From what I've read think WiMax uses adaptive antenna technology to increase range and throughput, even in densely populated areas (the antenna actually is several antennae DSP to track a user). But from all I've read about it, there is just no mention of ad-hoc mode. Quite frustrating.
I mean, is it necessary for Wimax subscribers to talk to the access point, or can two Wi-Max equipped notebooks in a desert with no infrastructure talk direct to each other?
I got this link from the blinkx.tv site the responder above linked to:
On page 7:
Indexing
blinkx TV uses advanced indexing technology to watch, listen to, and read a video or audio signal in real time to build a rich index that you can use to quickly locate specific segments within the video content or audio clip. In turn blinkx TV stores the information it extracts in metadata tracks in a video index. blinkx TV automatically generates metadata tracks to save information generated by the media analysis process. The information in all metadata tracks are time stamped and synchronized with the associated digital video file.
i.e. Similar, but automated authoring of metadata stored seperate from the media clips. (Makes sense - allows easy playback by users; also allows them to refine metadata while the media clips themself do not genreally change)
Webcam image sensor have been sensitive to infrared for ages.
Finally, some manufacturers have got the sense to leverage that by removing the infrared filter in front in the lens, and adding some infrared LEDs for illumination.
I've got one, and played around with it to get a similar picture as the guy in the article got with his image intensifier tube.
Thanks for the reply. Jumping between different streams on different servers is not very different from jumping between different streams on one disk (as in DVDs). Also, I recall Microsoft introducting a standard called web-DVD some years ago to increase the interactivity of DVDs and link them to online content.
Today, I can listen to streaming audio from an online radio station with Windows media player. These stations already section their streams into songs. Media player lets me add individual songs from online stations to the "media library". In one playlist, I can have songs from multiple stations in any order. When I play the playlist, Media player fetches remote songs as appropriate. In other words, I can already seek between different online audio streams with Media player. I think Winamp may support similar functionality for video (it playlists support both audio and online TV stations)
Instead of having to prep and modify the media file (which may not be always possible) the table-of-contents/sectioning process can generate a seperate file containing _pointers_ to time offset positions within the media file. This would let a player seek to individual sections within a media file or stream without modifying the file or stream itself.
Wow - thanks for that... it's a good link. They must have a *lot* of CPU horsepower dedicated to voice recognition to do straight audio transcription for so many channels.
I wonder what sort of arrangement Blinkx have with content providers in order for users to view content. I wonder if they also search the closed-captions/teletext as Google Video does. (About a year ago, I also intended doing something similar as a hobby project.)
How is this innovative above a DVD "jump to a scene" menu? (honest question)
I watched the video, but all it seems to be is a system of sectioning audio-visual files into smaller chunks, and a browser that gives access to a "table of contents" that lets the user jump directly to a section.
Is the sectioning/table-of-content-generation process automated? It seems to be manual.
I think software is already available that can partially automate the sectioning of a video. It does this by detecting scene-transitions, and then offering up the "chunks" to the user for approval and labelling. I think such software is used in DVD authoring for generating the "Jump to a Scene" DVD menu.
Good post, and the rest of your points are interesting. However point number #1 isn't correct: "can handle tasks that require processor (cpu or gpu) on a pc, automatically".
The XBox has similar chips to a regular PC: GPU, CPUs, TV output chips... and the instruction set on the chips isn't that different from regular ones too. I think the key is the hypertransport link - which PCs contemporary to the XBox did not have (now, Apple motherboards, and AMD 64 motherboards do). From what I recall, the hypertransport link allowed system RAM to be used as video RAM, (or something like that). That, plus the task-centric tight integration of the XBox made it perform faster at its job than higher specc-ed PCs of the day.
I'd be surprised if the XBox still smokes a top of the line PC today though.
There would be legal and safety issues with modifying your car by ripping out the dash. And while you probably have a workable design in mind, your mention of "popup warnings" brings back scary reminders of Bonzi Buddy.
Instead, "extend" your dashboard display by using a pocket PC or Sharp Zaurus to the side, displaying you what you want. This should be completely legal - people who use GPS maps do the same thing.
