> Name one famous result (in the academia, > not in National Geographic)
Now we don't:
> clearer and wider perspective thanstudents from > places like TIFR, which is very isolated from anything > other than mainstream academia
Don't play both sides of the court at the same time.
> > Studying at an engineering-focussed IIT, > > instead of, say TIFR or IISc, may have > > helped develop 'snobbish theoretician syndrome': > > familiarity breed contempt.... > top students in the country (statistically) > graduate from my Alma Mater and her sisters
Sure, if you want to ride the coattails of all departments in all IITs. In your area - physics - TIFR and IISc are more successful than IIT Kanpur, based on the list of Indian Physics Assoc. awardees.
In any case, the reason money flows the way it does is more benefit to this world comes from applied science, not by endlessly funding theoretical paper-pushers like yourself. Don't misunderstand -- both have their place -- but you aren't 'better' in any meaningful way.
> Name one famous result (in the academia Your request for a 'famous result' is laugable - the primary aim for NASA isn't funding research that is sufficiently theoritical to meet your tastes. Here is a concrete result from NASA materials science: http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news93.html Famous enough for you? It's useful too
You will have to stop your web 1.0, save to hard-disk, then apply the 1.0 -> 2.0 patch.
However, given the high system requirements, there may be an easier way: just bring the internet archive as up-to-date as possible, then quickly: apply the patch, delete web 1.0 and restore from backup.:)
Your claim that the most successful space organization so far is populated by idiots, is an impossible one.
Studying at an engineering-focussed IIT, instead of, say TIFR or IISc, may have helped develop 'snobbish theoretician syndrome': familiarity breed contempt.
Google starts providing OpenOffice as a client-side components within Firefox, perhaps downloaded as XPCOM components, perhaps using the GoogleToolbar as the entry point. The browser now provides straightforward access to both thin and thick client functionality.
The gmail, google maps, etc interfaces are melded in too, providing a uniform interface to a free persistent 'office environment' that people can access through any browser, anywhere, with temporary working files stored locally for performance and content network-backed to Google's servers...
This could explain Microsoft's recent launch of Windows Live as - perhaps - a preemptive defensive maneuvour.
> Kindly contrast this with a collection of cells that has no functional organ
Yes, lets - both are collections of cells _completely encapsulate_ a _unique _human _individual life_. So you think one is undeserving of life - why - on the basis of strength and power? You would be at home in Nazi Germany.
> I think the more proper analogy is to make a comparison to someone > who is in a persistent vegetative state, but even then, someone in > a PVS still has more function than 'none'.
Yes, sure. See above.
>...I think that once the brain has had enough time >... dropping that fetus becomes a very tricky matter. Spare me your attempt at feigned righteousness. Do you support doing anything except wringing your hands for abortions after your "tricky" deadline? Are they murder?
> comparing a zygote to an out-of-the-womb human being is an irrational argument Why? Just because one is bigger and stronger than the other?
> (further compounded when there are those that support protecting > that zygote by law are more than willing to let the out-of-the-womb > individual die by law; but, > that's not really a part of this thread of discussion). You said it.
> You are, of course, free to think or feel as you wish... So are you, and we both are accountable for our thoughts and actions. You base yours on speculation and ineffectual compromise.
Perhaps. But you don't know for sure. And the crude analogy with computers is plain foolish - each night, our brains boot down, and then boot back up. So is it fair to kill someone in deep sleep. Or should we declare certain human lives more valuable baed on their stored content (and let child murderers off more easily).
Each human life is worth the same. Don't support denying it the same respect and protection you were extended.
No need to apologize - your bit of speculation is spot on. I'm Indian and the Indian film industry used to be awash in underworld money - it's gotten a bit better in recent years, but still is quite significant:
http://sify.com/movies/bollywood/fullstory.php?id= 13294051 Of the 143 Hindi films (excluding dubbed ones) released in 2000, barely 5 or 7 were funded by the underworld. Of the 150 films of 2001 or 140 of 2002, not more than 8 or 10 in each of the two years could have been made with funds from questionable sources. How can 4 or 5 per cent be taken as representing the entire production sector?
No, because we've been granted permission by God to eat animals. Humans are special as they are made in God's image.
