To save me some effort, I'll just quote a response I made in another discussion a similar question.
Here's the old discussion, with links to the three papers mentioned below:
Hello -
> They are due to a purely theoretical bottleneck looking backwards up the tree of life.
I understand you consider mEve and YAdam theoretical - but remember, in the absence of an eyewitness to this, this is a *hypothesis* put forward to fit the bottlenecking data (and perhaps, it does fit the data).
But the data fits another hypothesis too: What if the bottlenecking is not theoretical, but real? i.e. There really *was* a single Adam and a single Eve. This hypethesis fits the genetic bottlenecking data too. Also, there is also an "eyewitness" account being claimed here -- God's word in the Bible. How do we examine the trustworthiness of this account?
Consider the implications of the 3 papers from the posting:
Paper #1) Danish and Middle East population could have diverged 4,500 years ago ----> Fits with the Biblical description of human dispersion occuring after the flood (around 4,500 years ago as well).
Paper #2) 20 times faster observed mtDNA Mutation Rate ----> Genetic bottlenecking can be approximately just 150,000/20 = 7,500 years old. Fits Biblical description of "bottlenecking" down to Noah's family 5,000 years ago
Paper #3) 1 male root lineage / 3 sub-lineages / only 1 of these 3 has 7 sub-sub-lineages that populate the world outside of Middle East and Africa. ----> Remarkable fit with Biblical story of Noah, his 3 sons, and the 7 descendants of only one of the 3 sons ("Japeth") populate the rest of world. The other 2 sons and their descendants populate the Middle East and Africa.
You asked: Didn't Noah's sons include his daughters-in-law in the Arc? If he had daughters, did they bring their husbands?
Where did that genetic diversity go?
Noah had three sons. Noah, his wife, and his sons and thier wives, were the only humans beings who entered the ark. The Bible records a male genetic bottleneck 4200 years ago -- i.e. all the males in the ark were descendants of Noah.
The following quote is from a NY times article about an interesting genetic study from a few years ago. It speaks about how the male lineage began to descend, referring quaintly to the Y-chromosome originator of the lineage as 'Adam' (could more correctly be 'Noah'). Note how it talks about three sub-lineages:
Of these sons of Adam, the first three (designated I, II and III) are found almost exclusively in Africa. Son III's lineage migrated to Asia and begat sons IV-X, who spread through the rest of the world...
This is shown clearly by this figure(NY Times subscription may be required).
In other words, the Y-Chromosome ancestor was: - A single male chromosomal ancestor - With three descendant male lineages - The third male lineage had seven sub-lineages - These seven sub-lineages from the third lineage populate all the world except the Middle East and Africa.
The Bible says the same thing: - We are all descended from a single male ancestor - Noah - Noah had three male descendants - One of the three sons, Japeth, had seven sons - The Japeth lineage (his seven sons and their descendants) populated all the world except the Middle East and Africa.
Everyone alive today is descended from one person who lived about 3500 years ago, probably in Asia, a study has found. American researchers created elaborate mathematical models ... The results are published in the journal Nature.
This article supports what the Bible says about all humans descending from Noah in Asia (i.e. Noah's ark settled in Armenia after a global flood about 4200 years ago.)
From the Gentoo site, it seems to have made several tasks easier than before (As I said, I haven't used it). Their page I was reading
The jeering is still offensive and wrong.
Quoting your post in full since it's zero-ranked:
You say "The process of compiling software into a distribution used to be the last "closed" aspect of the Linux movement. Things like Gentoo helped solved that problem."
That is not true. You have always been able to figure out how a package was built. In slackware, install the source package and there is the original tarball Patrick downloaded, a patch file for any changes, and a script that has all the commands he ran to build it. You can modify it and make it your way -- I have done this, to add newer features to MC that were released as patch files after the slackware release, for example.
In an RPM based distribution you against install the source package; you can do everything automatically using rpmbuild, or just install the package and go into/usr/src/REDHAT/ and look at and modify the sources, and there is a.spec file that specifies where the binary will go and compilation options and etc. You can modify those and make your own RPMs to install; I have done this with Postgres and PHP, when the distributed RPMs for a certain redhat release were out of date.
The point of all this jeering at the gentoo guys, is that they are mostly newbies who arrived at gentoo by not learning Redhat or Slackware well enough to do what they immagined they needed to do, and they just desparately installed different distributions until one of them gave them the appropriate feeling of eliteness.
For example, the average gentoo user doesn't know how to make his own ebuild to create a package of his own, or use different features in a source tree, etc. They install things using "emerge" which downloads and builds in one step, not pausing for you to tweak the source tree to install it your way. And you can be fairly certain that they will never learn -- if they need the --with-wiz-bang feature on some package, they will scream to the gentoo maintainers, and when that fails, start installing every CD set on distrowatch until they find the one that does it for them.
These loud mouthed cheerleaders wouldn't recogize this if it would save their life:./configure ; make ; make install
Gentoo-keeps "Open" and "Source" in OpenSource
on
Gentoo Ricer Comparison
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Those who mock Gentoo users like this are fools.
It's a sad fact snobbery afflicts Linux geeks as badly as it does other people groups.
Regarding that foolish article, other Linux newbies (that use distros) could easily have similar questions and flawed assumptions.
The process of compiling software into a distribution used to be the last "closed" aspect of the Linux movement. Things like Gentoo helped solved that problem.
