And yet the Christian position here in America is that the nation is no longer the "theocratic empire" it once was and is becoming secularized and thumbing its nose at God. But the Christians come to the same conclusion, that America is going to go downhill. The only difference is WHY. You think it is because America focuses too much on God. The Christians think it is because America has stopped focusing on God.
I agree with you to some extent. Every time scientists and biblical scholars start to fight it out, it comes down to scientists complaining that Bible scholars keep going back to the Bible rather than to scientific method to prove their points. Well, Duh! Can scientists prove their points using the Bible? Both sides have circular arguments. Science says their point is true because it works with the scientific method. Bible scholars say their point is true because the Bible says it is true. Neither side will ever be able to prove their point using the other sides tools because the tools are part of both sides arguments.
>What I fail to see is why people can't say something like "If God created everything, and we have evidence of evolution, then god created evolution for his divine purposes." Science and religion need not, and never have needed to be at odds with each other.
Funny you should say that, because I believe in God, and this has been my stance all along. God created the Universe, and created the physical principals which govern it. He made F=MA and He made e=MC**2. I know many, many people who feel the same way. Unless one really tries to take Gensis literally, I find nothing in the Bible that disagrees with what I can observe today.
There is no reason that Science and God can not coexist. Science seems to have a real hatred for God, though, and I think that perhaps believers in God fear Science because their faith is not perfect and they worry that with enough research, Science might prove that God doesn't exist. I have no such worries that Science will ever disprove God. In fact, according to Scientific theory, you can't prove nonexistence, so no worries.
These days, Science, and particularly archaelogy, tends to prove rather than disprove the Bible.
I thank you for the suggestion, and yes, I have also looked into Stephen Jay Gould's writings. I hope you can respect that I don't just blindy believe what a religious person tells me, but that I go out and study for myself the world around me. And thus far, I have not found anything to disprove the presence of a creator.
Also, whoever modded my grandparent post as troll is obviously an idiot. A troll is someone who posts just to get a rise and reaction out of people. A troll is not every person who happens to think differently from yourself.
Of course on slashdot, you can guarantee a troll modifier on any post that fails to disparage God, George Bush, the United States, or Microsoft.
>The problem with evolution is that there is fossil evidence in conflict with it
I wouldn't say so much that the fossil evidence is in conflict with evolution so much as the fossil evidence just doesn't provide sufficient evidence to prove it. There are just too many gaps that we suppose were filled with some intermediate creature that we just haven't found any fossils for. But the scientific community has faith that such intermediary creatures must have existed, otherwise the ToE would be wrong.
I don't personally believe in a 6,000 year old earth, but I also find fault with the ToE. I am currently reading Darwin's Origin of Species to try to figure out if he has any suggestions for certain questions I have. For example, I can believe that natural selection would statistically favor rhinos with 13" horns over rhinos with 12" horns. But how could those horns have developed? Did natural selection find that little 1/4" nubs at the end of the nose caused a species to be more viable? And then they gre from there? Or did some hideous genetic mutation occur to a set of pre-rhinos, causing them to grow a big ugly horn on their nose. And somehow it occurred simultaneously on a large enough set of prerhinos that the ones with horns managed to find each other and mate? Doubtful.
How about eyes? The lens, the retina, the rods and cones, all work together. Developing any one of those is useless. They all have to develop together. But why would they? Unless by some accident they all formed at the same time and in, again, a large enough segment of the population to be reproducible, then they would never develop at all. I have heard some theories of evolutionary leaps that supposedly anticipate this. However, I figure that in order for these complex structures to form randomly, it would take a lot longer than a few billion years.
>People who prep for the SAT are bad people?
Everyone preps for the SAT. The problem is that some people cheat and take classes or read books specifically for the purpose of trying to get higher scores on the SAT. This sounds very similar to a link spammer or SEO, right?
In order for everyone to be on equal ground, everyone should prepare for the SAT in the same way: by showing up on the day of the test and taking it.
Otherwise it is not a test of your scholastic aptitude, but a test of how well you can study for a scholastic aptitude test, which is not a particularly useful skill in the real world. Well, I take that back, the ability to find and exploit loopholes IS good for the individual, but not for society at large.
>Fortunately my memory didn't fail me
I may have once known the answer to the quicksort quoestion, but now I don't care and I don't bother wasting memory space on it. If I really needed to know, like for trying to decide the best algorithm for quickly sorting some data, I'd go look it up. I had somehow thought that perhaps Google was past the need for someone to tell them how to quickly sort some data, but apparently not.
