France has strikes all the time, year after year as far back as I can remember. Strikes are somewhat part of the culture there.
You can lose your job there and not face losing your medical insurance or going hungry. There's a huge difference in terms of the human cost of this financial disaster between France and the US in addition to the differences in growth/shrinkage of GDP.
Where did I say anything about Democrats? I was using Europe purposefully since countries like France and Spain are unquestionably farther to the left than we are, especially in economic and social policy. My argument would be that the Democrat party as a whole certainly is not as far to the left as they should be.
I'm sure many right wing type people will dismiss your remark out of hand without considering it for a moment, but consider:
1) Which nation did this huge economic disaster start? America, a country that had been under complete Republican rule for 6 of the last 8 years and had undergone many deregulations over the past three decades which directly contributed to this crisis.
2) Which European countries have most felt the economic fallout of this? Iceland and Ireland, the two most free-wheeling democracies in Europe. For years Republicans would use Ireland as an example for us to follow since they had the lowest commercial tax rates in the world. Since Ireland's economy has been in free-fall I haven't heard Republicans mention them at all (I wonder why?).
3) Which European countries have been effected least? Spain and France due to their more conservative banking regulations and greater safety net for people living there.
So take a serious look at the mirror and consider the possibility that Touvan is actually correct--reality really does, in fact, have a left-wing bias (at least in terms of economic policy). The first top economic adviser to Bush 43 resigned shortly into Bush's first term because he was simply ignored and believed their economic policy would be disastrous (paying for wars with tax cuts was an extremely bad idea). It's hard to argue that he was wrong now (it really was even then...).
Try reading the article. We wouldn't be just losing a few transformers, we'd be losing all of them (of a certain, critical type). There aren't enough spares to replace all of them at once so we couldn't quickly get the grid back up.
Unlike asteroids, this seems like a very solvable problem from a technical point of view but very difficult from a political one. The solution would be to replace the aging early warning satellite (ACE) with at least two satellites designed specifically to detect a storm like this. Procedures would have to be put in place to pass this warning to power companies around the world extremely quickly because it would take about as much time for them to disconnect their transformers as the warning allows (15 minutes).
This wouldn't require replacing the transformers around the world but simply putting up a couple of satellites and improving communication between the satellite operators (probably NASA) and the power companies. While this would cost some money, it wouldn't cost nearly as much as other low frequency disaster mitigation projects (like dikes to protect New Orleans from cat 5 storms) and would be potentially very effective.
Frankly I'd be all in favor of putting satellites like this up. While this wouldn't solve the problem of existing satellites in orbit that could potentially get fried by a storm like this it could greatly aid power companies in preventing potentially devastating infrastructure damage.
To me this is an ideal use of NASA's resources, using a portion of their budget to help prevent potentially enormously expensive damage to equipment around the world and potentially saving many lives in the process.
I agree, every word should not (really must not) be taken literally. I think the Bible is worth reading both due to its historical nature and its parables. However, my old roommate took a very literal view of the Bible which led to endless arguments.
The converse shouldn't be taken either, that just because one part isn't 100% accurate if taken literally the rest is rubbish. In the past many scholars doubted the existence of several locations mentioned in the Bible only to find in the last 100-200 years that several of those places do, in fact, exist.
No, but there is a sign saying, "Welcome to Colorful Colorado" in one of the most desolate areas of the state which is kinda funny (picture here: http://z.about.com/d/geography/1/0/x/D/co1.JPG).
Well, I didn't exactly say it was beyond doubt, it should just be a relatively much, much smaller amount of doubt (especially the broad outlines of evolution).
The theory of evolution is particularly malleable. It would be more akin to string theory in a way. From what my math friends tell me, string theory is also extremely flexible and infinitely tweakable; so much so that you can conceivably make it match any possible observations (you can also predict that the needed observations to disprove a given flavor of string theory are physically impossible to construct). However, unlike string theory, the basic principles on which evolution relies are easily observed (the change of genetic information over time, new traits appearing, the genetic relationship between many organisms, etc).