Yesterday I was browsing for the source of some software I was trying to install (this was the "Ogg Vorbis Direct Show Filters" that allow Ogg files to play in Windows Media Player), and I found that the released binary was two point versions ahead of the CVS version. i.e. No source existed for something many people thought was open source. (As it turns out, the copyright owner may not have released the source for that version). If this had happened for Linux software, instead of Windows software, Gentoo users would be the among first to notice and discuss that.
Does anyone know of a VNC option to send a single window across on the VNC client (similar to how remote X sessions work?)
I read about a patch for this sent to a VNC mailing list years ago to do this, but I haven't seen any of the current VNCs do this.
Also, I recall some VNC (TightVNC? UltraVNC) had an option to use a non-open source "Video mirror driver" that sped up screen updates. Anyone know of a similar open-source driver?
> They would need either the private key > or access to the dns to > alter the public key if they > want to send it out as coming from the > zombie's domain.
They would need neither. Why would they? In the 'Domain keys' system, the email is signed by the MTA (eg, sendmail), not the MUA (eg, MS Outlook).
ISP customers go on with business as usual - no need to install any software on their system, no need to generate key-pairs.. it's all done for them by the ISP who transparently adds headers to the email before passing it on.
Just as an aside, even if the ISP's customer _was_ required to install something on his PC, the zombie could most probably control it. But with DK, the zombie needs do nothing different.
the LBT places fringes on each point-like portion of the image. When we combine pictures taken with these fringes at three different angles, the fringes cross and give information about the exact placement of the point of light, distinguishing other points of light close to it. It is the crossings of these fringes that allow us to reconstruct a high resolution image.
So, does this mean that video from 2 cheap webcams pointed at the same subject, can be combined to a single higher quality stream?
The Intel Intel Open Computer Vison library already uses binocular vison to track objects in 3D space. Can it be applied to this application?
People who claim "it doesn't matter" also probably dont think anything wrong with forging the CBS memos (alongwith a dead man's signature!) because "it was forged just like it _really_ was".
> Barnes and Noble has a right to make money without having to compete > with government-subsidized pseudo-businesses.
Sure they do. But I imagine Kinkos and B&N would have access to the same LoC book database, and would be able to print books for purchase too (otherwise it would be unfair to them). This just puts libraries on an even footing - libraries that don't want to sell books to the public could stay that way.
> If you want information or to read a book, go to the library. > If you want to OWN the book, go to a bookstore.
Yup, that's the current model. Lets break down what you said:
Go to a library for this: 1. information about a book 2. to read a book
Go to a bookstore for this: 3. To own a book
One of the key reasons people use libraries is the library database, and the assurance that a book in the library database is probably "in stock" for lending out. Now if this proposal goes ahead, both Kinko's and B&N will suddenly get #1 - the best library database there can be. With #3 becoming more attractive, (book price reduction due to a larger market -- see below), one of the USPs of libraries simply isn't so anymore.
> I'd also say that the concept of really cheap books > because of lack of physical inventory isn't guaranteed. A book typically has a single fixed cost at the start (the authoring). After that, the more copies you sell, the more the profit.
> It certainly hasn't panned out with magazines or academic journals That's because a journal is different from a typical book - each journal issue is like a book that comes out each month with the authoring costs paid each time, but sold to a very limited market.
Since this proposal would broaden the market immensely both books and journals: - size of the print run is no longer an issue - inventory is no longer an issue - royalties keep flowing in for longer durations... the costs for all categories of information - both books and journals - would come down.
> There's also a big copyright issue with the whole concept of scanning in the LoC collection. > With physical library items, only one person may have the item at a time, > so there's no copyright issue. (No copies are being made.) > With a digital version, multiple people can access it at one time.
Many copyright holders _want_ this to happen and are already doing this. For instance, you can go to Amazon's A9.com site and search on Gandhi's wife: http://a9.com/gandhi%20kasturba (be sure to click on the books button on the left - this returns matches within a book)
Now if entire books were scanned into the LoC database, a canny person could type in the name of a book, and then "page 1", "page 2"... and so... to essentially read the book without paying for it.
One way to secure copyright against behavior like this is by restrictions that can be imposed on both the server and the clients that are searching the book (say, the client cannot view more than 30 words surrounding each match). Amazon's restrictions seem to be that they just scan in the table of contents, not the entire book.
> Finally, the upkeep cost for scanned items is huge. Well, that scanning would only be done once, using government funds to scan it into the LoC database. The only thing a library would need would be network access to the LoC database (just like they currently do with some electronic journals and databases.)
The library does not have to be capable of maintaining the client, just of funding the infrastructure. The client may even be a thin client run by an external company. After all, network connectivity would probably be essential to access the Congress book database (for copyright reasons, the entire database would probably run out of a Google-like government contracted facility somewhere.)
About funding being scarce: after initial seed funding by the government, a library should easily be able to fund infrastructure in the same manner the internet funds itself.
That is because giving the local library the ability to sell any of _260 million books_ to anyone who walks in their door, on demand, with effectively zero inventory costs, adds a _HUGE_ improvement to their basic information dissemination activity which is very valuable to the library's customers. The commission on book sales would earn easily recoup the investment on infrastructure. A library could become a sort of a low cost competitor to Barnes and Noble. Barnes and Noble would probably do the same thing as the library, but differentiate themselves by having a better quality printer, and being able to grant 24x7 access to a bn.com server where electronic copy of the book could be accessed by the purchaser. Ah, and the nice coffee shop, where you can read the electronic copy of your book on a nice LCD screen as it is being printed.
