The hey is to know which editor is on duty when you submit. If it is . . .
Zonk -Make sure the article will cause an amazing flameware.
-Try submitting a dupe.
-Submit the story with a spelling error.
-**HINT** Look for stories about gaming. (no additional charge for that one)
Scuttle Monkey -Make sure your user name starts with punctuation (i.e. * *) so that it is on the top of the list.
-Try to have some kind of Beatles tie in. Don't let his name fool you, Scuttle Monkey loves the Beatles.
HeUnique -Who?
Any way, you get the point. Maybe someone can finish the list for me.
Broadcom never released the specs of that chipset to developers and never made drivers of their own, so it is not really the fault of Yellow Dog. However, some plucky hobbyists reverse-engineered the chipset and have released drivers (that should work, going to try myself after lunch) here: http://bcm43xx.berlios.de/. I would have to recommend using Ubuntu on Macs anyway. It's PPC install disc is very handy and easy, all the hardware except AE works "out of the box," and if you have an open partition on your Mac (which can be tricky in itself), it will install in there automatically and also auto configure a nice simple boot loader.
Now if Macromedia would just release Flash for Linux PPC . . .
. . . you really don't miss the damn thing: anything that's actually worth watching will be out on DVD sooner or later anyway.
Or you can use a good tv torrent site and watch the programs without commercials the night they air (possible even before broadcast time if you live on the west coast). I really do not think that all the effort to switch to a new sort of television is worth it. The computer is becoming the wholistic entertainment center for the household: Music, games, movies, now television. Someday soon a tv that is just a tv will be like a cellphone that has no camera: extinct. So I think the government should not pony the $1.5B, since media-over-IP is the wave of the future anyhow.
Oh, and for any **AA lawyers who are reading this, I don't actually use tv torrents. I swear!
The search for truth can lead to only one place and that place is a place without God.
You cannot dictate the end of the search for truth. The truth is what it is, regardless of what you think it should be.
Interesting Issue with DNA as code
on
Writing Genetic Code
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"Code" is an interesting word to use when talking about DNA. I think it was first termed as such since it seems to be an obvious descriptor of DNA: Information which is stored by the DNA molecule can be interpreted by the living organism as instructions for various proceses. There is obviously information there, and it does require interpretation, so it is "encoded."
Normally, when I talk about code, I understand that an agent, some sort of intelligent being, has put the information into code. If there is a code, it must have been encoded by someone, and non-intelligent phenomena do not produce encoded information (as far as I can reason). This sounds like a perfect solution for ID adherents, but must be troubling for evolutionists. Is "code" the correct terminology for talking about DNA? How does science explain the fact that all this information came to be encoded and stored in a DNA molecule by the process of natural selection (an unintelligent phenomenon despite the term "selection") such that living tissues can interpret it and put it into action? This issue is primary over natural selection itself, since the ability to pass information to offspring is a necessary condition for natural selection.
I am simply asking because the issue of humans writing their own custom DNA begs the question about how information came to be encoded in DNA in the first place. I never took biology, so I am quite ignorant and curious about this issue.
If the real life insanity of the US Presidency was a plot twist on The West Wing, I would say that they have jumped the shark. Federal democratic republicanism has just jumped the shark. Let's give monarchy another shot.
Winners: People who enjoy shared music and movies for free.
Losers: **AAs, whose obsolete business model is faltering
Biggest Losers: The poor pre-teens and grandparents dragged into court by the **AAs.
Imagine a few cops stiff-arming Jack Thompson's face into the drywall . ..
. . . and then Jack killing the cops, blowing up some fire trucks, trickin' out his ride, smacking the hoes, and stealing a tank to wreak havoc over some generic metropolitan city until he is incinerated by a squadron of army helicopters. Now that's must-see TV!
Some sources say that they use some sort of liquid coolant, which can also be heated, while others say compressed air is used. Still, the point is that the Ducks are better equipped than the Army.
CNN is reporting that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III has ruled . ..
