Wouldn't a simple DC/AC converter for your car work? Then run an extension cable indoors. Cut the line to the furnace and connect the line to the extension chord...instant power to your blower. Once the house is warm, connect the extension cable to the fridge....then to the deep freeze...It might be a bit of a pain, but only costs $50.
Creationists do not debate that micro-evolution occurs. They debate over macro-evolution. There is tons of evidence of micro-evolution, but very little on macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution is science. It is something we have observed, we have tested, we have reproduced, we have predicted. If we change a creature's environment and then observe the changes over a period of time, it will adapt to its new environment. This is not contested. What is contested is that this is evolution and not devolution.
My wife and I have a gene pool that our children will pull from. When that child is born, it will lack genetic information that previously existed between my wife and I. The child will either get a dominate or a recessive gene from me, and one from my wife. It cannot get a dominate gene if my wife and I did not already have it. So if both my wife and I had a dominant gene and a recessive gene and the child only has recessive, then information has been lost in this localized environment. This may make the child better suited, and it may not. Survival of the fittest will come into play and weed out poor combinations.
Micro-evolution can occur to such a degree that a new species is created. Still, no new information has been introduced, but rather information has been lost. As a result, a creationist will accept that speciazation does occur and we see it happening today.
A creationist believes that it is extremely rare (if even possible) that new genetic information is introduced in the creation of an organism and that this genetic modification is actually beneficial to the organism.
Macro-evolution is far from being scientifically proven. There is science that leads us to believe it is possible, but it is not something we can reproduce, and the number of times it has been postulated to have been observed are extremely rare.
So on that note, both Creationism and evolution are both articles of faith.
All the fuel cells I have worked with run very quiet. The loudest noise is the fan bringing air into the unit and that is about as loud as some of the PCs I have used. The exhaust is pretty much air + CO2. I would imagine that fuel cells could provide significantly more power per weight than a battery. The fuel cell will provide electricity, so all you would need is an electric motor.
As fios rolls out, this will quickly become an option. For $90 a month, I can get 50Mbps down.
50Mbps * 3600 (s/hr) = 180,000 Mbps = 18 giga bytes per hour... Thats twice what you proposed for a reasonable price.
Currently I have the cheapest fios option, $35 per month for 10Mbps down. They also have $45 per month for 20Mbps down. The box on the side of my house is capable of providing 1,000Mbps down & up, though they do not offer any packages that would use this at the moment.
"then glide 120 miles or more before landing" "leaping out of an aircraft 30,000ft above Dover and landing safely near Calais 12 minutes later." "he soared across the sea at 220mph, moving six feet forward through the air for every one foot he fell vertically "
Now 30k ft ~= 5.7mi. At 6ft foward for 1 down, that gives 5.7mi * 6 = 34mi. If he flew the entire drop time (12 min) at 220mph, he would travel 220 *12 / 60 = 44mi.
How do they get to glide 120 miles? Does the parachute take them the extra 80 miles?
Don't confuse adaptation with evolution. When I have children, half of their genetic makeup will be mine, and half will be my wife's. If both my wife and I have both a dominate and recessive gene, there is a possibility that our child will have 2 recessive genes. If that happens, then our child will exhibit a trait that either my wife or I have. This loss of genetic information could make our child better suited for the environment and thus they will flourish. This allows us to adapt to our environment, not evolve. Evolution requires a changing of the genetic structure such that information is gained.
A great dane and a poodle can breed and have offspring as they are both dogs with the same genetic structure. They look and act totally different, because they have different genes. This kind of change is an example of adaptation where genetic information is lost.
Everywhere we look we see life adapting and losing information. It is very rare to see something actually evolve by gaining some kind of genetic information, or a changing of the genetic structure.
Why do people embrace capitalism as a way of life, but shun it when it comes to saving a life? What do you think would happen if people could choose to donate their organ, or auction them, or let them rot?
People understand that lust benefits society in a capitalistic society. (I want more money, so I will find an innovative way to get people to give me their money. People give their money because it is something they want) Why do people freak when this concept is applied to organs?
