If you bothered to read the post I was repling to, you would have seen that upsidedown_ass seemed to think that one needs an IQ of 175 to understand math. An IQ of 145 is nothing. I am sure that it is probably about average for the/. community. I was actualy somewhat ashamed of my fairly low IQ. Most of my class mates ( in the AP classes) where way smarter then me.
Just because your an idiot, does not make everyone else one too. I had absolutly no trouble understanding the math of fractal geometry when in High School, nor did most of my friends.
Becaus you think that students don't have the motivation and interest, we should take away the motivation and interest. You really are a moron.
Not only was I, but almost all of my friends, were doing Diff. Eq. by their Senior year. Of course, we were teaching ourselves because High School only gets to Calc II. I was the math geek of my crowd and I was into Calc III, Abstract Algebra, and just getting into Tensors. BTW, when tested in HS, my IQ was only 145. Don't tell me that High Schoolers can't hand the stuff. High School students can and will be able to learn advanced math if they know that they can access it. Math software may be just the thing. I have found when tutoring, that being able to visualize the math, is the key to understanding it. Almost all of the programs I wrote ( in the mid 70's) were for exploring math. Access to a good library ( my dad was an EE), computors, and a few really awsome instructors did it for me.
As a student of languages, I must disagree. Much of the so called Standard English is a poor fit of Latin structure on top of a hybrid germantic language. Latin, inturn, was produced by force fitting Greek structure on a basicly Celtic language. The history of the standardization of English is the history of classism. The English, very early on, realised the importance of language as a tool of dominance. The nobility, with its access to classical schooling ( including Latin), used language as a means to effect superiority. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with this, but it needs to be concidered when attempting to define what English is.
The most obviouse example of a miss fit is the infinitive. English realy does not have an infinitive ( specificly, a dative infinitive) as in the sence that Latin has one. English uses a construct to achieve the same concept. Because of this structural difference, infinitives can be split. This has always been the way English ( or more properly the ancestral languages that became English) worked. Force fitting Latin structure on this fails and will continue to fail. It is equivilent to using house paint on stainless steel, or builing an ISP with Windows 98.
If you do not have anything to say, look for a grammerical/spelling error and post accordingly. Do this even if the error has all ready been pointed out. Do not concider the fact that not everyone is a native english speaker. Just do it. It is the right thing to do.
Your view is as limited as your knowledg. Also note, spelling is NOT that important. The standardization of written english is moronic. There is no correct or incorrect spelling as long as what is written is understood. There is only conformance or non conformance to a poorly designed standard. That is all.
I see you've read and memorized the MS propaganda. Judging from your typical post, that seems to be your job.
BTW, don't confuse me with what you call the/. crowd. I started disliking MS befor the existence of Linux, let alone the existence of/.. I have very valid reasons to dislike MS. Most center around the fact that producing quality software is contary to their business model.
If the desireded result is a picture in a magazine, I guess digital is fine. If the desired result is a photograph, then digital is marginal. The only thing I use digital for is to capture material that I will use as a reference ( i.e. patterns of light and dark, color transitions, etc) in my artwork, mainly pastal, but also CG. When I take a photograph for its own sake, its on film, usualy B/W. Though I will add that I have taken some fine photos with my cheap Fuji Finepix. I'll probably put some on my website ( when its complete) but I would not print one out and hang it on a wall.
Its more then "warmth" ( aka, even harmonic distortion). Tubes are smaller, lighter, and more efficient then the equivelent semiconductor. Stop thinking about that old tube set of your grandparents. Just because the US stopped developing tubes in the 60's, does not mean everyone did. Tube technology was only in its infancy when the West switched to semiconductors. I remember many years ago when a USSR fighter pilot defected with his Mig 27. The news media was awash with jokes upon the discovery that it contained tube based electronics. What was not reported was that those tube electronics were just as sophisticated as anything that the US military had. Russia never stopped developing tube technology. Not only where the Russian tubes the superior of US FETS they had the added benifit of EMP immunity. Last time I checked, EMP immunity is something one would want in a military aircraft.
A move of 10M/year is quite satisfactory (wich is the migration rate of complete bioms, not single plant species). As I have stated befor, the limit of range of most species has more to do with competition from species more capable of exploiting marginal enviroments, then the marginality of the enviroment itself. When the enviroment changes, the blocking species will also be effected, and most likely move. For reference one only needs to look at the distribution of Canis latrans vs. C.lupis over the last 150 years. One more point, very few organisms are completely dependent on a single plant species.
