I'd say it's more the java runtime taking up the large amount of ram. The upside of this is that if you are running multiple java programs memory usage begins to level out.
we can easily imagine things we could discover that would make us doubt portions of evolutionary theory at least a little. Like a marine mamal with a cartiligenous skeleton; or a fish with a bony one. We could imagine as many examples like that as you like, and if they started popping up left and right all over the place, we'd want to rethink evolution.
Or we could simply create theories that allow us to keep evolution and explained said phenomena.
Evolution as a language construct or evolution as a theory? Can it be proven that the this "Microevolution" is directly caused by one environmental effect or another?
"That's ridiculous," said Eddie Bleasdale, the owner of open-source consultancy NetProject and an early participant in the project. "It's an unbelievable cock-up... They decided to do it all themselves, without expertise in the area," he added, saying that a lack of skills in open source and secure desktops would undoubtedly have raised costs.
Id also wonder about which distrobution they were planing on deploying. Was it RHEL or something as equally expensive?
So you can see how changes in the environment directly change the attributes of a species at the level of cause and effect (as it actually happens) or do use an explanatory theory, that seems to fit very well, which tells you what is happening.
Like telling you your reading of Popper is completely off base if you come out of it thinking Evolution dosen't rate as science by his terms
About the only thing that could falsify evolutioniary theory would be evidance that God was accountable for the creation and alterations of all things. As Douglas Adams has very clearly demonstrated if such proof were to come to hand then God would cease to exist. Hense there could not be evidance that God was accountable for the creation and alterations of all things. Hense evolutionary theory can not be falsified.
What you seem to be suggesting is that the anoles thought to themselves, "Hmm, we'd be better off with shorter legs, lets make our kids have shorter legs".
Nothing of the sort. However if you grow up you're whole life doing a lot of one thing, that your parents did a whole lot less of, then chances are you're going to be a whole lot better at it than your parents and you're body will be more adapted to it. Multiply this over a few generations, especially when the change in behaviour is as major as going from predominantly ground dwelling to being predominantly tree dwelling, and the change might very well be noticable. That's not to say that the lizards are to of known how the change in the behaviour would change the characterstics of future generations.
if we're going to operate on that level of pedantry, I'll point out that humans did not evolve from primates, as humans are primates.
Well said.
Beyond that I don't particularly believe in the existance of non-mathematical facts much beyond relations of ideas. I just liked Kant's quote. I much more subscribe to Hume's scepticism than Kant's 'Transendtal Idealism'. I especially subscribe to Hume's argument against causation. Add to that Popper's philosophy of science and I'd have to argue that Evolution is not an obersvable fact let alone a fact. It is a theory (Using Popper's philosophy of science you could argue it is not a scientific theory) which can be subjected to the tribunal of experience and which stands up very well doing so. However there are a myriad of other theories about why things are the way they are (which are mostly a lot less well supported) which can not be disproved.
prequel One entry found for prequel. Main Entry: prequel Pronunciation: 'prE-kw&l Function: noun Etymology: pre- + -quel (as in sequel) : a work (as a novel or a play) whose story precedes that of an earlier work
As for karma whoring, why would I bother? My karma is already good.
"The Hobbit or the planned Lord of the Rings prequel"
Sorry?? The Hobbit *IS* the prequel to LOTR. Please tell they're not going to get some Hollywood paint-by-numbers screenwriters commitee to butcher Tolkeins ideas and come up with some Phantom Menace debarcle? Will they have Gollum with dreadlocks and speaking in some fau-jamaican patois and Gandalf as some all-american apple pie and freckles kid who Has Yet To Discover His Powers blah blah etc etc. Gah!
No, "The Hobbit" is not a prequel to LOTR. As pointed out by another poster LOTR is a sequel to "The Hobbit". "The Simarillion" however is a prequel to LOTR.
Evolution is an observable fact. Evolution through natural selection is a massively successful and well supported theory.
It is not an observable fact that humans evolved from primates, time travel being impossible and all. It certainly is a well supported theory that humans evolved from primates. Certainly a lot more well supported than creationism, that however does not make it a fact.
Does the article suggest that those animals with long legs don't take to the trees for their survival or that they do but are just not good enough at tree climbing to escape successfully ?
What it suggests to me is that the lizards with long legs did take to the trees and that their offspring and their offspring's offspring started developing shorter legs as they adapted to growing up climbing trees.
Controversial because it implies that species may be able to subconsciously choose which feature is 'evolved' to be the dominant factor.
I don't think it implies anything of the sort. To say that it did imply that is to say that the the species subconsciously knew how taking to the trees (or performing any other behaviour for that matter) would affect the characteristics of the subsequent generations of that species.