Perhaps... perhaps the PDA could even be mounted above a non-essential display guage - say, the RPM meter if you're driving an automatic car. I am not sure if this is legal or not.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I think it's probably better that you don't modify your dash or stick to a voice based interaction system (audible messages spoken out when predefined trigger points are crossed... plus perhaps some voice recognition for your spoken commands... some PDAs do voice recognition)
> No operator overloading! Hyuk! That's one of Gosling's regrets too.
I was at Gosling's Q&A session where he made the many-big-trucks security-flaw remark. He may have made it when answering a couple of questions I asked him (but I don't recall that for sure.) I was disappointed at his answers - I wished the JVM had better multi-language support and think Parrot (the VM for the Perl6 effort) might just hold the future here.
I was surprised at his remarks Gosling mentioned managed C++ (not legacy C++) as insecure. I think until there is a specific vulnerability reported he is just sniping at a rival. Though, I've heard that MS has removed (or made optional) pointer support from the latest managed C++.NET version
Anyway, about operator overloading: Someone else asked Gosling if he had any regrets about not including something in Java from the beginning. Gosling replied he wished he had put in operator overloading, which he said was a big deal for some folks - for instance, the scientific programming community.
I was there at this event and asked James Gosling a couple of questions.
"You spoke earlier about Jython and Ruby -- how Sun does not want to "choose" on the de-facto scripting language for Java. Will Sun follow the lead of.NET - and now Perl6 - in supporting multiple languages that compile and run within the same virtual machine?"
I impression I got about his answer was: No, Sun won't publicly support multiple languages compiling to the JVM like Microsoft does in.NET (though he did not say this explicitly).
He reiterated the JVM did support multiple languages (the examples he gave were Fortran and Lisp) compiling to Java bytecode and running in the JVM. He said that the JVM architecture has constraints due to which languages like C/C++ cannot run in the JVM efficiently or safely. He said Microsoft actually made a big deal about their support for 'Managed C++' in.NET. He poked fun at this - saying due their support for pointers, etc, their Managed C++ implementation had security security holes "big enough to drive several trucks through".
"Follow up question: Will the JVM architecture ever change? The Parrot/Perl6 folks talk about how their new Register-Based VM architecture is inherently superior to stack based VMs. Any comments?" [Java uses a stack based VM ] His answer boiled down to: "The Perl guys are wrong". He mentioned a few other complex points to justify this. An interesting thing he mentioned was that an early development version of the JVM used a register based VM "that no one other than me saw", and that he changed Java over to a stack based VM since the register based one "sucked so badly".
At the end of the event, the hosts (Sun Australia I think) brought out a big cake to celebrate the 10th birthday of Java. Gosling said that the day (Wednesday 2/2/05) was "uncomfortably close to the 10th anniversary of the first release of the JVM". The audience gave three hip-hip-hurrahs.
US$150 for a low-power wireless module + micro isn't bad, but it isn't inexpensive either.
These days, you can get Bluetooth _GPS_ units, with a replacable Li-Polymer battery, for the equivalent of US$120 these days. The things they are short on (as compared to this Zigbee board) is battery life (20 hours full tilt... as compared to years for Zigbee?), an accessible OS, and expansion boards for connecting sensors.
It would be _so_ nice if someone convinced Leadtek or Arkon etc to add TinyOS and sensor expansion capabilities things to their GPS units.:-P
I am doing something very similar in my apartment: an always-on mini-itx media server that (among other things) records free-to-air TV with teletext and provides me an interface to the teletext. While teletext isn't completely accurate, it makes for a huge body of searchable content.
Google instead is displaying up to five still video images from the indexed television programs, as well as snippets from the show's narrative. The search results also will provide a breakdown on when the program aired and when an episode is scheduled to be repeated. Local programming information will be available for those who provide a ZIP code.
I think Google is aiming to stay within fair-use boundaries. (And also avoiding taking on a needless bandwidth burden serving video).
It would be possible for people to use "Google Video Search" to identify interesting TV content outside their local area, then request snippets a P2P manner from users whose computers were in the local area of the broadcast.
What are the fair-use guidelines for recording and sharing of free-to-air TV content, can someone say?
