth developed over billions of years despite visible evidence to the contrary. I guess they have blind faith.
I've heard many times of the extraordinary odds against life even existing in the universe. Yet, here we are and some still try to prove that it's impossible for themselves to exist. It's unfortunate that life is likely so prevalent in the universe but really really difficult to bridge the gap and make contact, even at the speed of light.
If you believe in evolution then, yes, the odds are basically more than astronomical and applying those odds to another place in the universe and expecting something to evolve again is just ludicrous. I think my sig applies very well in this regard. If life didn't begin evolving more than once (i.e. 2+ origins of life) on Earth where, if you think like an evolutionist, the conditions are supposedly perfect then it has less of a chance (if that is even possible to be less than it already was for Earth) of happening anywhere else.
What are you going to do with OVER 9000 virtual machines?
Run 1 application in each one. And if you are running the system as a terminal server for thousands of users I'm pretty sure you can make plenty use of the 9000 virtual machines. You could even give each user their own VM. A developer could have his/her own complete operating environment for test purposes residing in a VM with all developers' VMs running on a single physical server. There are plenty of ways to utilize the memory...more for businesses than individuals though.
The GP is correct: if we suffer a sustained loss of communications in this country we're screwed. Period.
As Cederic said, that is why business continuity plans are created. If we are screwed it is by choice, not by force. I once was at a restaurant and their registers and credit card machines were down for some reason so they handled everything through calculators and manual slide CC readers; they were prepared. When faced with a problem they wanted to continue operating and so they had a plan. If businesses want to continue running when a hurricane or regional power outage hits their data center they want to keep making money by having a DR site and a contingency plan in place. It's their choice.
The point is, it is the company's choice whether they want to continue operating under adverse conditions. Going back to paper isn't an adverse condition, it used to be the status quo. If they are so naive to not be prepared to ever have to run in that mode for a day or a week or for an unknown amount of time then that is their problem. And their customers will go to a company who has properly prepared. It takes a problem to think or want to plan (and spend money to do so) defensively. Mature companies will have already experienced some type of problem to be prepared. Those will be the ones to survive if the Internet goes away.
*cough*retard*cough*
I guess all the people who starve while the trucking companies that ship food to the grocery stores in the cities adjust back to paper are just a little business hiccup.
People did not die just because old fashioned paper/pencil was used. Companies were not incompetent just because they had to do things without computers. They are incompetent for other reasons. If you are going to sling names you should so with your real username too; it might just make your high school name calling a little more credible.
I would, because the organizations which provide us with food and other necessities are dependent upon the Internet. I doubt the average interstate trucking company would have any idea how to operate without the Internet and GPS.
You say that like those companies didn't exist prior to the Internet and GPS capability. They have existed for decades and did just fine. They are only more efficient now, as you said, with the technology available. If it went away they would just have to adjust by going back to the way they did business in the past. They wouldn't like it but they would survive because every other company would have to do the same so it wouldn't be like one company would go back to being less efficient than another. They would still be on equal footing as far as costs are concerned. If anything, the smaller companies who may not be able to afford some of the technology that the bigger companies can afford would have a better chance of survival.
And this is the point. YOU don't like it, so YOU wish to enforce YOUR MORALS on SOMEONE ELSE.
First, I'd love to know why you consider the things that make a show TV MA as opposed to TV LSV (or lower) entertainment?
Second, I'm not forcing my morals on you. You aren't being forced to change. You may still subscribe to the channels that used to be the only source of content like what is now being aired on regular cable and the original networks. What value-add is there for obscenities to be aired? Why do I need to hear a detective on Law and Order call a suspect a "dick" instead of an "idiot" or even an "asshole"? That's high school talk; that isn't adult. Using that show as an example, are you trying to relive your high school years? Does it give you a rush to hear "dick" instead? Or maybe hearing it makes you feel like more of a man?
Even if you don't watch Law and Order there are other shows with similar issues and my questions still apply and can be generalized down to 1 question: why is it needed for entertainment? Obviously if you prefer that level of entertainment then the logical implication is that you admit your standards for entertainment and your morals are below that of the status quo set by society.
