I agree. I wish that the University would have provided at least a little more technical details. Not so much that you need a Ph.D. in Chemistry/BioChemistry to understand, just so that you know how the tool will work. We can guess that the DNA is used to ferret out the offending agent, but not the mechanics. Does the DNA bond with an agent which causes the completetion of a detector circuit?
Not necessarily more power, just more people. I do believe that the FDA performs a valuable service. I do think that they are understaffed to handle the requests (as they apparently have a backlog for review); and the protocols to be followed in determining the worthiness of a pharmaceutical product for public consumption or involved. I'm not a medical practitioner nor am I a medical researcher, so I won't say that they are too long. I just know that it is a long period of time. I think that the time could be shortened by reducing the amount of time that it takes the FDA to review the drug. If there are more people, more drugs could be reviewed.
I don't know that dropping the FDA would be a good practice. I don't necessarily trust the pharmaceutical corporations to make drug compounds and decisions that have my best interests above the desire for profit. There are many weight-loss, energy pills, and other herbal supplements that have been linked to stroke, heart-attack, heart-damage, and death. These are supposedly "tested", and yet they are injuring or killing the ones who consume them. I don't blame this,however, entirely on lack of adequate testing. Obviously, people could be abusing these herbals and usually, there isn't any medical supervision provided (doctor, pharmacist, Physician's Assistant) when taking them.
My point, in brief, is that I believe we would go from one extreme to another if we canned the FDA. We would go from too difficult and non-responsive, to not enough supervision. I think we need to revamp the FDA. Give them more testing staff, more labs, improve their examination process.....whatever it takes to make the process quicker.
Come now. That statement, really is the pot calling the kettle black. I fail to see how finding the equivalent values of three dimensionless factors, that are naturally occuring in the cosmos, relates to self-righteousness. I'll admit that your second post was an improvement over your previous reply to my musings, but by your own admission, you are prejudiced and uncivil. I have been extremely polite to you considering the language that you have directed towards me. I have not cursed you, nor have I cast baseless insults upon you. You imply you dislike assumptions, yet you make more. You assume I'm a fundamentalist, you assume I'm a Christian, you assume I'm male, and you also assume that I subscribe to the anthropic principle and numerology. You don't know my philosophy and it would take more time to explain it to you than I care to spend. I'm sorry that you don't like me. However, in the end it doesn't really matter if you like me or even if I like you.
Newton's concept of a linear, universal time was held in high regard until Einstein developed his theories on relativity. Now we view time as "relative" to the observer. Perhaps the end of the earth will occur before then, perhaps after, it may even occur on 2060. However, I wouldn't buy stock in Boeing or Lockheed based on what Newton has conjectured.
No argument from me! I'm definitely prejudiced against creationists. I don't deny it. I stated this clearly and unambiguously a number of times. Creationists are certainly mentally inferior. I grow increasingly confident of this belief with every encounter. Afterall, in the past two days I've seen the following from creationists
Evolution is represented by Adolf Hitler.
Evolution is all about chance.
Thermodynamics proves evolution wrong.
Dawkins is an idiot.
Patterson is an idiot.
Gould is an idiot.
Creation scientists have falsified evolution.
False claims against Lewin and Patterson.
Everybody is conspiring against creationists!
Argument from incredulity.
Excellent! Realization of a problem is the first step towards recovery. Perhaps, you should work on your "sensitivity". Bigotry, prejudice, and arrogance have historically been considered undesirable traits to posess.
In all fairness, you can't rely on the posters to this thread as a representative cross-section of "creationists" and "creation scientists". While what you cite is indeed ridiculous and the posts do not demonstrate an understanding of the concepts on which they post, I would argue that you can only draw a conclusion about the post itself and not the poster. You haven't enough information about the poster to formulate a valid opinion. For all you know about the poster, they could be a junior high student, high school student, or a deliberate antagonist with designs on you!
But I think you judge me unfairly when you claim that I dislike theology. Nobody ever asked me what my religious beliefs were. I have no problem with creation. I just have a big problem with creationists and particularly with so-called "creation scientists".
Ahhh, so you don't like it when people make assumptions of you either. Well now, perhaps you should extend people the same coutesy you expect to be afforded. Are your views of creationists the same regardless of whether they choose the Bible, Koran, Torah, or more recently Panspermia, Scientology, or Raelian "revelations" as their basis for creation information?
I think the recent threads prove without any doubt that there's no value in being civil with creationists. The creationist ignores reasoned responses and valid evidence. The creationist's ears are already "deaf" so being rude won't make a lick of difference and being civil would just give false validity to their delusion.