Other advantages: - knowledge hidden in books would be suddenly visible and searchable - for most people, reading a book is more natural than reading a screen - when people buy a printed book, they retain first sale property rights
(unlike DRM'd ebook software and music liceses) - the library could become a focal point for paper recycling efforts. For eg: as part of a loyalty program, it could issue credits for old printed books that people turned in.
Disadvantages: - paper consumption - printer consumption
I think the only loser will be online bookstores that have no mortar component, like amazon.com
[This is a good point - I'll quote it in full since it's rated 0 due to AC posting...]
> No, we can't... it not be fair to lots of people whose copyrights haven't yet lapsed.
A major problem with copyright law is that congress makes sure that copyrights never lapse. Everytime anything Disney is about to enter the public domain, Disney and the large companies that control all creative material get together and lobby (bribe) congress to extend the term, ensuring nothing created after about 1930 will ever be in the public domain.
That isn't fair to mankind.
No, Disney's arrangements don't seem fair because they seem to have one law created just for them. I thought about Disney when I first posted -- that's why I said that seizing all copyrighted materials and putting them in the public domain "won't be fair to _lots_" of copyright holders, not "all" copyright holders.
Settling scores with Disney this way does evil to most other copyright holders... two wrongs don't make a right. The Disney problem should be addressed separately, and through laws.
Putting it all online would let people get copies of it for *gasp* FREE.
Can't have that, now can we?
No, we can't... it not be fair to lots of people whose copyrights haven't yet lapsed.
But scanning the materials is _still_ a good idea. It allows for automated OCR that allows searching for text _within_ a book (like A9.com does, and as Google plans to do.) The difference is that all books published in the US could be searched.
It would also make this scenario possible:
I walk into a public library
On a library computer, I enter keywords that search the new "library of congress book text search database".
Based on the results (matching text snippets from _within_ books), I decide to buy two books.
I walk to the librarian and pay the purchase price
She fires up a local print run on the library's new laser book printer
500 automatically laser-printed-punched-and-bound pages later, I have my new two books.
Since this process is handled by people trained to respect copyright (i.e. the librarians), it is a win-win for everyone.
> I'll just say this - the medical community in general > is quite biased against the way research is often presented in this particular area. Your allegations of bias cannot discount the good hard research done on the damaging effects of cannabis.
> they contradict themselves in the sections 4.23 and 4.24. Rather it's wishful thinking on your part. In 4.24 they quote an earlier report about mild withdrawal symptoms, but then say that the evidence makes the conclusion uncertain: This has provided the first real evidence for physical dependence and withdrawal symptoms in animals (QQ 308-310)....
Professor Ashton indicated that she felt cannabis to be potentially addictive, and compared the withdrawal symptoms--tremor, restlessness and insomnia--to those experienced by users of alcohol, sleeping pills or tranquillisers. She had talked to students with quite severe cannabis withdrawal problems (Q 73).
> And the second article still does not say anything conclusive - Did you read the references they provide. For instance, a paper shows harm to babies _after_ they are born, if their mothers smoke marijuana _during_ pregnancy: Cornelius, M. D.; Taylor, P. M.; Geva. D.; and Day, N. L. Prenatal tobacco and marijuana use among adolescents: effects on offspring gestational age, growth, and morphology. Pediatrics, 95: 738-743, 1995.
One big distinction between alcohol and coffee v/s cannabis is while all affect behavior, cannabis alone is a phychedelic drug. It can inflict permanent phychological damage the first time they use it.
I have seen this first hand - a close family member had it the first time, and started hallucinations so fearful, he locked himself in a bathroom and could have harmed himself. Fortunately he didn't, and he never consumed it again. However, not everyone is this lucky -- my pothead friend (the one with the shaking hands) told me about someone whose first trip left him shattered for life... i.e. he mentally unravelled and his life went downstream from there.
I am not defending tobacco, but perhaps that is why Governments ban pot, but don't ban tobacco outright.
Another big distinction between, say wine, and pot, is that while a glass of wine a day is shown to improve health, there are precisely _zero_ beneficial health effects of pot -- instead the damage starts piling up from day 1. The longer you take it, the more the damage. When you know people who've smoked pot for decades like I do, you'll appreciate this point better. There's a reason for the term "pothead".
> FYI, speaking from personal experience, there _is_ no withdrawal symptoms. We're not talking about your (hopefully minimal) use of pot. Many people have been addicted to it. Both the first and second links present evidence for that.
The fact you could quit with little problems makes no difference to the rest of society. To draw an analogy: some Englishmen probably 'enjoyed opiates responsibly' in the 19th century. But it was still wrong for the English to export opium to China - opium addiction devastated China.
> And in the cases where people choked on your own vomit, > they were most likely under the influence of > either alchohol or other chemicals.
No, read the first paper - it was cannabis alone they consumed: Official statistics record two deaths involving cannabis (and no other drug) in 1993, two in 1994 and one in 1995 (HC WA 533, 21 January 1998); but these were due to inhalation of vomit.
There are many many good reasons why pot and other narcotics are illegal in many countries - Indian and the US included. These laws are made for out protection.
Grow up child. Wikipedia isn't the fountain of all knowledge.
