Yeah, wait until ISPs realize they are shooting themselves in the foot by capping the speed at the modem. In reality they should cap the speed later on, where the the data hits the backbone. That way they can much more easily bottleneck the data and shift it around. Rather instantly adjust data rates, and moreover allow for the max speed the technology allows when you're dealing with internal data transfer. So if you are going P2P on Time Warner between different people with the same ISP, you can transfer data at max speeds. As the above board technology gets better and better this would result in rather significantly improved services at no extra cost to the ISP.
Probably, again, a reason it won't happen. I simply cooked up a way to push Piracy back to second rate. Even though it certainly wouldn't go through or be considered.
Best to keep piracy the easiest option and never make a dime off the content you put sweat and blood into.
That's the reason they probably won't do it (they loves the DRM). The entire point is to make it just like the other torrents, but faster and with the commercials.
Why not do what valve does and encrypt it? You wouldn't need much encryption at all, just enough to stall the decrypt for a few hours. Though, seeding 99% of the show in a near unwatchable manner and suddenly have that last 1% flash at the end would pretty well do the same thing, without needing a secondary decryption part tagged on. Though it wouldn't be hard to setup a file with a quick and dirty password. In fact, even a zip password would be more than enough. Though the problem with that is it's harder.
The reason to scoop the broadcast is to be the first torrent on the market by several hours and have the commercials embedded. You could also do an RSS of that feed. So I could go to the CBS website, select several shows I want to watch, put the RSS feed into my torrent client and then by the time they air on TV I have the same thing waiting for me at home.
Easier is one thing, faster is another. Honestly if the networks want to stay ahead, they should host their own torrents of the shows, in good quality, with the commercials built into the file and release them before they air. You could have the episode before it comes out on TV and thus many hours before the episode is released by other groups. Though, the folks are just going to download your ep and clip the commercials out. So you might want to imbed them in the show, or do quick ten second flashes of stuff from time to time.
I think they can stay ahead of the curve if they really need to. However, I don't think they will.
Of course! You can fight anything with bombs. Just have all the terrorists stand under it... including all the people who want this bomb to be really scary... and boom! You want to fight deer overpopulation? Just have the deer stand under it. You want to fight republicanism? Christianity? Kangaroos? -- You could have pretty much anything you want dead stand under this sucker and the problem would be done.
*Places all dishes under bomb* *detonate* The dishes are done man!
There's also a bit of a problem calling those lines human and gorilla. Really 8-12 million years ago, those species don't exist in the least. And the "human line" still gives rise to chimp, human, bonobos, not to mention all the hominids and offshoots thereof. It isn't anywhere near as amazing as people seem to pretend it is, as every fossil find needs to cause massive changes to our understanding of human evolution, even if it doesn't. I'd recommend the blog afarensis actually written by somebody in the fields and covers most of the neat finds.
Another problem with putting the human-chimp divergence back that far is that it doesn't make any sense. Humans just aren't that different from chimps. We don't have as much hair, we stand upright, have some impressive cognitive functions, are much weaker, have restructured hips, feet and hands. But really, that's it. Hardly amazing, and hardly 10 million years worth of work.
Why copy the wrong answers too? Seems a little bit odd to move the pseudogene for the creation of vitamin C into all the great apes, and yet give all the other mammals the ability to create their own. With the exception of the guinea pig which oddly rather than having an identical flaw has a completely different one. Copied not only every answer, but the little doodle you did of what the teacher would look like getting mauled by a raptor.
Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago at the KT boundary.
Prior to that time the mammal line had already split much more than we previously gave it credit for, a lot of the main groups were developed. This article is a fairly worthless crock. Basically some teeth were found that looked vaguely gorilla like and dated back 10 million years. So we know that there was some ape-like creature with a gorilla-like diet 10 million years ago. However, saying that this is the Ape-Human split is as stupid as saying it's the Human-Mammal split. Humans are apes. We are clearly within the same grouping of gorillas, orangutans, and chimps. There's no real grouping of animals which includes those yet excludes humans. This find perhaps sets back the date of chimp-gorilla split but not "human-ape". That's just stupid. Chimp-human is a split which dates back about 4-6 million years. Gorilla-chimp goes back 8 million years, though perhaps 10 if this isn't just some offshoot.