Also, I would have hoped that Google's HR people were not of the type that required their interviewees to devote their brain cells to memorizing nonessential information that could easily be looked up. But why should Google be any different than any other company?
P.S. Bogosort is still my favorite.
No, it probably means that their ignorant HR people have set the salary bands in such an idiotic way that the programmers have to be given a title of "manager" in order to earn the money that they deserve. But, of course, they don't actually manage anybody.
Just to clarify, vermiculite itself does not contain asbestos. In fact, it is a type of rock in and of itself which, like a ballpark frank, "Plumps when you cook it", becoming a very light rock.
The reason the two became associated was, as mentioned in parent, one particular vermiculite mine had asbestos in it as well. All the vermiculite mines which tested positive for asbestos are now closed down.
I used vermiculite and cement for the bottom of my inground swimming pool (under the liner of course). The result is a bottom that is easier on the feet than a traditional concrete bottom. While vermiculite and cement is not as strong as gravel and cement, it is still able to support a 30 foot water column, which is far deeper than my pool.
Vermiculite is also commonly used as insulation, especially in masonry applications.
That really pissed me off when I moved to Wisconsin from Illinois. Illinois charged me income tax only on the income I made while in Illinois. Wisconsin charged me for the entire years income, even though half of it was earned in Illinois.
Wisconsin pissed me off even further when I moved out. I had had NO JOB and earned NO INCOME for 6 months, then moved to Oklahoma. Oklahoma charged me for 100% of the income I made in Oklahoma, and so did Wisconsin. Since I hadn't withheld in Wisconsin, I ended up having to write them a check, even though I hadn't earned a single dime of income in their state.
That was also the year that I had more itemized deductions than income. Good for taxes, not so good for Net Worth.
Ever wonder why your comapny has all those "Sales Offices" that are really just a persons house?
Some states (Colorado is noted for this) penalize businesses for employing their residents while not maintaining a business presence their.
Just what I was thinking. Also, when they show a shot in outer space, they could suck all the air out of the room, and everyone would die. That would be so cool!
Ha! You scientists are always running around saying "The universe is only 14 billion years old! The universe is only 14 billion years old!" It's obvious from observation that the universe is much older than your scientific scriptures postulate.
There is no science! Get over it!
Slashdot doesn't suck, but just like the internet, the signal to noise ration has been degrading ever since johnny everyman joined.
Plus the anti-Bush, anti-America, Anti-God, Anti-Microsoft, anti-slashdot-moderator, anti-conservative attitude is getting very tiring.
So where's the new slashdot? The one that hasn't sunk to the lowest common denominator yet?
I agree. Especially since there are thousands of other industries that have lost revenue due to file sharing. Would you be willing to pay 1000% sales tax on your computer to compensate those industries? Oh, and by the way, how will those taxes be routed back to those industries?
I have never downloaded any music, illegally or legally. I don't imagine I would do it for 5 cents a song either. I like having the CD package with the insert and stuff. So obviously, I am not interested in a tax subsidizing other people who may choose to use this service.
a 20:1 glide ratio (assuming 50,000 feet) is much higher than any other jet I am aware of(typically 10:1 or less), and is higher than even most small planes (typically 14:1). Some gliders have 30:1 or higher glide ratios.
I doubt that the global flyer has a 20:1 glide ratio.
I wonder, though, how well composite planes, such as the one we are discussing, fare in a lightning strike.
Clearly they must not be that bad, or they wouldn't be building so many new small and midsize planes out of composite materials.
I doubt that it could be landed when fully loaded with fuel. Hopefully they had a dump procedure in case an emergency happened just after takeoff.
Most small planes can land with full fuel tanks. Most large planes are certified with higher takeoff weights than landing weights, meaning that they have to dump fuel if they are overweight and have an emergency. With as much fuel as this plane has onboard, a full fuel landing would have probably destroyed the airframe, which would have meant fuel dumped all over the place, and high potential for a fire.
The propeller is easy. You push the air backward, the plane moves forward. We use the shape of the wings to cause the air to move faster above the wing than below, causing lift. But the reaction force is still equal to and opposite to the acting force.
See, you proved my point. Even in slashdot every action causes an equal and opposite reaction.