Having longer legs doesn't mean you can't climb up a tree, it's just going to make it more of a pain in the arse. So when the lizards with longer legs survive after climbing trees their offspring are going to be more adapted to tree climbing after growing up doing so.
It's exactly what evolutionary adaptation is. The lizards who choose to exhibit the behaviour of climbing trees survived more often than the lizards who choose not to exhibit said behaviour. The offspring of the lizards who survived (more likely to be the ones that climbed trees) were more likely to have shorter legs because of the increased ammount of tree climbing, for which shorter legs was more suited.
Owning an iPod, camera phone or a DVD recorder might be enough to land you in jail or lumbered with a large fine under the Federal Government's proposed new changes to the copyright laws, experts warn.
Dale Clapperton, vice-chairman of the non-profit organisation Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) said the changes proposed in the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 greatly "lower the standard of proof" required to charge someone with copyright infringement.
Professor Brian Fitzgerald, head of the Queensland University of Technology's school of law, agreed. He noted in an article submitted to the Online Opinion journal: "These new provisions have the potential to make everyday Australians in homes and businesses across the country into criminals on a scale that we have not witnessed before."
Senators from both the Labor and Democrat parties have spoken out against the changes, noting that the government is trying to push the long, complex bill through parliament before it's been properly examined.
As the bill currently stands, even if you genuinely didn't know you were breaking the law, you could still be slapped with large fines and even taken to court, Mr Clapperton and Mr Fitzgerald said.
Section 132AL(2) of the bill provides that a person commits an "indictable offence" if they possess "a device, intending it to be used for making an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter".
This is the most serious offence for an individual technology user, as it means they've intentionally broken copyright law. It is subject to a penalty of five years in jail, a fine of up to $65,000, or both.
The "device" cited could be an iPod, or any other piece of technology that could be used to infringe copyright, such as any MP3 player, a camera phone, a VCR or a DVD recorder.
Under proposed new copyright laws, loading tracks onto a music player, which have been copied from a CD, would be classified as infringing copyright. This would apply even if that CD was legitimately purchased.
Ironically, exceptions in the bill were supposed to legalise copying music from a CD to a device such as an iPod but Kim Weatherall, law lecturer and associate director of the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, said the exceptions were too narrowly drafted.
The exceptions allow users to make one "main copy" of a CD as well as "temporary copies", but the temporary copies must be destroyed at the "first practicable time".
Loading music onto an iPod involves having one copy on the device and another on the computer in iTunes, meaning the user has two main copies in addition to the original CD. This is illegal even if the new bill is passed.
"We are ending up with highly qualified, detailed, legislative language, which is so specific that it fails to work," Mr Weatherall said.
"If it doesn't work on current technology, it won't work in the future, either. In an attempt to get certainty, what we have instead is technology specific, useless exceptions."
But the law doesn't just apply to intentional copyright infringers. Attorney-General Philip Ruddock's bill introduces two new offences - summary and strict liability - making it markedly easier to charge people with a criminal offence for breaking copyright law.
The more serious of the two new offences is the "summary offence", which applies to those who haven't intentionally made infringing copies, but were "negligent" or careless in doing so because they should have known better.
This comes with a penalty of up to two years in jail and-or a $13,200 fine.
But even if they can't prove you were negligent and you genuinely didn't know you were breaking the law, the strict liability provisions mean you could s
"This topic has been worn out on/. before but this quote is a good example of what's been discussed. Does it bother anyone else when a scientist makes a statement like this to a layman audience (i.e. majority of NYT's readership)?"
Does it bother anyone else when "scientists" engage in rational metaphysics and invent new forces/particles, that can not be observed or directly measured, in order to explain some theory. Does this invention of forces/particles not strike others as being unscientific.
I personally would like to see a general reduction in memory usage in GNOME and various apps; it's been moving in the right direction, I hope it stays that way. I believe there is an effort to remove various deprecated libraries to help here.
I have heard that the memory/cpu requirements for FC5 are less than they were for FC4, don't know if it's true though. FC5 certainly feels snapier than FC4 did.
Yum will not update you too Fedora Core 6 unless you upgrade fedora-release-5.noarch.rpm to fedora-release-6.noarch.rpm when Fedora Core 6 is released. In which case you would be doing it on purpose and one would hope you would know that Yum would be affected in that way. As for support, it is provided for apporoximately one year after each release. So support for Fedora Core 5 will end about when Fedora Core 7 is released.
Set either apt or yum to look freshrpms repository, instructions can be found somewhere at http://freshrpms.net/. Hardly jumping through a hoop, infact it's exactly the same as Ubuntu.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also a extremely good counter example to the small government argument that the private sector can always do anything better/more efficiently.
libtorrent is however available for Fedora in Fedora Extras.
