I'm also betting that it's $300 k per capita, not "we actually spend $300k on each person". This definitely enters into the realm of corporate funny money and is probably a meaningless number.
You've failed to ask the most important question, which several other people have brought up in previous posts:
Where is your data stored? How do you manage who owns the data? Do you own the data if you don't own the media on which it's stored? How do you enforce this?
Part of the reason people like their own cars, houses, whatever, is that they *own* it and it's tangible. People don't like to license music on a CD - the want to own the CD and do whatever they want with it (and the music on it - most people who advocate fair use aren't in the business of redistributing the music off the CD they purchased).
The issues of security and technological barriers aside, the issues of intellectual property and having control over your own [stuff] will become what's important...
Uh, why do you need a website to do this? I just use Excel (you could use OpenOffice or even calculator and store the results in a text file if you want). And I can use it without going online...
Sounds like a web application to calculate average mileage is misuse of a tool...
Perhaps, since it sounds like you've actually done something useful with XML, you can shed some light on what the hubbub of XML (both pros and cons) really is.
It's my understanding that XML is basically just a standard way of saying what a [document] contains. Something like a format which says:
1. This is how you specify what type of data is in this block.
2. This is how you specify what should be used to look at data of type 'x'.
To me, that's about it. It sill requires that the receiving system knows what the heck to do with data of type 'x', or where to get the thing that number 2 above says is required to do something with data of type 'x'.
If that's all it is, I really don't understand why so many folks are so happy about XML. While I agree that it is great for looking at a document and saying, "OK, this document has data types 'x', 'y', and 'z'." If an [application] knows what to do with those data types, then great. Otherwise, the file is useless.
Granted, there is great value in having a standardized method of saying what's in a file (after all, a good bit of file formats and OS protection and the like is simply determining what the heck type of data is in a file). I think the problem is that for some reason, somwhere, "XML" got billed as doing something more than just wrapping data contents in some sort of standard metadata. For instance, in this article, you could have sent pricing information out in plain text, or binary, or whatever. They chose to use XML because... well, we'd have to ask the developers.
As far as I can tell, XML simply specifies how you tell people how you intend them to treat data, but doesn't have any mechanism by which that intent can be enforced or enabled.
I'd love to hear your comments on this, and definitely any clarfications.
I agree - if you notice I never once said that you didn't need a high paycheck to pay for high cost of living (and more luxury, etc.) You do bring up the opposite side of my argument in that the fact that costs are high is because supply and demand is working as you note - the prices are high because people are willing to pay that much. Prices will fall (or, more likely, just stagnate) when people are no longer willing to pay more for them.
You do bring up an interesting point about the non-uniform burden of tax revenue though. I do have to say though that if CA didn't pay so many taxes that only implies that taxes for everyone would be higher if we expected the same "services" from the government. It could be the case that we accept a reduced level of "service" for the same taxes. More likely than that, though, is we'd eat it as a larger deficit.
All in all, I'd have to agree that just saying "your dumb if you can't afford a house if you make six figures" is naive at best. The number of factors involved, are, well, quite daunting; most folks aren't willing to think about that though.
Sounds to me like the supply and demand thing is broken; if people don't like paying $0.7 M for houses then they shouldn't make offers for that much...
Sure, part of it is spatial inflation, but much of it is people not willing to stand pat and say, "woah now, that's just too much for product X". I know it's difficult when it's something like a house, but you can always choose to live in an area with a much lower cost of living. There are places other than Silicon Valley (increasingly in the Midwest and Southeast) with good "IT jobs" where you can make "a pittance" and live like a monarch - you'd be surprised how much house $120k will buy you in the Southeast!
Rather than whining that 6 digits isn't enough due to cost of living, be the smart shopper and say, "I'm gonna stop supporting this crap and move." If, however, the cost of moving (including non-monetary things like family strife or whatever) is more than what you save by moving, then you have no right to complain, because you're complaining about your own choices.
It's not like anyone's forcing you to stay in a place where your income to expenses ratio, regardless of what the actual numerical value happens to be, is not what you want. And if they *are* forcing you, well, that's another issue entirely...
Excatly; even a small RTOS (such as OSEK) is still an operating system in the purest sense of the word (I actually work developing these things...).