Even the permission to eat meat is temporary and seems to have been given for dietary reasons and sin and death had entered the world. According to the Bible, the world before the 'fall' (before sin and death) was vegetarian. The world after the apocalypse will be vegetarian.
So you know when the embryo's brain boots, do you? And even if you do, do you realize that each night, when you go into non-REM deep sleep, you're probably in a similar vegetative state. Is it fair if someone aborts you, when you're like that?
The early Christian church held that ensoulement occurs at the moment of conception. For instance, the early Church father, Tertullian (160 - 220 CE), wrote: "Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (Apology 27). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment
a sperm cell is just a cell, one of millions that comprise you.
However, many years ago, those millions of cells of yours started off from one cell, distinct from your mothers and father's cells. It was your first cell - the one from which all your current cells divided from.
If a newborn baby is an individual human, so was it moments before delivery, all the way back to conception, where normal two cells from the father and mother formed a new individual human life.
> If life begins before the mother is pregnant, what does that mean?
It means you let a logical fallacy obscure your common sense.
The obvious fact is this: yes, a fertilized egg _is_ life - an individual human life at that.
This life began before the mother was termed pregnant by the modern Western medical definition.
> If life begins at conception, does this begin again or do twins share souls?
The Bible refers to soul as mind, will, emotions - If I am guessing correctly, you really meant not this definition, but an extra-corporeal spirit: i.e. "do twins share spirits?"
Two spirits could inhabit one cell. If you think that is far-fetched, consider Siamese twins who share organs - they obviously have two souls, two spirits. If separated, one may die when the other continues to live.
"...the billing and accounting systems, the transport or supply systems, the IT function - and the list goes on. Such commodities will be expertly and automatically leveraged by super-deep, business-to-business automation,"
He means "business service delivery via B2B integration"
Companies generally only support B2B E-commerce - buying and selling items and services online. He talking of _delivering_ business services using B2B standards that make tight integration easier.
So, where earlier you had SAP CRM, now you have salesforce.com integration; where you had an ERP accounting module, now, say, accountsforce.com.
Ecommerce is not too difficult - buying and selling are established everyday practises and automating them is a matter of converting paper based documents (RFQ, PO, POA, INV, etc.) to electronic ones.
But services like HR, AP/AR etc are not as easily outsourced -- they are entangled everywhere in a business (Aspect Oriented Programmers would call them crosscutting concerns:). Traditionally, thse internal business functions did not need interfaces with other services or entities (like POs do for buying/selling). In fact ERPs were successful partly due to tight intergration of all modules. So it may be easier to outsource the entire ERP . Eg: Microsoft To Enter Hosting Business http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/27/122 228&tid=109&tid=185&tid=218
Despite this, companies like salesforce.com are successful. But most of thier clients are not integrated - only 20% of their transactiong go through an API. Also, there aren't plug and play standards on interfacing their service with major ERPs like SAP. But standards for 'entangling' services may conceivably arise later - let us see.
"...and new enterprises will start up by focusing their energy on differentiating their value in the marketplace rather than creating and supporting all of the associated accoutrements." Marketlingo. Sometimes differentiation *is* that your IT, or your logistics, or your supply system, are all inhouse and very responsive, as compared to your competitors.
Slashdot Mirror
It's 'Cosmic', not 'Kosmic'. COBE, not 'KOBE'
...
Regarding your love of 'academia':
Now we see it:
> Name one famous result (in the academia,
> not in National Geographic)
Now we don't:
> clearer and wider perspective thanstudents from
> places like TIFR, which is very isolated from anything
> other than mainstream academia
Don't play both sides of the court at the same time.
> > Studying at an engineering-focussed IIT,
> > instead of, say TIFR or IISc, may have
> > helped develop 'snobbish theoretician syndrome':
> > familiarity breed contempt.
> top students in the country (statistically)
> graduate from my Alma Mater and her sisters
Sure, if you want to ride the coattails of all departments in all IITs. In your area - physics - TIFR and IISc are more successful than IIT Kanpur, based on the list of Indian Physics Assoc. awardees.