Finally, 10 million years is about 2/17th of 85 million years. Basically your math is off, and you're using old information, and to top it off this article is totally stupid. It's 10 million year old gorilla-like teeth. It actually has almost nothing to do with human evolution, though if you studied gorilla evolution you might care. Though, it's even weak evidence that it's actually a gorilla just that it had a diet like that of a gorilla.
Mutations? -- Anybody else kind of offput by the use of "mutations by the way it kills the bacteria." -- I'm quite sure they are just talking about very simple evolution. I doubt attacking my leg is going to bounce back and have any effect on the DNA that codes my leg, in fact the entire article doesn't make any sense outside of an evolutionary context. Not only is a low dose it not effective, but in so far as it is effective it just kills the bacteria that the real stuff would have been effective against and lets the more resistant strains take the space they would have occupied. Really the basic "use some antibiotics in low dose over long time in a petri dish" experiment is pretty much exactly what we are doing in the large scale.
If we want better evolved bacteria, immune from our nice antibiotics... we are doing a perfect job.
I've had enough of this rationalism. This and previous that guy that said, you can't actually go to another planet. I hope they come down with a case of Barclay's Protomorphosis Syndrome!
Oh, yes, don't let me suggest for a moment that we know what actually caused the abiogenesis that lead to us. And that sort of anthropic principle that since we are here it must have happened does anything other than suggest that it is certainly possible. The pet theories you note are the point. They aren't proof for what actually happened but most of them, especially the newer ones, are quite good in that they explain how it could have happened in trivially small steps. Certainly there is easily self-replicating RNA but those are still too complex and some of the explanations to what could lead to those are quite insightful.
In the end, it doesn't seem that hard and Earth seems a perfectly apt place for it to happen. This is where the life is, and there's no reason to "offsource" the problem to anything else and this planet "90 million aways" is plenty good enough to meet the criteria for those theories.
Space probably didn't. Spacetime can't exactly start in any location without space and time already in existence.
That said, I think the title here is way off, rather than,
Scientists Offer 'Overwhelming' Evidence Terran Life Began in Space
it should be,
'Scientists' 'Offer' 'Overwhelming' 'Evidence' 'Terran Life' Began in Space.
Because just quoting the "overwhelming" as suspect doesn't really show how pathetic the rest of their claims are. As if comets have anything special, they are the same junk that flies around this galaxy and has for a really long time. The same junk that's on Earth, without needed to be formed in space and crash extremely violently into the planet. Oh, there's not enough time for replicating molecules happen on chance and promptly progress into more complex organisms before finally developing very basic bacteria. There was only a billion years. And what can you do in a billion years.
I just can never wrap my head around how anybody can think for a moment that abiogenesis, which by all accounts is actually pretty trivial (though we don't know what things actually did it for us), is somehow so amazing that we need to outsource the problem to space. Because, somehow space is magically hospitable? Don't get me wrong, but I'll keep my magnetic field, gentle oceans, and plentiful organic molecules.
What's the opposite of FUD? -- SCO doesn't matter. The stupid as court let them drag their feet before determining what we determined in ten minutes... they were so totally full of crap that it wasn't even amusing.
And why exactly do we have this very exactly dated impact in the Yucatan with little bits of it everywhere on Earth, tracing back to the right time period? What are we suppose to do with this massive amount of evidence right at the K-T switch if we are to suppose that it was just solar winds wiping out most life?
It seems like a lot of evidence to have for something with nothing to do with it.
Actually you'd have an infinite amount of mass, and thus a black hole after a few moments. Which would leave you with pretty much nothing, and it would destroy all information... my goodness! YOU WOULD HAVE SLASHDOT!
>>If you're going to treat people that disagree with you like this, especially when they fulfill your implied requests for citations, you don't belong here.
I can scoff at your comments, laugh at your citations, and rip your sources apart. I mean, honestly, defending Fox News via Anne Coulter reporting on a hack book. Even if you hadn't gotten your facts completely wrong, you were still in error.
Also, where do you get off? If I'm going to respond to that kind of asininity, so heartlessly, I don't belong on Slashdot?
First off, have you read Slashdot? Secondly, I didn't treat you poorly. I said you pulled it out of your ass. That isn't *that* rude. In fact, I daresay it's accurate. I feel I demonstrated my position aptly enough to show that "81% of employees of Fox News Employees donate to Democrats" is flat wrong (and not supported by the citation either). I also provided a number of good reasons why the claim should be disregarded in it's original form as well. However, I didn't address you! I addressed the argument! I addressed the claims! I addressed the source! I addressed the meat of what you said. I didn't treat you personally with any disrespect. Your beliefs, however, have done absolutely nothing to earn my respect.
