Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it.
on
Making Tracks on Mars
·
· Score: 1
Further to my post, about the intersection of humans and dinosaurs...
As this site says: the standard long-age scenario of our evolution-riddled culture says that such encounters between pterosaurs and man have never happened, because all flying reptiles, along with the dinosaurs, allegedly became extinct some 65 million years before man came on the scene.
But what we know is: The Sioux Indians have long told the story of the huge "thunderbird". They gave it this nickname because this flying reptile was hit by lightning and fell from the sky during a thunderstorm.
They searched for this creature and when they found it they described it as having wings almost 20 foot across. It had a long sharp bill and a large bony knob-like protrusion on the back of its head.
There are no birds that fit this description. The similarity between the "thunderbird" and the pteranodon is striking. Flying dinosaurs like the pteranodon have been found fossilized with a wingspan of 23 feet!
Pteranodon also have a large bony crest jotting off of the backs of their heads. Just as the Indians described.... The Indians have made many paintings and carvings of this dinosaur with accuracy that can only come from seeing the creature first hand.
Here are two clickthrough EULAs I know of that restrict first sale rights. These are restrictions apply even if you resold it as a single unit: all CDs, documentation, license paperwork... everything got when you first bought the goods.
-- MS Visual C++.NET Professional -- MS Visual C++.NET Professional Can sell once. The person who buys must agree never to resell it again.
-- DOOM 3 Can never sell to anyone.
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it.
on
Making Tracks on Mars
·
· Score: 1
-- I must ask you one thing. If all the trees on Earth were destroyed by a deluge, where'd the new trees come from?
from seeds carried in the waters.
-- Most importantly, though, why do you say that there's nothing stopping them from living longer?
Because the 2 oldest were still living in the 20th century.
-- Again I present, you've given no reasonable argument that the age of the Earth can be determined by the age of trees in any case.
No, but I have an explanation why the trees observed are no older. You don't have any explanation.
> Please back that up with suitable observations of an evolutionary process adding information to the genome. -- This is my just cause for being angry, by the way. It's a broken argument, and you present it broken on purpose.
Still no just cause. My "Please back that up..." statement was made the post after.
-- The failure is this. I can't present the mechanism for how it works.
OK...
-- You can't present any evidence that it's not possible.
There is no process observed that counters the law of entropy sufficiently to account for the complexity of life.
-- However, because I can't prove it does work, you take that as proof that it doesn't work, and that's broken.
No, also see point just above.
-- To counter, I can simply present gravity. It's easy to see that gravity works. Two massive bodies attract each other in very predictable ways.
Good, so there are observations scientists have made to validate the law of gravity.
-- Ready for the twist? Nobody on Earth can tell you why.
I didn't ask why.
-- The fact that nobody understands why gravity works does not mean that it doesn't.
Yes, but we can observe gravity in action and hence validate it.
Can we observe evolution in action? No. Note, we can see natural selection in action. Not evolution.
-- but don't present it as evidence that evolutionary theory is wrong.
I trust my God, and you don't. Fair enough.
-- To counter that argument, I need only ask for your proof that "Allah said so" or "the spirits of my forefathers said so" is somehow less valid than your argument.
If you check their history and their predictions and you will see them as less valid.
> It is important since men didn't have geography atlases handy back then. -- What you're saying is that guesses that turned out right (round earth) are more scientifically important than guesses that turned out wrong (geocentrism). Why is that? I posit that if the Bible was divinely inspired there should be no "wrong guesses" in it. Yes there should be no wrong guesses in it. Also see geocentrisms link in my last post.
> First let me clear this fallacy up: >> Besides, they're not all that close, unless 20 percent different is "close enough". > You're wrong. They are. Google it. -- Sorry, I was operating under the assumption that the apparent visual size to someone on Earth without viewing instruments was our measure.
Yes, it is. The discs precisely cover each other in a total solar eclipse.
> Well, I did say it's a minor point but you do realize that the odds of having both the same size are _pretty_ unlikely, right?The sameness in their relative size makes for a wonderful show during total eclipses.
-- You're joking me now. The odds that the Moon and a U.S. quarter held at arm's length would be the same are also rather unlikely, but you've got a long reach to convince me that the fact that the Sun and Moon fit over one another during eclipses has any relevance to discussions about God.