In any case, the reason money flows the way it does is more benefit to this world comes from applied science, not by endlessly funding theoretical paper-pushers like yourself. Don't misunderstand -- both have their place -- but you aren't 'better' in any meaningful way.
> Name one famous result (in the academia
Your request for a 'famous result' is laugable - the primary aim for NASA isn't funding research that is sufficiently theoritical to meet your tastes. Here is a concrete result from NASA materials science:
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news93.html
Famous enough for you? It's useful too
You will have to stop your web 1.0, save to hard-disk, then apply the 1.0 -> 2.0 patch.
:)
However, given the high system requirements, there may be an easier way: just bring the internet archive as up-to-date as possible, then quickly: apply the patch, delete web 1.0 and restore from backup.
One is all it takes to break your analogy.
Clarke is a sci-fi author.
Your claim that the most successful space organization so far is populated by idiots, is an impossible one.
Studying at an engineering-focussed IIT, instead of, say TIFR or IISc, may have helped develop 'snobbish theoretician syndrome': familiarity breed contempt.
> belongs strictly in Arthur C Clarke books,
Like geostationary satellites.
You're wrong, NASA isn't a cabal of idiots. This dispute smells of a engineer v/s theoretician catfight.
Hmm... a scenario:
Google starts providing OpenOffice as a client-side components within Firefox, perhaps downloaded as XPCOM components, perhaps using the GoogleToolbar as the entry point. The browser now provides straightforward access to both thin and thick client functionality.
The gmail, google maps, etc interfaces are melded in too, providing a uniform interface to a free persistent 'office environment' that people can access through any browser, anywhere, with temporary working files stored locally for performance and content network-backed to Google's servers...
This could explain Microsoft's recent launch of Windows Live as - perhaps - a preemptive defensive maneuvour.
not true actually...
Since I didn't directly address this earlier...
> who kills at least 20% and maybe 50% of all
> human life before the first month of gestation
If you wanna blame God like this, why shoot for just 50% - why not "a God kills almost 100% in 80 years"?
Emotional but pointless to a discussion on the wilful destruction of individual human lives.
> cause it's got sexier models in bathing suits washing the computer with a bucket of soapy water and a squeegee.
:-)
that cracked me up - thanks!
> eat nothing but stake
:-)
eat that dracula!
> can we also discontinue the statement that people "boot down" every night.e s.htmlt /106/4/375
...I think that once the brain has had enough time ... dropping that fetus becomes a very tricky matter.
No. The brain has effectively shutdown:
http://www.wisconline.com/feature/deep_sleep_imag
Vaguely alluding to electric field frequency (ie. EEG frequency) is useless. Embryonic tissues has eletric fields:
http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstrac
> Kindly contrast this with a collection of cells that has no functional organ
Yes, lets - both are collections of cells _completely encapsulate_ a _unique _human _individual life_. So you think one is undeserving of life - why - on the basis of strength and power? You would be at home in Nazi Germany.
> I think the more proper analogy is to make a comparison to someone
> who is in a persistent vegetative state, but even then, someone in
> a PVS still has more function than 'none'.
Yes, sure. See above.
>
>
Spare me your attempt at feigned righteousness. Do you support doing anything except wringing your hands for abortions after your "tricky" deadline? Are they murder?
> comparing a zygote to an out-of-the-womb human being is an irrational argument
Why? Just because one is bigger and stronger than the other?
> (further compounded when there are those that support protecting
> that zygote by law are more than willing to let the out-of-the-womb
> individual die by law; but,
> that's not really a part of this thread of discussion).
You said it.
> You are, of course, free to think or feel as you wish...
So are you, and we both are accountable for our thoughts and actions. You base yours on speculation and ineffectual compromise.
> proof by induction gone hilariously wrong ... ...
> concluded as follows:
> all of the other cows must also be brown.
Looks like your position is that my proof is wrong, and you don't know why, yet you're sure, based on a joke you don't quite remember.
You're quite a cartoon.
Perhaps. But you don't know for sure. And the crude analogy with computers is plain foolish - each night, our brains boot down, and then boot back up. So is it fair to kill someone in deep sleep. Or should we declare certain human lives more valuable baed on their stored content (and let child murderers off more easily).
Each human life is worth the same. Don't support denying it the same respect and protection you were extended.