I think you're right and should be modded up. I think obesity likely causes sleep apnea. They certainly they reinforce each other.
When both me and a friend had a discussion, we found that when we were obese, it was harder to breathe -- sometimes even when awake. (Think fleshy guttral "flapping" deep in the throat, around the windpipe, causing slight gasping for breath). This likely causes breathing problems when sleeping. Losing weight and getting fitter helps.
Re:Generate UML from code _runs_ and vice-versa?
on
How Do You Use UML?
·
· Score: 1
I don't think annotating the source would be needed. Do see my reply to the other poster : LINK.
Re:Generate UML from code _runs_ and vice-versa?
on
How Do You Use UML?
·
· Score: 1
Not from machine code. I meant source-code-aware UML generation, which would further use actual runtime data to put together additional models (eg: UML use-case diagrams, UML timing diagrams).
I am skeptical UML can be a universal programming language. I'd expect UML to find the going tough when modelling procedural or non-object oriented stuff - for eg, string parsing, regular expressions.
Generate UML from code _runs_ and vice-versa?
on
How Do You Use UML?
·
· Score: 1
A lot of people here mentioned wanting a product where modifying the UML modifies the application. But what about the other way around?
Does anything out there generate UML (or similar representations) from actual code-paths chosen by the application when it executes?
(How would this be done? Perhaps using a specially instrumented runtime environment/JVM/glibc etc...)
A product with both functionalities would offer design round tripping.
" make an informed decision to, in an exceptional case, violate a written law,"
If you did this to save a life, or something truly _exceptional_, that would be laudable. Instead you broke an agreement (the terms of your license) with one reason given -- you didn't want to be forced to drive under the speed limit.
Look dude, as the other guys said, that is wrong, plain and simple. Fancy words and a better-skilled-than-thou attitude don't make it right.
You were right (and I was wrong) about the 3200 BC "Most recent common ancestor" paper - it does not support creationism. Thanks for your correction.
About the rest...
> You can read reputable to mean a scientist working to > increase knowledge in his field of study and submitting his work > for review by other scientists in the same field of study... > A critique of evolutionary theories of Photo synthesis hardly states that the earth is 6000 years old.
I can't help it if the paper wasn't exciting enough for you.
It was a peer-reviewed paper published by a mainstream science journal paper, where creationist scientists set about disproving evolutionary mechanisms -- i.e. it fit your criteria.
> And I notice that you came up with a grand total of one citation, > your 10,000 creation scientists should have thousands of publications. > Unless, or course, they have no evidence that supports their theories.
You wanted one - you got one. Now you wants hundreds? Changing terms after they're met is your unfortunate hallmark.
Your pride does not admit to being wrong. Wake up man - this is life, not debating club. Admitting mistakes makes one a better person. (Learn from me:=P)
Now - for additional papers that fit your criteria, ask the article's authors - they mentioned two (I quoted one) and said there were more.
> > It's not one paper. There is a general trend here. I mentioned one mtDNA paper, > > but the AIG article mentioned several papers. > Oh, really? With the thousands of real scientific articles published each year, > I'm sure that AIG can cherry pick any sort of trend they want to.
The AIG scientists gave evidence. You did't like that and asserted they were wrong, but with no counter evidence. _How_ are they wrong? Exactly _where_ are they wrong? Without evidence, it is just a request for blind faith... in you!
> After all they already know what the conclusion is. You have _your_ article of faith: "life evolved over millions of years."
> > > which converges to an answer of "The mutation rate of mtDNA is not well known". > > No. It means better experiments with better intruments and more direct observations > > of mtDNA show mutation rates are higher than previously thought.
> And that generalizes from mtDNA to all DNA mutation rates exactly how? > What papers support that conclusion?
"Generalizes to all DNA mutation rates"? It generalizes like this: most DNA is reshuffled on conception and _cannot_ be used to derive lineages by studying mutation rates. mtDNA mutation is studied because mtDNA is inherited solely from the mother and can be used to derive maternal lineages. Please verify this yourself.