At this point, there are very few ways I can conceive of people 'disproving' evolution. Without a time machine I don't see how you can even propose an experiment to invalidate evolution. Even ID doesn't claim to do that, they simply claim that their explanation works too.
You could even have a deity show up, make two fully-formed people from dust and that still wouldn't invalidate evolution (it would just demonstrate that creation is also possible).
Now if somebody ever comes up with a simpler, better solution than evolution that still explains many patterns that evolution explains I'm all ears. However, ID, while passing the simplicity test (in a weird way that a more mathematical minded individual would probably disagree with, since usually introducing a 'god' participant in your model isn't usually considered a simplification), it horribly fails the pattern explanation test. It makes no predictions and it doesn't explain many patterns found in genetic research (like the way the chromosomes in humans have changed in regards to other primates for example).
I'm also aware of some of the creationist arguments. For example, they claim that evidence of the flood consists of the fact that you can find fossils of sea life on some of the highest places on Earth and also stories from various indigenous populations all over the planet who believe there was a flood in the distant past.
The obvious counterargument to the issue with fossils is the modern theory of continental plate movement (which is easily verified with modern GPS technology).
The obvious counterargument to the different populations having stories of floods is realizing that all of these people did not have satellites back when these tales were created and could not have known if floods they witnessed were actually global. Many of these people lived near the coast and could have been flooded by any number of common (or not so common) reasons, including tsunamis (like the recent one a couple of years ago that surely would have seemed like a worldwide flood to the people there if they didn't have modern technology), monsoonal floods, natural dams that break, hurricanes/typhoons, etc. Floods happen along many coasts of the world (perhaps not often, but eventually) and it is no surprise to me that different populations would have flood stories.
Note: If you argue with them long enough they usually will retort that they are simply outnumbered and don't have time to research and respond to all of the counterarguments (at least from what I've seen).
This depends on the details. The first person I know of who publicly challenged people to challenge their own beliefs was Descartes, who said, "I doubt therefore I think. I think therefore I am." Now he didn't tell people to doubt everything--he made exceptions for God and I think some other specific Christian tenants, but everything else was fair game.
However, he didn't say, "doubt evolution" (well that theory didn't exist then) or any other specific science. It's also important to recall that in his time the sciences were not nearly as well established and backed up by the countless experiments of today (many experiments of unimaginable complexity and precision from his point of view).
I, along with many others, still don't disagree with Descartes basic tenant in that you should try to remain critical as much as possible. However, I also feel that the theory of evolution is being singled out for religious reasons similarly to how Galileo was only singled out when he started saying the Earth orbited the Sun (his other technical writings were of no concern to the church).
Also, the amount of doubt should be reasonable. In regards to very new theories reported by very few people and backed up by no more than one unrepeatable experiment like cold fusion there should be tons of doubt. But in other theories like evolution that are not only backed up by many decades of research (and yes, even predictions that have been verified) there should be very little doubt about the overall theory, although the details can still move around and be added over due time of course.
On a personal note I had a Christian roommate who honestly believed the world is 6000 years old and that evolution is baloney and even had various creationist videos to back him up. However, the videos were woefully inadequate in being able to convince anybody who had hardly any knowledge about radiation decay dating, geology, astronomy, physics, and, yes, evolution. Rather, it was painfully obvious they were trying to fit their observations of the world to match a book with at times ridiculously complex theories (especially ones in regards to why galaxies appear to be more than 6000 light years away).
There's a certain poetic justice when driving to Texas from Colorado. As you cross the border you see a small sign saying, "Welcome to Texas! Proud home of George W Bush." A few miles later, one of the first towns you drive through is named Dumas and smells like manure.
I think this depends on the person. I have no certifications and my degree, while in engineering, had almost nothing to do with software development (an aerospace degree).
I got my first paid programming job by switching from a simple data entry position that I did part-time during college to a software development position. That was entirely luck and only happened because they were a very tiny company and I was able to quickly convince them that I was more valuable to them developing software than doing data entry. I worked for peanuts at the time but that gave me the valuable experience needed to get a better programming job when I graduated from college.