There is no valid excuse for failing to be civil. Perhaps the creationist's ears are already "deaf", you can't make them listen with your rantings. You can't make anyone listen to something they don't want to hear. However, you do guarantee that they won't ever listen if you only provide insult as input.
And while my opinion is that evolution is correct, it is also the opinion of the greater part of the scientific community. The recent "Steve petition" amusingly demonstrated that scientists overwhelmingly support evolution, not creationism. You are free to think I'm "stupid" but I consider myself in good company.
While I agree that evolution is correct (incomplete at worst), I cannot help but remember that at one time the greater scientific community once believed in the "etherial ether". They also believed that Newton's concept of a universal and linear time was satisfactory for describing the concept of time. We no longer require the ether to explain our theories, and we no longer view time using the definitions that Newton put forth. Just because the greater scientific community believes it to be correct, doesn't guarantee that it is. It just means you will have fewer problems getting your papers reviewed in a journal.
All things in nature have come into being from something, not nothing. A book from an author(s), a movie from a scriptor(s), a planet from a dust cloud, a dust cloud from a collection of molecules, a collection of molecules from a collection of elementary particles...and so forth. Logic demands that the cosmos has something from which it was created.
I don't subscribe to any of the three flavors of the anthropic principle, despite my musing being a poster child for observable selection. I prefer to think that there is a reason why the mass of a proton, Hubble's Time, and mass of the visible universe are roughly equivalent in value (10E40). The question, however nugatory, still deserves to be asked if only for posterity and definition. The fact that Jupiter, Saturn, and to a lesser degree Neptune are located in their particular orbits around the Sun are also an interesting development; as their gravity shields us from a great many asteroid and comet threats. The question of why they formed there is a similarly deserving question.
You obviously have trouble understanding semi-complex, contextual meaning, so I will provide you with a more elementary explanation of my remarks with regards to evolution as a non-science. We'll work off the principle that evolution is to biology as quantum mechanics is to physics. While neither are classifed as a science per se (in the modern taxonomy of major studies) they are both sub-areas of a larger whole. I merely declared my belief on evolution as an engine of change. I don't believe that evolution is the engine of creation. The new species arise from changes to existing species -- single and multi-cellular. There was another process responsible for the genesis of molecular compounds into a self-replicating cellular organism or viral entity in my belief and is yet to be explained.
You may assume I am ignorant, but your venomous remarks cast no doubt that you are a bigot. You automatically assault an individual for having beliefs in something you do not and you assume that having such beliefs is a sign of mental inferiority. That makes you arrogant. Your posts are so poisoned by your personal dislike for theology that it makes you prejudiced.
You are entitled to your opinions, but they are just that....your opinions. They are inflammatory and offensive to some (a direct violation of the posting rules on slashdot), but more importantly they only serve to make you look stupid. Next time, try posting your dissension with some class, otherwise you risk your "voice" falling on deaf ears.
IANACosmologist, but I'm 99.999999% sure that cosmologists do not reckon that the universe is expanding into a void or anything else. Space itself is expanding; there isn't any space outside the universe. (Barring some conjectures about parallel universes, branes, etc., which still don't provide a void for our universe to expand into.)
I'm not so sure that many astrophysicists would agree with that statement. As there are things in the universe that appear to be older than the universe, namely some globular clusters locatd in Virgo (though I cannot be sure of the constellation). There is a quasar (APM8279+5255), that contradicts elements of the Big Bang theory (namely age of cosmos). Essentially, this quasar (created 13.5 billion years ago) contains more iron than our solar system (created roughly 5 billion years ago). Our solar system should contain more iron than the Quasar. Early generation stars should have little iron compared to later generation ones like our sun. The other objects, globular clusters, are contested to be older than our universe. However, I find the Quasar more compelling since it skirts the age speculations by introducing a physical element "iron" into the argument. (The universe is believed to be about 13.7 billion years old +/- 200,000 years and the oldest globular clusters are believed to be between 13-16 billion years old).
No, because as Steven Hawking has shown, time is an artifact of the big bang; the concept of "prior" is undefined.
I think Hawking demonstrated that time "as we measure it" didn't exist (or start). Essentially, the Big Bang was the start of our time measurements for the Universe. Not necessarily that time itself didn't exist, just that nobody was around to measure it. Which is a question that is still debated. Arguably, there had to be something in existance prior to the Big Bang (singularity is popular belief) that generated all fields and particles seen in Universe today. Otherwise, the universe would have been created spontaneously out of nothing, which is at best a logical inconsistency and at worst, a death nail in the physical model of the universe.