I keep grasping for some joke about James Earl Jones being the judge's brother (and some sort of hillarity about Darth Vader or Mufasa ensuing), but it just aint coming to me.
For the record, I do not think that ID should be taught in schools. I was pointing out that TMM's argument against ID based on imperfections in the human eye is invalid because it is a straw-man argument (few or no creationists hold that God's creation must be perfect because he is perfect) and because I question the logic that a perfect Creator must necessarily create a perfect universe. See my other post here: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171719 &cid=14302272
Let's shed the term "design" for a moment, because it is a distraction. "Design" is making people think of cars and other mechanical devices. If a BMW engineer knowingly designs a flaw into a vehicle, he can safely be called "really lazy and/or indifferent and/or mean."
Creation, however, is a better term. It likens the world to art rather than mechanical design. When a painter creats a work of art that is dark, distorted, and full of grotesque characters, we do not call him "really lazy and/or indifferent and/or mean." We term him a master. If an author creats a story with no conflict, no character flaws, and no danger, we rightly call him "really lazy and/or indifferent and/or mean."
I understand that the argument of the eye has a lot to do with mechanics, and seemingly less to do with design. But what I am addressing is whether or not it is valid to believe that a perfect God could create imperfect creatures. This is an issue which is meant more for philosophy and theology and less for science (I agree ID should not be taught in schools). I believe that it is possible (and indeed true) that a perfect God created imperfect creatures, and I hope that my painting/writing analogy has you understand how I can hold this belief.
TMM is assuming that a Perfect Creator necessarily will create a perfect creation. Assuming that God created the world, no creationist should claim (and few do) that the creation was perfect (as evidenced by all the crap going on in the world). It was good, not perfect. So in my opinion this whole "flawed mammalian eye" argument is really a straw-man argument.
I wasn't judging a whole country. If anything, the US is more guilty of this than any other country. What I was doing was pointing out how insane nationalism and patriotism are.
Here is a very interesting portion of the article:
The BBC's Charles Scanlon in Seoul says the revelations have sparked a furious debate in the South Korean media.
Leading companies have pulled their advertisements from the television station that first revealed the reported problems with Dr Hwang's work.
Many commentators said it was unpatriotic to challenge someone who had given the country a lead in such a promising new area.
That is just scary. It is sad that a whistleblower, an advocate of truth, can be branded as "unpatriotic" for exposing a fraud. Once again nationalism and patriotism have overwealmed logic and common sense.
I really appreciated reading Jamie's responses to the issue (and thanks to Bogtha for pointing them out). At least one editor is actually reading comments and posting, woohoo! Having read the posts, I am a little less uneasy about the whole thing, though there are still some troubling aspects. Anyway, I guess I will just have to quit this whole Beatles-Beatles thing for a while and start some new creative troll account. I know... "First Prime Factorization Post" . . .
... D'oh!
When a file is "deleted" in NTFS, that space is marked as free and the record of that file is still there. After that, it is sort up to chance whether that space will be reused (or parts of that space - more likely). So odds are, after one week, assuming it is just Joe User's machine, a file will most likely still be at least partially accesible.
The only way to be sure that a drive has no data is to "zero" it out (that is, assign a 0 to each and every bit on the drive). Still, I have heard that some forensic techs can detect the inetria of a bit's previous value - they can tell what was there before. I read a Slashdot comment somewhere today that mentioned that it takes multiple cycles of randomizing and zeroing out the bits on a hard drive to get the job done. Or you can just strap it into a cement chasis and drop it in the Hudson (is it OK to make two lame jokes about eliminating a hard drive in one post?).
I propose an additional topic for Slashback tonight: * * Beatles-Beatles. I consider Slashback to be the most appropraite forum for this topic, and perhaps there is a chance that the editors actually read these comments.
What I think many of us want to know can be stated simply: What in the world is going on with * * Beatles-Beatles? Here are some of the facts of concern:
- * * Beatles-Beatles does post some nice, thought-provoking articles.