Now obviously the flip side of this is for me to not watch the show so that I don't compromise my standards or morals. Hey that's fine. I'll change the channel and give my attention to another set of commercials for another show's ratings and the shows that insist of inserting needless obscenities will not flourish as long as those who care about such things follow suit.
One last thing I'll ask about is at what level would you stop wanting to see/hear obscenities on TV? Would you stop at seeing simulated homosexual acts? live murders? simulated bestiality? simulated male/female incest? the word f*ck said every 2 words like a school locker room? At what point will *you* start imposing your morals and standards on someone else who has even lower standards and morals than yourself?
I can't even find the clock speed in that article, which means we're STILL probably stuck at 3.5 Ghz +/-.5 Ghz, which we've been stuck for what, three, four years? What the hell happened? If we're still shrinking components, why are we not seeing clock speed increases?
Intel's current designs are basically focusing on what I'd consider horizontal scaling instead of vertical. That is, they are increasing the # of cores that run at a lower frequency which makes up for raising the clock speed. In addition, they run cooler. You aren't losing ground. If the Core 2 Duos weren't more efficient and provided better performance then Intel wouldn't be beating AMD's ass with them. You now have up to 4 cores in a single package each running at 2-3ghz (not sure the exact number for the high-end Extreme chips) instead of a single or even 2 cores running at a theoretical 4 or 5 ghz. The performance difference may or may not be much but it is still more using the horizontal scaling rather than vertical, not to mention better on power requirements.
They typically (maybe all) come from various types of things (e.g. mountains [mckinley]) in the north west portion of North America. You'll notice many sound the same such as Tukwila and Willamette.
While a more savvy person may realize their phone is running out of battery twice as fast because of some software they put on there themselves, the average consumer is not going to understand any of this reasoning. Apple doesn't want to deal with phone calls and complaints that root from things the user did to themselves unwittingly.
A savvy person will realize their battery is running down twice as fast due to some change (an unlicensed app, etc.) and troubleshoot it themselves without calling support. The average consumer may not understand that reasoning but then again, they are the average consumer and won't have to worry about finding themselves in that situation in the first place because they won't be loading unlicensed apps on their iPhone (since it would require more than just loading an app the normal way) thus there is nothing for Apple to fear.
Nudity displayed in a non-sexual context is absolutely fine for children to see. The problem with American society is that it seems to be unable to distinguish between the two.
I mentioned this in a comment a couple weeks ago when someone made the generalization that parents over react by not discussing or letting their kids see nudity. Nudity isn't necessarily the problem but porn is. I believe that the issue isn't that American society (read: the media, in all forms) can't distinguish between the two but rather they don't want to. American society is obsessed with sex in magazines, TV, movies, etc. It sells supposedly. The problem is that profit is made from exploiting the human body and because of that there is little reason to make a distinction. Regular nudity is boring and wouldn't make money. It has to be provocative. If it wasn't then teenagers would be hording anatomy text books instead of Playboy. Of course, the defenders would say if the demand is there then there should be a supply. I'd say just because you can doesn't mean you should but again it's all about the money. Morals cost too much.
More on topic, just because I can use a v-chip enabled TV or utilize TV ratings doesn't mean a show should be aired that has filth in it. I definitely wouldn't want my kids (if I had any) to hear it but *I* don't want to hear it either even as a 29 year old male. I don't need to have filth as part of my entertainment and it says something for people who do. I don't like watching shows that are rated MA because the story may be good and compelling but I don't need to see naked men or hear dialog that reminds me of high school. Sure I can turn the channel but how long before we have live murders being broadcasted? How long before we see homosexual sex on TV (for all I know this has already been done but I don't think it has)? That won't be too far behind considering the content that Nip/Tuck considers entertainment.