I know there is a shortage of organs now, but if people knew that their loved ones could benefit financially by auctioning their organs, don't you think there would be more organs on the market? Considering peoples greed, you would probably find spouses checking to make sure that the other had auction organs marked on their drivers license.
The only regulation you would need is that you cannot set a minimum amount on the auction. Without this you would have people saying, "Don't sell organ unless my family gets $50,000". If you're going to auction your organs, the market should set the price. It costs money to harvest an organ, and that money should not be wasted letting the organ rot because those in need are not bidding high enough.
The number of organs transplanted would increase greatly and many more lives would be saved. But I guess this is a bad thing because some families in morning are receiving financial compensation, and others might have to be slightly successful to afford such benefits. Even if organs could be auctioned, many will still be donated, so those less fortunate financially would still be on a list.
Nukes can produce power for about 1-2 cents a kilowatt hour...When you add a ton of government regulations on a nuke, you drive the price up. This is why the US stopped building Nukes more than 20 yrs ago, and France is still building them.
Yes Nukes produce radioactive material, but don't for get that all the nuclear waste that has been generated over the past 50yrs could easily fit in a single gymnasium. Also, about 90% of the nuclear waste produced can be recycled in France, but not in the US. By recycling the waste, a by-product of plutonium is created, and comercial entities in the US cannot be in position of it.
Nukes can be the cheaper way to go, but the people have to be willing to use nuclear.
People like to whine about politicians extending IP laws such that they continue to protect big businesses that have been around forever. It appears as though politicians extend these laws in exchange for campaign funding or other kickbacks that are paid by the big businesses. These extensions tend to defeat the purpose of the IP laws, as these ideas need to be made available to the public domain such that other ideas may be developed unhindered. The law is there only to provide temporary protection of ideas such that a profit can be made. Thus giving an incentive to have new ideas and inventions, while not hindering growth in the long run.
While I have no problem if politicians decide that IP laws need to be changed in order to inspire more ideas/creativity/inventions, I do have a problem with extending the laws as a result of lobbying efforts of big businesses. I don't feel the politician is at fault for this, as they are seeking funding for campaigns, and might feel a higher obligation to upholding moral laws than economic laws. I also don't feel that big businesses are at fault for lobbying for an extension as they want to succeed in their area of business (which creates new jobs / keeps jobs already made / and provides quality products and services).
I think a business should have no influence over these laws when the business is about to take a loss as a result of their IP expiring. Why don't we change the law such that big businesses would not have much of an incentive to lobby for a change in the law unless it was out of good will for the economy (not for its own gain)? Politicians won't change the law unless someone is lobbying (and paying) for it, or they feel it is needed.
What would happen if we passed a law that stated that any extension to an IP law would not affect any IP that was less than 10 years from expiration or has exceeded more than half the time originally allotted for its protection. A business would spend a ton of money lobbying to extend protection that it could lose in a year, but it wouldn't spend that much lobbying for an extension that wouldn't provide any protection for another 30 years.
It's like the guy who retired after having worked many many years for a big company. After going into retirement, the company came across a major problem with the equipment he used to work with. They spent several hundred k trying to get it back up and running, but just couldn't do it. Finally, they asked the guy to come in and look at it. The guy was happy to go in and work on it. He looked over the machine for about 5min. After diagnosing what the problem was, he took a piece of chalk out of his coat pocket and put an X on the machine. When the manager saw that he was ready to go, he asked what the company should do. They guy said that they should replace the part with the X mark on it.
The manager had an engineer get on top of it right away. As soon as the part was replace, they turned it on, and it ran beautifully.
The manager asked the guy to make a report detailing his services and expenses. The guy returned a single sheet of paper stating:
$1 Chalk mark
$49,999 Knowing where to put the chalk mark
The paper was signed and dated at the bottom. A week the guy received a check for the amount requested!
Slashdot Mirror
In other news, a minor was just charged with viewing elicit images of a minor in his bathroom mirror!