That is an appeal to the anthropic principle. In its weak form it's merely an observation that if things were very different then we wouldn't be here to notice it. In it's strong form it is often offered as an argument for special creation (to make a cozy home for our important selves), but a moment's thought will show that the overwhelming majority of the universe is exceedingly inhospitable for life as we know it.
I personally don't subscribe to the anthropic principle, despite my musing being a prime example. The fact that the solar system is "just so" doesn't sit easily with my logic. I require a little heftier proof of why things are "just so". There is a reason why the mass of protons, Hubble's time, and the mass of the visible universe are close to 10E40. The vast majority of the universe is inhospitable to our life, but the existance of life in the universe is not improbable. Despite the nugatory nature of the question, it still deserves to be asked.
Why not? Evolution (or, strictly speaking, the study of evolution) is just an attempt to understand how one aspect of the universe works, just like biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc. We look at the evidence, generate a model to explain it, consider the implications of the model, and then look to see whether additional observations agree with or contradict those implications.
This may be splitting hairs but my quote said "I don't believe evolution to be a science as is biology or physics". Evolution is to biology what the Theory of Relativity is to physics. That doesn't mean I believe Evolution to be false mechanism.
It is exactly these sorts of discussions that give me pause to think about the universe in general. Specifically, how magnificently large it is. How it can be so infinite in scope and possibility yet, it is finite in its existence. For instance, we know the universe is expanding without bound or limit. We know that it is filling a void (imagine what the edge of the universe must look like and where it is going). Does that void have a real existence or can our consciousness and physical being not exist beyond the confines of the physical universe into that void?
We also know that all physical material that is in the universe was there when the universe was created. Most scientists speculate and theorize that this was the case at the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang. I often find myself wondering where the singularity came from and why it existed? I also wonder in what the singularity existed. It couldn't have been nothing, because it is impossible to create something out of nothing. (To take it a step further, is it even possible for us to imagine what existed prior to the Big Bang? Perhaps our understanding of reality is limited by our connection to the physical universe). Unless of course, human beings cannot exist beyond the confines of our universe, in which case the argument becomes "meta-physical".
I find it amazing that the Earth formed at just the right distance from the Sun, with all the necessary stellar material, at the right time in the Sun's life cycle on the main sequence to allow for life to develop. Of course the most amazing component of that thought, is that the stellar material existed in the correct quantities to provide a useful biosphere.
I must admit however, that I don't believe evolution to be a science as is biology or physics. Rather, I believe it is a mechanism, a procedural system much like an assembly line. You provide it raw material inputs, a working model of its environment, and it provides you with output in the form of biologic change. I also don't view religion as a science. Rather, I see it as a framework of beliefs. Is it wrong to have a religion? I don't think I, nor any other individual can answer that question. Right and wrong are relative terms and are often tied to the framework of beliefs that are prescribed in a religion. Does the existence of God depend upon the non-existence of the Theory of Evolution? No. The two are mutually exclusive. One is argued to be the Creator, while the other is argued to be the tool of creation.
Actually, there are several institutions that have a "photonic" system working. LANL and IBM are the two I can name off-the-top-of-my-head. I feel certain there are universities that have a research unit as well. I know that LANL has successfully transmitted a set of keys a length of 31 miles in 1999 and are currently working on free-space quantum cryptography system. The problem with current quantum cryptography equipment is that there is a limit to the distance a photon can travel through a fiber channel before being absorbed. I believe that the actual distance is approximately 65 km. However, I would encourage you to verify that number.
The most common use for quantum cryptography technology is, as a process for the transmission of the key pairs used to encrypt your data. Any attempt to intercept a key during transmission results in the keys destruction and the notification of the sender and receiver that their communication is being intercepted. The sender receiver can desist in sending a message until the transmission of their keys are successful. Imagine a future, where quantum encryption techniques are used to create sufficiently random and ridiculously large key pairs. However, all of this talk of crytography brings up an interesting thought on how to handle secrets; if more than one person knows your secret....then it isn't really a secret.
By "beat" do you mean "jam"? The US carries a law that says it is illegal to jam electromagnetic wave communication (domestic of course). That is why it is illegal to suppress cell phones in hospitals, hotels, any residence, etc... by using electronic equipment whose sole purpose is to "jam" communications. Purhaps we will all need to live in concrete homes with 6 inch thick windows!
I think that ISP's logs would show who logged in and what DHCP IP address was assigned to that user. Additionally, I believe that each subsequent IP address you aquire is connected to your log-in record. They also link your IP to your MAC address for you device that you connect with. Each MAC address is a unique address assigned to the device by the manufacturer. There is no such thing as true anonymity. There is always something that is left behind as evidence. The trick is only leaving behind what you want, not something you don't want, or something "accidentally" left behind. Typically, you only want to leave something behind that is not traceable (either out of practicality, or from a technological standpoint). However, don't take my words as gospel, as I have been known to be wrong.