If we don't complain about the content there is nothing stopping that from happening because the standards will gradually decline to the point where watching live murders or varying levels of sodomy will be acceptable. The defenders will simply say to turn the channel. Fine, I turn the channel but the show is still on the air and it shouldn't be, at least not with some of the scenes inserted (maybe for shock value). Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Those who consider that entertainment and *want* to be entertained that way have bigger issues. With what is on network television these days we aren't far from being able to drop Cinemax.
It isn't all about the children; Many adults don't consider gross violence, nudity, etc. as entertainment and frankly it degrades the entertainment value to the point where those people find something else to watch. Are rating that important where media producers would rather bring in a fraction of their potential viewers by peppering their content with obscenities (both visual and audible)?
The battle involves American society defined as the media and American society defined by the regular people who have a higher set of standards and morals than what the media have. The question is whether the FCC will uphold the standards and morals defined by everyday American society or the standards/morals defined by the society that includes Hollywood (1 supplier of filth), guys who still think they are in high school (1 source of demand for filth), et al.
That's the first thing I thought, too. I remember reading about a study someone did on this once. I can't recall all the details, but it went something like this: The researcher went to a classroom of elementary school children and told their teacher that, based on some sort of test, certain children were predispositioned to be intellectual 'bloomers,' whereas others, well, weren't as bright.
Well, the test the kids were given to determine their potential was bogus. Who would bloom and who wouldn't were chosen at random. But, at the end of the year, the kids who were supposed to be smart were scoring higher than the others, despite the fact that they were chosen at random. Subtle social forces affected them that much.
I believe you are talking about the study where the researcher told the teacher which students would be the more intelligent ones of the class. Of course then the teacher will focus her attention on those particular students thus helping them fulfill what the researcher said would come true. That's your subtle social force. Tell or show (don't quite have that technology yet but maybe in the future) someone the future and if they don't like it they will try to prevent it from happening, thereby making come true the very thing they wanted to prevent (Paycheck anyone?). On the other hand of course, if they do like what you tell them about the future they will do everything in their power to make sure it actually happens. Sometimes it may happen subconsciously. In the case of the teacher fuocusing more on the students who were supposed to be the smarter ones she probably didn't realize she was the one who was making it happen. It makes you think about free will but then again, we can't predict the future so free will is protected.
I don't for a second think it's because they are concerned about copyrights. I doubt they'd admit this though.
I agree with you because if Time Warner was concerned with copyright in the U.S. they wouldn't continue to carry news groups with copyrighted material. We hear all this talk about p2p but no one ever talks about the old usenet network and of course we still have FTP too. By the way, my friend and I discovered what seems to be Comcast (on his end, not mine b/c I have TW) closing his command connection to my FTP server after a 2 hour connection time. Of course, his FTP client is configured to reconnect so every 2 hours he gets disconnected from me. So not only do they modify bittorrent traffic but they also kindly close FTP sessions.
Pessimists see a chance of zooming well past that mark, and they add that with all the signs of strained resources (what's the price of oil today?)
The price of oil right now hardly has anything to do with scarcity. Inventories are at 10 year highs for the U.S. Recently, demand is down about 1% from a year ago for the U.S. and inventories continue to rise, sometimes as much as 3x what analysts predict. Yes, global diesel demand is growing but the last $20-$30 of crude's rise in price is due to assholes who want to buy it for a few hours/days/weeks and sell it w/o ever using it because it is a hedge against the falling value of the U.S. dollar. It's a money maker to them, that's all. Crude is bought/sold in U.S. dollars which is unfortunate at this point in time with the government continuing to devalue the dollar by lowering interest rates (although that's good for people like me who are looking for a house). Why the investors don't buy gold instead is beyond me but the investors prefer to make everyone, including their own families, spend more for oil than what is really required when looking strictly at supply/demand fundamentals.
Childbearing populations combined with severe resource shortages in some parts of the world make pinning down a global headcount unfeasible for ten years from now, let alone out to 2050. The article continues beyond its original borders, as well, with commenters in the field of population studies noting we don't even have a good grasp on how many people were alive in 2007.