No. I had nothing to do with your machine. :)
Here's a better article:
:-P
http://www.bollywhat.com/darkside.html
(As we Indians say: "Google zindabad" long live google)
No need to apologize - your bit of speculation is spot on. I'm Indian and the Indian film industry used to be awash in underworld money - it's gotten a bit better in recent years, but still is quite significant:
= 13294051
http://sify.com/movies/bollywood/fullstory.php?id
Of the 143 Hindi films (excluding dubbed ones) released in 2000, barely 5 or 7 were funded by the underworld. Of the 150 films of 2001 or 140 of 2002, not more than 8 or 10 in each of the two years could have been made with funds from questionable sources. How can 4 or 5 per cent be taken as representing the entire production sector?
No, because we've been granted permission by God to eat animals. Humans are special as they are made in God's image.
Even the permission to eat meat is temporary and seems to have been given for dietary reasons and sin and death had entered the world. According to the Bible, the world before the 'fall' (before sin and death) was vegetarian. The world after the apocalypse will be vegetarian.
So you know when the embryo's brain boots, do you? And even if you do, do you realize that each night, when you go into non-REM deep sleep, you're probably in a similar vegetative state. Is it fair if someone aborts you, when you're like that?
The early Christian church held that ensoulement occurs at the moment of conception. For instance, the early Church father, Tertullian (160 - 220 CE), wrote: "Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (Apology 27).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment
a sperm cell is just a cell, one of millions that comprise you.
However, many years ago, those millions of cells of yours started off from one cell, distinct from your mothers and father's cells. It was your first cell - the one from which all your current cells divided from.
If a newborn baby is an individual human, so was it moments before delivery, all the way back to conception, where normal two cells from the father and mother formed a new individual human life.
> If life begins before the mother is pregnant, what does that mean?
It means you let a logical fallacy obscure your common sense.
The obvious fact is this: yes, a fertilized egg _is_ life - an individual human life at that.
This life began before the mother was termed pregnant by the modern Western medical definition.
> If life begins at conception, does this begin again or do twins share souls?
The Bible refers to soul as mind, will, emotions - If I am guessing correctly, you really meant not this definition, but an extra-corporeal spirit: i.e. "do twins share spirits?"
Two spirits could inhabit one cell. If you think that is far-fetched, consider Siamese twins who share organs - they obviously have two souls, two spirits. If separated, one may die when the other continues to live.
"...the billing and accounting systems, the transport or supply systems, the IT function - and the list goes on. Such commodities will be expertly and automatically leveraged by super-deep, business-to-business automation,"
:). Traditionally, thse internal business functions did not need interfaces with other services or entities (like POs do for buying/selling). In fact ERPs were successful partly due to tight intergration of all modules. So it may be easier to outsource the entire ERP . Eg: Microsoft To Enter Hosting Business2 228&tid=109&tid=185&tid=218
He means "business service delivery via B2B integration"
Companies generally only support B2B E-commerce - buying and selling items and services online. He talking of _delivering_ business services using B2B standards that make tight integration easier.
So, where earlier you had SAP CRM, now you have salesforce.com integration; where you had an ERP accounting module, now, say, accountsforce.com.
Ecommerce is not too difficult - buying and selling are established everyday practises and automating them is a matter of converting paper based documents (RFQ, PO, POA, INV, etc.) to electronic ones.
But services like HR, AP/AR etc are not as easily outsourced -- they are entangled everywhere in a business (Aspect Oriented Programmers would call them crosscutting concerns
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/27/12
Despite this, companies like salesforce.com are successful. But most of thier clients are not integrated - only 20% of their transactiong go through an API. Also, there aren't plug and play standards on interfacing their service with major ERPs like SAP. But standards for 'entangling' services may conceivably arise later - let us see.
"...and new enterprises will start up by focusing their energy on differentiating their value in the marketplace rather than creating and supporting all of the associated accoutrements."
Marketlingo. Sometimes differentiation *is* that your IT, or your logistics, or your supply system, are all inhouse and very responsive, as compared to your competitors.
Read up on the law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
OK, you're accountable for yourself.
treat others as you want to be treated.
No, it's the death of 3 lives