Could you imagine your voyeuristic neighbor with a Thz ban scanner? Your bedroom life would no longer be sacred. Imagine if the same individual had access to the rendering software for the Thz scanner. What a neat home movie they would have.
The "Power Law" would serve as an effective argument against overpopulation. Not that smog, starvation, disease, pestilence, and overall resource depletion aren't credible arguments, this just adds another weight to the scale. With the inevitable increase to the "diversity" parameter that overpopulation would create, overpopulation would only exacerbate the inequalities.
You did not "sign away" your right to free speech. You can still voice your opinion on political views, march on town square, boycott your most hated corporation, and publish your opinions in a media outlet.
You can even go to the media and spill your beans about the knowledge you're not supposed to spill. The NDA is a signatory document not unlike a contract. You agree to not spill your beans about (protected element) that you learn, receive, or coming into knowing about (agent or agents). The document provides a legal recourse for the agent or agents should you vacate your responsibilty to the document. You did not give up any right.
You are talking about waiving your rights. Not signing them away. If you waive your rights, the waiver applies only to the current situation. It does not carry forward to all future events. You still have the right to a trial by jury for future infractions. If you sign away your rights, you abandon all claim to your rights present and future. You can "lose" some of your rights as a punishment, there again you did not "sign" them away. The fact that you can't sign your rights away guarantees such things as: that you will not become a slave (forced labor), you won't transfer your rights as a citizen to a non-citizen.
It should be known that a NDA does not remove any of any of your personal rights. Rather it is a contract that you have with (provide agent name here) not to reveal the protected knowledge. You can still spill your beans to a tabloid, media outlet, write a book, etc... However, it provides legal recourse to the afore mentioned agent and usually (in case of govt.) specifies punishment. Once again, you haven't signed away any rights. You've agreed to a contract.
It is possible to sign away your rights to a possession. A car, a book, a patent, an airplane. However, not a right.
I'm not sure. I think that patents provide an incentive for innovation. The monetary rights to your idea help encourage people to publish their idea. Otherwise, what incentive would you have to publish your idea? You wouldn't. You would help out your neighbor out of altruism possibly, but there is no incentive to publish your invention to the world.
You been watching serial experiments Lain again? I don't think that the 8Mhz frequency band would be enough for streming media, especially when you consider that FM and XM radio operates at a much higher frequency.
I remember there being an articl in "Popular Science" over this subject in an October of 1999 or 2000 issue. I can't find it now when I search the archives at Popular Science. It described a company in Dallas Texas that was patenting the technology to get the signal through a transformer station. They explained that the issue with the IP over powergrid worked by piggy-backing the packets over the EMF radiation that is generated around high voltage lines. The problem was not in how to piggy back the signal, rather how to extract it from a transformer station where the EMF fields of multiple cables merge. The solution this company came up with was to convert the data into a microwave signal at one end of the transformer station and beam it to the other end of the transformer station. I presume they would do something similar around the transformers at the neighborhoods as well. They were creating a prototype device that made use of maser technologies (basically a laser that operates in the microwave band of EM radiation). They were also patenting their devices that extract the signal from a wall plug (~110 US) and convert it to either 10BaseT or other options. The last time I checked up on the company they were beta-testing the technology in North Texas and Oklahoma. I'm not sure where they are now, as I don't remember the name of the company.
Aside from the technical hurdles of placing data on the powergrid, I think there would exist a technical hurdle in regards to data security. The EM fields given off by powerlines can affect your AM radio (and FM sometimes), so we know the signal is strong enough to affect electronics components. Since it is that strong, we can assume that the signal could be "read" by electronics components as well. Particularly, those who wish to construct "scanners". Anyone within close proximity of the powergrid could "tap" the line for data extraction. A significant security effort would need to be undertaken by ISP's to provide encrypted transmission of data. Currently, packets are simply sent down the wire with no encryption (unless you encrypt the data yourself). The wire itself provides a physical barrier to a data thief in that you must physically connect to the wire. With the powergrid you merely need to be in the proximity of the wire. I think this would only apply to overhead powerlines and transformer stations.
Additionally, data could be corrupted by natural causes such as solar flares and thunderstorms. Both of which would zap your data by scrambling the magnetic fields that you are depending on. Again, this might only affect the overhead lines and the transformer stations. Of course, if the transformer station went out, the whole issue becomes moot.