> It was also interesting that you left out the part of the abstract > where they specified that they had chosen hypervariable segments > of mtDNA to study. Heh, you're clutching at straws - "hypervariable" regions are well-accepted in this sort of research. See this explanation:
Source: http://www.tbheritage.com/GeneticMarkers/mtdnaintb Bowling.html An advantage of mtDNA testing is that, in sharp contrast to nuclear genes, it can be applied even at many generations' remove to address questions of maternity, provided direct female line descendants of the animals in question are available. The origin of replication or the "D loop," where the DNA polymerase enzyme binds, has been found to mutate more freely than the coding regions which are very highly constrained by natural selection (most mutations in coding regions result in lessened function and thus in selection against defective mitochondria). For this reason it is also known as the "hypervariable region" of the mitochondrial chromosome.
> And in the same search, I found other papers that called for a 10 fold higher > rate of mutation
> provide references to some creationism supporting articles in refereed journals. They publish. The article I pointed to mentioned a few, including this one: "In 1983, the German creationist and microbiologist Siegfried Scherer published a critique of evolutionary theories of the origin of photosynthesis entitled 'Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport', Journal of Theoretical Biology 104: 289-299, 1983" This in spite of there being a bias against creationist scientists (viz. "Hmm... this lends credence to the stuff they're pushing in schools").
In addition to such publications, at least one scientific creationist journal exists: "Creation" - run the Answersingenesis.org chaps. There may be others.
> > The arithmetic works out. > And there's a definite, non-zero probability... Just say what you meant: "its just a coincidence". (which it isn't - see below) Why the empty posturing?
> You need to go find out something about the variablity of conservation rates of genetic > material, not pick the first number that appears to support your viewpoint. It's not one paper. There is a general trend here. I mentioned one mtDNA paper, but the AIG article mentioned several papers.
> which converges to an answer of "The mutation rate of mtDNA is not well known". No. It means better experiments with better intruments and more direct observations of mtDNA show mutation rates are higher than previously thought.
By your logic, if someone asked what the speed of light was, the correct answer would be "it is not well known" because measurements from the 18th century differed from the latest ones.
Re: your claim: > You're the one making the positive claim, you prove that the article supports a single ancestor, > instead of what the title says "Family trees share roots in 1415BC". "share roots" isn't the same > as "has a single root". No. I am not the one making the "postive claim" - it is the article. It's first line reads: Everyone alive today is descended from one person who lived about 3500 years ago, probably in Asia, a study has found.
As you yourself said earlier: The Family tree article doesn't say that there was only one family tree at 1415BC. It says that on average, all family trees intersect at that point, which is vastly different from what you said. Do you understand the importance of this? It's _everyone_ - Sri Lankans, Australian aborigines, North American tribes, the Maya people --- _everyone_ has a common genetic ancestor dating to that time, and not earlier as earlier assumed. Migrations over land bridges to America, to Australia, all took places 5000 years ago... a HUGE compression to the timelines assumed earlier. Do you understand?
And this is what scientists who believe the Biblical account have been saying for YEARS before the recent studies: after the deluge, there was an ice age when sealevels were lower.
> And this is evidence for a global flood exactly how? > It is evidence that "stuff" happened between 4500 and > 5000 years ago. "Stuff" has been happening for over 14 billion years. What's wrong with you? Do you have to be spoon fed everything? What this study says is that the blond Dane and the darker Turk of today both descend from a unified group of people that lived 4500 years ago in the Mediterranean. And that is just what the Bible says. The 4000 years period is a terrific compression of the timeline. BTW, that paper was published in 1998 and my Slashdot post is almost 2 years old. It is a different study from the one a few months ago which says the same thing for the entire human race.
Also, you don't seem to have considered the astounding "1-3-7" lineage correlation with the Bible and the study reported by the NY Times article (my earliest post).
Slashdot Mirror
Hi, thanks for the reply, but there will be WiMax notebooks. A Google search on Wimax laptop brings up an article saying:
Intel plans to release WiMax laptop chipsets by 2006.
From what I've read think WiMax uses adaptive antenna technology to increase range and throughput, even in densely populated areas (the antenna actually is several antennae DSP to track a user). But from all I've read about it, there is just no mention of ad-hoc mode. Quite frustrating.
Can Wi-Max do adhoc networking?