No fatal overdose due to cannabis use has ever been recorded in humans. Except for a few who choked on their own vomit... and then there are the psychological and medical problems caused by this drug: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library /studie s/hlords/15105.htm#n14 http://www.nida.nih.gov/Ma rijBroch/parentpg13-14N. html
I know people who've used it for differing amounts of time, and _all_ of them show differing degrees of damage: from general dim-wittedness, to shaking hands. To top all this is the social cost.
> I meant that as a funny comment, but I *am* (originally) from India. > And well, Shimla is a nice place but that helps
And my family _is_ from Shimla. So I say this as a stakeholder: if dope is one of the things attracting you there, stay away!
Don't destroy yourself smoking dope. And if that attracts you to the Shimla/Manali area, don't come.
Yes, it does grows wild in the mountains. But wise people don't ingest it. They only use the leaves as a skin rub when you have a rash -- it acts as a local anaesthetic, and may have other good medical properties when applied like that.
A British pensioner frustrated by the long waiting list for a cataract operation on the National Health Service flew to India for 20 minutes of eye surgery.
The pensioner did run the risk of post-operative complications in a backward (compared to his country) foreign country. However, he probably got very good care -- several Indian private medical facilities are absolutely top-notch. (Sadly, public medical facilities are pathetic -- the majority of Indians would be truly blessed to have the NHS or medicare equivalent in India.) While you don't run the same degree of risk he did, if you go, be careful about food and drink... a 3-star hotel is pretty basic there. Also, Indian accents _may_ be a bit difficult for you to understand and the degree of skill in conversational English varies widely. (Perhaps talk to the instructor on the phone before signing up?) Also the price is a bit expensive for India. A google search shows other cheaper options: http://www.mcsecamp.com/. There's no question about bang for the buck in India though -- you may well find a very skilled instructor and excellent lab facilities. Or you may not. That's the risk - there can be more unknowns than where you come from.
I don't have an MCSE, but wouldn't most employers show interest in the certificate, rather than where you gave the exam or which organization helped prepared you for it? Like the pensioner with cleared-up vison, it's the end-result that's important.
Also, Delhi is a bit of a boorish city. For example, unescorted foreign females in Delhi can get lots of unwelcome male attention. Shimla is much better.
Everyone alive today is descended from one person who lived about 3500 years ago, probably in Asia, a study has found....
The results are published in the journal Nature.
This article supports what the Bible says about all descending from Noah in Asia (the ark settled in Armenia) after a global flood about 4200 years ago. This is similar to the conclusion I pointed to in these three scientific papers
I agree with some things you say: On your side, there are people who say that dinosaurs and people have to have lived together, so any evidence is irrefutable.
Correct. I disagree strongly with such views. Each piece of evidence _must_ stand or fall on its _own_ merits....allow that some ancient Greek guy could dig up a fossil head and then make up a story that he killed the beast himself, just to further his own glory. It is possible. But it is really probable for so many different cultures to _all_ do careful archeological excavations of delicate and (possibly fragmented incomplete) fossils, correlate differnt parts, and then record so _many_ fradulent accounts and render so much accurate artwork? Some of these depict features difficult to assess without modern technology and methods.
Some depict animals that even we came to know about only recently: "No hoaxer could have known of the Iguanodon's existence, much less made a model, for it wasn't until 1978 or 1979 that skeletons of adult Iguanodons were found with nests and babies."
Other indications point to their observations in the flesh: "Cartilage forming the shape of a frill or ears may be stylized or accurate (since there is no way to know from the skeletons we have today)."
"Moreover, the dinosaurs are modeled in very agile, active poses, fitting well with the latest scientific evidence and lending credence to the artists having actually observed these creatures."
I've conceded several points but I won't concede them all, and your religion simply does not allow you to yield any part of the point, because a big part of your religion is the prohibition against compromise.
We are not negotiating a "compromise truth". Yes, we _must_ remain humble about what we do not know (which is quite a lot). But for what we do know, we must be willing to change according to the truth, because this is better for all involved. This applies equally to me, and includes all my religious beliefs too. Is this not fair?
With regards, Sonam
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it.
on
Making Tracks on Mars
·
· Score: 1
> -- What you "know" of God does nothing to invalidate what I believe. > It does. But you wouldn't know that.
"I was going to go on with the retort, but this comment pretty much closes the door, and makes it pointless to continue the dance. Have fun with your faith."
I am sorry: let me take back my "But you wouldn't know that"
I used to share your viewpoint.
You can know God for yourself by deciding to search for him, armed just with the smallest smidgen of faith, and a fair mind.
> "I say it proves that one tribe saw one dinosaur, > even if it truly was a dinosaur,..."
The posting about the thunderbird was ancillary - I decided to try to validate the creationist reports and found the thunderbird picture as described.
> "There are no descriptions of dinosaurs in Egyptian culture. > None in Sumerian culture. None in Inca culture." You put effort into posting your viewpoint - thank you for that. But I have put in effort too -- please do read my posts completely.
It reports evidence of ancient dinosaur depictions from these cultures: France Red Indian Babylonian Sumatran Asia Minor (Turkey) Mesopotamian Egyptian Ethiopian Roman Mayan Australian African... (I gave up counting at this point)
Then "find" the camera... call the police, be sure ot tell them that a minor uysed the bathroom and was probably recorded... get him arrested for child porn.
He should not lie -- such sort of manipulation is exposed in court anyway. But he should complain and press for intent to commit adult privacy violations and child porn charges - after all he is reasonably likely to have had minors over (eg: a roomates mom, dad and little brother dropped in to say hello while driving by?).
