The real lesson should be "actions have consequences"- and that we're all interconnected. But I know that is a concept way above the average capitalist business-major brain.
Actually, based on TFA, I'd say we're more likely to see a multi-core processor with some quantum and some classic cores. Kind of like the old floating point co-processors, or going back still further, the TI-99/4A architecture which was made up of a CPU with dedicated video, audio, and peripheral co-processors.
And this ain't one of them. Technological design from the Senate? Give me a break!
I understand the technological need for a "Big Dumb Booster" project- but one that uses *solid fuel propellant*, and then cutting out all the possible uses for it from the budget, is just plain madness. Must really be just an attempt to funnel taxpayer money to investment in Utah
This is an extremely good point, and one worth considering as an additional marketing angle for *other than video or audio* creative works. I long ago noticed that in a bytes-per-second-coming-into-my-house ratio, the TV set is the biggest bandwidth most people have. With DVRs in vogue- I have to wonder if advertising-supported software, broadcast on a schedule, with some sort of AVI-to-Executable converter, might make a good cable channel.
Would have to be clean advertising though- no spyware or viruses, but actual video segments with sponsors that played during installation.
Here's a way it could help: You're unemployed for more than 16 months- happens to the best of us, especially in an economy where it is assumed that anybody with 2+ years of experience is completely interchangeable (a wrong assumption, but corporations are full of wrong assumptions). Your unemployment runs out because gasp, the Sentate decided to vote it down just before leaving on a long 4th of July Vacation.
Without these skills you're up a creek. But WITH these skills, you start canvasing your friends and family for people who either just got broadband, are setting up a small business network, or are dissatisfied with the subjective speed of their computer. And with the money you earn from that, you get to eat for another day.
Depends on the individual. *SOME* people can read help files and figure all of that out, sure. Some can get the "Networking for dummies" book and figure it out. And some learn it in college.
That is the *PERFECT* skill set for the next 20 years for any technology student to learn. It is in fact the #1 skillset needed for when you are unemployed (the ability to set up and maintain household and small business networks).
I have. I find avoiding flash graphics and incredible amounts of javascript and doing as much as possible server side to render good HTML standard code works with a majority of browsers OTHER than IE. IE simply didn't adhere to the standard before version 7- they've gotten much better recently.
I have seen an Open Source Desktop that *MAY* yet take the world by storm. But if it does, the reason it will is because it's being pushed by a major hardware company that is trying to beat Microsoft at their own game- make the software free and the hardware expensive, instead of the other way around. And the fact that company is Intel, the OS is Metoo, and the core processor is a low-power deal that makes a laptop battery actually last for an 8 hour workday, they might have half a chance.
Still fails to deal with the problem of the explosion (and space time with it) expanding faster than light in the first 6.0221415 × 10^23 microseconds.
Interesting- I wonder how that affects Paul Lutus' argument: "But randomness is the point, it's not a side effect (and it is definitely random). Because of the random nature of the process, all possible biological forms get an equal chance. Without randomness, evolution wouldn't create what we see around us." (http://www.arachnoid.com/reader_exchanges/mental_health_and_evolution.html#MHE_I)
The problem with the big bang is an unexplained localized (but the universe itself was localized at this point, and that's the problem with it) universal expansion that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics- AND it has nothing to do with life on THIS planet specifically, which is what creationism and evolution are limited to.
There is NOTHING random about natural selection. NOTHING. Genetic variations are SELECTED. That's the point. Nobody that know anything about evolution believes it's random, and only those trying to discredit evolution say it is. This version as you present it is believed by no one, it's merely a strawman that creationist like to point at and discredit.
Try telling that to Paul Lutus, or even this article on About.com: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismscienceevolution/a/RandomUniverse.htm. However, I did mistype slightly- it is the MUTATIONS that are by necessity random, not the SELECTION of those mutations, and in that you're correct.
The distinction is between scientific arrogance and scientific humility.
#2, Darwinian evolution, proposes no cause for the mutations *at all*, and any discussion of such a cause is outside of the theories of #2. Likewise, talk of a goal (or lack thereof) is outside of what Darwin considered; it simply isn't in his data set at all.
#5 adds physics and quantum mechanics to *actively deny* a goal of any sort, and in fact, slightly changes Darwinian evolution to include a cause that *MUST* be so (because without a goal, one needs a truly random distribution of mutations, both beneficial and destructive, to explain complex or intelligent life).
Slashdot Mirror
The real lesson should be "actions have consequences"- and that we're all interconnected. But I know that is a concept way above the average capitalist business-major brain.
This is the sound of one server melting down....
Actually, based on TFA, I'd say we're more likely to see a multi-core processor with some quantum and some classic cores. Kind of like the old floating point co-processors, or going back still further, the TI-99/4A architecture which was made up of a CPU with dedicated video, audio, and peripheral co-processors.
Cash already carries an RFID strip- it's in every $20 bill.
But I think even an el train would be a hell of a lot cheaper to build than a full size bus roadway.