Seriously though, enlighten me. What doesn't follow this basic scientific principle?
Oh sure, politics, where an action causes inaction...inaction...inaction...violent overreaction.
Yet they are able to respond perfectly in situations that they *are* programmed for. IE, engine out, wind shear, loss of one or more control surfaces, etc, all of which a human may train for, but is less likely than the computer to diagnose in a short period of time. Which is exactly why you have an autopilot AND a human pilot. One to handle the mundane, and the known emergencies, and the other to think how to handle the unknowns, should they arise.
Even the human pilot is to a large degree an autopilot. Part of the reason commercial air travel is so safe is that the air carriers produce detailed manuals as to exactly what to do in the event of failures of just about any component you can think of. Pilots go to this first when something goes wrong. Leaning on the past experience of other pilots is better than trying to think of your own solution on the spur of the moment. But, just in case the answers not in there, the pilot is still able to think on his own of a solution (hopefully), and the autopilot can't. Remember, the #1 cause of aircraft accidents is "controlled flight into terrain".
Which says that the real problem is not equipment failure, but a lack of situational awareness. This is not generally a problem in commercial flight, as they have equipment to detect both ground proximity below and ahead, even in complete Instrument Conditions. It's the general aviation pilots (like me) who misinterpret the weather, or hope it clears up, and then find themselves in the soup next to a mountain that have most of the CFITs.
I know you're trolling, but until recently pilots were not required to carry photo IDs, but only to show their pilot certificate (which does not have a photo on it). The government had wanted to replace all pilot certificates with a new document which had a photo on it, but tey backed down and agreed that it would be sufficient to display a pilot certificate and a government issued photo ID such as a driver's license.
it is not necessary for a private pilot to go through TSA in order for him to fly his own plane. However, he must display his pilot certificate and a government issued photo ID if requested to do so by an official of the FAA, local state or federal law enforcement, customs official, presumably TSA, and probably just about anybody else.
Come on now. Everything works by action and reaction.
The ramjet does appear to be more like a jet than a rocket to me though. The difference from a conventional jet engine being that it depends upon forward motion to act as the compressor.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet the Christian position here in America is that the nation is no longer the "theocratic empire" it once was and is becoming secularized and thumbing its nose at God. But the Christians come to the same conclusion, that America is going to go downhill. The only difference is WHY. You think it is because America focuses too much on God. The Christians think it is because America has stopped focusing on God.
I agree with you to some extent. Every time scientists and biblical scholars start to fight it out, it comes down to scientists complaining that Bible scholars keep going back to the Bible rather than to scientific method to prove their points. Well, Duh! Can scientists prove their points using the Bible? Both sides have circular arguments. Science says their point is true because it works with the scientific method. Bible scholars say their point is true because the Bible says it is true. Neither side will ever be able to prove their point using the other sides tools because the tools are part of both sides arguments.
>What I fail to see is why people can't say something like "If God created everything, and we have evidence of evolution, then god created evolution for his divine purposes." Science and religion need not, and never have needed to be at odds with each other.
Funny you should say that, because I believe in God, and this has been my stance all along. God created the Universe, and created the physical principals which govern it. He made F=MA and He made e=MC**2. I know many, many people who feel the same way. Unless one really tries to take Gensis literally, I find nothing in the Bible that disagrees with what I can observe today.
There is no reason that Science and God can not coexist. Science seems to have a real hatred for God, though, and I think that perhaps believers in God fear Science because their faith is not perfect and they worry that with enough research, Science might prove that God doesn't exist. I have no such worries that Science will ever disprove God. In fact, according to Scientific theory, you can't prove nonexistence, so no worries.
These days, Science, and particularly archaelogy, tends to prove rather than disprove the Bible.
I thank you for the suggestion, and yes, I have also looked into Stephen Jay Gould's writings. I hope you can respect that I don't just blindy believe what a religious person tells me, but that I go out and study for myself the world around me. And thus far, I have not found anything to disprove the presence of a creator.
Also, whoever modded my grandparent post as troll is obviously an idiot. A troll is someone who posts just to get a rise and reaction out of people. A troll is not every person who happens to think differently from yourself.
Of course on slashdot, you can guarantee a troll modifier on any post that fails to disparage God, George Bush, the United States, or Microsoft.