Also, regarding what a poster above you said: > 1) As a member of the house, he can legally record anything happening in it.
Nonsense. His house is not an internet sleaze joint. There are probably laws that go something like this: "Reasonable expectation of privacy", etc. If there aren't (HIGHLY unlikely) - your country or state should pass them.
Also, is there a law against taping audio conversations without notification. Personally, I think taping all your _own_ conversations should be allowed, but that's besides the point. But if there is a law like that, use it to sic undisclosed video taping. (eg: 2 people discussing things in the bathroom (use lip reading if no audio.) person alone talking to himself)
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the old discussion, with links to the three papers mentioned below:
Didn't Noah's sons include his daughters-in-law in the Arc? If he had daughters, did they bring their husbands?
Where did that genetic diversity go?
Noah had three sons. Noah, his wife, and his sons and thier wives, were the only humans beings who entered the ark. The Bible records a male genetic bottleneck 4200 years ago -- i.e. all the males in the ark were descendants of Noah.
The following quote is from a NY times article about an interesting genetic study from a few years ago. It speaks about how the male lineage began to descend, referring quaintly to the Y-chromosome originator of the lineage as 'Adam' (could more correctly be 'Noah'). Note how it talks about three sub-lineages:This is shown clearly by this figure(NY Times subscription may be required).
In other words, the Y-Chromosome ancestor was:
- A single male chromosomal ancestor
- With three descendant male lineages
- The third male lineage had seven sub-lineages
- These seven sub-lineages from the third lineage populate all the world except the Middle East and Africa.
The Bible says the same thing:
- We are all descended from a single male ancestor - Noah
- Noah had three male descendants
- One of the three sons, Japeth, had seven sons
- The Japeth lineage (his seven sons and their descendants) populated all the world except the Middle East and Africa.
This article supports what the Bible says about all humans descending from Noah in Asia (i.e. Noah's ark settled in Armenia after a global flood about 4200 years ago.)
Thanks AC - your post was quite informative.
/usr/src/REDHAT/ and look at and modify the sources, and there is a .spec file that specifies where the binary will go and compilation options and etc. You can modify those and make your own RPMs to install; I have done this with Postgres and PHP, when the distributed RPMs for a certain redhat release were out of date.
./configure ; make ; make install
From the Gentoo site, it seems to have made several tasks easier than before (As I said, I haven't used it). Their page I was reading
The jeering is still offensive and wrong.
Quoting your post in full since it's zero-ranked:
You say "The process of compiling software into a distribution used to be the last "closed" aspect of the Linux movement. Things like Gentoo helped solved that problem."
That is not true. You have always been able to figure out how a package was built. In slackware, install the source package and there is the original tarball Patrick downloaded, a patch file for any changes, and a script that has all the commands he ran to build it. You can modify it and make it your way -- I have done this, to add newer features to MC that were released as patch files after the slackware release, for example.
In an RPM based distribution you against install the source package; you can do everything automatically using rpmbuild, or just install the package and go into
The point of all this jeering at the gentoo guys, is that they are mostly newbies who arrived at gentoo by not learning Redhat or Slackware well enough to do what they immagined they needed to do, and they just desparately installed different distributions until one of them gave them the appropriate feeling of eliteness.
For example, the average gentoo user doesn't know how to make his own ebuild to create a package of his own, or use different features in a source tree, etc. They install things using "emerge" which downloads and builds in one step, not pausing for you to tweak the source tree to install it your way. And you can be fairly certain that they will never learn -- if they need the --with-wiz-bang feature on some package, they will scream to the gentoo maintainers, and when that fails, start installing every CD set on distrowatch until they find the one that does it for them.
These loud mouthed cheerleaders wouldn't recogize this if it would save their life:
Those who mock Gentoo users like this are fools.
It's a sad fact snobbery afflicts Linux geeks as badly as it does other people groups.
Regarding that foolish article, other Linux newbies (that use distros) could easily have similar questions and flawed assumptions.
The process of compiling software into a distribution used to be the last "closed" aspect of the Linux movement. Things like Gentoo helped solved that problem.
Yesterday I was browsing for the source of some software I was trying to install (this was the "Ogg Vorbis Direct Show Filters" that allow Ogg files to play in Windows Media Player), and I found that the released binary was two point versions ahead of the CVS version. i.e. No source existed for something many people thought was open source. (As it turns out, the copyright owner may not have released the source for that version). If this had happened for Linux software, instead of Windows software, Gentoo users would be the among first to notice and discuss that.
Go Gentoo!
[I've never used Gentoo.]
The Liberals were a much better alternative to Labour's loony Latham and party.
I hope the Liberals elect Costello PM soon.
Does anyone know of a VNC option to send a single window across on the VNC client (similar to how remote X sessions work?)
I read about a patch for this sent to a VNC mailing list years ago to do this, but I haven't seen any of the current VNCs do this.
Also, I recall some VNC (TightVNC? UltraVNC) had an option to use a non-open source "Video mirror driver" that sped up screen updates. Anyone know of a similar open-source driver?
> They would need either the private key
> or access to the dns to
> alter the public key if they
> want to send it out as coming from the
> zombie's domain.
They would need neither. Why would they? In the 'Domain keys' system, the email is signed by the MTA (eg, sendmail), not the MUA (eg, MS Outlook).
ISP customers go on with business as usual - no need to install any software on their system, no need to generate key-pairs.. it's all done for them by the ISP who transparently adds headers to the email before passing it on.
