By what logic? Where? This is just another strawman argument. This is sad really. You can't attack me on what I said, so you make up something that you think I said that you can argue with. Please stick with things I actually said, and don't try to manufacture words. I guess it's doubly ironic, since what I originally was responding to was someone who was putting words in slashdots mouth.
I don't consider people who don't actually practice a religion to be members of it. Sorry, but christianity is a belief, not a mystical hidden marker placed upon someone at being baptised. Your definition is confusing, and misleading. The purpose of words is to communicate, and your definition is confusing to the majority of the populace. I submit that your definition is therefore wrong.
Secondly, I actually never said that because the majority believes it, it's morally acceptable. Where do you see me saying that? I do happen to believe that porn is morally acceptable, but not because there's some majority backing me up..
I don't know what kind of semantic argument you're trying to make with morality vs values. Your main argument seems to be "morals don't change, because that's what morals are". My only guess is you believe morals are something handed down from god, and therefore can't change. That's all well and good for you, you can certainly believe that, but all us non-believers define the word differently, and recognize that what people have believed as right and wrong HAS changed through the centuries.
She's bought into the whole "save the earth" campaign hook line and sinker, and consequently always uses the super-water-saver-short-duration setting on the dishwasher. Nevermind the fact that we live in Minnesota, land of 10,000 lakes, and right next to the Mississippi river. I guess that would be all fine, if the dishes actually got clean on the super-water-saver-short-duration setting, but they don't, and I have to run them a second time on a normal setting.
I guess I've come to the conclusion that most so called "environmentalists" are really about "feel good" solutions, and not ones that actually work. They don't really care about solving the real problem, just alleviating their own guilt.
And the only thing you see coming out of their "smoke" stacks is steam
So they've somehow managed to magically eliminate or remove the production of CO2? Excuse me if I take this with a huge grain of salt. Burning is a messy business. Burning plastics, dyes, old batteries, etc doubly so. I can maybe accept that most or all of the toxic chemicals are somehow filtered out of the exhaust, but I just can't believe the only thing released into the air is steam.
So everyone is going to stick a windmill in their backyard? Sounds kind of ugly to me. I doubt your neighbors would be too pleased about a big eyesore they have to look at all the bloody time. Also, how much does the windmill cost vs. how much power does it produce? Right now we've gotten to the point where windpower is an economically viable electricity source in certain parts of the country if the producers get big tax breaks for each kw produced. I'd hardly think the same would be true for small, individual producers of hydrogen.
There's something most christians don't seem to understand. Believing porn is evil and immoral is a fringe belief now. I see all these posts from people who are so shocked that so many people are lampooning this site. You can still have your fringe belief and believe everyone else is wrong, and your small group is right (it worked for Galileo and Newton for instance), but you shouldn't be at all surprised when everyone else laughs at you. Please try to get some perspective outside of your christian community.
Those of you who think pornography cannot be destructive are unaware of the fact that it can ruin some peoples lives. If they want help with that- what is the harm?
This is a strawman argument. The slant of this site isn't some sort of "anti porn addiction site", it's a christian site with an anti-porn agenda. The main purpose isn't to help people that porn is somehow ruining their lives (I'm still not sure how that's really possible), it's to enforce a christian religious belief. Yes, it's all voluntary, and they don't appear to be trying to impose their beliefs on anyone else, but those of us who don't think porn immoral or evil are going to react to a website that pushes an agenda we disagree with. That's what I see most of the posts here being about.
I don't know where you're getting this idea that people object to it because it's an invasion of privacy, or some sort of assault on freedom. I haven't seen any posts that claim that. Perhaps that's an easy argument you can assume everyone has, and then easily dismiss it. To me the problem is it seems kinda creepy that you'd need the threat of shame from your friends or family to not do something you consider morally abhorent. I'd suggest to people like this that they either truly believe what their religion says, or get a different religion. There's so many brands these days, I'm sure you can find one that suits you better.
But has anyone actually used a humans own stem cells to try to repair damage? Have they done it with someone with heart damage? I'm sure many people are researching this, but if this is the first human trial, it's big news.
You assume there's nothing more valuable than gold. A 10-15 years ago people were talking about mining helium-3 for use in fusion reactors. IIRC helium-3 is a more attractive fusion fuel because it has a higher cross section, and is more likely to undergo fusion. Obviously no one is going to be mining He-3 yet, since commercial fusion power is still decades away. It's still an interesting idea though.