Bad strawman. But lets leave that for now.
> The Bible says God made the moon for signs, for a light, and a clock (the basis of the lunar calendar used by the ancients).
-- And the relative size of the Sun to the Moon affects that function in what way? Like I said, if every coincidence this tenous is taken as proof
...people are so easilly fooled by all of this Iraq WMD talk. VX is known to be possessed by just about any two-bit country on the planet, including places like Serbia. Anthrax is produced from cow dung. A few nutcases were able to make it in a bathtub in England. Etc. Etc. If Saddam was truly bent on using this (rather awkward and unreliable weapon), he would have done so looong ago. Actually he did in 1980s on the Kurds...
So if Saddam was in breach of the agreements, it wasn't really that bad, yes? Especially since the genetic super Shazam! bioweapon of the future would always be unavailable to him, correct?
You gave yourself an appropriate screen name.
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it.
on
Making Tracks on Mars
·
· Score: 1
> > Do the AnswersInGenesis people know that you're trying to defend their point of view? Indeed, how dare I? In fact, let me show you a worse outrage!: where I quote 3 peer-reviewed secular journals..
> >But we're no closer to robots with synthetic intelligence > >than we were in the glory days of AI research. (i.e. we're > >not close at all). > > And you know this exactly how? I studied AI while working toward an MS in Computer science a few years ago.
> There is no evidence these projects that you say are > "going on now to create life at a molecular level" are > likely to succeed.... > Isn't acting clairvoyant a violation of Christian ethics? Correct: if the "medium" (to put it crudely) is not God's spirit.
> > How you propose to know what technological or innovative > > breakthroughs will or won't occur in AI is beyond my understanding. Advances in "AI" (a badly named field) are very interesting to me - I hope to see them continue to occur for some time. I said synthetic intelligence (as in "pass the Turing test" intelligence) is unlikely. That belief is based on the current state of AI research and my understanding of the Bible.
>...no trees have been found with more than 5800 rings because no > tree has ever lived that long. I agree. Now why haven't they lived that long? Nothing is stopping them living further - no global ice age, no built in logic bomb -- if (my_age == 5000) {wither(); die();}, no corporations pillaging timber...
> I'd thank you to point me to evidence that a tree with 5800 > rings has even been found, since I couldn't find a single > mention of one even approaching that age ever found live. How about one - a 4844-ring pine cut down (!) just a few decades ago.
> Notwithstanding that, though, this is proof of nothing but your > willingness to go very far out on a limb to try to support your point.
Its sad to see you angry without just cause.:( Here are my reasons for the apparently arbitrary 5800 ring count: the Bible says that the existing world was destroyed in a deluge that occured about 5000 years ago. Now most trees add one tree ring a year. In extremely rare cases, trees have been known to grow more than a single ring a year. Hence, I chose the 5800 ring count (to sufficiently account for ring aberrations). Now, I probably should not have stated 5800 -- 5100-5200 rings should be sufficient.:)
And here is is a thread where this was discussed... threadbare.
> >You must have considered the apparently unique earth we have: > I'm familiar with this argument, but it's not valid because it's two-sided.... > I argue that humans developed specifically to survive Earth conditions
Please back that up with suitable observations of an evolutionary process adding information to the genome.
And also consider (again)... > >...the mysteries of an apparent Cambrian explosion in the fossil record?
> > Consider how the continents were one supercontinent to begin with > >(as the Bible describes in Genesis) or how the Bible, > >rather off-handedly, describes the earth as a sphere (Book of Job).
> In a book the size and scope of the Bible, you will find plenty > of references to stuff that turns out to be true. It is important since men didn't have geography atlases handy back then.
> However, you must counter mentions in the Bible of stuff > that
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it.
on
Making Tracks on Mars
·
· Score: 1
"You can't have faith that God can plant the seed of a Universe that will grow and develop for billions of years? " Since you're asking about faith... God can do that, but he didn't. The basis of your faith - the Bible - tells more about this.
"Wonderful revelation you have about the Earth being unique. Don't you think every planet is unique in millions of different ways?" Yes.