I never once took a C/C++ (or Java) programming class at any level and only took Pascal classes in high school. The reason I was able to almost immediately start programming was because I was able to work for cheap and did enough programming and studying in my spare time to be capable right out of the gate.
The person posting the question probably is in a very different circumstance now and can't afford to work for peanuts so probably can't try to duplicate my history even if he wanted to.
Years of practical experience do help of course. There's no doubt that after programming for the past 8 years that I'm a better programmer today than I was prior to this experience and I really don't see a way of duplicating that over just a few months.
The answer is obvious. It's the same as the old Intel vs AMD clock wars. People don't know the details and assume more is better and like being able to use a single number to come up with a decision.
Most don't go to dpreview.com and look at comparisons of actual photos taken by different cameras and detailed reviews to decide which is superior.
It's possible to charge while listening to music, you just have to buy an adapter. I bought one of these so that I could listen to music during a long road trip.
Exactly. As for myself I will never own another smart phone unless that phone has a keyboard. It's just impossible to do any ssh without one and while I usually have my laptop it can be a pain to lug around whereas having access to a small terminal with an internet connection anywhere I go is extremely useful.
Which is why they aren't going off of sound (detailed in the patent application). They're using EM waves to reflect off of the bullet (either radar, laser, etc).
Yea, happy 1234567890 everyone! Looking forward to the next one.
Let's see, that would be 12345678900 or 12345678901 right? Hmm, that works out to 2361/3/21 19:15:00 UTC. Err, maybe not. Variables using 32 bits to store the epoch time would have blown up before then anyway.
Well, if you compared what you wrote to the instructions a retail PC comes with it's 'hard'. It's not hard for guys like us who have mucked around with the registry before but to novices telling them "go to the registry key..." will just get you a blank face. (still good instructions to have for those that know how to follow them, thanks)
It really shouldn't require all of those steps in order to get it to work. On Linux you simply install everything you want to use (needing root permissions to do this) and just don't let your child have the root password. If they want to install something you install it for them.
Of course if your child is smart enough to boot in single user mode they can pretty much get around anything but at that point they should be capable of not hosing the system and, if they do, being able to recover it.
I thought Virgin Atlantic already serves that clientele. I've never flown on their airline (don't have the money) but I'm sure if I did have the money I'd fly them whenever I could.
I didn't mean binary compatible but code compatible (or at least make it trivially easy to update the code to a newer version like Trolltec did by making a tool to convert Qt 3 code to Qt 4 code that did most if not all of the work).
So long as the features are backwards compatible I wouldn't worry too much about it. For example, when they introduced the Windows Presentation Foundation in.NET 3.0 you could simply ignore it if you chose to.
I think of it similarly to the Qt framework. Sure, it's grown tremendously over the years but generally if you knew how to use Qt 3 it isn't much work to transition to Qt 4 (at least not conceptually, converting old code could be bothersome depending on how the code was written). There may be tons of new classes you're unfamiliar with but if you don't want to use them nobody is forcing you to learn about them.
I think Microsoft has learned from the days of Visual C++ (6 and earlier) and will not return to the mess that was MFC.
And they aren't denied in the US? Senior citizens have a high rate of being uninsured in the US you know. However, I don't think the UK has the best healthcare plan in Europe (France probably has the best).
They must be doing something right in Europe though because every country I've checked on the CIA's factbook has a higher life expectancy for both men and women and a lower rate of infant mortality than the US.
Oh, missed the quote. I would presume that they will try to transfer existing funds for current stem cell research to new programs whenever possible. Current stem cell research only funds programs using the old embryonic stem cell lines and other non-embryonic stem cells (like mutants formed from skin cells).
I would expect an increase in funding too, but it probably would be rather small compared to the spending on infrastructure and other programs.
Up to now this company has been funding the research privately. This merely allows them to proceed to human trials, it doesn't give them federal funding to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
France has strikes all the time, year after year as far back as I can remember. Strikes are somewhat part of the culture there.
You can lose your job there and not face losing your medical insurance or going hungry. There's a huge difference in terms of the human cost of this financial disaster between France and the US in addition to the differences in growth/shrinkage of GDP.