I suggest using whois to find out who "owns" that IP address- then write a convincing sounding letter to the ISP and pray that it works.
And this ain't one of them. Technological design from the Senate? Give me a break!
I understand the technological need for a "Big Dumb Booster" project- but one that uses *solid fuel propellant*, and then cutting out all the possible uses for it from the budget, is just plain madness. Must really be just an attempt to funnel taxpayer money to investment in Utah
This is an extremely good point, and one worth considering as an additional marketing angle for *other than video or audio* creative works. I long ago noticed that in a bytes-per-second-coming-into-my-house ratio, the TV set is the biggest bandwidth most people have. With DVRs in vogue- I have to wonder if advertising-supported software, broadcast on a schedule, with some sort of AVI-to-Executable converter, might make a good cable channel.
Would have to be clean advertising though- no spyware or viruses, but actual video segments with sponsors that played during installation.
Either that or Rot. I find it hard to believe they've synthesized a high-protein cell that can beat cellulose for structural strength and permanence.
Here's a way it could help:
You're unemployed for more than 16 months- happens to the best of us, especially in an economy where it is assumed that anybody with 2+ years of experience is completely interchangeable (a wrong assumption, but corporations are full of wrong assumptions). Your unemployment runs out because gasp, the Sentate decided to vote it down just before leaving on a long 4th of July Vacation.
Without these skills you're up a creek. But WITH these skills, you start canvasing your friends and family for people who either just got broadband, are setting up a small business network, or are dissatisfied with the subjective speed of their computer. And with the money you earn from that, you get to eat for another day.
Depends on the individual. *SOME* people can read help files and figure all of that out, sure. Some can get the "Networking for dummies" book and figure it out. And some learn it in college.
That is the *PERFECT* skill set for the next 20 years for any technology student to learn. It is in fact the #1 skillset needed for when you are unemployed (the ability to set up and maintain household and small business networks).
Who cheats anymore? You're almost guaranteed to get caught.
And yet, for BUSINESS students, it's become practically a requirement of the degree- which is why our economy in the United States is in depression.
I have. I find avoiding flash graphics and incredible amounts of javascript and doing as much as possible server side to render good HTML standard code works with a majority of browsers OTHER than IE. IE simply didn't adhere to the standard before version 7- they've gotten much better recently.
I have seen an Open Source Desktop that *MAY* yet take the world by storm. But if it does, the reason it will is because it's being pushed by a major hardware company that is trying to beat Microsoft at their own game- make the software free and the hardware expensive, instead of the other way around. And the fact that company is Intel, the OS is Metoo, and the core processor is a low-power deal that makes a laptop battery actually last for an 8 hour workday, they might have half a chance.
Too bad this wasn't closer to top post. Mod parent WAY up, if you've got mod points. It is the the different between art and business.
Still fails to deal with the problem of the explosion (and space time with it) expanding faster than light in the first 6.0221415 × 10^23 microseconds.
Interesting- I wonder how that affects Paul Lutus' argument:
"But randomness is the point, it's not a side effect (and it is definitely random). Because of the random nature of the process, all possible biological forms get an equal chance. Without randomness, evolution wouldn't create what we see around us." (http://www.arachnoid.com/reader_exchanges/mental_health_and_evolution.html#MHE_I)
That's the FIRST law of thermodynamics, not the SECOND law.
Nope, that's #3. Sorry I didn't explain it well enough for you.
And the difference between #3 and #4, as has already been explained by another responder, is Christianity vs Deism.
The problem with the big bang is an unexplained localized (but the universe itself was localized at this point, and that's the problem with it) universal expansion that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics- AND it has nothing to do with life on THIS planet specifically, which is what creationism and evolution are limited to.
There is NOTHING random about natural selection. NOTHING. Genetic variations are SELECTED. That's the point. Nobody that know anything about evolution believes it's random, and only those trying to discredit evolution say it is. This version as you present it is believed by no one, it's merely a strawman that creationist like to point at and discredit.
Try telling that to Paul Lutus, or even this article on About.com:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismscienceevolution/a/RandomUniverse.htm. However, I did mistype slightly- it is the MUTATIONS that are by necessity random, not the SELECTION of those mutations, and in that you're correct.
"can also be created by natural processes."
But what created the natural processes?
The distinction is between scientific arrogance and scientific humility.
#2, Darwinian evolution, proposes no cause for the mutations *at all*, and any discussion of such a cause is outside of the theories of #2. Likewise, talk of a goal (or lack thereof) is outside of what Darwin considered; it simply isn't in his data set at all.
#5 adds physics and quantum mechanics to *actively deny* a goal of any sort, and in fact, slightly changes Darwinian evolution to include a cause that *MUST* be so (because without a goal, one needs a truly random distribution of mutations, both beneficial and destructive, to explain complex or intelligent life).
Thank you. I had forgotten the date- since I'm not a Young Earth Creationist- and had wondered if the change in millenia had changed the estimate.