I mean, is it necessary for Wimax subscribers to talk to the access point, or can two Wi-Max equipped notebooks in a desert with no infrastructure talk direct to each other?
Very nice. Just $10 more. You could even use it with a cheap handheld LCD TV I guess, provided it had a composite input. :)
On page 7:i.e. Similar, but automated authoring of metadata stored seperate from the media clips.
(Makes sense - allows easy playback by users; also allows them to refine metadata while the media clips themself do not genreally change)
Best wishes.
$20 example
Webcam image sensor have been sensitive to infrared for ages.
Finally, some manufacturers have got the sense to leverage that by removing the infrared filter in front in the lens, and adding some infrared LEDs for illumination.
I've got one, and played around with it to get a similar picture as the guy in the article got with his image intensifier tube.
Thanks for the reply. Jumping between different streams on different servers is not very different from jumping between different streams on one disk (as in DVDs). Also, I recall Microsoft introducting a standard called web-DVD some years ago to increase the interactivity of DVDs and link them to online content.
Today, I can listen to streaming audio from an online radio station with Windows media player.
These stations already section their streams into songs. Media player lets me add individual songs from online stations to the "media library". In one playlist, I can have songs from multiple stations in any order. When I play the playlist, Media player fetches remote songs as appropriate. In other words, I can already seek between different online audio streams with Media player. I think Winamp may support similar functionality for video (it playlists support both audio and online TV stations)
Instead of having to prep and modify the media file (which may not be always possible) the table-of-contents/sectioning process can generate a seperate file containing _pointers_ to time offset positions within the media file. This would let a player seek to individual sections within a media file or stream without modifying the file or stream itself.
Wow - thanks for that ... it's a good link. They must have a *lot* of CPU horsepower dedicated to voice recognition to do straight audio transcription for so many channels.
I wonder what sort of arrangement Blinkx have with content providers in order for users to view content. I wonder if they also search the closed-captions/teletext as Google Video does. (About a year ago, I also intended doing something similar as a hobby project.)
How is this innovative above a DVD "jump to a scene" menu? (honest question)
I watched the video, but all it seems to be is a system of sectioning audio-visual files into smaller chunks, and a browser that gives access to a "table of contents" that lets the user jump directly to a section.
Is the sectioning/table-of-content-generation process automated? It seems to be manual.
I think software is already available that can partially automate the sectioning of a video. It does this by detecting scene-transitions, and then offering up the "chunks" to the user for approval and labelling. I think such software is used in DVD authoring for generating the "Jump to a Scene" DVD menu.
Good post, and the rest of your points are interesting. However point number #1 isn't correct: "can handle tasks that require processor (cpu or gpu) on a pc, automatically".
The XBox has similar chips to a regular PC: GPU, CPUs, TV output chips... and the instruction set on the chips isn't that different from regular ones too. I think the key is the hypertransport link - which PCs contemporary to the XBox did not have (now, Apple motherboards, and AMD 64 motherboards do). From what I recall, the hypertransport link allowed system RAM to be used as video RAM, (or something like that). That, plus the task-centric tight integration of the XBox made it perform faster at its job than higher specc-ed PCs of the day.
I'd be surprised if the XBox still smokes a top of the line PC today though.
There would be legal and safety issues with modifying your car by ripping out the dash. And while you probably have a workable design in mind, your mention of "popup warnings" brings back scary reminders of Bonzi Buddy.
Instead, "extend" your dashboard display by using a pocket PC or Sharp Zaurus to the side, displaying you what you want. This should be completely legal - people who use GPS maps do the same thing.
Perhaps... perhaps the PDA could even be mounted above a non-essential display guage - say, the RPM meter if you're driving an automatic car. I am not sure if this is legal or not.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I think it's probably better that you don't modify your dash or stick to a voice based interaction system (audible messages spoken out when predefined trigger points are crossed... plus perhaps some voice recognition for your spoken commands... some PDAs do voice recognition)
> No operator overloading!
.NET version
Hyuk! That's one of Gosling's regrets too.
I was at Gosling's Q&A session where he made the many-big-trucks security-flaw remark. He may have made it when answering a couple of questions I asked him (but I don't recall that for sure.) I was disappointed at his answers - I wished the JVM had better multi-language support and think Parrot (the VM for the Perl6 effort) might just hold the future here.