Maybe the people making these calculations should talk to the climatologists who think they have correct global climate models that can predict temperatures 50 years into the future despite all the variables involved. But hey, if people are willing to listen to such far out (no pun intended) climate conjectures then the people calculating the global population don't have anything to lose by talking to the climatology modelers. They will be able to cause mass panic and convince both public and private sectors to throw billions into fixing the problem. I would think measuring the global population involves a lot less guessing (counting people) than climate modeling (counting the bad molecules that supposedly cause the greenhouse effect) 50 years into the future.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many holes in evolutionary theory and do you think those holes are discussed openly? Hardly. Finding scientists who speak out on such shortcomings are hard to find but they do exist and they will talk. There are also holes in theories such as how the Earth formed. Those holes make evolution impossible. Despite those shortcomings, scientists still put faith into evolution. Yes, faith.
Here are some examples (not all directly tied to evolution):
There are many examples of animals which could not have developed gradually through evolution without dying off because without all their current physical properties the animals would not survive for evolution to try again.
The existence of the Oort cloud, which is the cop out for explaining why comets always seem to exist over billions of years of revolving around stars which completely melt the comets into nothing, has never been proven. Scientists assume it has to be out there in order to provide an excuse for comets not melting completely given a universe billions of years old. If the excuse wasn't there then they would have to come up with something else to keep evolution's requisiste timeline propped up. Even so, it is being propped up by the faith of those scientists who think the Oort cloud is out there but have not seen it.
Geological formations show various kinds of evidence all pointing towards rapid erosion by lots and lots of fast moving water. Of course, this is indicative of a Great Flood, not millions of years of erosion which would be a pre-requisite to giving evolution time to work its magic. Geologists can't explain why formations show evidence of rapid erosion from water instead of slow gradual erosion from water. They realize it is a major problem for their theories, yet despite that they still believe in the opposite of what the evidence obviously shows in order to keep evolution afloat.
Even star formation hasn't been 100% confirmed. Assumptions are used to make the existing theories fit what we think we observe.
These areas of study which go against current theories require faith by scientists. This faith is what is currently being taught in schools. And yet I thought faith wasn't allowed to be taught in the school system.
I've gone a step further in my insurrection compared to you so I'll surely be flamed for my post but I'm glad you got an Interesting for yours. Typically, insurrection around here requires a troll or flamebait mod accompanied by a closed mind. See my sig which is a quote from Simon Singh (author of many books on cosmology).
Those animals are parallel but not from separate origins. Evolution says there is a single origin. And given that I have to ask why was there only one. If scientists think evolution can happen again on another planet then why did it only happen once on this planet?
Good argument until you consider there are no streetlights on the interstate. Are there more accidents on the interstate because there are no streetlights or just because people can go faster on the interstate? Or maybe there aren't more accidents on the interstate anyway compared to within the city in which case your argument is definitely not good enough to support not turning off streetlights at 2AM to save money.
Oh no, don't lend credence to pay per click ads in PDFs.
Despite what the article states about the focus of these fusion centers on anti-terrorism, they do a lot of things which focus on domestic crimes. This can be anything from serial killers, drug trafficking, to serial robberies. This data is being aggregated at the fusion centers and the OneDOJ (among others) program is going to aggregate it again to make better sense of it so that inter-state crimes can be better investigated and solved by sharing the information. These fusion centers receive a lot of flak when viewed strictly from the perspective of anti-terrorism because they are collecting data that isn't necessarily connected to terrorist acts. That data is for other criminal activity. The data is collected based on pre-existing police reports, investigations, etc. so the gov't isn't doing anything extraordinary here besides tearing down walls between federal, state, local, and tribal agencies in order to better solve past crimes and maybe, hopefully, prevent further ones by performing statistical analysis on the criminal data.
For example, by seeing that a new business opening up is located in the same part of a city as a string of new criminal activity the local police department can have more patrols out to make sure the criminals realize they are being watched. Obviously that is at the local level but this type of data mining on *existing data* helps the feds too.
A flaw in our understanding of it. Quit making flames for the sake of making flames because there is no basis in the article for what you said. You'll look less stupid in the process.
Insanity.