Where did I say anything about Democrats? I was using Europe purposefully since countries like France and Spain are unquestionably farther to the left than we are, especially in economic and social policy. My argument would be that the Democrat party as a whole certainly is not as far to the left as they should be.
There's still PBS. Frontline does great investigative reporting all the time with new episodes most weeks.
I'm sure many right wing type people will dismiss your remark out of hand without considering it for a moment, but consider:
1) Which nation did this huge economic disaster start? America, a country that had been under complete Republican rule for 6 of the last 8 years and had undergone many deregulations over the past three decades which directly contributed to this crisis.
2) Which European countries have most felt the economic fallout of this? Iceland and Ireland, the two most free-wheeling democracies in Europe. For years Republicans would use Ireland as an example for us to follow since they had the lowest commercial tax rates in the world. Since Ireland's economy has been in free-fall I haven't heard Republicans mention them at all (I wonder why?).
3) Which European countries have been effected least? Spain and France due to their more conservative banking regulations and greater safety net for people living there.
So take a serious look at the mirror and consider the possibility that Touvan is actually correct--reality really does, in fact, have a left-wing bias (at least in terms of economic policy). The first top economic adviser to Bush 43 resigned shortly into Bush's first term because he was simply ignored and believed their economic policy would be disastrous (paying for wars with tax cuts was an extremely bad idea). It's hard to argue that he was wrong now (it really was even then...).
Try reading the article. We wouldn't be just losing a few transformers, we'd be losing all of them (of a certain, critical type). There aren't enough spares to replace all of them at once so we couldn't quickly get the grid back up.
Unlike asteroids, this seems like a very solvable problem from a technical point of view but very difficult from a political one. The solution would be to replace the aging early warning satellite (ACE) with at least two satellites designed specifically to detect a storm like this. Procedures would have to be put in place to pass this warning to power companies around the world extremely quickly because it would take about as much time for them to disconnect their transformers as the warning allows (15 minutes).
This wouldn't require replacing the transformers around the world but simply putting up a couple of satellites and improving communication between the satellite operators (probably NASA) and the power companies. While this would cost some money, it wouldn't cost nearly as much as other low frequency disaster mitigation projects (like dikes to protect New Orleans from cat 5 storms) and would be potentially very effective.
Frankly I'd be all in favor of putting satellites like this up. While this wouldn't solve the problem of existing satellites in orbit that could potentially get fried by a storm like this it could greatly aid power companies in preventing potentially devastating infrastructure damage.
To me this is an ideal use of NASA's resources, using a portion of their budget to help prevent potentially enormously expensive damage to equipment around the world and potentially saving many lives in the process.
I agree, every word should not (really must not) be taken literally. I think the Bible is worth reading both due to its historical nature and its parables. However, my old roommate took a very literal view of the Bible which led to endless arguments.
The converse shouldn't be taken either, that just because one part isn't 100% accurate if taken literally the rest is rubbish. In the past many scholars doubted the existence of several locations mentioned in the Bible only to find in the last 100-200 years that several of those places do, in fact, exist.
No, but there is a sign saying, "Welcome to Colorful Colorado" in one of the most desolate areas of the state which is kinda funny (picture here: http://z.about.com/d/geography/1/0/x/D/co1.JPG).
Well, I didn't exactly say it was beyond doubt, it should just be a relatively much, much smaller amount of doubt (especially the broad outlines of evolution).
The theory of evolution is particularly malleable. It would be more akin to string theory in a way. From what my math friends tell me, string theory is also extremely flexible and infinitely tweakable; so much so that you can conceivably make it match any possible observations (you can also predict that the needed observations to disprove a given flavor of string theory are physically impossible to construct). However, unlike string theory, the basic principles on which evolution relies are easily observed (the change of genetic information over time, new traits appearing, the genetic relationship between many organisms, etc).
At this point, there are very few ways I can conceive of people 'disproving' evolution. Without a time machine I don't see how you can even propose an experiment to invalidate evolution. Even ID doesn't claim to do that, they simply claim that their explanation works too.