There was great hype about the SCI FI Channel's production of Frank Herbert's Dune when it was released. I remember a great portion of SCI Fiction oriented websites were debating the merits/demerits of both productions with regards to Herbert's own literary work. I find it only natural that the debate would continue about the next production. Oddly enough, I find the Dune series (literary works) intriguing. Very rarely do you find the creation of such works so very rich with detail. So complete is the marriage of ecology, religion, political intrigue, and human nature into the fabric of the Dune series that there is virtually no gap in the story. The underpinnings and background of the Dune universe leave no question of "how", "why", or "who" in the story. I plan to reserve my comments on whether the new SCI FI mini-series will be good or bad until after I've seen the show. Besides, SCI FI could do much worse in picking a literary work to produce as a mini-series.
Anybody read the prequels by Brian Herbert? Thoughts?
The constitutional rights you posess are not something you can "sign" away. The constitution guarantees those rights to all it's citizens, there is no provision for transferring your rights.
It is for this reason that the damage waivers you sign are very difficult to enforce. At best, they merely show that you had knowledge of the risk and nothing more.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I wish that the University would have provided at least a little more technical details. Not so much that you need a Ph.D. in Chemistry/BioChemistry to understand, just so that you know how the tool will work. We can guess that the DNA is used to ferret out the offending agent, but not the mechanics. Does the DNA bond with an agent which causes the completetion of a detector circuit?
Not necessarily more power, just more people. I do believe that the FDA performs a valuable service. I do think that they are understaffed to handle the requests (as they apparently have a backlog for review); and the protocols to be followed in determining the worthiness of a pharmaceutical product for public consumption or involved. I'm not a medical practitioner nor am I a medical researcher, so I won't say that they are too long. I just know that it is a long period of time. I think that the time could be shortened by reducing the amount of time that it takes the FDA to review the drug. If there are more people, more drugs could be reviewed.
I don't know that dropping the FDA would be a good practice. I don't necessarily trust the pharmaceutical corporations to make drug compounds and decisions that have my best interests above the desire for profit. There are many weight-loss, energy pills, and other herbal supplements that have been linked to stroke, heart-attack, heart-damage, and death. These are supposedly "tested", and yet they are injuring or killing the ones who consume them. I don't blame this,however, entirely on lack of adequate testing. Obviously, people could be abusing these herbals and usually, there isn't any medical supervision provided (doctor, pharmacist, Physician's Assistant) when taking them.
My point, in brief, is that I believe we would go from one extreme to another if we canned the FDA. We would go from too difficult and non-responsive, to not enough supervision. I think we need to revamp the FDA. Give them more testing staff, more labs, improve their examination process.....whatever it takes to make the process quicker.
You need some anger management.
Come now. That statement, really is the pot calling the kettle black. I fail to see how finding the equivalent values of three dimensionless factors, that are naturally occuring in the cosmos, relates to self-righteousness. I'll admit that your second post was an improvement over your previous reply to my musings, but by your own admission, you are prejudiced and uncivil. I have been extremely polite to you considering the language that you have directed towards me. I have not cursed you, nor have I cast baseless insults upon you. You imply you dislike assumptions, yet you make more. You assume I'm a fundamentalist, you assume I'm a Christian, you assume I'm male, and you also assume that I subscribe to the anthropic principle and numerology. You don't know my philosophy and it would take more time to explain it to you than I care to spend. I'm sorry that you don't like me. However, in the end it doesn't really matter if you like me or even if I like you.
Newton's concept of a linear, universal time was held in high regard until Einstein developed his theories on relativity. Now we view time as "relative" to the observer. Perhaps the end of the earth will occur before then, perhaps after, it may even occur on 2060. However, I wouldn't buy stock in Boeing or Lockheed based on what Newton has conjectured.
Excellent! Realization of a problem is the first step towards recovery. Perhaps, you should work on your "sensitivity". Bigotry, prejudice, and arrogance have historically been considered undesirable traits to posess.
In all fairness, you can't rely on the posters to this thread as a representative cross-section of "creationists" and "creation scientists". While what you cite is indeed ridiculous and the posts do not demonstrate an understanding of the concepts on which they post, I would argue that you can only draw a conclusion about the post itself and not the poster. You haven't enough information about the poster to formulate a valid opinion. For all you know about the poster, they could be a junior high student, high school student, or a deliberate antagonist with designs on you!
Ahhh, so you don't like it when people make assumptions of you either. Well now, perhaps you should extend people the same coutesy you expect to be afforded. Are your views of creationists the same regardless of whether they choose the Bible, Koran, Torah, or more recently Panspermia, Scientology, or Raelian "revelations" as their basis for creation information?