>The problem with evolution is that there is fossil evidence in conflict with it
I wouldn't say so much that the fossil evidence is in conflict with evolution so much as the fossil evidence just doesn't provide sufficient evidence to prove it. There are just too many gaps that we suppose were filled with some intermediate creature that we just haven't found any fossils for. But the scientific community has faith that such intermediary creatures must have existed, otherwise the ToE would be wrong.
I don't personally believe in a 6,000 year old earth, but I also find fault with the ToE. I am currently reading Darwin's Origin of Species to try to figure out if he has any suggestions for certain questions I have. For example, I can believe that natural selection would statistically favor rhinos with 13" horns over rhinos with 12" horns. But how could those horns have developed? Did natural selection find that little 1/4" nubs at the end of the nose caused a species to be more viable? And then they gre from there? Or did some hideous genetic mutation occur to a set of pre-rhinos, causing them to grow a big ugly horn on their nose. And somehow it occurred simultaneously on a large enough set of prerhinos that the ones with horns managed to find each other and mate? Doubtful.
How about eyes? The lens, the retina, the rods and cones, all work together. Developing any one of those is useless. They all have to develop together. But why would they? Unless by some accident they all formed at the same time and in, again, a large enough segment of the population to be reproducible, then they would never develop at all. I have heard some theories of evolutionary leaps that supposedly anticipate this. However, I figure that in order for these complex structures to form randomly, it would take a lot longer than a few billion years.
How about this one:
Free Tibet at Amazon.com
Maybe I should take them up on it. Then I could sell it to China.
>People who prep for the SAT are bad people?
Everyone preps for the SAT. The problem is that some people cheat and take classes or read books specifically for the purpose of trying to get higher scores on the SAT. This sounds very similar to a link spammer or SEO, right?
In order for everyone to be on equal ground, everyone should prepare for the SAT in the same way: by showing up on the day of the test and taking it.
Otherwise it is not a test of your scholastic aptitude, but a test of how well you can study for a scholastic aptitude test, which is not a particularly useful skill in the real world. Well, I take that back, the ability to find and exploit loopholes IS good for the individual, but not for society at large.
>Fortunately my memory didn't fail me
I may have once known the answer to the quicksort quoestion, but now I don't care and I don't bother wasting memory space on it. If I really needed to know, like for trying to decide the best algorithm for quickly sorting some data, I'd go look it up. I had somehow thought that perhaps Google was past the need for someone to tell them how to quickly sort some data, but apparently not.
Also, I would have hoped that Google's HR people were not of the type that required their interviewees to devote their brain cells to memorizing nonessential information that could easily be looked up. But why should Google be any different than any other company?
P.S. Bogosort is still my favorite.
No, it probably means that their ignorant HR people have set the salary bands in such an idiotic way that the programmers have to be given a title of "manager" in order to earn the money that they deserve. But, of course, they don't actually manage anybody.
Just to clarify, vermiculite itself does not contain asbestos. In fact, it is a type of rock in and of itself which, like a ballpark frank, "Plumps when you cook it", becoming a very light rock.
The reason the two became associated was, as mentioned in parent, one particular vermiculite mine had asbestos in it as well. All the vermiculite mines which tested positive for asbestos are now closed down.
I used vermiculite and cement for the bottom of my inground swimming pool (under the liner of course). The result is a bottom that is easier on the feet than a traditional concrete bottom. While vermiculite and cement is not as strong as gravel and cement, it is still able to support a 30 foot water column, which is far deeper than my pool.
Vermiculite is also commonly used as insulation, especially in masonry applications.
That really pissed me off when I moved to Wisconsin from Illinois. Illinois charged me income tax only on the income I made while in Illinois. Wisconsin charged me for the entire years income, even though half of it was earned in Illinois.
Wisconsin pissed me off even further when I moved out. I had had NO JOB and earned NO INCOME for 6 months, then moved to Oklahoma. Oklahoma charged me for 100% of the income I made in Oklahoma, and so did Wisconsin. Since I hadn't withheld in Wisconsin, I ended up having to write them a check, even though I hadn't earned a single dime of income in their state.
That was also the year that I had more itemized deductions than income. Good for taxes, not so good for Net Worth.
Ever wonder why your comapny has all those "Sales Offices" that are really just a persons house?
Some states (Colorado is noted for this) penalize businesses for employing their residents while not maintaining a business presence their.
Just what I was thinking. Also, when they show a shot in outer space, they could suck all the air out of the room, and everyone would die. That would be so cool!