"Why do you point to Bible support for things we already know from scientific methods such as "Consider how the continents were one supercontinent to begin with (as the Bible describes in Genesis) or how the Bible, rather off-handedly, describes the earth as a sphere (Book of Job)." "What do these facts mean? Nothing." No. Since the Bible was written before any man had a geographic world map handy, these facts do mean a fair bit.
"You just throw them in because you think it gives the Bible credibility as a fact book." Yes.
Well, I already think it has credibility. But it doesn't support creationism. Well, you obviously are fighting logic pretty hard then.
Why did human recorded history start 5000 years ago? Humans had to learn how to write at some point. Is it a coincidence recorded human history starts from about when the Bible says the previous world was destroyed by a near-extinction event (the worldwide deluge)? That other ancient cultures, from the Americas to India, record a similar ancient worldwide deluge?
Why do trees have no more than 5800 yearly rings? Uh, because we keep cutting them down maybe? No. This is a worldwide phenomenon. Also, I believe its not 5800, but fewer than 5500 rings
I used to wonder why some religions don't get along with others. I think I understand why. Because it is dumbasses like yourself that make Christians like myself look like dumbasses. I cannot help you with that friend.
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it.
on
Making Tracks on Mars
·
· Score: 0
..."serious research projects are going on now to create life at a molecular level; to the credit of the researchers in the field, there seems to be a hesitation going on while some of the ethical and moral issues are discussed before proceeding."
People have been discussing Asimov's three laws of robotics for decades. But we're no closer to robots with synthetic intelligence than we were in the glory days of AI research. (i.e. we're not close at all).
There is no evidence these projects that you say are "going on now to create life at a molecular level" are likely to succeed. Of course, I am excluding efforts that (effectively) cut-and-paste complex (and incompletely understood) biological structures ripped from _already_ living cells in order to form new ones -- that's not _creating_ life. Rather, it's similar in principle to, say, hybridizing roses -- something humans have been doing for 1000s of years.
See this for reasons why the 1950s Miller experiment was not an accurate replica of supposed primordial conditions: Oxygen, deliberately removed from Miller's apparatus, destroys amino acids.Oxygen, deliberately removed from Miller's apparatus, destroys amino acids. But geological evidence indicates oxygen was always present on earth.1--7. Your chain of logic has multiple missing links.
You agree that the universe is wonderful - good. You must have considered the apparently unique earth we have: it's wonderfully balanced Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen cycles, the temperature and the position of earth w.r.t. to the sun, the qualities of water, and the wonder that is the water cycle, the wonderful balance of plant and animal life, the mysteries of an apparent Cambrian explosion in the fossil record? Good. Consider how the continents were one supercontinent to begin with (as the Bible describes in Genesis) or how the Bible, rather off-handedly, describes the earth as a sphere (Book of Job). And then there are the smaller details: look up and consider how the sun, and the the moon have the same relative size, how all humanly-recorded history begins 5000 years ago, how despite searching, no tree has more than 5800 yearly tree rings (and there is no reason they can't - these old trees were cut down, still living, in this century).
Finally consider how many millions of humans _know_ (and can testify) to a supernatural and loving God, who communicates with them: A God who does not love differently based on their position... or their intellect.
The primary purpose of news organizations is to report facts (i.e. "news", as opposed to "views"). Some news organizations also editorialize their views, their interpretation of these facts, but that generally takes a back seat to plain old reporting. With multiple competing news organizations, with the increased free flow of information, and with the increased ease of publishing information, the free press does a pretty decent job at reporting news truthfully.
You wrote: > Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but there is no unbiased news anymore. What you have said is not truthful news. It is simply an off-balance, biased, view.
The very article you mentioned gives out facts that paints a fuller, more complex picture: The CEO of CBS's parent company endorses President Bush. ... Mr. Redstone's unexpected declaration came at a time when an unwelcome spotlight is directed at him and his board because of the CBS airing of what everyone now believes was a fake memo alleging that Mr. Bush shirked his duties three decades ago in the Texas Air National Guard.... the Federal Election Commission, said that since 1998 Mr. Redstone had given $50,000 to the Democratic Party. He's also donated the maximum $2,000 to the Kerry campaign, after supporting Al Gore in 2000.