There is no valid excuse for failing to be civil. Perhaps the creationist's ears are already "deaf", you can't make them listen with your rantings. You can't make anyone listen to something they don't want to hear. However, you do guarantee that they won't ever listen if you only provide insult as input.
While I agree that evolution is correct (incomplete at worst), I cannot help but remember that at one time the greater scientific community once believed in the "etherial ether". They also believed that Newton's concept of a universal and linear time was satisfactory for describing the concept of time. We no longer require the ether to explain our theories, and we no longer view time using the definitions that Newton put forth. Just because the greater scientific community believes it to be correct, doesn't guarantee that it is. It just means you will have fewer problems getting your papers reviewed in a journal.
All things in nature have come into being from something, not nothing. A book from an author(s), a movie from a scriptor(s), a planet from a dust cloud, a dust cloud from a collection of molecules, a collection of molecules from a collection of elementary particles...and so forth. Logic demands that the cosmos has something from which it was created.
I don't subscribe to any of the three flavors of the anthropic principle, despite my musing being a poster child for observable selection. I prefer to think that there is a reason why the mass of a proton, Hubble's Time, and mass of the visible universe are roughly equivalent in value (10E40). The question, however nugatory, still deserves to be asked if only for posterity and definition. The fact that Jupiter, Saturn, and to a lesser degree Neptune are located in their particular orbits around the Sun are also an interesting development; as their gravity shields us from a great many asteroid and comet threats. The question of why they formed there is a similarly deserving question.
You obviously have trouble understanding semi-complex, contextual meaning, so I will provide you with a more elementary explanation of my remarks with regards to evolution as a non-science. We'll work off the principle that evolution is to biology as quantum mechanics is to physics. While neither are classifed as a science per se (in the modern taxonomy of major studies) they are both sub-areas of a larger whole. I merely declared my belief on evolution as an engine of change. I don't believe that evolution is the engine of creation. The new species arise from changes to existing species -- single and multi-cellular. There was another process responsible for the genesis of molecular compounds into a self-replicating cellular organism or viral entity in my belief and is yet to be explained.
You may assume I am ignorant, but your venomous remarks cast no doubt that you are a bigot. You automatically assault an individual for having beliefs in something you do not and you assume that having such beliefs is a sign of mental inferiority. That makes you arrogant. Your posts are so poisoned by your personal dislike for theology that it makes you prejudiced.
You are entitled to your opinions, but they are just that....your opinions. They are inflammatory and offensive to some (a direct violation of the posting rules on slashdot), but more importantly they only serve to make you look stupid. Next time, try posting your dissension with some class, otherwise you risk your "voice" falling on deaf ears.
At last....an individual with a dignant response.
I'm not so sure that many astrophysicists would agree with that statement. As there are things in the universe that appear to be older than the universe, namely some globular clusters locatd in Virgo (though I cannot be sure of the constellation). There is a quasar (APM8279+5255), that contradicts elements of the Big Bang theory (namely age of cosmos). Essentially, this quasar (created 13.5 billion years ago) contains more iron than our solar system (created roughly 5 billion years ago). Our solar system should contain more iron than the Quasar. Early generation stars should have little iron compared to later generation ones like our sun. The other objects, globular clusters, are contested to be older than our universe. However, I find the Quasar more compelling since it skirts the age speculations by introducing a physical element "iron" into the argument. (The universe is believed to be about 13.7 billion years old +/- 200,000 years and the oldest globular clusters are believed to be between 13-16 billion years old).
I think Hawking demonstrated that time "as we measure it" didn't exist (or start). Essentially, the Big Bang was the start of our time measurements for the Universe. Not necessarily that time itself didn't exist, just that nobody was around to measure it. Which is a question that is still debated. Arguably, there had to be something in existance prior to the Big Bang (singularity is popular belief) that generated all fields and particles seen in Universe today. Otherwise, the universe would have been created spontaneously out of nothing, which is at best a logical inconsistency and at worst, a death nail in the physical model of the universe.
I personally don't subscribe to the anthropic principle, despite my musing being a prime example. The fact that the solar system is "just so" doesn't sit easily with my logic. I require a little heftier proof of why things are "just so". There is a reason why the mass of protons, Hubble's time, and the mass of the visible universe are close to 10E40. The vast majority of the universe is inhospitable to our life, but the existance of life in the universe is not improbable. Despite the nugatory nature of the question, it still deserves to be asked.
This may be splitting hairs but my quote said "I don't believe evolution to be a science as is biology or physics". Evolution is to biology what the Theory of Relativity is to physics. That doesn't mean I believe Evolution to be false mechanism.
That is certainly a matter of opinion don't you think?