Apple stole their GUI interface from Xerox to begin with. I don't know why this rumour persists that Apple was the company to come up with the GUI.
Apples claims of owning the MacOS "look and feel" were always rather dubious. IIRC the long standing lawsuit was dropped when Apple was looking like it was going under, so MS helped prop them up a bit by giving them a little money, but more important was the PR boost they got when MS announced it would develop a new version of Office for MacOS. The lawsuit was likely dropped for image reasons, and because Apple likely would never win.
Fair enough. Perhaps I misinterpreted the intent of your post. You didn't provide much context, so I assumed your main intent was to say the reason fusion hasn't advanced was because too many people don't know anything about it.
So we'd have fusion technology today if Joe Scmuchatelli had a weak inkling of what happens in a nuclear reactor? I'm afraid you're vastly uninformed about fusion. The problem isn't that Joe Sixpack doesn't know a little, the problem is that Joe Scientist doesn't know the intricacies of how to maintain a fusion reaction. That's why this facility is being built.
Fusion research has reached a stage where the only way to get closer to commercial production is to scale the whole experiment up. You state that there haven't been any experiments to show fusion can be used commercially... Well Duh! Researchers have only recently gotten past the break even point. That's why we call it "experiment", and not "commercial implementation". The problem is not one of not enough qualified workers and thus it's too expensive, the problem is we just don't know how to make a sustainable fusion reactor yet.
1. to achieve extended burn in inductively driven plasmas with the ratio of fusion power to auxiliary heating power (Q) of at least 10 for a range of operating scenarios and with a duration sufficient to achieve stationary conditions on the timescales characteristic of plasma processes;
2. to aim at demonstrating steady-state operation using non-inductive current drive with a ratio of fusion power to input power for current drive (Q) of at least 5.
So in other words they're attempting to get 10 times the output power as input heating for long term burns, and 5 times for a "steady-state", which I assume means continuous burn.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I'd mod you up if I had any moderator points. The mainstream media has become wickedly conservative in the last few years. Obviously Salon has a liberal bias.. but the posts on here act as if it was the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh! (That role goes to Michael Moore, which Salon in fact has had several critical articles about Moore). I encourage people to get some larger perspective on news sources before making judgements about degrees of bias.
So all the Apple fanboys can snicker and jeer at someone they consider "below them", thus boosting their Apple bravado. Apple isn't in danger of going under, but it's interesting that the author of the submission conveniently ignores the problems the author had with his iBook.
Glucose made by liquefying and refining kitchen refuse is fed to the microbes, which then produce enormous amounts of hydrogen. The hydrogen is fed into the device to generate power.
Sharp and RITE , located in Kyoto, are considering the possibility that such garbage glucose can be sold at retailers, much the way kerosene is sold today.
In other words, the idea isn't that you'll buy a special fuel cell/garbage disposal and dump your kitchen waste in it to power your laptop, the idea is that you'll buy this glucose that's produced from kitchen waste, that then powers your laptop (or whatever). I'd imagine the kitchen waste would come from large commercial sources, not joe average selling his garbage.
Obviously it's for publicity and PR, and I think many of your points are valid. But you miss the point. NASA needs good press, and they need something people can relate too. Most people think science is egg-headed nerds in labs working with test tubes (ok, so that's not too far off;) ). Consequently they don't feel like their tax money goes toward anything worthwhile. NASA needs programs like this to capture peoples imaginations so maybe they think twice when there's further tax-cuts for NASA. I just can't believe it costs very much to send an already trained teacher up in place of a regular astronaut. All organizations need PR, and this PR is pretty cheap.
They're not going to vent 2,000L of Helium, per magnet into the ozone, are they? (52 magnets = 100,000L total of liquid Helium
Into the Ozone? helium is the most non-reactive element their is. It doesn't do anything to the ozone, and already makes up a small percentage of air. I think some chemists might have finally got it to form a compound a few years back at some enormous temperature/pressure. It may be dangerous in terms of how cold it is, but it's certainly no danger to the environment if released. I'm sure the source of helium in the first place is removing it from the air.
Presumably the low to mid end. If it has half the number of gates as the Nvidia FX, and is produced at the same.13 process, you'd expect it take take around half the silicon size. If all goes well that translates into lower costs to produce the chip. Many people simply don't need high-end 3D graphics and aren't willing to pay $200-300 it.
Indeed. Obviously no one is talking yet, it's still in the "Some big-whig(s) at SCO wants to make money on patents and various forces are testing the waters" stage. Silence can be very telling:
SCO CEO Darl McBride was in England or en route home and did not return calls. Other SCO execs declined to comment; neither would Red Hat, SuSE nor major ISVs also familiar with the situation.