To which you come back whining like I beat you with a rusty pipe. You are not your beliefs, learn to tell the difference. I reserve the right to address a person's belief, doubly so if they are part of a group focused on defending an ideology which has lead us into a worthless, unneeded, and intractable war.
Oh, pulling it out of somebody else's ass? Ann Coulter? Really? Wow, you should have said you pulled it out of your own ass.
Also, you're making a distinctly different claim than she claims the book made.
-- "Even employees of Fox News, which is widely regarded as a conservative channel, donate 81 percent of their contributions to Democrats."
81% of contributions are made to Democrats is the claim. 81% of employees donate to Democrats is a massively different claim (really MASSIVE). In fact, I would be astounded if 50% of run of the mill employees donated to anybody. Also, note that the claim is "81 percent of their contributions" - beyond the obvious problem the book has of lumping most charity organizations as "democrats" even though they are just non-profit and work toward the common good. There's the problem that Democrats are usually poorer and get by with large numbers of small donations. If you looked at my donation history you would find roughly 4 donations toward "Democrats" -- if you think that it is anywhere close to one $5000 donation, you're kidding yourself. The vast majority of donations are grassroots little 25 and 50 dollar donations.
And again, they aren't the ones making the decisions. They are the working stiffs, the camera men and wardrobe people... they are the nuts and bolts who work to put food on their tables. They aren't the ones who supply Fox News with their trademark bias. And number of donations is a completely stupid metric.
Lies, damned lies, statistics and this idiotic bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
Get better servers. Make it all magically work perfectly.
Duh.
Yeah, wait until ISPs realize they are shooting themselves in the foot by capping the speed at the modem. In reality they should cap the speed later on, where the the data hits the backbone. That way they can much more easily bottleneck the data and shift it around. Rather instantly adjust data rates, and moreover allow for the max speed the technology allows when you're dealing with internal data transfer. So if you are going P2P on Time Warner between different people with the same ISP, you can transfer data at max speeds. As the above board technology gets better and better this would result in rather significantly improved services at no extra cost to the ISP.
Probably, again, a reason it won't happen. I simply cooked up a way to push Piracy back to second rate. Even though it certainly wouldn't go through or be considered.
Best to keep piracy the easiest option and never make a dime off the content you put sweat and blood into.
That's the reason they probably won't do it (they loves the DRM). The entire point is to make it just like the other torrents, but faster and with the commercials.
Why not do what valve does and encrypt it? You wouldn't need much encryption at all, just enough to stall the decrypt for a few hours. Though, seeding 99% of the show in a near unwatchable manner and suddenly have that last 1% flash at the end would pretty well do the same thing, without needing a secondary decryption part tagged on. Though it wouldn't be hard to setup a file with a quick and dirty password. In fact, even a zip password would be more than enough. Though the problem with that is it's harder.
The reason to scoop the broadcast is to be the first torrent on the market by several hours and have the commercials embedded. You could also do an RSS of that feed. So I could go to the CBS website, select several shows I want to watch, put the RSS feed into my torrent client and then by the time they air on TV I have the same thing waiting for me at home.
Easier is one thing, faster is another. Honestly if the networks want to stay ahead, they should host their own torrents of the shows, in good quality, with the commercials built into the file and release them before they air. You could have the episode before it comes out on TV and thus many hours before the episode is released by other groups. Though, the folks are just going to download your ep and clip the commercials out. So you might want to imbed them in the show, or do quick ten second flashes of stuff from time to time.
I think they can stay ahead of the curve if they really need to. However, I don't think they will.
This torrent is passworded.
Find the fifth word on the fourth page of this website:
signup.spywarecrap.com/~9393032/leadidiotshere.htm
Of course! You can fight anything with bombs. Just have all the terrorists stand under it... including all the people who want this bomb to be really scary... and boom! You want to fight deer overpopulation? Just have the deer stand under it. You want to fight republicanism? Christianity? Kangaroos? -- You could have pretty much anything you want dead stand under this sucker and the problem would be done.
*Places all dishes under bomb*
*detonate*
The dishes are done man!