It is exactly these sorts of discussions that give me pause to think about the universe in general. Specifically, how magnificently large it is. How it can be so infinite in scope and possibility yet, it is finite in its existence. For instance, we know the universe is expanding without bound or limit. We know that it is filling a void (imagine what the edge of the universe must look like and where it is going). Does that void have a real existence or can our consciousness and physical being not exist beyond the confines of the physical universe into that void?
We also know that all physical material that is in the universe was there when the universe was created. Most scientists speculate and theorize that this was the case at the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang. I often find myself wondering where the singularity came from and why it existed? I also wonder in what the singularity existed. It couldn't have been nothing, because it is impossible to create something out of nothing. (To take it a step further, is it even possible for us to imagine what existed prior to the Big Bang? Perhaps our understanding of reality is limited by our connection to the physical universe). Unless of course, human beings cannot exist beyond the confines of our universe, in which case the argument becomes "meta-physical".
I find it amazing that the Earth formed at just the right distance from the Sun, with all the necessary stellar material, at the right time in the Sun's life cycle on the main sequence to allow for life to develop. Of course the most amazing component of that thought, is that the stellar material existed in the correct quantities to provide a useful biosphere.
I must admit however, that I don't believe evolution to be a science as is biology or physics. Rather, I believe it is a mechanism, a procedural system much like an assembly line. You provide it raw material inputs, a working model of its environment, and it provides you with output in the form of biologic change. I also don't view religion as a science. Rather, I see it as a framework of beliefs. Is it wrong to have a religion? I don't think I, nor any other individual can answer that question. Right and wrong are relative terms and are often tied to the framework of beliefs that are prescribed in a religion. Does the existence of God depend upon the non-existence of the Theory of Evolution? No. The two are mutually exclusive. One is argued to be the Creator, while the other is argued to be the tool of creation.
and so it continues, with your reply.
Actually, there are several institutions that have a "photonic" system working. LANL and IBM are the two I can name off-the-top-of-my-head. I feel certain there are universities that have a research unit as well. I know that LANL has successfully transmitted a set of keys a length of 31 miles in 1999 and are currently working on free-space quantum cryptography system. The problem with current quantum cryptography equipment is that there is a limit to the distance a photon can travel through a fiber channel before being absorbed. I believe that the actual distance is approximately 65 km. However, I would encourage you to verify that number.
The most common use for quantum cryptography technology is, as a process for the transmission of the key pairs used to encrypt your data. Any attempt to intercept a key during transmission results in the keys destruction and the notification of the sender and receiver that their communication is being intercepted. The sender receiver can desist in sending a message until the transmission of their keys are successful. Imagine a future, where quantum encryption techniques are used to create sufficiently random and ridiculously large key pairs. However, all of this talk of crytography brings up an interesting thought on how to handle secrets; if more than one person knows your secret....then it isn't really a secret.
as Al Gore has already stated, publicly, that he is responsible for the internet.
By "beat" do you mean "jam"? The US carries a law that says it is illegal to jam electromagnetic wave communication (domestic of course). That is why it is illegal to suppress cell phones in hospitals, hotels, any residence, etc... by using electronic equipment whose sole purpose is to "jam" communications. Purhaps we will all need to live in concrete homes with 6 inch thick windows!
I think that ISP's logs would show who logged in and what DHCP IP address was assigned to that user. Additionally, I believe that each subsequent IP address you aquire is connected to your log-in record. They also link your IP to your MAC address for you device that you connect with. Each MAC address is a unique address assigned to the device by the manufacturer. There is no such thing as true anonymity. There is always something that is left behind as evidence. The trick is only leaving behind what you want, not something you don't want, or something "accidentally" left behind. Typically, you only want to leave something behind that is not traceable (either out of practicality, or from a technological standpoint). However, don't take my words as gospel, as I have been known to be wrong.
Could you imagine your voyeuristic neighbor with a Thz ban scanner? Your bedroom life would no longer be sacred. Imagine if the same individual had access to the rendering software for the Thz scanner. What a neat home movie they would have.
The "Power Law" would serve as an effective argument against overpopulation. Not that smog, starvation, disease, pestilence, and overall resource depletion aren't credible arguments, this just adds another weight to the scale. With the inevitable increase to the "diversity" parameter that overpopulation would create, overpopulation would only exacerbate the inequalities.
You did not "sign away" your right to free speech. You can still voice your opinion on political views, march on town square, boycott your most hated corporation, and publish your opinions in a media outlet.