Did you mean using the camera's focal length as a rangefinder -- i.e. determine the distance of the subject from the camera? That's a good idea!
Summarizing: 1. A 2 axis accelerometer (mounted on camera, to get orientation of body) 2. An electronic compass (mounted on camera, to get absolute heading - GPS isn't good for this when walking) 3. GPS coordinates (to get Lat., Long., altitude, time) 4. Camera focus and zoom information (rangefinder)
Data from these 4 things gives enough information for different pictures of one area (taken by different people) to be automatically combined (say, multiple pictures of the Mount Fuji are processed to generate a topographical map).
Since time is also recorded, one could observe a particular subject change over time. A movie clip (or simply an animated GIF) showing the changes speeded up would be highly cool.
As an aside, does anyone have links to similar clip about earth? Satellites started taking pictures of the earth since the 1960s. It would be interesting to see a timestream of things like forest cover change.
> > He knowingly makes false statements and claims them to be fact. > > He also distorts what others say by making up invalid contexts > > for actual statements people make. > > Where? > Very well documented by the article mentioned by this slashdot story.
So the Bush administration wrongly got pleased with their "stop growing opium" edict and gave it money. Why don't you rather read and respond to Kopel's article? After all that's what we are discussing here.
Moore's editing technique of the election night segment is typical of his style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, narrowly speaking, false. But notice how he says, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy..." The impression created is that the Fox call of Florida for Bush came soon after the CBS/CNN calls of Florida for Gore, and that Fox caused the other networks to change ("All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'")
This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending half-truths to deceive the viewer.
But don't stop there... read the rest of the Kopel's page, particularly this part of Deceit #3:
Moore amplifies the deceit with a montage of newspaper headlines, purporting to show that Gore really won. One article shows a date of December 19, 2001, with a large headline reading, "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won Election." The article supposedly comes from The Pantagraph, a daily newspaper in Bloomington, Illinois. But actually, the headline is merely for a letter to the editor--not a news article. The letter to the editor headline is significantly enlarged to make it look like an article headline. The actual printed letter looked nothing like the "article" Moore fabricated for the film. The letter ran on December 5, not December 19. The Pantagraph contacted Moore's office to ask for an explanation, but the office refused to comment.
And also his summary of Moore's response to this: [Moore response: Cites articles consistent with my explanation. Fails to acknowledge that the only scenarios for a Gore victory involved recounting methods which Gore never requested in his lawsuits. To tell viewers that Gore would have won "under every scenario" is absurd. No explanation for The Pantagaph fraud.]
For the record, I'm not American, I am Asian. But Bush is the best candidate - I hope he wins the election.
For eg: [Moore response: On the Florida victory celebration, none. On the networks calls: provides citations for the early and incorrect Florida calls for Gore, around 8 p.m. Eastern Time, and for the late-evening network calls of Florida for Bush around 2:20 a.m. Doesn't mention the retraction of the Florida calls at 10 p.m., or that CBS led the retraction.]
> Neither of those is done on an assembly line, in a factory, or with an emphasis on speed. > (They probably also take more skill and creativity than you think.)
You're wrong on the first point - my brother is an architect and one of the reasons his ex-employer hired him productivity - "AutoCAD drafting speed" (for want of a better term).
Slashdot Mirror
Further to my post, about the intersection of humans and dinosaurs...
...
As this site says:
the standard long-age scenario of our evolution-riddled culture says that such encounters between pterosaurs and man have never happened, because all flying reptiles, along with the dinosaurs, allegedly became extinct some 65 million years before man came on the scene.
But what we know is:
The Sioux Indians have long told the story of the huge "thunderbird". They gave it this nickname because this flying reptile was hit by lightning and fell from the sky during a thunderstorm.
They searched for this creature and when they found it they described it as having wings almost 20 foot across. It had a long sharp bill and a large bony knob-like protrusion on the back of its head.
There are no birds that fit this description. The similarity between the "thunderbird" and the pteranodon is striking. Flying dinosaurs like the pteranodon have been found fossilized with a wingspan of 23 feet!
Pteranodon also have a large bony crest jotting off of the backs of their heads. Just as the Indians described.