Wouldn't a simple DC/AC converter for your car work? Then run an extension cable indoors. Cut the line to the furnace and connect the line to the extension chord...instant power to your blower. Once the house is warm, connect the extension cable to the fridge....then to the deep freeze...It might be a bit of a pain, but only costs $50.
Creationists do not debate that micro-evolution occurs. They debate over macro-evolution. There is tons of evidence of micro-evolution, but very little on macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution is science. It is something we have observed, we have tested, we have reproduced, we have predicted. If we change a creature's environment and then observe the changes over a period of time, it will adapt to its new environment. This is not contested. What is contested is that this is evolution and not devolution.
My wife and I have a gene pool that our children will pull from. When that child is born, it will lack genetic information that previously existed between my wife and I. The child will either get a dominate or a recessive gene from me, and one from my wife. It cannot get a dominate gene if my wife and I did not already have it. So if both my wife and I had a dominant gene and a recessive gene and the child only has recessive, then information has been lost in this localized environment. This may make the child better suited, and it may not. Survival of the fittest will come into play and weed out poor combinations.
Micro-evolution can occur to such a degree that a new species is created. Still, no new information has been introduced, but rather information has been lost. As a result, a creationist will accept that speciazation does occur and we see it happening today.
A creationist believes that it is extremely rare (if even possible) that new genetic information is introduced in the creation of an organism and that this genetic modification is actually beneficial to the organism.
Macro-evolution is far from being scientifically proven. There is science that leads us to believe it is possible, but it is not something we can reproduce, and the number of times it has been postulated to have been observed are extremely rare.
So on that note, both Creationism and evolution are both articles of faith.
All the fuel cells I have worked with run very quiet. The loudest noise is the fan bringing air into the unit and that is about as loud as some of the PCs I have used. The exhaust is pretty much air + CO2. I would imagine that fuel cells could provide significantly more power per weight than a battery. The fuel cell will provide electricity, so all you would need is an electric motor.
As fios rolls out, this will quickly become an option. For $90 a month, I can get 50Mbps down.
50Mbps * 3600 (s/hr) = 180,000 Mbps = 18 giga bytes per hour... Thats twice what you proposed for a reasonable price.
Currently I have the cheapest fios option, $35 per month for 10Mbps down. They also have $45 per month for 20Mbps down. The box on the side of my house is capable of providing 1,000Mbps down & up, though they do not offer any packages that would use this at the moment.
The article states:
"then glide 120 miles or more before landing"
"leaping out of an aircraft 30,000ft above Dover and landing safely near Calais 12 minutes later."
"he soared across the sea at 220mph, moving six feet forward through the air for every one foot he fell vertically "
Now 30k ft ~= 5.7mi. At 6ft foward for 1 down, that gives 5.7mi * 6 = 34mi.
If he flew the entire drop time (12 min) at 220mph, he would travel 220 *12 / 60 = 44mi.
How do they get to glide 120 miles? Does the parachute take them the extra 80 miles?
So now the conservatives will sit on the right to watch Fox & liberals will sit on the left to watch the ABC channels...
When will they make a TV for independents?
Don't confuse adaptation with evolution. When I have children, half of their genetic makeup will be mine, and half will be my wife's. If both my wife and I have both a dominate and recessive gene, there is a possibility that our child will have 2 recessive genes. If that happens, then our child will exhibit a trait that either my wife or I have. This loss of genetic information could make our child better suited for the environment and thus they will flourish. This allows us to adapt to our environment, not evolve. Evolution requires a changing of the genetic structure such that information is gained.
A great dane and a poodle can breed and have offspring as they are both dogs with the same genetic structure. They look and act totally different, because they have different genes. This kind of change is an example of adaptation where genetic information is lost.
Everywhere we look we see life adapting and losing information. It is very rare to see something actually evolve by gaining some kind of genetic information, or a changing of the genetic structure.
While she was quite helpful and only asked once (why so many installs)
Maybe because I keep getting viruses and format is the only way I can remove them all without paying for additional software!
Have you noticed that trucks pay more on thruways than cars?