- * * Beatles-Beatles posts often come in clumps of two or more, with three straight (two on the front page) on December 11th.
- The vast majority of his submissions are posted by ScuttleMonkey.
- Rather than posting the original article summary (if there even is one), ScuttleMonkey uses the "* * Beatles-Beatles tells us . .." formula to introduce his own summary of the article.
- * * Beatles-Beatles links to a number of sites, mostly the George Harrison one, which seem "shady" to put it lightly (that is they have a bare-bones amount of content and a lot of links, news feeds, and popups).
- * * Beatles-Beatles is utilizing all these Slashdot posts to increase his Google page rank (Googling for George Harrison puts him result number 5 on the second page).
- Despite a growing chorus of complaint by loyal Slashdot readers, we have had absolutely no communication (that I am aware of) from the editors on this issue.
I (and some others, I think) would like to use the Slashback forum to get some answers from any editor. This situation stinks of unethical behavior (or just plain ineptitude on the part of the editors,) and it makes me question the integrity and professionalism of the Slashdot system. If there is no response, I think I will take my concerns directly to CmdrTaco (malda@slashdot.org) through email, and from there (assuming the issue is not addressed) I will have to contact OSTG (editors@OSTG.com). I encourage anyone else who shares my concern to do the same. This is all motivated by the fact that I love Slashdot. I hate to a wonderful community-driven site corrupted by such an influence.
P.S. If the * * Beatles-Beatles thing is just leading up to the best April Fool's post of all time, I am cool with that.
A competitor (I think it was Napster) put it well when they pointed out that using iTunes it would cost $10,000 to fill up a 10,000 song iPod. No one has ever expected the consumers to buy their music exclusively online. Apple debuted the iPod two years before the music store was online. They assumed that consumers would fill up their iPods with music extracted from their own CD collection and downloaded from P2P networks. Notice that there was not a significant price restructuring in the iPod line when the music store went live. In other words, the iPod is not a razor and the songs are not blades in Apple's business model, so dropping %.44 will probably not even make them balk.
No way! Many American reality shows and even the concept of reality tv are borrowed from Great Britain. Yes, though many Americans would hate to admit it, the US is still culturally reactive to Britain and Europe at large.
What's more odd is that if there is something going on, they seem perfectly intent to be out in the open and obvious about it. Three stories in a row now (two on the front page) all with the same user (* * Beatles-Beatles) and the same link (http://george-harrison.info./ Why is ScuttleMonkey being so blatant about what he is doing? Does he not read anything on the submission at all? Or is he really in cahoots with this Beatles-Beatles fellow? Either way, doesn't he know that he is making an ass of himself and Slashdot by doing what he is doing?
Here come the -1, Offtopic mods, which I have a feeling will not be meta-moderated.
Slashdot Mirror
Zonk
-Make sure the article will cause an amazing flameware.
-Try submitting a dupe.
-Submit the story with a spelling error.
-**HINT** Look for stories about gaming. (no additional charge for that one)
Scuttle Monkey
-Make sure your user name starts with punctuation (i.e. * *) so that it is on the top of the list.
-Try to have some kind of Beatles tie in. Don't let his name fool you, Scuttle Monkey loves the Beatles.
HeUnique
-Who?
Any way, you get the point. Maybe someone can finish the list for me.
Now if Macromedia would just release Flash for Linux PPC . . .
Or you can use a good tv torrent site and watch the programs without commercials the night they air (possible even before broadcast time if you live on the west coast). I really do not think that all the effort to switch to a new sort of television is worth it. The computer is becoming the wholistic entertainment center for the household: Music, games, movies, now television. Someday soon a tv that is just a tv will be like a cellphone that has no camera: extinct. So I think the government should not pony the $1.5B, since media-over-IP is the wave of the future anyhow.
Oh, and for any **AA lawyers who are reading this, I don't actually use tv torrents. I swear!