Just as an aside, even if the ISP's customer _was_ required to install something on his PC, the zombie could most probably control it. But with DK, the zombie needs do nothing different.
From the article:
the LBT places fringes on each point-like portion of the image. When we combine pictures taken with these fringes at three different angles, the fringes cross and give information about the exact placement of the point of light, distinguishing other points of light close to it. It is the crossings of these fringes that allow us to reconstruct a high resolution image.
So, does this mean that video from 2 cheap webcams pointed at the same subject, can be combined to a single higher quality stream?
The Intel Intel Open Computer Vison library already uses binocular vison to track objects in 3D space. Can it be applied to this application?
> He won't be eligible for an Oscar under the documentary category, but I guess he doesn't care.
There are some obvious reasons why F9/11 is ineligible for a best documentary Oscar. For one thing, he faked an article's headline in his "documentary" (among other things)?
People who claim "it doesn't matter" also probably dont think anything wrong with forging the CBS memos (alongwith a dead man's signature!) because "it was forged just like it _really_ was".
Why should we believe liars?
If only it was named JHibernate, this might not have been so JDisappointing.
President Bush declined to answer this question. - Editor
Such a decisive leader!
Correct.
> Barnes and Noble has a right to make money without having to compete
... the costs for all categories of information - both books and journals - would come down.
> with government-subsidized pseudo-businesses.
Sure they do. But I imagine Kinkos and B&N would have access to the same LoC book database, and would be able to print books for purchase too (otherwise it would be unfair to them). This just puts libraries on an even footing - libraries that don't want to sell books to the public could stay that way.
> If you want information or to read a book, go to the library.
> If you want to OWN the book, go to a bookstore.
Yup, that's the current model. Lets break down what you said:
Go to a library for this:
1. information about a book
2. to read a book
Go to a bookstore for this:
3. To own a book
One of the key reasons people use libraries is the library database, and the assurance that a book in the library database is probably "in stock" for lending out. Now if this proposal goes ahead, both Kinko's and B&N will suddenly get #1 - the best library database there can be. With #3 becoming more attractive, (book price reduction due to a larger market -- see below), one of the USPs of libraries simply isn't so anymore.
> I'd also say that the concept of really cheap books
> because of lack of physical inventory isn't guaranteed.
A book typically has a single fixed cost at the start (the authoring). After that, the more copies you sell, the more the profit.
> It certainly hasn't panned out with magazines or academic journals
That's because a journal is different from a typical book - each journal issue is like a book that comes out each month with the authoring costs paid each time, but sold to a very limited market.
Since this proposal would broaden the market immensely both books and journals:
- size of the print run is no longer an issue
- inventory is no longer an issue
- royalties keep flowing in for longer durations
> There's also a big copyright issue with the whole concept of scanning in the LoC collection.
> With physical library items, only one person may have the item at a time,
> so there's no copyright issue. (No copies are being made.)
> With a digital version, multiple people can access it at one time.
Many copyright holders _want_ this to happen and are already doing this.
For instance, you can go to Amazon's A9.com site and search on Gandhi's wife:
http://a9.com/gandhi%20kasturba
(be sure to click on the books button on the left - this returns matches within a book)
Now if entire books were scanned into the LoC database, a canny person could type in the name of a book, and then "page 1", "page 2"... and so... to essentially read the book without paying for it.
One way to secure copyright against behavior like this is by restrictions that can be imposed on both the server and the clients that are searching the book (say, the client cannot view more than 30 words surrounding each match). Amazon's restrictions seem to be that they just scan in the table of contents, not the entire book.
> Finally, the upkeep cost for scanned items is huge.
Well, that scanning would only be done once, using government funds to scan it into the LoC database. The only thing a library would need would be network access to the LoC database (just like they currently do with some electronic journals and databases.)
You right, it can be both in North India where my family is from. :)
I'm a guy.
The library does not have to be capable of maintaining the client, just of funding the infrastructure. The client may even be a thin client run by an external company. After all, network connectivity would probably be essential to access the Congress book database (for copyright reasons, the entire database would probably run out of a Google-like government contracted facility somewhere.)
About funding being scarce: after initial seed funding by the government, a library should easily be able to fund infrastructure in the same manner the internet funds itself.
That is because giving the local library the ability to sell any of _260 million books_ to anyone who walks in their door, on demand, with effectively zero inventory costs, adds a _HUGE_ improvement to their basic information dissemination activity which is very valuable to the library's customers. The commission on book sales would earn easily recoup the investment on infrastructure. A library could become a sort of a low cost competitor to Barnes and Noble. Barnes and Noble would probably do the same thing as the library, but differentiate themselves by having a better quality printer, and being able to grant 24x7 access to a bn.com server where electronic copy of the book could be accessed by the purchaser. Ah, and the nice coffee shop, where you can read the electronic copy of your book on a nice LCD screen as it is being printed.
Other advantages:
- knowledge hidden in books would be suddenly visible and searchable
- for most people, reading a book is more natural than reading a screen
- when people buy a printed book, they retain first sale property rights
(unlike DRM'd ebook software and music liceses)
- the library could become a focal point for paper recycling efforts. For eg: as part of a loyalty program, it could issue credits for old printed books that people turned in.
Disadvantages:
- paper consumption
- printer consumption
I think the only loser will be online bookstores that have no mortar component, like amazon.com
[This is a good point - I'll quote it in full since it's rated 0 due to AC posting...]