The Indians have made many paintings and carvings of this dinosaur with accuracy that can only come from seeing the creature first hand.
And you can see this in a picture from a Canadian Indian tribe:
"Kwaguilth Thunderbird", by Jim Johnny
.
> First Sale rights (!) can be waived in a EULA;
That's not good.
Here are two clickthrough EULAs I know of that restrict first sale rights. These are restrictions apply even if you resold it as a single unit: all CDs, documentation, license paperwork... everything got when you first bought the goods.
-- MS Visual C++.NET Professional
-- MS Visual C++.NET Professional
Can sell once. The person who buys must agree never to resell it again.
-- DOOM 3
Can never sell to anyone.
-- I must ask you one thing. If all the trees on Earth were destroyed by a deluge, where'd the new trees come from?
from seeds carried in the waters.
-- Most importantly, though, why do you say that there's nothing stopping them from living longer?
Because the 2 oldest were still living in the 20th century.
-- Again I present, you've given no reasonable argument that the age of the Earth can be determined by the age of trees in any case.
No, but I have an explanation why the trees observed are no older. You don't have any explanation.
> Please back that up with suitable observations of an evolutionary process adding information to the genome.
-- This is my just cause for being angry, by the way. It's a broken argument, and you present it broken on purpose.
Still no just cause. My "Please back that up..." statement was made the post after.
-- The failure is this. I can't present the mechanism for how it works.
OK...
-- You can't present any evidence that it's not possible.
There is no process observed that counters the law of entropy sufficiently to account for the complexity of life.
-- However, because I can't prove it does work, you take that as proof that it doesn't work, and that's broken.
No, also see point just above.
-- To counter, I can simply present gravity. It's easy to see that gravity works. Two massive bodies attract each other in very predictable ways.
Good, so there are observations scientists have made to validate the law of gravity.
-- Ready for the twist? Nobody on Earth can tell you why.
I didn't ask why.
-- The fact that nobody understands why gravity works does not mean that it doesn't.
Yes, but we can observe gravity in action and hence validate it.
Can we observe evolution in action? No.
Note, we can see natural selection in action. Not evolution.
-- but don't present it as evidence that evolutionary theory is wrong.
I trust my God, and you don't. Fair enough.
-- To counter that argument, I need only ask for your proof that "Allah said so" or "the spirits of my forefathers said so" is somehow less valid than your argument.
If you check their history and their predictions and you will see them as less valid.
> It is important since men didn't have geography atlases handy back then.
-- What you're saying is that guesses that turned out right (round earth) are more scientifically important than guesses that turned out wrong (geocentrism). Why is that? I posit that if the Bible was divinely inspired there should be no "wrong guesses" in it.
Yes there should be no wrong guesses in it. Also see geocentrisms link in my last post.
> First let me clear this fallacy up:
>> Besides, they're not all that close, unless 20 percent different is "close enough".
> You're wrong. They are. Google it.
-- Sorry, I was operating under the assumption that the apparent visual size to someone on Earth without viewing instruments was our measure.
Yes, it is. The discs precisely cover each other in a total solar eclipse.
> Well, I did say it's a minor point but you do realize that the odds of having both the same size are _pretty_ unlikely, right?The sameness in their relative size makes for a wonderful show during total eclipses.
-- You're joking me now. The odds that the Moon and a U.S. quarter held at arm's length would be the same are also rather unlikely, but you've got a long reach to convince me that the fact that the Sun and Moon fit over one another during eclipses has any relevance to discussions about God.
Bad strawman. But lets leave that for now.
> The Bible says God made the moon for signs, for a light, and a clock (the basis of the lunar calendar used by the ancients).
-- And the relative size of the Sun to the Moon affects that function in what way? Like I said, if every coincidence this tenous is taken as proof
Good link, but small correction needed...
Christians _are_ sheep, just God's sheep.
So if Saddam was in breach of the agreements, it wasn't really that bad, yes? Especially since the genetic super Shazam! bioweapon of the future would always be unavailable to him, correct?
You gave yourself an appropriate screen name.
> > Do the AnswersInGenesis people know that you're trying to defend their point of view?
...