I was surprised at his remarks Gosling mentioned managed C++ (not legacy C++) as insecure. I think until there is a specific vulnerability reported he is just sniping at a rival. Though, I've heard that MS has removed (or made optional) pointer support from the latest managed C++
Anyway, about operator overloading: Someone else asked Gosling if he had any regrets about not including something in Java from the beginning.
Gosling replied he wished he had put in operator overloading, which he said was a big deal for some folks - for instance, the scientific programming community.
> put weight behind Linux? Maybe Apple goes that route instead of using Darwin.
Unlikely (Darwin's the stuff used in OSX right?)
I think one of the reasons Apple chose BSD is because of the license.
Perhaps Linux put Linux out in a BSD-style software license, instead of the GPL, Apple may have chosen Linux instead.
Java is nice. But I don't program much in it. I like Perl. Though Gosling said what he said, Parrot/Perl 6 should be better than Java.
Sad to see people afflicted by perverse fantasies though - hope you both get better soon.
I was there at this event and asked James Gosling a couple of questions.
.NET - and now Perl6 - in supporting multiple languages that compile and run within the same virtual machine?"
.NET (though he did not say this explicitly).
.NET. He poked fun at this - saying due their support for pointers, etc, their Managed C++ implementation had security security holes "big enough to drive several trucks through".
"You spoke earlier about Jython and Ruby -- how Sun does not want to "choose" on the de-facto scripting language for Java.
Will Sun follow the lead of
I impression I got about his answer was: No, Sun won't publicly support multiple languages compiling to the JVM like Microsoft does in
He reiterated the JVM did support multiple languages (the examples he gave were Fortran and Lisp) compiling to Java bytecode and running in the JVM. He said that the JVM architecture has constraints due to which languages like C/C++ cannot run in the JVM efficiently or safely. He said Microsoft actually made a big deal about their support for 'Managed C++' in
"Follow up question: Will the JVM architecture ever change? The Parrot/Perl6 folks talk about how their new Register-Based VM architecture is inherently superior to stack based VMs. Any comments?" [Java uses a stack based VM ]
His answer boiled down to: "The Perl guys are wrong". He mentioned a few other complex points to justify this. An interesting thing he mentioned was that an early development version of the JVM used a register based VM "that no one other than me saw", and that he changed Java over to a stack based VM since the register based one "sucked so badly".
At the end of the event, the hosts (Sun Australia I think) brought out a big cake to celebrate the 10th birthday of Java. Gosling said that the day (Wednesday 2/2/05) was "uncomfortably close to the 10th anniversary of the first release of the JVM". The audience gave three hip-hip-hurrahs.
President Bush has used the military for photo ops, while at the same time cutting their combat pay and benefits.
"_Cutting_ combat pay and benefits" for servicemen, and that in wartime? Put up evidence of this please.
He has yet to attend even a single memorial service for the Americans who gave their lives to fight in his precious little war.
Bush spent time with families of soldiers killed. It's not about _appearances_ - it doing the right thing.
The Oregon Governor may be a swell guy, but that doesn't make Bush-bashing right.
US$150 for a low-power wireless module + micro isn't bad, but it isn't inexpensive either.
:-P
These days, you can get Bluetooth _GPS_ units, with a replacable Li-Polymer battery, for the equivalent of US$120 these days. The things they are short on (as compared to this Zigbee board) is battery life (20 hours full tilt... as compared to years for Zigbee?), an accessible OS, and expansion boards for connecting sensors.
It would be _so_ nice if someone convinced Leadtek or Arkon etc to add TinyOS and sensor expansion capabilities things to their GPS units.
I am doing something very similar in my apartment: an always-on mini-itx media server that (among other things) records free-to-air TV with teletext and provides me an interface to the teletext. While teletext isn't completely accurate, it makes for a huge body of searchable content.
.
Google instead is displaying up to five still video images from the indexed television programs, as well as snippets from the show's narrative. The search results also will provide a breakdown on when the program aired and when an episode is scheduled to be repeated. Local programming information will be available for those who provide a ZIP code.