I don't know anything about the encryption algorithm, but sometime within the past year or so I do remember a story of an irish guy who managed to shanghai the media into carrying big stories about his "zero point energy" machine. Is this a common pasttime in Ireland perhaps? Make outrageous claims about something and get lots of press coverage?
Not that it doesn't happen in the US too. It just seems the only two countries I hear these.. uhh... troll stories coming out of are the US and Ireland.
When did proof mean anything in science? Proof has meaning in mathematics, but has very little meaning in science.
With regards to believing "them", there is no "them" to believe. There's one guy with one method of estimating an answer, and another guy with a different way of estimating an answer. Supposedly the 13-14 billion year estimate produces a smaller range, and the 12-20 billion year estimate produces a higher degree of confidence.
Your error is in expecting one simple answer to the question when we just don't know enough to give you that answer. The only answer that can be given is a more complex one describing the most likely answer, how confident we are of that answer, and how much we could be wrong by. (Ok, not literally we, since I'm no Astrophysicist, just someone who likes to think he knows something about what science is).
You bring up an interesting point. You believe that presenting extremely speculative facts as science to the general public is justifiable because it generates interest in science. The question I have is does it generate interest in science, or scientific knowledge? It's cool to know things about dinosaurs and Neandertals. It's nice to drum up peoples interest in aquiring scientific knowledge. The problem I have isn't with peoples scientic knowledge itself, or even their interest in scientic knowledge. The problem is that most people think science IS the knowledge and not the process used to aquire the knowledge. Too often this distinction is just glossed over in the hope that somehow people interested in "science" will get the far more important part of science.
I'd have less of a problem with the accuracy of this series or website if they actually tried to incorporate the process of science into the program. It's not really that hard, and I'm sure there's very interesting ways to do this that would fit into the entertaining role of television
Of course, if they did this, it'd probbably be quite obvious that the whole thing is just a lot of malarkey designed to make a good TV show. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain;).
Check out http://www.specbench.org/cpu2000/results/.
They don't have the r1600, but the r1400a results they have show the AMD and Intel chips blowing away the SGIs. Unless the 1600 doubles the performance (the 1400a in question already runs at 600mhz), AMD and Intel still dominate over them in general.
I've heard this before, and the SpecCPU2000 benchmarks just don't support what you're saying. According to http://www.specbench.org/cpu2000/results/res2002q4 /
For Integer performance, top dog goes to the 3.0 ghz P4 with a score of 1085 base. The Sun Blade 2000 at 1.015 ghz gave a score of 516 base.
In single task FP performance the 3.0 ghz P4 with gave a score of 1092 base performance. The Sun blade 2000 at 1.015 ghz gave a performace of 682 base.
It's mostly the same story for the multiple tasks test (rates). An AMD MP 2400+ gives a score of 15 integer base with 2 CPUs, the Sun gives an 11.4 Integer base with 2 CPUs.
For FP, Sun wins its first benchmark. Scores are 10.5 for 2 AMD MP 2400s, and 14.3 for the 2 Sun Blades. The PC arena gets pretty close to this performance with a 13.5 on 2 2.4 ghz Xeon processors.
So, with the exception of running multiple FP tasks, PCs smoke Suns pretty badly. If you'll take a look at the Itanium marks, they utterly destroy the Sun multiple FP tasks. Itanium maybe isn't really fair, since it's not really exactly at a PC price point.
Slashdot Mirror
By what logic? Where? This is just another strawman argument. This is sad really. You can't attack me on what I said, so you make up something that you think I said that you can argue with. Please stick with things I actually said, and don't try to manufacture words. I guess it's doubly ironic, since what I originally was responding to was someone who was putting words in slashdots mouth.
I don't consider people who don't actually practice a religion to be members of it. Sorry, but christianity is a belief, not a mystical hidden marker placed upon someone at being baptised. Your definition is confusing, and misleading. The purpose of words is to communicate, and your definition is confusing to the majority of the populace. I submit that your definition is therefore wrong.
.
Secondly, I actually never said that because the majority believes it, it's morally acceptable. Where do you see me saying that? I do happen to believe that porn is morally acceptable, but not because there's some majority backing me up.