You could even have a deity show up, make two fully-formed people from dust and that still wouldn't invalidate evolution (it would just demonstrate that creation is also possible).
Now if somebody ever comes up with a simpler, better solution than evolution that still explains many patterns that evolution explains I'm all ears. However, ID, while passing the simplicity test (in a weird way that a more mathematical minded individual would probably disagree with, since usually introducing a 'god' participant in your model isn't usually considered a simplification), it horribly fails the pattern explanation test. It makes no predictions and it doesn't explain many patterns found in genetic research (like the way the chromosomes in humans have changed in regards to other primates for example).
I'm also aware of some of the creationist arguments. For example, they claim that evidence of the flood consists of the fact that you can find fossils of sea life on some of the highest places on Earth and also stories from various indigenous populations all over the planet who believe there was a flood in the distant past.
The obvious counterargument to the issue with fossils is the modern theory of continental plate movement (which is easily verified with modern GPS technology).
The obvious counterargument to the different populations having stories of floods is realizing that all of these people did not have satellites back when these tales were created and could not have known if floods they witnessed were actually global. Many of these people lived near the coast and could have been flooded by any number of common (or not so common) reasons, including tsunamis (like the recent one a couple of years ago that surely would have seemed like a worldwide flood to the people there if they didn't have modern technology), monsoonal floods, natural dams that break, hurricanes/typhoons, etc. Floods happen along many coasts of the world (perhaps not often, but eventually) and it is no surprise to me that different populations would have flood stories.
Note: If you argue with them long enough they usually will retort that they are simply outnumbered and don't have time to research and respond to all of the counterarguments (at least from what I've seen).
This depends on the details. The first person I know of who publicly challenged people to challenge their own beliefs was Descartes, who said, "I doubt therefore I think. I think therefore I am." Now he didn't tell people to doubt everything--he made exceptions for God and I think some other specific Christian tenants, but everything else was fair game.
However, he didn't say, "doubt evolution" (well that theory didn't exist then) or any other specific science. It's also important to recall that in his time the sciences were not nearly as well established and backed up by the countless experiments of today (many experiments of unimaginable complexity and precision from his point of view).
I, along with many others, still don't disagree with Descartes basic tenant in that you should try to remain critical as much as possible. However, I also feel that the theory of evolution is being singled out for religious reasons similarly to how Galileo was only singled out when he started saying the Earth orbited the Sun (his other technical writings were of no concern to the church).
Also, the amount of doubt should be reasonable. In regards to very new theories reported by very few people and backed up by no more than one unrepeatable experiment like cold fusion there should be tons of doubt. But in other theories like evolution that are not only backed up by many decades of research (and yes, even predictions that have been verified) there should be very little doubt about the overall theory, although the details can still move around and be added over due time of course.
On a personal note I had a Christian roommate who honestly believed the world is 6000 years old and that evolution is baloney and even had various creationist videos to back him up. However, the videos were woefully inadequate in being able to convince anybody who had hardly any knowledge about radiation decay dating, geology, astronomy, physics, and, yes, evolution. Rather, it was painfully obvious they were trying to fit their observations of the world to match a book with at times ridiculously complex theories (especially ones in regards to why galaxies appear to be more than 6000 light years away).
There's a certain poetic justice when driving to Texas from Colorado. As you cross the border you see a small sign saying, "Welcome to Texas! Proud home of George W Bush." A few miles later, one of the first towns you drive through is named Dumas and smells like manure.
I think this depends on the person. I have no certifications and my degree, while in engineering, had almost nothing to do with software development (an aerospace degree).
I got my first paid programming job by switching from a simple data entry position that I did part-time during college to a software development position. That was entirely luck and only happened because they were a very tiny company and I was able to quickly convince them that I was more valuable to them developing software than doing data entry. I worked for peanuts at the time but that gave me the valuable experience needed to get a better programming job when I graduated from college.
I never once took a C/C++ (or Java) programming class at any level and only took Pascal classes in high school. The reason I was able to almost immediately start programming was because I was able to work for cheap and did enough programming and studying in my spare time to be capable right out of the gate.