I'd say it's more the java runtime taking up the large amount of ram. The upside of this is that if you are running multiple java programs memory usage begins to level out.
we can easily imagine things we could discover that would make us doubt portions of evolutionary theory at least a little. Like a marine mamal with a cartiligenous skeleton; or a fish with a bony one. We could imagine as many examples like that as you like, and if they started popping up left and right all over the place, we'd want to rethink evolution.
Or we could simply create theories that allow us to keep evolution and explained said phenomena.
Evolution as a language construct or evolution as a theory? Can it be proven that the this "Microevolution" is directly caused by one environmental effect or another?
"That's ridiculous," said Eddie Bleasdale, the owner of open-source consultancy NetProject and an early participant in the project. "It's an unbelievable cock-up... They decided to do it all themselves, without expertise in the area," he added, saying that a lack of skills in open source and secure desktops would undoubtedly have raised costs.
Id also wonder about which distrobution they were planing on deploying. Was it RHEL or something as equally expensive?
So you can see how changes in the environment directly change the attributes of a species at the level of cause and effect (as it actually happens) or do use an explanatory theory, that seems to fit very well, which tells you what is happening.
Like telling you your reading of Popper is completely off base if you come out of it thinking Evolution dosen't rate as science by his terms
About the only thing that could falsify evolutioniary theory would be evidance that God was accountable for the creation and alterations of all things. As Douglas Adams has very clearly demonstrated if such proof were to come to hand then God would cease to exist. Hense there could not be evidance that God was accountable for the creation and alterations of all things. Hense evolutionary theory can not be falsified.
If IP laws had existed when the weel was invented we probably wouldn't have motor cars now.
You didn't need to. It was just an example of how the theory of evolution is not a observable fact.
What you seem to be suggesting is that the anoles thought to themselves, "Hmm, we'd be better off with shorter legs, lets make our kids have shorter legs".
Nothing of the sort. However if you grow up you're whole life doing a lot of one thing, that your parents did a whole lot less of, then chances are you're going to be a whole lot better at it than your parents and you're body will be more adapted to it. Multiply this over a few generations, especially when the change in behaviour is as major as going from predominantly ground dwelling to being predominantly tree dwelling, and the change might very well be noticable. That's not to say that the lizards are to of known how the change in the behaviour would change the characterstics of future generations.
if we're going to operate on that level of pedantry, I'll point out that humans did not evolve from primates, as humans are primates.
Well said.
Beyond that I don't particularly believe in the existance of non-mathematical facts much beyond relations of ideas. I just liked Kant's quote. I much more subscribe to Hume's scepticism than Kant's 'Transendtal Idealism'. I especially subscribe to Hume's argument against causation. Add to that Popper's philosophy of science and I'd have to argue that Evolution is not an obersvable fact let alone a fact. It is a theory (Using Popper's philosophy of science you could argue it is not a scientific theory) which can be subjected to the tribunal of experience and which stands up very well doing so. However there are a myriad of other theories about why things are the way they are (which are mostly a lot less well supported) which can not be disproved.
prequel
One entry found for prequel.
Main Entry: prequel
Pronunciation: 'prE-kw&l
Function: noun
Etymology: pre- + -quel (as in sequel)
: a work (as a novel or a play) whose story precedes that of an earlier work
As for karma whoring, why would I bother? My karma is already good.
"The Hobbit or the planned Lord of the Rings prequel"
Sorry?? The Hobbit *IS* the prequel to LOTR. Please tell they're not going
to get some Hollywood paint-by-numbers screenwriters commitee to butcher Tolkeins
ideas and come up with some Phantom Menace debarcle? Will they have Gollum with
dreadlocks and speaking in some fau-jamaican patois and Gandalf as some all-american
apple pie and freckles kid who Has Yet To Discover His Powers blah blah etc etc.
Gah!
No, "The Hobbit" is not a prequel to LOTR. As pointed out by another poster LOTR is a sequel to "The Hobbit". "The Simarillion" however is a prequel to LOTR.
Evolution is an observable fact. Evolution through natural selection is a massively successful and well supported theory.
It is not an observable fact that humans evolved from primates, time travel being impossible and all. It certainly is a well supported theory that humans evolved from primates. Certainly a lot more well supported than creationism, that however does not make it a fact.
Does the article suggest that those animals with long legs don't take to the trees for their survival or that they do but are just not good enough at tree climbing to escape successfully ?
What it suggests to me is that the lizards with long legs did take to the trees and that their offspring and their offspring's offspring started developing shorter legs as they adapted to growing up climbing trees.
Controversial because it implies that species may be able to subconsciously choose which feature is 'evolved' to be the dominant factor.
I don't think it implies anything of the sort. To say that it did imply that is to say that the the species subconsciously knew how taking to the trees (or performing any other behaviour for that matter) would affect the characteristics of the subsequent generations of that species.