I don't know what kind of semantic argument you're trying to make with morality vs values. Your main argument seems to be "morals don't change, because that's what morals are". My only guess is you believe morals are something handed down from god, and therefore can't change. That's all well and good for you, you can certainly believe that, but all us non-believers define the word differently, and recognize that what people have believed as right and wrong HAS changed through the centuries.
She's bought into the whole "save the earth" campaign hook line and sinker, and consequently always uses the super-water-saver-short-duration setting on the dishwasher. Nevermind the fact that we live in Minnesota, land of 10,000 lakes, and right next to the Mississippi river. I guess that would be all fine, if the dishes actually got clean on the super-water-saver-short-duration setting, but they don't, and I have to run them a second time on a normal setting.
I guess I've come to the conclusion that most so called "environmentalists" are really about "feel good" solutions, and not ones that actually work. They don't really care about solving the real problem, just alleviating their own guilt.
So everyone is going to stick a windmill in their backyard? Sounds kind of ugly to me. I doubt your neighbors would be too pleased about a big eyesore they have to look at all the bloody time. Also, how much does the windmill cost vs. how much power does it produce? Right now we've gotten to the point where windpower is an economically viable electricity source in certain parts of the country if the producers get big tax breaks for each kw produced. I'd hardly think the same would be true for small, individual producers of hydrogen.
There's something most christians don't seem to understand. Believing porn is evil and immoral is a fringe belief now. I see all these posts from people who are so shocked that so many people are lampooning this site. You can still have your fringe belief and believe everyone else is wrong, and your small group is right (it worked for Galileo and Newton for instance), but you shouldn't be at all surprised when everyone else laughs at you. Please try to get some perspective outside of your christian community.
I don't know where you're getting this idea that people object to it because it's an invasion of privacy, or some sort of assault on freedom. I haven't seen any posts that claim that. Perhaps that's an easy argument you can assume everyone has, and then easily dismiss it. To me the problem is it seems kinda creepy that you'd need the threat of shame from your friends or family to not do something you consider morally abhorent. I'd suggest to people like this that they either truly believe what their religion says, or get a different religion. There's so many brands these days, I'm sure you can find one that suits you better.
But has anyone actually used a humans own stem cells to try to repair damage? Have they done it with someone with heart damage? I'm sure many people are researching this, but if this is the first human trial, it's big news.
You assume there's nothing more valuable than gold. A 10-15 years ago people were talking about mining helium-3 for use in fusion reactors. IIRC helium-3 is a more attractive fusion fuel because it has a higher cross section, and is more likely to undergo fusion. Obviously no one is going to be mining He-3 yet, since commercial fusion power is still decades away. It's still an interesting idea though.
Apple stole their GUI interface from Xerox to begin with. I don't know why this rumour persists that Apple was the company to come up with the GUI.
Apples claims of owning the MacOS "look and feel" were always rather dubious. IIRC the long standing lawsuit was dropped when Apple was looking like it was going under, so MS helped prop them up a bit by giving them a little money, but more important was the PR boost they got when MS announced it would develop a new version of Office for MacOS. The lawsuit was likely dropped for image reasons, and because Apple likely would never win.
Fair enough. Perhaps I misinterpreted the intent of your post. You didn't provide much context, so I assumed your main intent was to say the reason fusion hasn't advanced was because too many people don't know anything about it.
So we'd have fusion technology today if Joe Scmuchatelli had a weak inkling of what happens in a nuclear reactor? I'm afraid you're vastly uninformed about fusion. The problem isn't that Joe Sixpack doesn't know a little, the problem is that Joe Scientist doesn't know the intricacies of how to maintain a fusion reaction. That's why this facility is being built.
Fusion research has reached a stage where the only way to get closer to commercial production is to scale the whole experiment up. You state that there haven't been any experiments to show fusion can be used commercially... Well Duh! Researchers have only recently gotten past the break even point. That's why we call it "experiment", and not "commercial implementation". The problem is not one of not enough qualified workers and thus it's too expensive, the problem is we just don't know how to make a sustainable fusion reactor yet.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I'd mod you up if I had any moderator points. The mainstream media has become wickedly conservative in the last few years. Obviously Salon has a liberal bias.. but the posts on here act as if it was the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh! (That role goes to Michael Moore, which Salon in fact has had several critical articles about Moore). I encourage people to get some larger perspective on news sources before making judgements about degrees of bias.
So all the Apple fanboys can snicker and jeer at someone they consider "below them", thus boosting their Apple bravado. Apple isn't in danger of going under, but it's interesting that the author of the submission conveniently ignores the problems the author had with his iBook.