...no trees have been found with more than 5800 rings because no
:( Here are my reasons for the apparently arbitrary 5800 ring count: the Bible says that the existing world was destroyed in a deluge that occured about 5000 years ago. Now most trees add one tree ring a year. In extremely rare cases, trees have been known to grow more than a single ring a year. Hence, I chose the 5800 ring count (to sufficiently account for ring aberrations). Now, I probably should not have stated 5800 -- 5100-5200 rings should be sufficient. :)
...
...the mysteries of an apparent Cambrian explosion in the fossil record?
Indeed, how dare I? In fact, let me show you a worse outrage!: where I quote 3 peer-reviewed secular journals..
> >But we're no closer to robots with synthetic intelligence
> >than we were in the glory days of AI research. (i.e. we're
> >not close at all).
>
> And you know this exactly how?
I studied AI while working toward an MS in Computer science a few years ago.
> There is no evidence these projects that you say are
> "going on now to create life at a molecular level" are
> likely to succeed.
> Isn't acting clairvoyant a violation of Christian ethics?
Correct: if the "medium" (to put it crudely) is not God's spirit.
> > How you propose to know what technological or innovative
> > breakthroughs will or won't occur in AI is beyond my understanding.
Advances in "AI" (a badly named field) are very interesting to me - I hope to see them continue to occur for some time. I said synthetic intelligence (as in "pass the Turing test" intelligence) is unlikely. That belief is based on the current state of AI research and my understanding of the Bible.
>
> tree has ever lived that long.
I agree. Now why haven't they lived that long? Nothing is stopping them living further - no global ice age, no built in logic bomb -- if (my_age == 5000) {wither(); die();}, no corporations pillaging timber...
> I'd thank you to point me to evidence that a tree with 5800
> rings has even been found, since I couldn't find a single
> mention of one even approaching that age ever found live.
How about one - a 4844-ring pine cut down (!) just a few decades ago.
> Notwithstanding that, though, this is proof of nothing but your
> willingness to go very far out on a limb to try to support your point.
Its sad to see you angry without just cause.
Here is another one: a 4700 ring bristlecone pine -- still-living.
And here is is a thread where this was discussed... threadbare.
> >You must have considered the apparently unique earth we have:
> I'm familiar with this argument, but it's not valid because it's two-sided.
> I argue that humans developed specifically to survive Earth conditions
Please back that up with suitable observations of an evolutionary process adding information to the genome.
And also consider (again)...
> >
> > Consider how the continents were one supercontinent to begin with
> >(as the Bible describes in Genesis) or how the Bible,
> >rather off-handedly, describes the earth as a sphere (Book of Job).
> In a book the size and scope of the Bible, you will find plenty
> of references to stuff that turns out to be true.
It is important since men didn't have geography atlases handy back then.
> However, you must counter mentions in the Bible of stuff
> that
"You can't have faith that God can plant the seed of a Universe that will grow and develop for billions of years? "
Since you're asking about faith... God can do that, but he didn't. The basis of your faith - the Bible - tells more about this.
"Wonderful revelation you have about the Earth being unique. Don't you think every planet is unique in millions of different ways?"
Yes.
"Why do you point to Bible support for things we already know from scientific methods such as "Consider how the continents were one supercontinent to begin with (as the Bible describes in Genesis) or how the Bible, rather off-handedly, describes the earth as a sphere (Book of Job)."
"What do these facts mean? Nothing."
No. Since the Bible was written before any man had a geographic world map handy, these facts do mean a fair bit.
"You just throw them in because you think it gives the Bible credibility as a fact book."
Yes.
Well, I already think it has credibility. But it doesn't support creationism.
Well, you obviously are fighting logic pretty hard then.
Why did human recorded history start 5000 years ago? Humans had to learn how to write at some point.
Is it a coincidence recorded human history starts from about when the Bible says the previous world was destroyed by a near-extinction event (the worldwide deluge)? That other ancient cultures, from the Americas to India, record a similar ancient worldwide deluge?
Why do trees have no more than 5800 yearly rings? Uh, because we keep cutting them down maybe?