Having longer legs doesn't mean you can't climb up a tree, it's just going to make it more of a pain in the arse. So when the lizards with longer legs survive after climbing trees their offspring are going to be more adapted to tree climbing after growing up doing so.
It's exactly what evolutionary adaptation is. The lizards who choose to exhibit the behaviour of climbing trees survived more often than the lizards who choose not to exhibit said behaviour. The offspring of the lizards who survived (more likely to be the ones that climbed trees) were more likely to have shorter legs because of the increased ammount of tree climbing, for which shorter legs was more suited.
From another story on this titled "The $65,000 question: do you own an iPod?:
"Asher Moses
November 20, 2006 - 11:26AM
Owning an iPod, camera phone or a DVD recorder might be enough to land you in jail or lumbered with a large fine under the Federal Government's proposed new changes to the copyright laws, experts warn.
Dale Clapperton, vice-chairman of the non-profit organisation Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) said the changes proposed in the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 greatly "lower the standard of proof" required to charge someone with copyright infringement.
Professor Brian Fitzgerald, head of the Queensland University of Technology's school of law, agreed. He noted in an article submitted to the Online Opinion journal: "These new provisions have the potential to make everyday Australians in homes and businesses across the country into criminals on a scale that we have not witnessed before."
Senators from both the Labor and Democrat parties have spoken out against the changes, noting that the government is trying to push the long, complex bill through parliament before it's been properly examined.
As the bill currently stands, even if you genuinely didn't know you were breaking the law, you could still be slapped with large fines and even taken to court, Mr Clapperton and Mr Fitzgerald said.
Section 132AL(2) of the bill provides that a person commits an "indictable offence" if they possess "a device, intending it to be used for making an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter".
This is the most serious offence for an individual technology user, as it means they've intentionally broken copyright law. It is subject to a penalty of five years in jail, a fine of up to $65,000, or both.
The "device" cited could be an iPod, or any other piece of technology that could be used to infringe copyright, such as any MP3 player, a camera phone, a VCR or a DVD recorder.
Under proposed new copyright laws, loading tracks onto a music player, which have been copied from a CD, would be classified as infringing copyright. This would apply even if that CD was legitimately purchased.
Ironically, exceptions in the bill were supposed to legalise copying music from a CD to a device such as an iPod but Kim Weatherall, law lecturer and associate director of the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, said the exceptions were too narrowly drafted.
The exceptions allow users to make one "main copy" of a CD as well as "temporary copies", but the temporary copies must be destroyed at the "first practicable time".
Loading music onto an iPod involves having one copy on the device and another on the computer in iTunes, meaning the user has two main copies in addition to the original CD. This is illegal even if the new bill is passed.
"We are ending up with highly qualified, detailed, legislative language, which is so specific that it fails to work," Mr Weatherall said.
"If it doesn't work on current technology, it won't work in the future, either. In an attempt to get certainty, what we have instead is technology specific, useless exceptions."
But the law doesn't just apply to intentional copyright infringers. Attorney-General Philip Ruddock's bill introduces two new offences - summary and strict liability - making it markedly easier to charge people with a criminal offence for breaking copyright law.
The more serious of the two new offences is the "summary offence", which applies to those who haven't intentionally made infringing copies, but were "negligent" or careless in doing so because they should have known better.
This comes with a penalty of up to two years in jail and-or a $13,200 fine.
But even if they can't prove you were negligent and you genuinely didn't know you were breaking the law, the strict liability provisions mean you could s
"This topic has been worn out on /. before but this quote is a good example of what's been discussed. Does it bother anyone else when a scientist makes a statement like this to a layman audience (i.e. majority of NYT's readership)?"
Does it bother anyone else when "scientists" engage in rational metaphysics and invent new forces/particles, that can not be observed or directly measured, in order to explain some theory. Does this invention of forces/particles not strike others as being unscientific.
At time of release FC 5 was more stable than FC 4 at time of release.
I personally would like to see a general reduction in memory usage in GNOME and various apps; it's been moving in the right direction, I hope it stays that way. I believe there is an effort to remove various deprecated libraries to help here.
I have heard that the memory/cpu requirements for FC5 are less than they were for FC4, don't know if it's true though. FC5 certainly feels snapier than FC4 did.
Yum will not update you too Fedora Core 6 unless you upgrade fedora-release-5.noarch.rpm to fedora-release-6.noarch.rpm when Fedora Core 6 is released. In which case you would be doing it on purpose and one would hope you would know that Yum would be affected in that way. As for support, it is provided for apporoximately one year after each release. So support for Fedora Core 5 will end about when Fedora Core 7 is released.
Set either apt or yum to look freshrpms repository, instructions can be found somewhere at http://freshrpms.net/. Hardly jumping through a hoop, infact it's exactly the same as Ubuntu.