> No, we can't... it not be fair to lots of people whose copyrights haven't yet lapsed.
A major problem with copyright law is that congress makes sure that copyrights never lapse. Everytime anything Disney is about to enter the public domain, Disney and the large companies that control all creative material get together and lobby (bribe) congress to extend the term, ensuring nothing created after about 1930 will ever be in the public domain.
That isn't fair to mankind.
No, Disney's arrangements don't seem fair because they seem to have one law created just for them. I thought about Disney when I first posted -- that's why I said that seizing all copyrighted materials and putting them in the public domain "won't be fair to _lots_" of copyright holders, not "all" copyright holders.
Settling scores with Disney this way does evil to most other copyright holders... two wrongs don't make a right. The Disney problem should be addressed separately, and through laws.
Can't have that, now can we?
No, we can't... it not be fair to lots of people whose copyrights haven't yet lapsed.
But scanning the materials is _still_ a good idea. It allows for automated OCR that allows searching for text _within_ a book (like A9.com does, and as Google plans to do.) The difference is that all books published in the US could be searched.
It would also make this scenario possible:
Since this process is handled by people trained to respect copyright (i.e. the librarians), it is a win-win for everyone.
> I'll just say this - the medical community in general
...
> is quite biased against the way research is often presented in this particular area.
Your allegations of bias cannot discount the good hard research done on the damaging effects of cannabis.
> they contradict themselves in the sections 4.23 and 4.24.
Rather it's wishful thinking on your part. In 4.24 they quote an earlier report about mild withdrawal symptoms, but then say that the evidence makes the conclusion uncertain:
This has provided the first real evidence for physical dependence and withdrawal symptoms in animals (QQ 308-310).
Professor Ashton indicated that she felt cannabis to be potentially addictive, and compared the withdrawal symptoms--tremor, restlessness and insomnia--to those experienced by users of alcohol, sleeping pills or tranquillisers. She had talked to students with quite severe cannabis withdrawal problems (Q 73).
> And the second article still does not say anything conclusive -
Did you read the references they provide. For instance, a paper shows harm to babies _after_ they are born, if their mothers smoke marijuana _during_ pregnancy:
Cornelius, M. D.; Taylor, P. M.; Geva. D.; and Day, N. L. Prenatal tobacco and marijuana use among adolescents: effects on offspring gestational age, growth, and morphology. Pediatrics, 95: 738-743, 1995.
One big distinction between alcohol and coffee v/s cannabis is while all affect behavior, cannabis alone is a phychedelic drug. It can inflict permanent phychological damage the first time they use it.
I have seen this first hand - a close family member had it the first time, and started hallucinations so fearful, he locked himself in a bathroom and could have harmed himself. Fortunately he didn't, and he never consumed it again. However, not everyone is this lucky -- my pothead friend (the one with the shaking hands) told me about someone whose first trip left him shattered for life... i.e. he mentally unravelled and his life went downstream from there.
I am not defending tobacco, but perhaps that is why Governments ban pot, but don't ban tobacco outright.
Another big distinction between, say wine, and pot, is that while a glass of wine a day is shown to improve health, there are precisely _zero_ beneficial health effects of pot -- instead the damage starts piling up from day 1. The longer you take it, the more the damage. When you know people who've smoked pot for decades like I do, you'll appreciate this point better. There's a reason for the term "pothead".
> FYI, speaking from personal experience, there _is_ no withdrawal symptoms.
We're not talking about your (hopefully minimal) use of pot. Many people have been addicted to it. Both the first and second links present evidence for that.
The fact you could quit with little problems makes no difference to the rest of society. To draw an analogy: some Englishmen probably 'enjoyed opiates responsibly' in the 19th century. But it was still wrong for the English to export opium to China - opium addiction devastated China.
> And in the cases where people choked on your own vomit,
> they were most likely under the influence of
> either alchohol or other chemicals.
No, read the first paper - it was cannabis alone they consumed:
Official statistics record two deaths involving cannabis (and no other drug) in 1993, two in 1994 and one in 1995 (HC WA 533, 21 January 1998); but these were due to inhalation of vomit.
There are many many good reasons why pot and other narcotics are illegal in many countries - Indian and the US included. These laws are made for out protection.
Grow up child. Wikipedia isn't the fountain of all knowledge.
y /studie s/hlords/15105.htm#n14a rijBroch/parentpg13-14N. html
No fatal overdose due to cannabis use has ever been recorded in humans.
Except for a few who choked on their own vomit... and then there are the psychological and medical problems caused by this drug:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/librar
http://www.nida.nih.gov/M
I know people who've used it for differing amounts of time, and _all_ of them show differing degrees of damage: from general dim-wittedness, to shaking hands. To top all this is the social cost.
> I meant that as a funny comment, but I *am* (originally) from India.
> And well, Shimla is a nice place but that helps
And my family _is_ from Shimla. So I say this as a stakeholder: if dope is one of the things attracting you there, stay away!
For smoking cannabis?
Don't destroy yourself smoking dope. And if that attracts you to the Shimla/Manali area, don't come.
Yes, it does grows wild in the mountains. But wise people don't ingest it. They only use the leaves as a skin rub when you have a rash -- it acts as a local anaesthetic, and may have other good medical properties when applied like that.
Pensioner eyes up India treatment
A British pensioner frustrated by the long waiting list for a cataract operation on the National Health Service flew to India for 20 minutes of eye surgery.