Well you wrong:P. What you describe has happened quite often. I saw it in my own backyard ( so to speak). Also, the change in enviroment I was refering to over that 200KM distance, was from one extream ( sonoran) to another extreem ( alpine). In most areas of my homeland ( wich is not particularly atyoical), a move of a few miles is all that is needed to change temprature a few degrees. Look up anything on the sonoran enviroment and its history. In resent times, the enviroment around large cities has changed dramaticly ( well over a 2 degree C warming on average), farming has had radical impact on ground water levels. The animal have managed to survive. In some cases fragmented populations are undergoing specification as we speak. Geohistory is filled with examples of quick enviromental changes. Some animals florish, some wain, most just go on. From a geohistorical perspective, the amount of climate change resulting from mans recent activities is minor.
BTW, my field is ichthyology, specificly the ichthyology of fluvial desert enviroments. The *main* limiting factor to a species distribution is not directly enviromental ( that is the organism can live in far greater range then it is found in), but competition from organisms more suited to the marginal enviroments. The study is flawed ( at least from cursory reading) because it does not take this into account. The other thing that the artical does not take into account is the introduction of organisms into new areas attributable to human activity. This is normaly concidered detrimental, but it can have positive aspects. An example is Ameca splendens, a fish well established in florida ( and the aquarium trade) but concidered extinct in its native waters.
The final problem is that the authors are relying on a meterological model that is not conciderd very likely by meterologists. In fact, most models show a wide variety of changes, most related to more dynamic weather. This makes sence as most of the extra energy will be goining into driving weather and not just increasing average global temerature. The earths climatic systems have a huge amount of negative feed back. I happen to be aware of this sort of thing becaus my last area of study was the effects of micro-weather on fish distributions.
I, for one, am much more concerned about the direct effects of human activity on animal populations. City heat island effect, ground water depleation, irrigation, river daming, deforestation, and deliberate non-native organisim introductions ( though the later is benificial to the introduced species, it can be hell on natives, especialy in areas severly modified by human activity) will do more damage in the next 50 years then incresed atmospheric CO2.
One more thing; Most of the models I have looked at indicate that the enviroment of the part of the world I am from, will actualy return to more historicaly normal conditions. This could include the expansion of a very special subtype of the sonoran that is rare in the US, though was not so 10K years ago. This would include the expansion of the range of some realy cool species.
Geologicaly we are in a cold phase. Some authorities even concider the modern era a mild ice age or the tail end or interglacial of the last series. This study apperantly ignors all the geological evidence of the last 1 million years. I grew up in a sonoran biotype. Two hundred kilometers from my home was an alpine enviroment. Animals that have trouble with the new enviroment will simply migrate. 15 to 30 % extintion is pretty silly.
My thoughts exactly. Besides, horse trainers have been using quantitative observations for well over 100 years. One of the earliest uses of cameras, as a scientific tool, was to analyze how horses run. This was during the late 1800s.
Many fish species are born neutral. If a certain enxym is present, the fish will be female. If it is not, the fish will become male. The rate at which the enzyme is produced in fry is related to the number of females. The more females in the population, the less amount of the enzyme will be produed by the fry, thus fewer new females. It is a negative feedback system. The idea is that the normal males will eventualy be producing mostly female progeny while the GM males produce male. Once all the male population is entirely GM, the total population will start to decrease as females die off. The problem is that Carp live very long, maybe 50 years or more. Even if the experiment yeilds positive results, it means little. Gambusia ( which is a genus, not a species! And is native to North and Central America, with only a few South American species) is a very different fish. It has a primitive mechinism for determining sex. This mechinism has evolved to allow these short lived species to pioneer new waters, and to survive frequent population fragmentations. BTW, in a population of all males, some will eventualy become female. This is not how carp work.
The "Bass" and "Perch" in question are Australian natives in the genus Macquaria. This genus is in the family Percichthyidae which is primarily fresh water Australian, though some species are brackish and a few are found in Southern South America. The official english commmon name for this family is "Temerate Perch" to seperate it from Percidae, the true Perches.