You can even go to the media and spill your beans about the knowledge you're not supposed to spill. The NDA is a signatory document not unlike a contract. You agree to not spill your beans about (protected element) that you learn, receive, or coming into knowing about (agent or agents). The document provides a legal recourse for the agent or agents should you vacate your responsibilty to the document. You did not give up any right.
You are talking about waiving your rights. Not signing them away. If you waive your rights, the waiver applies only to the current situation. It does not carry forward to all future events. You still have the right to a trial by jury for future infractions. If you sign away your rights, you abandon all claim to your rights present and future. You can "lose" some of your rights as a punishment, there again you did not "sign" them away. The fact that you can't sign your rights away guarantees such things as: that you will not become a slave (forced labor), you won't transfer your rights as a citizen to a non-citizen.
It should be known that a NDA does not remove any of any of your personal rights. Rather it is a contract that you have with (provide agent name here) not to reveal the protected knowledge. You can still spill your beans to a tabloid, media outlet, write a book, etc... However, it provides legal recourse to the afore mentioned agent and usually (in case of govt.) specifies punishment. Once again, you haven't signed away any rights. You've agreed to a contract.
It is possible to sign away your rights to a possession. A car, a book, a patent, an airplane. However, not a right.
I'm not sure. I think that patents provide an incentive for innovation. The monetary rights to your idea help encourage people to publish their idea. Otherwise, what incentive would you have to publish your idea? You wouldn't. You would help out your neighbor out of altruism possibly, but there is no incentive to publish your invention to the world.
You been watching serial experiments Lain again? I don't think that the 8Mhz frequency band would be enough for streming media, especially when you consider that FM and XM radio operates at a much higher frequency.
I remember there being an articl in "Popular Science" over this subject in an October of 1999 or 2000 issue. I can't find it now when I search the archives at Popular Science. It described a company in Dallas Texas that was patenting the technology to get the signal through a transformer station. They explained that the issue with the IP over powergrid worked by piggy-backing the packets over the EMF radiation that is generated around high voltage lines. The problem was not in how to piggy back the signal, rather how to extract it from a transformer station where the EMF fields of multiple cables merge. The solution this company came up with was to convert the data into a microwave signal at one end of the transformer station and beam it to the other end of the transformer station. I presume they would do something similar around the transformers at the neighborhoods as well. They were creating a prototype device that made use of maser technologies (basically a laser that operates in the microwave band of EM radiation). They were also patenting their devices that extract the signal from a wall plug (~110 US) and convert it to either 10BaseT or other options. The last time I checked up on the company they were beta-testing the technology in North Texas and Oklahoma. I'm not sure where they are now, as I don't remember the name of the company.
Aside from the technical hurdles of placing data on the powergrid, I think there would exist a technical hurdle in regards to data security. The EM fields given off by powerlines can affect your AM radio (and FM sometimes), so we know the signal is strong enough to affect electronics components. Since it is that strong, we can assume that the signal could be "read" by electronics components as well. Particularly, those who wish to construct "scanners". Anyone within close proximity of the powergrid could "tap" the line for data extraction. A significant security effort would need to be undertaken by ISP's to provide encrypted transmission of data. Currently, packets are simply sent down the wire with no encryption (unless you encrypt the data yourself). The wire itself provides a physical barrier to a data thief in that you must physically connect to the wire. With the powergrid you merely need to be in the proximity of the wire. I think this would only apply to overhead powerlines and transformer stations.
Additionally, data could be corrupted by natural causes such as solar flares and thunderstorms. Both of which would zap your data by scrambling the magnetic fields that you are depending on. Again, this might only affect the overhead lines and the transformer stations. Of course, if the transformer station went out, the whole issue becomes moot.
There was great hype about the SCI FI Channel's production of Frank Herbert's Dune when it was released. I remember a great portion of SCI Fiction oriented websites were debating the merits/demerits of both productions with regards to Herbert's own literary work. I find it only natural that the debate would continue about the next production. Oddly enough, I find the Dune series (literary works) intriguing. Very rarely do you find the creation of such works so very rich with detail. So complete is the marriage of ecology, religion, political intrigue, and human nature into the fabric of the Dune series that there is virtually no gap in the story. The underpinnings and background of the Dune universe leave no question of "how", "why", or "who" in the story. I plan to reserve my comments on whether the new SCI FI mini-series will be good or bad until after I've seen the show. Besides, SCI FI could do much worse in picking a literary work to produce as a mini-series.
Anybody read the prequels by Brian Herbert? Thoughts?
The constitutional rights you posess are not something you can "sign" away. The constitution guarantees those rights to all it's citizens, there is no provision for transferring your rights.
It is for this reason that the damage waivers you sign are very difficult to enforce. At best, they merely show that you had knowledge of the risk and nothing more.