You cannot dictate the end of the search for truth. The truth is what it is, regardless of what you think it should be.
Normally, when I talk about code, I understand that an agent, some sort of intelligent being, has put the information into code. If there is a code, it must have been encoded by someone, and non-intelligent phenomena do not produce encoded information (as far as I can reason). This sounds like a perfect solution for ID adherents, but must be troubling for evolutionists. Is "code" the correct terminology for talking about DNA? How does science explain the fact that all this information came to be encoded and stored in a DNA molecule by the process of natural selection (an unintelligent phenomenon despite the term "selection") such that living tissues can interpret it and put it into action? This issue is primary over natural selection itself, since the ability to pass information to offspring is a necessary condition for natural selection.
I am simply asking because the issue of humans writing their own custom DNA begs the question about how information came to be encoded in DNA in the first place. I never took biology, so I am quite ignorant and curious about this issue.
If the real life insanity of the US Presidency was a plot twist on The West Wing, I would say that they have jumped the shark. Federal democratic republicanism has just jumped the shark. Let's give monarchy another shot.
Winners: People who enjoy shared music and movies for free.
Losers: **AAs, whose obsolete business model is faltering
Biggest Losers: The poor pre-teens and grandparents dragged into court by the **AAs.
Which is a shame, because Science has been running so many high-quality articles lately.
. . . and then Jack killing the cops, blowing up some fire trucks, trickin' out his ride, smacking the hoes, and stealing a tank to wreak havoc over some generic metropolitan city until he is incinerated by a squadron of army helicopters. Now that's must-see TV!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ducks#Relatio
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/football/nc
http://www.fanblogs.com/pac10/004233.php
Some sources say that they use some sort of liquid coolant, which can also be heated, while others say compressed air is used. Still, the point is that the Ducks are better equipped than the Army.
I keep grasping for some joke about James Earl Jones being the judge's brother (and some sort of hillarity about Darth Vader or Mufasa ensuing), but it just aint coming to me.
This is CNN.
For the record, I do not think that ID should be taught in schools. I was pointing out that TMM's argument against ID based on imperfections in the human eye is invalid because it is a straw-man argument (few or no creationists hold that God's creation must be perfect because he is perfect) and because I question the logic that a perfect Creator must necessarily create a perfect universe. See my other post here: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171719 &cid=14302272
Creation, however, is a better term. It likens the world to art rather than mechanical design. When a painter creats a work of art that is dark, distorted, and full of grotesque characters, we do not call him "really lazy and/or indifferent and/or mean." We term him a master. If an author creats a story with no conflict, no character flaws, and no danger, we rightly call him "really lazy and/or indifferent and/or mean."
I understand that the argument of the eye has a lot to do with mechanics, and seemingly less to do with design. But what I am addressing is whether or not it is valid to believe that a perfect God could create imperfect creatures. This is an issue which is meant more for philosophy and theology and less for science (I agree ID should not be taught in schools). I believe that it is possible (and indeed true) that a perfect God created imperfect creatures, and I hope that my painting/writing analogy has you understand how I can hold this belief.
He's not a tame lion, but he is good.
TMM is assuming that a Perfect Creator necessarily will create a perfect creation. Assuming that God created the world, no creationist should claim (and few do) that the creation was perfect (as evidenced by all the crap going on in the world). It was good, not perfect. So in my opinion this whole "flawed mammalian eye" argument is really a straw-man argument.
I suggest you do what Mahatma Gandhi did in India.
I wasn't judging a whole country. If anything, the US is more guilty of this than any other country. What I was doing was pointing out how insane nationalism and patriotism are.
The BBC's Charles Scanlon in Seoul says the revelations have sparked a furious debate in the South Korean media.
Leading companies have pulled their advertisements from the television station that first revealed the reported problems with Dr Hwang's work.
Many commentators said it was unpatriotic to challenge someone who had given the country a lead in such a promising new area.