The only fresh water fish that can be properly be called Bass, are fishes of the family Centrarchidae. This is a purely North American family in the order Percoformis. Other families include the Percidae which contains the genera Perca and Stizostedion both with circumpolar nativety. Only fish of this family should be called perch. Perchiformes is one of the largest orders of fish today. If all fishes in it were refered to as Perch, then things would get confusing indeed. BTW, Lepomis and Micropterus species have been introduced nearly world wide for game purposes.
It is worth noting that ichthologist refer to Centrarchidae as Sunfish because the name Bass means to many things to to many people.
Bass are properly called sunfishes. The are native to North America. The family is Centrarchidae. They have been introduced world wide ( including Australia and much of SA). Some other fish of the genus Cichla, especialy C. ocellaris, are refered to as Peacock Bass. This name is specificaly a North American invention. It was originaly used by angelers to refer to the fish that were introduced for game purposes into Florida.
The power companies are an open monopoly. They have been trying to expand their control to broadband for at least the last 5 years. To find this out, all one needed to have done was visit their websites during the so called California Energy Crises. It is pretty obvious that this was an engineered event. One of the outcomes of the raise in power costs in CA was the doubling of the operating expensis of many of the companies that were directly involved with bringing braodband to reality. The increse in operating expensis was one of the factors that helped percipitate the tech bubble burst.
Broadband over Powerlines will interfer with wireless. It is possible to design the system so that this does noy happen. But this is definatly not in the best interest of the power companies. You can bet that once a system is in place, it will be incrementaly "upgraded". Each upgrade will introduce more problems for wireless providers.
I do not think I want to turn over control of braodband access to a group of companies with a very long history of monopilization. We (myself included) tend to enjoy bashing Bill G. In reality he is just a "Kinder - Gentler" version of Thomas Edison. It is worth noting that all of the major power companies are controled by the same group of investors.
In the US, all one realy needs to do is play "Follow the Money" to see what could be happening. Hopefully my conjectures do not pan out. But most of the factors to allow them to happen all ready exist. We need to keep a suspicious eye on all developments.
Has anyone read "The Complete Venus Equilateral" the last publication of George 0. Smiths "Venus Equilateral" stories? On a side note, Broadband over Powerline, done right, would be great.
Do you guys need a Test Software Developer or Test Engineer? I spent the last six years developing test software, test processes, and test executives for RF/MW spectrum analyzer products at Agilent/HP. This includes Test Development enviroments. To bad Agilent has decided to self destruct!
... all the posts befor you seem to disprove your assertion. It should not be a big suprise at all that a large number of/. regulars are into photography. I, myself do some photography, mostly for collecting matterial for artwork these days. Though I do periodicly take photos for their own sake ( always B/W). Hey, geeks need artistic outlets too!
Slashdot Mirror
If you bothered to read the post I was repling to, you would have seen that upsidedown_ass seemed to think that one needs an IQ of 175 to understand math. An IQ of 145 is nothing. I am sure that it is probably about average for the /. community. I was actualy somewhat ashamed of my fairly low IQ. Most of my class mates ( in the AP classes) where way smarter then me.
Just because your an idiot, does not make everyone else one too. I had absolutly no trouble understanding the math of fractal geometry when in High School, nor did most of my friends.
Becaus you think that students don't have the motivation and interest, we should take away the motivation and interest. You really are a moron.
Not only was I, but almost all of my friends, were doing Diff. Eq. by their Senior year. Of course, we were teaching ourselves because High School only gets to Calc II. I was the math geek of my crowd and I was into Calc III, Abstract Algebra, and just getting into Tensors. BTW, when tested in HS, my IQ was only 145. Don't tell me that High Schoolers can't hand the stuff. High School students can and will be able to learn advanced math if they know that they can access it. Math software may be just the thing. I have found when tutoring, that being able to visualize the math, is the key to understanding it. Almost all of the programs I wrote ( in the mid 70's) were for exploring math. Access to a good library ( my dad was an EE), computors, and a few really awsome instructors did it for me.
As a student of languages, I must disagree. Much of the so called Standard English is a poor fit of Latin structure on top of a hybrid germantic language. Latin, inturn, was produced by force fitting Greek structure on a basicly Celtic language. The history of the standardization of English is the history of classism. The English, very early on, realised the importance of language as a tool of dominance. The nobility, with its access to classical schooling ( including Latin), used language as a means to effect superiority. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with this, but it needs to be concidered when attempting to define what English is.