The pensioner did run the risk of post-operative complications in a backward (compared to his country) foreign country. However, he probably got very good care -- several Indian private medical facilities are absolutely top-notch. (Sadly, public medical facilities are pathetic -- the majority of Indians would be truly blessed to have the NHS or medicare equivalent in India.) While you don't run the same degree of risk he did, if you go, be careful about food and drink... a 3-star hotel is pretty basic there. Also, Indian accents _may_ be a bit difficult for you to understand and the degree of skill in conversational English varies widely. (Perhaps talk to the instructor on the phone before signing up?) Also the price is a bit expensive for India. A google search shows other cheaper options: http://www.mcsecamp.com/. There's no question about bang for the buck in India though -- you may well find a very skilled instructor and excellent lab facilities. Or you may not. That's the risk - there can be more unknowns than where you come from.
I don't have an MCSE, but wouldn't most employers show interest in the certificate, rather than where you gave the exam or which organization helped prepared you for it? Like the pensioner with cleared-up vison, it's the end-result that's important.
Also, Delhi is a bit of a boorish city. For example, unescorted foreign females in Delhi can get lots of unwelcome male attention. Shimla is much better.
I just read this Link to Sydney Morning Herald story (free registration required):
Family trees share roots in 1415BC
Everyone alive today is descended from one person who lived about 3500 years ago, probably in Asia, a study has found. ...
The results are published in the journal Nature.
...allow that some ancient Greek guy could dig up a fossil head and then make up a story that he killed the beast himself, just to further his own glory.
This article supports what the Bible says about all descending from Noah in Asia (the ark settled in Armenia) after a global flood about 4200 years ago. This is similar to the conclusion I pointed to in these three scientific papers
I agree with some things you say:
On your side, there are people who say that dinosaurs and people have to have lived together, so any evidence is irrefutable.
Correct. I disagree strongly with such views. Each piece of evidence _must_ stand or fall on its _own_ merits.
It is possible. But it is really probable for so many different cultures to _all_ do careful archeological excavations of delicate and (possibly fragmented incomplete) fossils, correlate differnt parts, and then record so _many_ fradulent accounts and render so much accurate artwork? Some of these depict features difficult to assess without modern technology and methods.
Some depict animals that even we came to know about only recently:
"No hoaxer could have known of the Iguanodon's existence, much less made a model, for it wasn't until 1978 or 1979 that skeletons of adult Iguanodons were found with nests and babies."
Other indications point to their observations in the flesh:
"Cartilage forming the shape of a frill or ears may be stylized or accurate (since there is no way to know from the skeletons we have today)."
"Moreover, the dinosaurs are modeled in very agile, active poses, fitting well with the latest scientific evidence and lending credence to the artists having actually observed these creatures."
I've conceded several points but I won't concede them all, and your religion simply does not allow you to yield any part of the point, because a big part of your religion is the prohibition against compromise.
We are not negotiating a "compromise truth".
Yes, we _must_ remain humble about what we do not know (which is quite a lot). But for what we do know, we must be willing to change according to the truth, because this is better for all involved. This applies equally to me, and includes all my religious beliefs too. Is this not fair?
With regards,
Sonam
> -- What you "know" of God does nothing to invalidate what I believe.
> It does. But you wouldn't know that.
"I was going to go on with the retort, but this comment pretty much closes the door, and makes it pointless to continue the dance. Have fun with your faith."
I am sorry: let me take back my "But you wouldn't know that"
I used to share your viewpoint.
You can know God for yourself by deciding to search for him, armed just with the smallest smidgen of faith, and a fair mind.
With regards,
Sonam
> "You'll have to pardon my irritation, "
n ... (I gave up counting at this point)
OK
> "I say it proves that one tribe saw one dinosaur,
> even if it truly was a dinosaur,..."
The posting about the thunderbird was ancillary - I decided to try to validate the creationist reports and found the thunderbird picture as described.
> "There are no descriptions of dinosaurs in Egyptian culture.
> None in Sumerian culture. None in Inca culture."
You put effort into posting your viewpoint - thank you for that. But I have put in effort too -- please do read my posts completely.
My earlier post linked to this article: ANCIENT DINOSAUR DEPICTIONS ON STONE
It reports evidence of ancient dinosaur depictions from these cultures:
France
Red Indian
Babylonian
Sumatran
Asia Minor (Turkey)
Mesopotamian
Egyptian
Ethiopian
Roma
Mayan
Australian
African
And then there are the accounts in the Bible.
With regards,
Sonam
Then "find" the camera... call the police, be sure ot tell them that a minor uysed the bathroom and was probably recorded... get him arrested for child porn.
He should not lie -- such sort of manipulation is exposed in court anyway. But he should complain and press for intent to commit adult privacy violations and child porn charges - after all he is reasonably likely to have had minors over (eg: a roomates mom, dad and little brother dropped in to say hello while driving by?).
Also, regarding what a poster above you said:
> 1) As a member of the house, he can legally record anything happening in it.
Nonsense. His house is not an internet sleaze joint. There are probably laws that go something like this: "Reasonable expectation of privacy", etc. If there aren't (HIGHLY unlikely) - your country or state should pass them.
Also, is there a law against taping audio conversations without notification. Personally, I think taping all your _own_ conversations should be allowed, but that's besides the point. But if there is a law like that, use it to sic undisclosed video taping. (eg: 2 people discussing things in the bathroom (use lip reading if no audio.) person alone talking to himself)