In other words, the idea isn't that you'll buy a special fuel cell/garbage disposal and dump your kitchen waste in it to power your laptop, the idea is that you'll buy this glucose that's produced from kitchen waste, that then powers your laptop (or whatever). I'd imagine the kitchen waste would come from large commercial sources, not joe average selling his garbage.
Obviously it's for publicity and PR, and I think many of your points are valid. But you miss the point. NASA needs good press, and they need something people can relate too. Most people think science is egg-headed nerds in labs working with test tubes (ok, so that's not too far off ;) ). Consequently they don't feel like their tax money goes toward anything worthwhile. NASA needs programs like this to capture peoples imaginations so maybe they think twice when there's further tax-cuts for NASA.
I just can't believe it costs very much to send an already trained teacher up in place of a regular astronaut. All organizations need PR, and this PR is pretty cheap.
Presumably the low to mid end. If it has half the number of gates as the Nvidia FX, and is produced at the same .13 process, you'd expect it take take around half the silicon size. If all goes well that translates into lower costs to produce the chip. Many people simply don't need high-end 3D graphics and aren't willing to pay $200-300 it.
I don't know anything about the encryption algorithm, but sometime within the past year or so I do remember a story of an irish guy who managed to shanghai the media into carrying big stories about his "zero point energy" machine. Is this a common pasttime in Ireland perhaps? Make outrageous claims about something and get lots of press coverage?
Not that it doesn't happen in the US too. It just seems the only two countries I hear these.. uhh... troll stories coming out of are the US and Ireland.
When did proof mean anything in science? Proof has meaning in mathematics, but has very little meaning in science.
With regards to believing "them", there is no "them" to believe. There's one guy with one method of estimating an answer, and another guy with a different way of estimating an answer. Supposedly the 13-14 billion year estimate produces a smaller range, and the 12-20 billion year estimate produces a higher degree of confidence.
Your error is in expecting one simple answer to the question when we just don't know enough to give you that answer. The only answer that can be given is a more complex one describing the most likely answer, how confident we are of that answer, and how much we could be wrong by. (Ok, not literally we, since I'm no Astrophysicist, just someone who likes to think he knows something about what science is).
You bring up an interesting point. You believe that presenting extremely speculative facts as science to the general public is justifiable because it generates interest in science. The question I have is does it generate interest in science, or scientific knowledge? It's cool to know things about dinosaurs and Neandertals. It's nice to drum up peoples interest in aquiring scientific knowledge. The problem I have isn't with peoples scientic knowledge itself, or even their interest in scientic knowledge. The problem is that most people think science IS the knowledge and not the process used to aquire the knowledge. Too often this distinction is just glossed over in the hope that somehow people interested in "science" will get the far more important part of science.
;).
I'd have less of a problem with the accuracy of this series or website if they actually tried to incorporate the process of science into the program. It's not really that hard, and I'm sure there's very interesting ways to do this that would fit into the entertaining role of television
Of course, if they did this, it'd probbably be quite obvious that the whole thing is just a lot of malarkey designed to make a good TV show. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Check out http://www.specbench.org/cpu2000/results/. They don't have the r1600, but the r1400a results they have show the AMD and Intel chips blowing away the SGIs. Unless the 1600 doubles the performance (the 1400a in question already runs at 600mhz), AMD and Intel still dominate over them in general.
I've heard this before, and the SpecCPU2000 benchmarks just don't support what you're saying. According to http://www.specbench.org/cpu2000/results/res2002q4 /
For Integer performance, top dog goes to the 3.0 ghz P4 with a score of 1085 base. The Sun Blade 2000 at 1.015 ghz gave a score of 516 base.
In single task FP performance the 3.0 ghz P4 with gave a score of 1092 base performance. The Sun blade 2000 at 1.015 ghz gave a performace of 682 base.
It's mostly the same story for the multiple tasks test (rates). An AMD MP 2400+ gives a score of 15 integer base with 2 CPUs, the Sun gives an 11.4 Integer base with 2 CPUs.
For FP, Sun wins its first benchmark. Scores are 10.5 for 2 AMD MP 2400s, and 14.3 for the 2 Sun Blades. The PC arena gets pretty close to this performance with a 13.5 on 2 2.4 ghz Xeon processors.
So, with the exception of running multiple FP tasks, PCs smoke Suns pretty badly. If you'll take a look at the Itanium marks, they utterly destroy the Sun multiple FP tasks. Itanium maybe isn't really fair, since it's not really exactly at a PC price point.