The most obviouse example of a miss fit is the infinitive. English realy does not have an infinitive ( specificly, a dative infinitive) as in the sence that Latin has one. English uses a construct to achieve the same concept. Because of this structural difference, infinitives can be split. This has always been the way English ( or more properly the ancestral languages that became English) worked. Force fitting Latin structure on this fails and will continue to fail. It is equivilent to using house paint on stainless steel, or builing an ISP with Windows 98.
If you do not have anything to say, look for a grammerical/spelling error and post accordingly. Do this even if the error has all ready been pointed out. Do not concider the fact that not everyone is a native english speaker. Just do it. It is the right thing to do.
Your view is as limited as your knowledg. Also note, spelling is NOT that important. The standardization of written english is moronic. There is no correct or incorrect spelling as long as what is written is understood. There is only conformance or non conformance to a poorly designed standard. That is all.
Moron, The problems the scanner not the controler.
I see you've read and memorized the MS propaganda. Judging from your typical post, that seems to be your job. BTW, don't confuse me with what you call the /. crowd. I started disliking MS befor the existence of Linux, let alone the existence of /.. I have very valid reasons to dislike MS. Most center around the fact that producing quality software is contary to their business model.
Just ignore it. The AC is probably a spoiled rich kid from Northern California, and hella stupid.
If the desireded result is a picture in a magazine, I guess digital is fine. If the desired result is a photograph, then digital is marginal. The only thing I use digital for is to capture material that I will use as a reference ( i.e. patterns of light and dark, color transitions, etc) in my artwork, mainly pastal, but also CG. When I take a photograph for its own sake, its on film, usualy B/W. Though I will add that I have taken some fine photos with my cheap Fuji Finepix. I'll probably put some on my website ( when its complete) but I would not print one out and hang it on a wall.
Its more then "warmth" ( aka, even harmonic distortion). Tubes are smaller, lighter, and more efficient then the equivelent semiconductor. Stop thinking about that old tube set of your grandparents. Just because the US stopped developing tubes in the 60's, does not mean everyone did. Tube technology was only in its infancy when the West switched to semiconductors. I remember many years ago when a USSR fighter pilot defected with his Mig 27. The news media was awash with jokes upon the discovery that it contained tube based electronics. What was not reported was that those tube electronics were just as sophisticated as anything that the US military had. Russia never stopped developing tube technology. Not only where the Russian tubes the superior of US FETS they had the added benifit of EMP immunity. Last time I checked, EMP immunity is something one would want in a military aircraft.
A move of 10M/year is quite satisfactory (wich is the migration rate of complete bioms, not single plant species). As I have stated befor, the limit of range of most species has more to do with competition from species more capable of exploiting marginal enviroments, then the marginality of the enviroment itself. When the enviroment changes, the blocking species will also be effected, and most likely move. For reference one only needs to look at the distribution of Canis latrans vs. C.lupis over the last 150 years. One more point, very few organisms are completely dependent on a single plant species.
BTW, my field is ichthyology, specificly the ichthyology of fluvial desert enviroments. The *main* limiting factor to a species distribution is not directly enviromental ( that is the organism can live in far greater range then it is found in), but competition from organisms more suited to the marginal enviroments. The study is flawed ( at least from cursory reading) because it does not take this into account. The other thing that the artical does not take into account is the introduction of organisms into new areas attributable to human activity. This is normaly concidered detrimental, but it can have positive aspects. An example is Ameca splendens, a fish well established in florida ( and the aquarium trade) but concidered extinct in its native waters.
The final problem is that the authors are relying on a meterological model that is not conciderd very likely by meterologists. In fact, most models show a wide variety of changes, most related to more dynamic weather. This makes sence as most of the extra energy will be goining into driving weather and not just increasing average global temerature. The earths climatic systems have a huge amount of negative feed back. I happen to be aware of this sort of thing becaus my last area of study was the effects of micro-weather on fish distributions.
I, for one, am much more concerned about the direct effects of human activity on animal populations. City heat island effect, ground water depleation, irrigation, river daming, deforestation, and deliberate non-native organisim introductions ( though the later is benificial to the introduced species, it can be hell on natives, especialy in areas severly modified by human activity) will do more damage in the next 50 years then incresed atmospheric CO2.