No. This is a worldwide phenomenon. Also, I believe its not 5800, but fewer than 5500 rings
I used to wonder why some religions don't get along with others. I think I understand why. Because it is dumbasses like yourself that make Christians like myself look like dumbasses.
I cannot help you with that friend.
Here's some more evidence for you to consider
..."serious research projects are going on now to create life at a molecular level; to the credit of the researchers in the field, there seems to be a hesitation going on while some of the ethical and moral issues are discussed before proceeding."
People have been discussing Asimov's three laws of robotics for decades. But we're no closer to robots with synthetic intelligence than we were in the glory days of AI research. (i.e. we're not close at all).
There is no evidence these projects that you say are "going on now to create life at a molecular level" are likely to succeed. Of course, I am excluding efforts that (effectively) cut-and-paste complex (and incompletely understood) biological structures ripped from _already_ living cells in order to form new ones -- that's not _creating_ life. Rather, it's similar in principle to, say, hybridizing roses -- something humans have been doing for 1000s of years.
See this for reasons why the 1950s Miller experiment was not an accurate replica of supposed primordial conditions:
Oxygen, deliberately removed from Miller's apparatus, destroys amino acids.Oxygen, deliberately removed from Miller's apparatus, destroys amino acids. But geological evidence indicates oxygen was always present on earth.1--7 . Your chain of logic has multiple missing links.
You agree that the universe is wonderful - good. You must have considered the apparently unique earth we have: it's wonderfully balanced Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen cycles, the temperature and the position of earth w.r.t. to the sun, the qualities of water, and the wonder that is the water cycle, the wonderful balance of plant and animal life, the mysteries of an apparent Cambrian explosion in the fossil record? Good. Consider how the continents were one supercontinent to begin with (as the Bible describes in Genesis) or how the Bible, rather off-handedly, describes the earth as a sphere (Book of Job). And then there are the smaller details: look up and consider how the sun, and the the moon have the same relative size, how all humanly-recorded history begins 5000 years ago, how despite searching, no tree has more than 5800 yearly tree rings (and there is no reason they can't - these old trees were cut down, still living, in this century).
Finally consider how many millions of humans _know_ (and can testify) to a supernatural and loving God, who communicates with them: A God who does not love differently based on their position... or their intellect.
And He yearns for you too - its your choice.
Well, one must examine all things critically.
... ...
The primary purpose of news organizations is to report facts (i.e. "news", as opposed to "views"). Some news organizations also editorialize their views, their interpretation of these facts, but that generally takes a back seat to plain old reporting. With multiple competing news organizations, with the increased free flow of information, and with the increased ease of publishing information, the free press does a pretty decent job at reporting news truthfully.
You wrote:
> Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but there is no unbiased news anymore.
What you have said is not truthful news. It is simply an off-balance, biased, view.
The very article you mentioned gives out facts that paints a fuller, more complex picture:
The CEO of CBS's parent company endorses President Bush.
Mr. Redstone's unexpected declaration came at a time when an unwelcome spotlight is directed at him and his board because of the CBS airing of what everyone now believes was a fake memo alleging that Mr. Bush shirked his duties three decades ago in the Texas Air National Guard.
the Federal Election Commission, said that since 1998 Mr. Redstone had given $50,000 to the Democratic Party. He's also donated the maximum $2,000 to the Kerry campaign, after supporting Al Gore in 2000.
yeah, american presidents are permitted two terms only.
" the chances of them agreeing ..."
they're kids... they don't _have_ to agree
Minna's got a point.
Sadly, in this day and age everything that comes back into style isn't original. It's made by companies that are out looking to make a buck.
The purpose of style *is* generally marketing of some sort. Even for individuals.
So yeah, it's going to start out that trendsetters will make their own stuff for free but companies will pick up on it and resell "retro stuff"
Or vice versa! Often, there is a feedback loop of ideas between companies and "original trendsetters".
Bah.
Ahem. A little less vanity is in order. There is really nothing new under the sun.
Did you mean using the camera's focal length as a rangefinder -- i.e. determine the distance of the subject from the camera? That's a good idea!