And do you have proof of this easy answer? The problem is somewhere a little molecule that *is* alive can form somewhere and it *does* get enough food. Bacteria mutate into other types of bacteria all the time *and* they survive to wreak havoc for people who create antibiotics for reach strain so what is so different about life forms originating out of the soup multiple times many years ago? You aren't consistent.
I don't mean the basis for the life form (carbon vs silicon vs whatever) but the origin. What I mean is why aren't there multiple parallel tracts having *different* origins? The tracts that supposedly exist are all based on a single organic origin (where ever that was), not multiple, therefore evolution only kicked into gear once (with not even a sign of any failings to suggest multiple tries but with only a single success). So if evolution is possible and if we are here because it occurred once already then why hasn't it occurred more than once on this planet? With random chance occurring a 2nd time it would mean we should be able to see totally different sets of species existing on this planet originating from a totally independent source. If people say that is too far fetched then why do we keep looking elsewhere? Yeah it would be great if life somewhere else was found (I don't believe it will be) however the first thing that should be done is determining the likelihood of that being possible so as to not waste time/money searching. Evolution with multiple sources of origin obviously hasn't occurred here but yet scientists think it can (or has) occur somewhere else in the universe on planets less perfect than our own?
Maybe I need to better word my sig to make all that more clear.
I assume when you say "very, very, very long time" you mean millions or billions of years. The problem is that various geological (surface and sub-surface) formations show quick, catastrophic development (erosion specifically) measured over periods of days or months, not slow erosion measured over billions of years.
Coal seams, which are always flat, also indicate rapid (days/months) development. In that case the rapid development prevented slow erosion over billions of years from ever taking place which would be expected if the coal seams were ever on the surface of earth during the various periods of history. Another example are river valleys which are in many cases V-shaped instead of U-shaped indicating fast erosion by rapidly moving water.
Geologists are aware of this severe erosion problem with their theories and have no answer for what could cause such very very rapid erosion. Yet they remain stuck to the theory that Earth developed over billions of years despite visible evidence to the contrary. I guess they have blind faith.
If you believe in evolution then, yes, the odds are basically more than astronomical and applying those odds to another place in the universe and expecting something to evolve again is just ludicrous. I think my sig applies very well in this regard. If life didn't begin evolving more than once (i.e. 2+ origins of life) on Earth where, if you think like an evolutionist, the conditions are supposedly perfect then it has less of a chance (if that is even possible to be less than it already was for Earth) of happening anywhere else.
Run 1 application in each one. And if you are running the system as a terminal server for thousands of users I'm pretty sure you can make plenty use of the 9000 virtual machines. You could even give each user their own VM. A developer could have his/her own complete operating environment for test purposes residing in a VM with all developers' VMs running on a single physical server. There are plenty of ways to utilize the memory...more for businesses than individuals though.
As Cederic said, that is why business continuity plans are created. If we are screwed it is by choice, not by force. I once was at a restaurant and their registers and credit card machines were down for some reason so they handled everything through calculators and manual slide CC readers; they were prepared. When faced with a problem they wanted to continue operating and so they had a plan. If businesses want to continue running when a hurricane or regional power outage hits their data center they want to keep making money by having a DR site and a contingency plan in place. It's their choice.
The point is, it is the company's choice whether they want to continue operating under adverse conditions. Going back to paper isn't an adverse condition, it used to be the status quo. If they are so naive to not be prepared to ever have to run in that mode for a day or a week or for an unknown amount of time then that is their problem. And their customers will go to a company who has properly prepared. It takes a problem to think or want to plan (and spend money to do so) defensively. Mature companies will have already experienced some type of problem to be prepared. Those will be the ones to survive if the Internet goes away.
People did not die just because old fashioned paper/pencil was used. Companies were not incompetent just because they had to do things without computers. They are incompetent for other reasons. If you are going to sling names you should so with your real username too; it might just make your high school name calling a little more credible.