Ha! You scientists are always running around saying "The universe is only 14 billion years old! The universe is only 14 billion years old!" It's obvious from observation that the universe is much older than your scientific scriptures postulate.
There is no science! Get over it!
Thank you very much, I'll be here all my life.
Slashdot doesn't suck, but just like the internet, the signal to noise ration has been degrading ever since johnny everyman joined.
Plus the anti-Bush, anti-America, Anti-God, Anti-Microsoft, anti-slashdot-moderator, anti-conservative attitude is getting very tiring.
So where's the new slashdot? The one that hasn't sunk to the lowest common denominator yet?
I agree. Especially since there are thousands of other industries that have lost revenue due to file sharing. Would you be willing to pay 1000% sales tax on your computer to compensate those industries? Oh, and by the way, how will those taxes be routed back to those industries?
I have never downloaded any music, illegally or legally. I don't imagine I would do it for 5 cents a song either. I like having the CD package with the insert and stuff. So obviously, I am not interested in a tax subsidizing other people who may choose to use this service.
a 20:1 glide ratio (assuming 50,000 feet) is much higher than any other jet I am aware of(typically 10:1 or less), and is higher than even most small planes (typically 14:1). Some gliders have 30:1 or higher glide ratios.
I doubt that the global flyer has a 20:1 glide ratio.
I wonder, though, how well composite planes, such as the one we are discussing, fare in a lightning strike.
Clearly they must not be that bad, or they wouldn't be building so many new small and midsize planes out of composite materials.
Jet A is 6.84 pounds per gallon. 100 LL is 6 pounds per gallon.
I doubt that it could be landed when fully loaded with fuel. Hopefully they had a dump procedure in case an emergency happened just after takeoff.
Most small planes can land with full fuel tanks. Most large planes are certified with higher takeoff weights than landing weights, meaning that they have to dump fuel if they are overweight and have an emergency. With as much fuel as this plane has onboard, a full fuel landing would have probably destroyed the airframe, which would have meant fuel dumped all over the place, and high potential for a fire.
The propeller is easy. You push the air backward, the plane moves forward. We use the shape of the wings to cause the air to move faster above the wing than below, causing lift. But the reaction force is still equal to and opposite to the acting force.
See, you proved my point. Even in slashdot every action causes an equal and opposite reaction.
Seriously though, enlighten me. What doesn't follow this basic scientific principle?
Oh sure, politics, where an action causes inaction...inaction...inaction...violent overreaction.
Yet they are able to respond perfectly in situations that they *are* programmed for. IE, engine out, wind shear, loss of one or more control surfaces, etc, all of which a human may train for, but is less likely than the computer to diagnose in a short period of time.
Which is exactly why you have an autopilot AND a human pilot. One to handle the mundane, and the known emergencies, and the other to think how to handle the unknowns, should they arise.
Even the human pilot is to a large degree an autopilot. Part of the reason commercial air travel is so safe is that the air carriers produce detailed manuals as to exactly what to do in the event of failures of just about any component you can think of. Pilots go to this first when something goes wrong. Leaning on the past experience of other pilots is better than trying to think of your own solution on the spur of the moment. But, just in case the answers not in there, the pilot is still able to think on his own of a solution (hopefully), and the autopilot can't.
Remember, the #1 cause of aircraft accidents is "controlled flight into terrain".
Which says that the real problem is not equipment failure, but a lack of situational awareness. This is not generally a problem in commercial flight, as they have equipment to detect both ground proximity below and ahead, even in complete Instrument Conditions. It's the general aviation pilots (like me) who misinterpret the weather, or hope it clears up, and then find themselves in the soup next to a mountain that have most of the CFITs.
I know you're trolling, but until recently pilots were not required to carry photo IDs, but only to show their pilot certificate (which does not have a photo on it). The government had wanted to replace all pilot certificates with a new document which had a photo on it, but tey backed down and agreed that it would be sufficient to display a pilot certificate and a government issued photo ID such as a driver's license.
it is not necessary for a private pilot to go through TSA in order for him to fly his own plane. However, he must display his pilot certificate and a government issued photo ID if requested to do so by an official of the FAA, local state or federal law enforcement, customs official, presumably TSA, and probably just about anybody else.
Come on now. Everything works by action and reaction.
The ramjet does appear to be more like a jet than a rocket to me though. The difference from a conventional jet engine being that it depends upon forward motion to act as the compressor.