Summarizing:
1. A 2 axis accelerometer (mounted on camera, to get orientation of body)
2. An electronic compass (mounted on camera, to get absolute heading - GPS isn't good for this when walking)
3. GPS coordinates (to get Lat., Long., altitude, time)
4. Camera focus and zoom information (rangefinder)
Data from these 4 things gives enough information for different pictures of one area (taken by different people) to be automatically combined (say, multiple pictures of the Mount Fuji are processed to generate a topographical map).
Since time is also recorded, one could observe a particular subject change over time. A movie clip (or simply an animated GIF) showing the changes speeded up would be highly cool.
As an aside, does anyone have links to similar clip about earth? Satellites started taking pictures of the earth since the 1960s. It would be interesting to see a timestream of things like forest cover change.
Take your mum in to live with you.
When you couldn't take care of yourself, she took care of you.
Now do the same for her. Don't be selfish, you owe her.
Easy does it... :)
I expect MS would use plainer names when Avalon is ready for general release.
Remember "Chicago" and "Cairo"?
> > He knowingly makes false statements and claims them to be fact.
> > He also distorts what others say by making up invalid contexts
> > for actual statements people make.
>
> Where?
>
Very well documented by the article mentioned by this slashdot story.
So the Bush administration wrongly got pleased with their "stop growing opium" edict and gave it money. Why don't you rather read and respond to Kopel's article? After all that's what we are discussing here.
This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending half-truths to deceive the viewer.
But don't stop there... read the rest of the Kopel's page, particularly this part of Deceit #3:
Moore amplifies the deceit with a montage of newspaper headlines, purporting
to show that Gore really won.
One article shows a
date of December 19, 2001, with a large headline reading, "Latest Florida
recount shows Gore won Election." The article supposedly comes from The
Pantagraph, a daily newspaper in Bloomington, Illinois. But actually, the
headline is merely for a letter to the editor--not a news article. The letter to
the editor headline is significantly enlarged to make it look like an article
headline. The actual printed
letter looked nothing like the "article" Moore fabricated for the film. The letter
ran on December 5, not December 19.
The Pantagraph contacted Moore's office to ask for an explanation, but the office refused to comment.
And also his summary of Moore's response to this:
[Moore response: Cites articles consistent with my explanation. Fails to acknowledge that the only scenarios for a Gore victory involved recounting methods which Gore never requested in his lawsuits. To tell viewers that Gore would have won "under every scenario" is absurd. No explanation for The Pantagaph fraud.]
For the record, I'm not American, I am Asian. But Bush is the best candidate - I hope he wins the election.
Kopel is balanced. Read his summarizations of moore's responses
For eg:
[Moore response: On the Florida victory celebration, none. On the networks calls: provides citations for the early and incorrect Florida calls for Gore, around 8 p.m. Eastern Time, and for the late-evening network calls of Florida for Bush around 2:20 a.m. Doesn't mention the retraction of the Florida calls at 10 p.m., or that CBS led the retraction.]
The next thing to go on my drive will be Open Office. Only one binary (I think), since it's Java-based, but ...
:)
Heheh! Actually OpenOffice is written in C++, not Java.
But it feels like a Java app, doesn't it? Also both Java and OpenOffice were slower earlier and have been speeding up at roughly similar rates.
Cost. Currently going for just under $1K/G
My colleague at work just bought a 512 MB USB key for AU $140 (about USD$100). He says a 1 GB version costs about $250 (or US$150)
Since the same flash memory used in compact flash (which is already compatible with IDE), how come such a high cost per GB?
> Neither of those is done on an assembly line, in a factory, or with an emphasis on speed.
> (They probably also take more skill and creativity than you think.)
You're wrong on the first point - my brother is an architect and one of the reasons his ex-employer hired him productivity - "AutoCAD drafting speed" (for want of a better term).
You're right that the job takes skill though.
Yup, that sounds right. The poster must have been thinking about trademarks but didn't communicate it.
6. Penguin turns around and sues Katie Jones ... ...
this foolish idea that individuals and corporations have the same amount of resources
Anonymous Coward: You missed the point... it's exactly Katie doing to Pengiun what Penguin did to Katie.
And what if it isn't Katie Jones, but Katya Jonadova who does all this?
Make sense now?
Thanks - I got it :) (I hope)
Brilliant idea Don. :)
I borrowed from it and posted a revised version here