I think Google is aiming to stay within fair-use boundaries. (And also avoiding taking on a needless bandwidth burden serving video).
It would be possible for people to use "Google Video Search" to identify interesting TV content outside their local area, then request snippets a P2P manner from users whose computers were in the local area of the broadcast.
What are the fair-use guidelines for recording and sharing of free-to-air TV content, can someone say?
TiVO got US FCC permission for:
its customers [to] receive digital broadcasts and share them with up to 10 other TiVo units that share the same customer account.
However, if 10 TiVOs "share a customer account", they belong to the same person (or to his family).
Is sharing, say, a 5 minute clip of a news broadcast between different computers belonging to different people allowed?
I think you're right and should be modded up. I think obesity likely causes sleep apnea. They certainly they reinforce each other.
When both me and a friend had a discussion, we found that when we were obese, it was harder to breathe -- sometimes even when awake. (Think fleshy guttral "flapping" deep in the throat, around the windpipe, causing slight gasping for breath). This likely causes breathing problems when sleeping. Losing weight and getting fitter helps.
I don't think annotating the source would be needed. Do see my reply to the other poster : LINK.
Not from machine code. I meant source-code-aware UML generation, which would further use actual runtime data to put together additional models (eg: UML use-case diagrams, UML timing diagrams).
I am skeptical UML can be a universal programming language. I'd expect UML to find the going tough when modelling procedural or non-object oriented stuff - for eg, string parsing, regular expressions.
A lot of people here mentioned wanting a product where modifying the UML modifies the application. But what about the other way around?
Does anything out there generate UML (or similar representations) from actual code-paths chosen by the application when it executes?
(How would this be done? Perhaps using a specially instrumented runtime environment/JVM/glibc etc...)
A product with both functionalities would offer design round tripping.
" make an informed decision to, in an exceptional case, violate a written law,"
If you did this to save a life, or something truly _exceptional_, that would be laudable. Instead you broke an agreement (the terms of your license) with one reason given -- you didn't want to be forced to drive under the speed limit.
Look dude, as the other guys said, that is wrong, plain and simple. Fancy words and a better-skilled-than-thou attitude don't make it right.
You were right (and I was wrong) about the 3200 BC "Most recent common ancestor" paper - it does not support creationism. Thanks for your correction.
...
:=P)
About the rest...
> You can read reputable to mean a scientist working to
> increase knowledge in his field of study and submitting his work
> for review by other scientists in the same field of study
> A critique of evolutionary theories of Photo synthesis hardly states that the earth is 6000 years old.
I can't help it if the paper wasn't exciting enough for you.
It was a peer-reviewed paper published by a mainstream science journal paper, where creationist scientists set about disproving evolutionary mechanisms -- i.e. it fit your criteria.
> And I notice that you came up with a grand total of one citation,
> your 10,000 creation scientists should have thousands of publications.
> Unless, or course, they have no evidence that supports their theories.
You wanted one - you got one. Now you wants hundreds? Changing terms after they're met is your unfortunate hallmark.
Your pride does not admit to being wrong. Wake up man - this is life, not debating club. Admitting mistakes makes one a better person.
(Learn from me
Now - for additional papers that fit your criteria, ask the article's authors - they mentioned two (I quoted one) and said there were more.
> > It's not one paper. There is a general trend here. I mentioned one mtDNA paper,
> > but the AIG article mentioned several papers.
> Oh, really? With the thousands of real scientific articles published each year,
> I'm sure that AIG can cherry pick any sort of trend they want to.
The AIG scientists gave evidence. You did't like that and asserted they were wrong, but with no counter evidence. _How_ are they wrong? Exactly _where_ are they wrong? Without evidence, it is just a request for blind faith... in you!
> After all they already know what the conclusion is.
You have _your_ article of faith: "life evolved over millions of years."
> > > which converges to an answer of "The mutation rate of mtDNA is not well known".
> > No. It means better experiments with better intruments and more direct observations
> > of mtDNA show mutation rates are higher than previously thought.
> And that generalizes from mtDNA to all DNA mutation rates exactly how?
> What papers support that conclusion?