Well, yeah. If you need to lose string theory or lose inflation... it isn't much of a choice.
Which do you want to lose postmodernism or trashing romance novels. Well, the romance novels are at least information...
Oh, yeah ACDSee is bloated as hell now. The early versions were fantastic though. I switched over to FSview, but really old ACDSee is a great choice.
There's also a bit of a problem calling those lines human and gorilla. Really 8-12 million years ago, those species don't exist in the least. And the "human line" still gives rise to chimp, human, bonobos, not to mention all the hominids and offshoots thereof. It isn't anywhere near as amazing as people seem to pretend it is, as every fossil find needs to cause massive changes to our understanding of human evolution, even if it doesn't. I'd recommend the blog afarensis actually written by somebody in the fields and covers most of the neat finds.
Another problem with putting the human-chimp divergence back that far is that it doesn't make any sense. Humans just aren't that different from chimps. We don't have as much hair, we stand upright, have some impressive cognitive functions, are much weaker, have restructured hips, feet and hands. But really, that's it. Hardly amazing, and hardly 10 million years worth of work.
Why copy the wrong answers too? Seems a little bit odd to move the pseudogene for the creation of vitamin C into all the great apes, and yet give all the other mammals the ability to create their own. With the exception of the guinea pig which oddly rather than having an identical flaw has a completely different one. Copied not only every answer, but the little doodle you did of what the teacher would look like getting mauled by a raptor.
And yet this article feels the need to make it sound like Lamarckian evolution? Odd.
Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago at the KT boundary.
Prior to that time the mammal line had already split much more than we previously gave it credit for, a lot of the main groups were developed. This article is a fairly worthless crock. Basically some teeth were found that looked vaguely gorilla like and dated back 10 million years. So we know that there was some ape-like creature with a gorilla-like diet 10 million years ago. However, saying that this is the Ape-Human split is as stupid as saying it's the Human-Mammal split. Humans are apes. We are clearly within the same grouping of gorillas, orangutans, and chimps. There's no real grouping of animals which includes those yet excludes humans. This find perhaps sets back the date of chimp-gorilla split but not "human-ape". That's just stupid. Chimp-human is a split which dates back about 4-6 million years. Gorilla-chimp goes back 8 million years, though perhaps 10 if this isn't just some offshoot.
Finally, 10 million years is about 2/17th of 85 million years. Basically your math is off, and you're using old information, and to top it off this article is totally stupid. It's 10 million year old gorilla-like teeth. It actually has almost nothing to do with human evolution, though if you studied gorilla evolution you might care. Though, it's even weak evidence that it's actually a gorilla just that it had a diet like that of a gorilla.
I predict that the author of this slashdot article predicted what this patent might result in, and as such is violating the patent!
Wait, shit, I just predicted that.
My goodness, we are all doomed!
Mutations? -- Anybody else kind of offput by the use of "mutations by the way it kills the bacteria." -- I'm quite sure they are just talking about very simple evolution. I doubt attacking my leg is going to bounce back and have any effect on the DNA that codes my leg, in fact the entire article doesn't make any sense outside of an evolutionary context. Not only is a low dose it not effective, but in so far as it is effective it just kills the bacteria that the real stuff would have been effective against and lets the more resistant strains take the space they would have occupied. Really the basic "use some antibiotics in low dose over long time in a petri dish" experiment is pretty much exactly what we are doing in the large scale.
If we want better evolved bacteria, immune from our nice antibiotics... we are doing a perfect job.
I've had enough of this rationalism. This and previous that guy that said, you can't actually go to another planet. I hope they come down with a case of Barclay's Protomorphosis Syndrome!
Oh, yes, don't let me suggest for a moment that we know what actually caused the abiogenesis that lead to us. And that sort of anthropic principle that since we are here it must have happened does anything other than suggest that it is certainly possible. The pet theories you note are the point. They aren't proof for what actually happened but most of them, especially the newer ones, are quite good in that they explain how it could have happened in trivially small steps. Certainly there is easily self-replicating RNA but those are still too complex and some of the explanations to what could lead to those are quite insightful.
In the end, it doesn't seem that hard and Earth seems a perfectly apt place for it to happen. This is where the life is, and there's no reason to "offsource" the problem to anything else and this planet "90 million aways" is plenty good enough to meet the criteria for those theories.
Space probably didn't. Spacetime can't exactly start in any location without space and time already in existence.