You say that like those companies didn't exist prior to the Internet and GPS capability. They have existed for decades and did just fine. They are only more efficient now, as you said, with the technology available. If it went away they would just have to adjust by going back to the way they did business in the past. They wouldn't like it but they would survive because every other company would have to do the same so it wouldn't be like one company would go back to being less efficient than another. They would still be on equal footing as far as costs are concerned. If anything, the smaller companies who may not be able to afford some of the technology that the bigger companies can afford would have a better chance of survival.
XP already has that feature. I have to wonder why Vista has it in a SP. Can anyone who has used both OSes explain the difference, if there is one?
First, I'd love to know why you consider the things that make a show TV MA as opposed to TV LSV (or lower) entertainment?
Second, I'm not forcing my morals on you. You aren't being forced to change. You may still subscribe to the channels that used to be the only source of content like what is now being aired on regular cable and the original networks. What value-add is there for obscenities to be aired? Why do I need to hear a detective on Law and Order call a suspect a "dick" instead of an "idiot" or even an "asshole"? That's high school talk; that isn't adult. Using that show as an example, are you trying to relive your high school years? Does it give you a rush to hear "dick" instead? Or maybe hearing it makes you feel like more of a man?
Even if you don't watch Law and Order there are other shows with similar issues and my questions still apply and can be generalized down to 1 question: why is it needed for entertainment? Obviously if you prefer that level of entertainment then the logical implication is that you admit your standards for entertainment and your morals are below that of the status quo set by society.
Now obviously the flip side of this is for me to not watch the show so that I don't compromise my standards or morals. Hey that's fine. I'll change the channel and give my attention to another set of commercials for another show's ratings and the shows that insist of inserting needless obscenities will not flourish as long as those who care about such things follow suit.
One last thing I'll ask about is at what level would you stop wanting to see/hear obscenities on TV? Would you stop at seeing simulated homosexual acts? live murders? simulated bestiality? simulated male/female incest? the word f*ck said every 2 words like a school locker room? At what point will *you* start imposing your morals and standards on someone else who has even lower standards and morals than yourself?
Intel's current designs are basically focusing on what I'd consider horizontal scaling instead of vertical. That is, they are increasing the # of cores that run at a lower frequency which makes up for raising the clock speed. In addition, they run cooler. You aren't losing ground. If the Core 2 Duos weren't more efficient and provided better performance then Intel wouldn't be beating AMD's ass with them. You now have up to 4 cores in a single package each running at 2-3ghz (not sure the exact number for the high-end Extreme chips) instead of a single or even 2 cores running at a theoretical 4 or 5 ghz. The performance difference may or may not be much but it is still more using the horizontal scaling rather than vertical, not to mention better on power requirements.
They typically (maybe all) come from various types of things (e.g. mountains [mckinley]) in the north west portion of North America. You'll notice many sound the same such as Tukwila and Willamette.
A savvy person will realize their battery is running down twice as fast due to some change (an unlicensed app, etc.) and troubleshoot it themselves without calling support. The average consumer may not understand that reasoning but then again, they are the average consumer and won't have to worry about finding themselves in that situation in the first place because they won't be loading unlicensed apps on their iPhone (since it would require more than just loading an app the normal way) thus there is nothing for Apple to fear.
I mentioned this in a comment a couple weeks ago when someone made the generalization that parents over react by not discussing or letting their kids see nudity. Nudity isn't necessarily the problem but porn is. I believe that the issue isn't that American society (read: the media, in all forms) can't distinguish between the two but rather they don't want to. American society is obsessed with sex in magazines, TV, movies, etc. It sells supposedly. The problem is that profit is made from exploiting the human body and because of that there is little reason to make a distinction. Regular nudity is boring and wouldn't make money. It has to be provocative. If it wasn't then teenagers would be hording anatomy text books instead of Playboy. Of course, the defenders would say if the demand is there then there should be a supply. I'd say just because you can doesn't mean you should but again it's all about the money. Morals cost too much.