"Generalizes to all DNA mutation rates"? It generalizes like this: most DNA is reshuffled on conception and _cannot_ be used to derive lineages by studying mutation rates. mtDNA mutation is studied because mtDNA is inherited solely from the mother and can be used to derive maternal lineages. Please verify this yourself.
> It was also interesting that you left out the part of the abstract
> where they specified that they had chosen hypervariable segments
> of mtDNA to study.
Heh, you're clutching at straws - "hypervariable" regions are well-accepted in this sort of research. See this explanation:
Source: http://www.tbheritage.com/GeneticMarkers/mtdnaintb Bowling.html
An advantage of mtDNA testing is that, in sharp contrast to nuclear genes, it can be applied even at many generations' remove to address questions of maternity, provided direct female line descendants of the animals in question are available. The origin of replication or the "D loop," where the DNA polymerase enzyme binds, has been found to mutate more freely than the coding regions which are very highly constrained by natural selection (most mutations in coding regions result in lessened function and thus in selection against defective mitochondria). For this reason it is also known as the "hypervariable region" of the mitochondrial chromosome.
> And in the same search, I found other papers that called for a 10 fold higher
> rate of mutation
Your newest qualifier :) ...
...
> provide references to some creationism supporting articles in refereed journals.
They publish. The article I pointed to mentioned a few, including this one:
"In 1983, the German creationist and microbiologist Siegfried Scherer published a critique of evolutionary theories of the origin of photosynthesis entitled 'Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport', Journal of Theoretical Biology 104: 289-299, 1983"
This in spite of there being a bias against creationist scientists (viz. "Hmm... this lends credence to the stuff they're pushing in schools").
In addition to such publications, at least one scientific creationist journal exists: "Creation" - run the Answersingenesis.org chaps. There may be others.
> > The arithmetic works out.
> And there's a definite, non-zero probability
Just say what you meant: "its just a coincidence". (which it isn't - see below)
Why the empty posturing?
> You need to go find out something about the variablity of conservation rates of genetic
> material, not pick the first number that appears to support your viewpoint.
It's not one paper. There is a general trend here. I mentioned one mtDNA paper, but the AIG article mentioned several papers.
> which converges to an answer of "The mutation rate of mtDNA is not well known".
No. It means better experiments with better intruments and more direct observations of mtDNA show mutation rates are higher than previously thought.
By your logic, if someone asked what the speed of light was, the correct answer would be "it is not well known" because measurements from the 18th century differed from the latest ones.
Re: your claim:
> You're the one making the positive claim, you prove that the article supports a single ancestor,
> instead of what the title says "Family trees share roots in 1415BC". "share roots" isn't the same
> as "has a single root".
No. I am not the one making the "postive claim" - it is the article. It's first line reads:
Everyone alive today is descended from one person who lived about 3500 years ago, probably in Asia, a study has found.
As you yourself said earlier:
The Family tree article doesn't say that there was only one family tree at 1415BC. It says that on average, all family trees intersect at that point, which is vastly different from what you said.
Do you understand the importance of this? It's _everyone_ - Sri Lankans, Australian aborigines, North American tribes, the Maya people --- _everyone_ has a common genetic ancestor dating to that time, and not earlier as earlier assumed. Migrations over land bridges to America, to Australia, all took places 5000 years ago... a HUGE compression to the timelines assumed earlier. Do you understand?
And this is what scientists who believe the Biblical account have been saying for YEARS before the recent studies: after the deluge, there was an ice age when sealevels were lower.
> And this is evidence for a global flood exactly how?
> It is evidence that "stuff" happened between 4500 and
> 5000 years ago. "Stuff" has been happening for over 14 billion years.
What's wrong with you? Do you have to be spoon fed everything? What this study says is that the blond Dane and the darker Turk of today both descend from a unified group of people that lived 4500 years ago in the Mediterranean. And that is just what the Bible says. The 4000 years period is a terrific compression of the timeline. BTW, that paper was published in 1998 and my Slashdot post is almost 2 years old.
It is a different study from the one a few months ago which says the same thing for the entire human race.
Also, you don't seem to have considered the astounding "1-3-7" lineage correlation with the Bible and the study reported by the NY Times article (my earliest post).
Re: problems wi