One more thing; Most of the models I have looked at indicate that the enviroment of the part of the world I am from, will actualy return to more historicaly normal conditions. This could include the expansion of a very special subtype of the sonoran that is rare in the US, though was not so 10K years ago. This would include the expansion of the range of some realy cool species.
Geologicaly we are in a cold phase. Some authorities even concider the modern era a mild ice age or the tail end or interglacial of the last series. This study apperantly ignors all the geological evidence of the last 1 million years. I grew up in a sonoran biotype. Two hundred kilometers from my home was an alpine enviroment. Animals that have trouble with the new enviroment will simply migrate. 15 to 30 % extintion is pretty silly.
Get some facts befor you post stupidity. Almost everything you said is false or irrelevant.
My thoughts exactly. Besides, horse trainers have been using quantitative observations for well over 100 years. One of the earliest uses of cameras, as a scientific tool, was to analyze how horses run. This was during the late 1800s.
Many fish species are born neutral. If a certain enxym is present, the fish will be female. If it is not, the fish will become male. The rate at which the enzyme is produced in fry is related to the number of females. The more females in the population, the less amount of the enzyme will be produed by the fry, thus fewer new females. It is a negative feedback system. The idea is that the normal males will eventualy be producing mostly female progeny while the GM males produce male. Once all the male population is entirely GM, the total population will start to decrease as females die off. The problem is that Carp live very long, maybe 50 years or more. Even if the experiment yeilds positive results, it means little. Gambusia ( which is a genus, not a species! And is native to North and Central America, with only a few South American species) is a very different fish. It has a primitive mechinism for determining sex. This mechinism has evolved to allow these short lived species to pioneer new waters, and to survive frequent population fragmentations. BTW, in a population of all males, some will eventualy become female. This is not how carp work.
How do you know carp do not taste good? BTW, Lates calcicifer ( bronze baramundi), an Australian native taste even better then Bass!
The "Bass" and "Perch" in question are Australian natives in the genus Macquaria. This genus is in the family Percichthyidae which is primarily fresh water Australian, though some species are brackish and a few are found in Southern South America. The official english commmon name for this family is "Temerate Perch" to seperate it from Percidae, the true Perches.
It is worth noting that ichthologist refer to Centrarchidae as Sunfish because the name Bass means to many things to to many people.
Bass are properly called sunfishes. The are native to North America. The family is Centrarchidae. They have been introduced world wide ( including Australia and much of SA). Some other fish of the genus Cichla, especialy C. ocellaris, are refered to as Peacock Bass. This name is specificaly a North American invention. It was originaly used by angelers to refer to the fish that were introduced for game purposes into Florida.
Broadband over Powerlines will interfer with wireless. It is possible to design the system so that this does noy happen. But this is definatly not in the best interest of the power companies. You can bet that once a system is in place, it will be incrementaly "upgraded". Each upgrade will introduce more problems for wireless providers.
I do not think I want to turn over control of braodband access to a group of companies with a very long history of monopilization. We (myself included) tend to enjoy bashing Bill G. In reality he is just a "Kinder - Gentler" version of Thomas Edison. It is worth noting that all of the major power companies are controled by the same group of investors.
In the US, all one realy needs to do is play "Follow the Money" to see what could be happening. Hopefully my conjectures do not pan out. But most of the factors to allow them to happen all ready exist. We need to keep a suspicious eye on all developments.
Has anyone read "The Complete Venus Equilateral" the last publication of George 0. Smiths "Venus Equilateral" stories? On a side note, Broadband over Powerline, done right, would be great.
Do you guys need a Test Software Developer or Test Engineer? I spent the last six years developing test software, test processes, and test executives for RF/MW spectrum analyzer products at Agilent/HP. This includes Test Development enviroments. To bad Agilent has decided to self destruct!
... all the posts befor you seem to disprove your assertion. It should not be a big suprise at all that a large number of /. regulars are into photography. I, myself do some photography, mostly for collecting matterial for artwork these days. Though I do periodicly take photos for their own sake ( always B/W). Hey, geeks need artistic outlets too!
There are Autos still built by craftsmen. One that comes to mind are Rolls Royces.