More on topic, just because I can use a v-chip enabled TV or utilize TV ratings doesn't mean a show should be aired that has filth in it. I definitely wouldn't want my kids (if I had any) to hear it but *I* don't want to hear it either even as a 29 year old male. I don't need to have filth as part of my entertainment and it says something for people who do. I don't like watching shows that are rated MA because the story may be good and compelling but I don't need to see naked men or hear dialog that reminds me of high school. Sure I can turn the channel but how long before we have live murders being broadcasted? How long before we see homosexual sex on TV (for all I know this has already been done but I don't think it has)? That won't be too far behind considering the content that Nip/Tuck considers entertainment.
If we don't complain about the content there is nothing stopping that from happening because the standards will gradually decline to the point where watching live murders or varying levels of sodomy will be acceptable. The defenders will simply say to turn the channel. Fine, I turn the channel but the show is still on the air and it shouldn't be, at least not with some of the scenes inserted (maybe for shock value). Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Those who consider that entertainment and *want* to be entertained that way have bigger issues. With what is on network television these days we aren't far from being able to drop Cinemax.
It isn't all about the children; Many adults don't consider gross violence, nudity, etc. as entertainment and frankly it degrades the entertainment value to the point where those people find something else to watch. Are rating that important where media producers would rather bring in a fraction of their potential viewers by peppering their content with obscenities (both visual and audible)?
The battle involves American society defined as the media and American society defined by the regular people who have a higher set of standards and morals than what the media have. The question is whether the FCC will uphold the standards and morals defined by everyday American society or the standards/morals defined by the society that includes Hollywood (1 supplier of filth), guys who still think they are in high school (1 source of demand for filth), et al.
I believe you are talking about the study where the researcher told the teacher which students would be the more intelligent ones of the class. Of course then the teacher will focus her attention on those particular students thus helping them fulfill what the researcher said would come true. That's your subtle social force. Tell or show (don't quite have that technology yet but maybe in the future) someone the future and if they don't like it they will try to prevent it from happening, thereby making come true the very thing they wanted to prevent (Paycheck anyone?). On the other hand of course, if they do like what you tell them about the future they will do everything in their power to make sure it actually happens. Sometimes it may happen subconsciously. In the case of the teacher fuocusing more on the students who were supposed to be the smarter ones she probably didn't realize she was the one who was making it happen. It makes you think about free will but then again, we can't predict the future so free will is protected.
I agree with you because if Time Warner was concerned with copyright in the U.S. they wouldn't continue to carry news groups with copyrighted material. We hear all this talk about p2p but no one ever talks about the old usenet network and of course we still have FTP too. By the way, my friend and I discovered what seems to be Comcast (on his end, not mine b/c I have TW) closing his command connection to my FTP server after a 2 hour connection time. Of course, his FTP client is configured to reconnect so every 2 hours he gets disconnected from me. So not only do they modify bittorrent traffic but they also kindly close FTP sessions.
The price of oil right now hardly has anything to do with scarcity. Inventories are at 10 year highs for the U.S. Recently, demand is down about 1% from a year ago for the U.S. and inventories continue to rise, sometimes as much as 3x what analysts predict. Yes, global diesel demand is growing but the last $20-$30 of crude's rise in price is due to assholes who want to buy it for a few hours/days/weeks and sell it w/o ever using it because it is a hedge against the falling value of the U.S. dollar. It's a money maker to them, that's all. Crude is bought/sold in U.S. dollars which is unfortunate at this point in time with the government continuing to devalue the dollar by lowering interest rates (although that's good for people like me who are looking for a house). Why the investors don't buy gold instead is beyond me but the investors prefer to make everyone, including their own families, spend more for oil than what is really required when looking strictly at supply/demand fundamentals.
Maybe the people making these calculations should talk to the climatologists who think they have correct global climate models that can predict temperatures 50 years into the future despite all the variables involved. But hey, if people are willing to listen to such far out (no pun intended) climate conjectures then the people calculating the global population don't have anything to lose by talking to the climatology modelers. They will be able to cause mass panic and convince both public and private sectors to throw billions into fixing the problem. I would think measuring the global population involves a lot less guessing (counting people) than climate modeling (counting the bad molecules that supposedly cause the greenhouse effect) 50 years into the future.