The person posting the question probably is in a very different circumstance now and can't afford to work for peanuts so probably can't try to duplicate my history even if he wanted to.
Years of practical experience do help of course. There's no doubt that after programming for the past 8 years that I'm a better programmer today than I was prior to this experience and I really don't see a way of duplicating that over just a few months.
The answer is obvious. It's the same as the old Intel vs AMD clock wars. People don't know the details and assume more is better and like being able to use a single number to come up with a decision.
Most don't go to dpreview.com and look at comparisons of actual photos taken by different cameras and detailed reviews to decide which is superior.
It's possible to charge while listening to music, you just have to buy an adapter. I bought one of these so that I could listen to music during a long road trip.
The adapter is here: http://store.androidcommunity.com/content/accessories/11-176--4401.htm
At $16 it's not too bad a price and it also can replace that annoying dongle you have to use to hook up headphones.
Exactly. As for myself I will never own another smart phone unless that phone has a keyboard. It's just impossible to do any ssh without one and while I usually have my laptop it can be a pain to lug around whereas having access to a small terminal with an internet connection anywhere I go is extremely useful.
Which is why they aren't going off of sound (detailed in the patent application). They're using EM waves to reflect off of the bullet (either radar, laser, etc).
Well, if nothing else at least a lot of us should still be alive to see that one (2038/1/19 03:14:08 UTC). That's always a plus in my book.
Yea, happy 1234567890 everyone! Looking forward to the next one.
Let's see, that would be 12345678900 or 12345678901 right? Hmm, that works out to 2361/3/21 19:15:00 UTC. Err, maybe not. Variables using 32 bits to store the epoch time would have blown up before then anyway.
Well, if you compared what you wrote to the instructions a retail PC comes with it's 'hard'. It's not hard for guys like us who have mucked around with the registry before but to novices telling them "go to the registry key..." will just get you a blank face. (still good instructions to have for those that know how to follow them, thanks)
It really shouldn't require all of those steps in order to get it to work. On Linux you simply install everything you want to use (needing root permissions to do this) and just don't let your child have the root password. If they want to install something you install it for them.
Of course if your child is smart enough to boot in single user mode they can pretty much get around anything but at that point they should be capable of not hosing the system and, if they do, being able to recover it.
I thought Virgin Atlantic already serves that clientele. I've never flown on their airline (don't have the money) but I'm sure if I did have the money I'd fly them whenever I could.
I didn't mean binary compatible but code compatible (or at least make it trivially easy to update the code to a newer version like Trolltec did by making a tool to convert Qt 3 code to Qt 4 code that did most if not all of the work).
So long as the features are backwards compatible I wouldn't worry too much about it. For example, when they introduced the Windows Presentation Foundation in .NET 3.0 you could simply ignore it if you chose to.
I think of it similarly to the Qt framework. Sure, it's grown tremendously over the years but generally if you knew how to use Qt 3 it isn't much work to transition to Qt 4 (at least not conceptually, converting old code could be bothersome depending on how the code was written). There may be tons of new classes you're unfamiliar with but if you don't want to use them nobody is forcing you to learn about them.
I think Microsoft has learned from the days of Visual C++ (6 and earlier) and will not return to the mess that was MFC.
And they aren't denied in the US? Senior citizens have a high rate of being uninsured in the US you know. However, I don't think the UK has the best healthcare plan in Europe (France probably has the best).
They must be doing something right in Europe though because every country I've checked on the CIA's factbook has a higher life expectancy for both men and women and a lower rate of infant mortality than the US.
Oh, missed the quote. I would presume that they will try to transfer existing funds for current stem cell research to new programs whenever possible. Current stem cell research only funds programs using the old embryonic stem cell lines and other non-embryonic stem cells (like mutants formed from skin cells).
I would expect an increase in funding too, but it probably would be rather small compared to the spending on infrastructure and other programs.
Up to now this company has been funding the research privately. This merely allows them to proceed to human trials, it doesn't give them federal funding to do so.