That said, I think the title here is way off, rather than,
Scientists Offer 'Overwhelming' Evidence Terran Life Began in Space
it should be,
'Scientists' 'Offer' 'Overwhelming' 'Evidence' 'Terran Life' Began in Space.
Because just quoting the "overwhelming" as suspect doesn't really show how pathetic the rest of their claims are. As if comets have anything special, they are the same junk that flies around this galaxy and has for a really long time. The same junk that's on Earth, without needed to be formed in space and crash extremely violently into the planet. Oh, there's not enough time for replicating molecules happen on chance and promptly progress into more complex organisms before finally developing very basic bacteria. There was only a billion years. And what can you do in a billion years.
I just can never wrap my head around how anybody can think for a moment that abiogenesis, which by all accounts is actually pretty trivial (though we don't know what things actually did it for us), is somehow so amazing that we need to outsource the problem to space. Because, somehow space is magically hospitable? Don't get me wrong, but I'll keep my magnetic field, gentle oceans, and plentiful organic molecules.
What's the opposite of FUD? -- SCO doesn't matter. The stupid as court let them drag their feet before determining what we determined in ten minutes... they were so totally full of crap that it wasn't even amusing.
And if it were enough to kill you off, you'd have died off and your more radioactive hardened cousins would be living on this planet.
And why exactly do we have this very exactly dated impact in the Yucatan with little bits of it everywhere on Earth, tracing back to the right time period? What are we suppose to do with this massive amount of evidence right at the K-T switch if we are to suppose that it was just solar winds wiping out most life?
It seems like a lot of evidence to have for something with nothing to do with it.
Actually you'd have an infinite amount of mass, and thus a black hole after a few moments. Which would leave you with pretty much nothing, and it would destroy all information... my goodness! YOU WOULD HAVE SLASHDOT!
>>If you're going to treat people that disagree with you like this, especially when they fulfill your implied requests for citations, you don't belong here.
I can scoff at your comments, laugh at your citations, and rip your sources apart. I mean, honestly, defending Fox News via Anne Coulter reporting on a hack book. Even if you hadn't gotten your facts completely wrong, you were still in error.
Also, where do you get off? If I'm going to respond to that kind of asininity, so heartlessly, I don't belong on Slashdot?
First off, have you read Slashdot? Secondly, I didn't treat you poorly. I said you pulled it out of your ass. That isn't *that* rude. In fact, I daresay it's accurate. I feel I demonstrated my position aptly enough to show that "81% of employees of Fox News Employees donate to Democrats" is flat wrong (and not supported by the citation either). I also provided a number of good reasons why the claim should be disregarded in it's original form as well. However, I didn't address you! I addressed the argument! I addressed the claims! I addressed the source! I addressed the meat of what you said. I didn't treat you personally with any disrespect. Your beliefs, however, have done absolutely nothing to earn my respect.
To which you come back whining like I beat you with a rusty pipe. You are not your beliefs, learn to tell the difference. I reserve the right to address a person's belief, doubly so if they are part of a group focused on defending an ideology which has lead us into a worthless, unneeded, and intractable war.
Have a good day.
Oh, pulling it out of somebody else's ass? Ann Coulter? Really? Wow, you should have said you pulled it out of your own ass.
Also, you're making a distinctly different claim than she claims the book made.
-- "Even employees of Fox News, which is widely regarded as a conservative channel, donate 81 percent of their contributions to Democrats."
81% of contributions are made to Democrats is the claim. 81% of employees donate to Democrats is a massively different claim (really MASSIVE). In fact, I would be astounded if 50% of run of the mill employees donated to anybody. Also, note that the claim is "81 percent of their contributions" - beyond the obvious problem the book has of lumping most charity organizations as "democrats" even though they are just non-profit and work toward the common good. There's the problem that Democrats are usually poorer and get by with large numbers of small donations. If you looked at my donation history you would find roughly 4 donations toward "Democrats" -- if you think that it is anywhere close to one $5000 donation, you're kidding yourself. The vast majority of donations are grassroots little 25 and 50 dollar donations.
And again, they aren't the ones making the decisions. They are the working stiffs, the camera men and wardrobe people... they are the nuts and bolts who work to put food on their tables. They aren't the ones who supply Fox News with their trademark bias. And number of donations is a completely stupid metric.
Lies, damned lies, statistics and this idiotic bullshit.