Why do people embrace capitalism as a way of life, but shun it when it comes to saving a life? What do you think would happen if people could choose to donate their organ, or auction them, or let them rot?
People understand that lust benefits society in a capitalistic society. (I want more money, so I will find an innovative way to get people to give me their money. People give their money because it is something they want) Why do people freak when this concept is applied to organs?
I know there is a shortage of organs now, but if people knew that their loved ones could benefit financially by auctioning their organs, don't you think there would be more organs on the market? Considering peoples greed, you would probably find spouses checking to make sure that the other had auction organs marked on their drivers license.
The only regulation you would need is that you cannot set a minimum amount on the auction. Without this you would have people saying, "Don't sell organ unless my family gets $50,000". If you're going to auction your organs, the market should set the price. It costs money to harvest an organ, and that money should not be wasted letting the organ rot because those in need are not bidding high enough.
The number of organs transplanted would increase greatly and many more lives would be saved. But I guess this is a bad thing because some families in morning are receiving financial compensation, and others might have to be slightly successful to afford such benefits. Even if organs could be auctioned, many will still be donated, so those less fortunate financially would still be on a list.
This link does not seem to be bogged down with slashdot traffic yet! Trailer!
Nukes can produce power for about 1-2 cents a kilowatt hour...When you add a ton of government regulations on a nuke, you drive the price up. This is why the US stopped building Nukes more than 20 yrs ago, and France is still building them. Yes Nukes produce radioactive material, but don't for get that all the nuclear waste that has been generated over the past 50yrs could easily fit in a single gymnasium. Also, about 90% of the nuclear waste produced can be recycled in France, but not in the US. By recycling the waste, a by-product of plutonium is created, and comercial entities in the US cannot be in position of it. Nukes can be the cheaper way to go, but the people have to be willing to use nuclear.
What would happen if microsoft wrote its own worm to patch the holes that allowed the worm onto the computer in the first place?
Then computers that are most suseptable to the security hole would be first to get the worm that patches the hole.
I know this would never happen as this would leave microsoft liable for anything the patch might brake.
While I have no problem if politicians decide that IP laws need to be changed in order to inspire more ideas/creativity/inventions, I do have a problem with extending the laws as a result of lobbying efforts of big businesses. I don't feel the politician is at fault for this, as they are seeking funding for campaigns, and might feel a higher obligation to upholding moral laws than economic laws. I also don't feel that big businesses are at fault for lobbying for an extension as they want to succeed in their area of business (which creates new jobs / keeps jobs already made / and provides quality products and services).
I think a business should have no influence over these laws when the business is about to take a loss as a result of their IP expiring. Why don't we change the law such that big businesses would not have much of an incentive to lobby for a change in the law unless it was out of good will for the economy (not for its own gain)? Politicians won't change the law unless someone is lobbying (and paying) for it, or they feel it is needed.
What would happen if we passed a law that stated that any extension to an IP law would not affect any IP that was less than 10 years from expiration or has exceeded more than half the time originally allotted for its protection. A business would spend a ton of money lobbying to extend protection that it could lose in a year, but it wouldn't spend that much lobbying for an extension that wouldn't provide any protection for another 30 years.
It's like the guy who retired after having worked many many years for a big company. After going into retirement, the company came across a major problem with the equipment he used to work with. They spent several hundred k trying to get it back up and running, but just couldn't do it. Finally, they asked the guy to come in and look at it. The guy was happy to go in and work on it. He looked over the machine for about 5min. After diagnosing what the problem was, he took a piece of chalk out of his coat pocket and put an X on the machine. When the manager saw that he was ready to go, he asked what the company should do. They guy said that they should replace the part with the X mark on it. The manager had an engineer get on top of it right away. As soon as the part was replace, they turned it on, and it ran beautifully. The manager asked the guy to make a report detailing his services and expenses. The guy returned a single sheet of paper stating: $1 Chalk mark $49,999 Knowing where to put the chalk mark The paper was signed and dated at the bottom. A week the guy received a check for the amount requested!