That is just scary. It is sad that a whistleblower, an advocate of truth, can be branded as "unpatriotic" for exposing a fraud. Once again nationalism and patriotism have overwealmed logic and common sense.
I really appreciated reading Jamie's responses to the issue (and thanks to Bogtha for pointing them out). At least one editor is actually reading comments and posting, woohoo! Having read the posts, I am a little less uneasy about the whole thing, though there are still some troubling aspects. Anyway, I guess I will just have to quit this whole Beatles-Beatles thing for a while and start some new creative troll account. I know... "First Prime Factorization Post" . . .
... D'oh!
When a file is "deleted" in NTFS, that space is marked as free and the record of that file is still there. After that, it is sort up to chance whether that space will be reused (or parts of that space - more likely). So odds are, after one week, assuming it is just Joe User's machine, a file will most likely still be at least partially accesible.
The only way to be sure that a drive has no data is to "zero" it out (that is, assign a 0 to each and every bit on the drive). Still, I have heard that some forensic techs can detect the inetria of a bit's previous value - they can tell what was there before. I read a Slashdot comment somewhere today that mentioned that it takes multiple cycles of randomizing and zeroing out the bits on a hard drive to get the job done. Or you can just strap it into a cement chasis and drop it in the Hudson (is it OK to make two lame jokes about eliminating a hard drive in one post?).
What I think many of us want to know can be stated simply: What in the world is going on with * * Beatles-Beatles? Here are some of the facts of concern: ." formula to introduce his own summary of the article.
- * * Beatles-Beatles does post some nice, thought-provoking articles.
- * * Beatles-Beatles posts often come in clumps of two or more, with three straight (two on the front page) on December 11th.
- The vast majority of his submissions are posted by ScuttleMonkey.
- Rather than posting the original article summary (if there even is one), ScuttleMonkey uses the "* * Beatles-Beatles tells us . .
- * * Beatles-Beatles links to a number of sites, mostly the George Harrison one, which seem "shady" to put it lightly (that is they have a bare-bones amount of content and a lot of links, news feeds, and popups).
- * * Beatles-Beatles is utilizing all these Slashdot posts to increase his Google page rank (Googling for George Harrison puts him result number 5 on the second page).
- Despite a growing chorus of complaint by loyal Slashdot readers, we have had absolutely no communication (that I am aware of) from the editors on this issue.
I (and some others, I think) would like to use the Slashback forum to get some answers from any editor. This situation stinks of unethical behavior (or just plain ineptitude on the part of the editors,) and it makes me question the integrity and professionalism of the Slashdot system. If there is no response, I think I will take my concerns directly to CmdrTaco (malda@slashdot.org) through email, and from there (assuming the issue is not addressed) I will have to contact OSTG (editors@OSTG.com). I encourage anyone else who shares my concern to do the same. This is all motivated by the fact that I love Slashdot. I hate to a wonderful community-driven site corrupted by such an influence.
P.S. If the * * Beatles-Beatles thing is just leading up to the best April Fool's post of all time, I am cool with that.
Actually, I think the grandparent was contrasting the two metaphors, not mixing them.. Notice that "The Songs are Gravy, not blades."
A competitor (I think it was Napster) put it well when they pointed out that using iTunes it would cost $10,000 to fill up a 10,000 song iPod. No one has ever expected the consumers to buy their music exclusively online. Apple debuted the iPod two years before the music store was online. They assumed that consumers would fill up their iPods with music extracted from their own CD collection and downloaded from P2P networks. Notice that there was not a significant price restructuring in the iPod line when the music store went live. In other words, the iPod is not a razor and the songs are not blades in Apple's business model, so dropping %.44 will probably not even make them balk.
No way! Many American reality shows and even the concept of reality tv are borrowed from Great Britain. Yes, though many Americans would hate to admit it, the US is still culturally reactive to Britain and Europe at large.
Here come the -1, Offtopic mods, which I have a feeling will not be meta-moderated.
Stevie Ray Vaughan used to do the converse: he poured coke in his coffee every morning.