I guess, as one of the other posters above suggested, that it all really does depend on what you mean by "Operating System". (I am amused that they say, "well, it's like firmware BIOS"; BIOS means something like "built-in operating system" or "basic input/output system" depending on to whom you talk, and that is exactly what an operating system is...in my book anyway.)
There actually is an OS on all the "disc based" systems. Xbox actually has a specialized version of Windows NT and runs DirectX. Sony's PSn boxes also have a kind of OS. What do you think manages disc reads, writing to/from hard disks/memory cards, and handles all the I/O scheduling and the like? The fact that you can change an XBox to run [Linux] means that you're changing the OS on the thing.
Just because hardware doesn't change doesn't mean it doesn't have an operating system. You'd be surprised at how many things have an "operating system" - like cell phones for example. Even your automobile engine controller probably has an operating system...
public static int Ack(int m, int n) { return (m == 0) ? (n + 1) : ((n == 0) ? Ack(m-1, 1) : Ack(m-1, Ack(m, n - 1))); }
C++:
int Ack(int M, int N) { return(M ? (Ack(M-1,N ? Ack(M,(N-1)) : 1)) : N+1); }
The C++ version could have been written IDENTICALLY (except for the 'public' modifier on the definition) to the Java version, but it was not. I'm not sure what the compiled difference might be, but there is a difference between these two bits of code, notably that in the C++ version there is a tertiary operator evaluated as an argument to a call to Ack, where this is not the case in the Java version. I would guess that this would be a more difficult thing for a compiler to figure out.
The differences in the methcall sources are even worse; in the C++ version of NthToggle, there are unnecessary dereferences of the this pointer that will kill performance, as well as in the call to new NthToggle(val, 3) in the C++ version is written with the coded constant new NthToggle(true,3) in the java version! It's hardly fair to compare things of this nature.
The trouble with benchmarking different languages is hard enough due to inherent differences between languages; it's not really enlightening to introduce artificial differences such as these.
You're the first to post I've read that mentioned the tree view, so you win my response!
This is my opinion, but the thing I can't stand about "spatial" file managers OR the strange "non-spatial" things many people mention is that you can only see where you're currently at. I actually loved the tree-view in Win95+ Explorer and am glad that OSX 10.3 at least put something kind of like it back in the Finder (though WinX is, unfortunately, still better in this respect I think).
What I want in a file system, at least from a "physical layout" standpoint, is the ability to see from a high level the overall structure of the system - how things are stored relative to each other. Basically, a summary "map" where you can see the organization without having to traverse it. The tree-view is currently the best implementation of this - I'd love to see innovations related to some kind of multi-demensional tree-like view that's easy to use and not necessarily 3D or too much animation (I've been trying to think of some but not come up with anything yet). Having an expanded tree view in the side of my explorer window allows me to get to just about ANY location (assuming an intelligent organization of files) in 1 click (perhaps 2 clicks and a scroll). The Windows implementation actually allows you to drag files / folders from the "browse" window over into the tree view, so you don't even need to open a second window at all to do your "spatial copy or move". <Prior Art>I could even envision an implementation where in the tree view you could have something like a "query shortcut" that when you clicked would run a query to show in the browse rather than just contents of a physical directory.</Prior Art>
The thing that gets me is all this "trying to make a computer mimic the physical world" for things like "desktops" and "files" and that sort of thing. One power of computers is that it frees us from some of the limitations of the physical world like having to store things in drawers and the like. I think we'll contstrain ourselves greatly by trying to make computer interfaces mimic the physical.
I could go on, but I've got to get back to work. Hopefully this gives the crowd enough more discussion for a while...
Oh, I don't consider this an attack at all - you have nicely fleshed out the little bit that I mentioned saying that "being reconciled with God allows us to love God and others...". You are indeed right in that our actions prove our faith, but you can have actions without faith, and Christ talked a lot about this particular topic to the Pharisees:-) It's Christ's work on the cross that allows us to "follow Christ", is all I'm saying; I will admit that is just a belief that I hold, but as far as I know, from everything I have learned and experienced and observed, it is true.
Unfortunately this is replying to an AC, but hopefully this thread is still live enough for others to read this.
The AC says:
There's a lot to know about being Christian (really a lot to read), but it all relates to two fundamental rules or commandments:
1. One must love GOD more than anything else.
2. One must love others like oneself.
The AC, is in fact, quite mistaken. What he quoted here is not the core tenet of Christianity; this is just a nice way to live with God thrown in for good measure. What Christianity is is this:
God and mankind had a good releationship, but this relationship was broken because people choose to live without acknowledging God. People are incapable of reconciling this relationship, so God, because He loves people, sent His son Jesus Christ to die on the cross and suffer horribly as a reconciliation so we can have a restored relationship with God. The restored relationship with God is what allows people to actually succeed in loving others and God...
That is the core of Christianity; not the Pope, not communion, not hymns, not going to church every week, not even the Bible. You can verify this for yourself, it's not some "theory" about Christianity - you should be quite able to go pick up a Bible and read it and you should see this is the case, and if you are so inclined, I'd recommend it.
As a man who has decided to commit himself to Christ, I kind of am distressed and saddened by the fact that people do not really understand my faith and lump it in with "you narrow-minded American Christian!". Especially since I am a scientist, love physics, and don't see a conflict between evolution and a universe created by God (if God is all powerful, why can't He use evolution?)
Anyway, at least I hope that you have an understanding now that the common perceptions of "Christianity" might not be universally accurate. Another instance of "don't believe everything you see on TV! (or read on/.!)"
Trouble with this is, most retail gas stations sell 87, 89, and 93. I've occasionally seen 86 and 92 octane, but I really have never seen 91 posted anywhere... my car has a 10+:1 comp ratio and requires "91+". I'll be durned if I can find anything less than 93 though...
Repeat after me: 3 volts do not arc. 3 volts do not arc. 3 volts do not arc.
Um... the breakdown strength of air is about 3 MV/m. 3 volts will easily arc over a distance of 1 micron. With different conditions in humidity, etc., this distance can be increased dramatically.
And that's just pure theory - I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen arcs from the ends of wires, etc. connecting to a mere 1.5 V battery.
I might presume that the kinetic energy necessary for LEO isn't really 24X the potential energy of that altitude
You would be presuming correctly. For a circular orbit:
ma = mv^2/r F = GMm/r^2 so v^2 = GMm/r
So kinetic energy K = m/2 GM/r
Potential energy, though, is defined as the integral from an infinite distance to the current radius:
U = GMm/r
Oddly enough, this means that the kinetic energy is always half the potential energy for a circular orbit (2K = U)
Also, note that if your kinetic energy equals or exceeds your potential, then you're at or above escape velocity and aren't in orbit any more (Vescape^2 = GM/r).
...theres no media costs, this is simple pricing in reaction to rising demand.
While this would be the case in classical systems, this makes no sense for the RIAA based on the following observations:
1. There is already lots of pirating because people think that the store prices for CDs are too high.
2. My guess is that the slope of the demand curve for purchased online music is really high and quite nonlinear; my guess is that any price increase will dramatically lower the demand for purchased music (because it's just as simple to download a clandestine copy) while lowering prices will increase demand at some more measured pace. (This is opposed to gasoline, where huge changes in price have little effect on demand, at least in the current range of prices. In the US.)
These observations lead me to believe that folks need to do some updated thinking about economic theory and products/services which have basically no implementation cost. There has to be a reason for someone to pay for something, and when you have (effectively) instantaneously delivery of digital content at potentially zero price, it's quite difficult to build a business distributing music (I would argue there is still a lot of room to create music - the RIAA has never been in the business of creating music though, which is why they are upset. Their entire business model of music distribution is falling apart).
Anyway, I suppose that if they raised prices they would quickly find out that demand would plummet. In this instance, what would happen is that they would probably kill iTunes rather than rake in more money; my guess is that even if they forced *every* provider to raise prices they'd just lose volume. (This is because if there is any one provider with a lower cost, the lack of barriers on the internet would quickly shift all business to the lowest-cost source. The one hiccup here is, of course, the iPod, which definitely complicates the analysis.)
That's about all for today on this, I think...I'm sure I didn't cover every facet, but we're still in the early stages of the Intellectual Property Revolution.
Eargh, slashdot's no place to post names, is it? my spam-catch email is ftravela at eudoramail (com) (Lord knows how much spam already gets through cwru addresses!). Drop me a line and we can talk more - there's a slight chance we may have played cards before! (And if you happen to have been my roommate, fancy meeting you here!)
Yeah, I'm guessing there are more than a few Case alums (or current students) still here. I never had Krauss or Starkman (I was in aerospace, c/o 2000), but two of my best friends were physics majors (what are the odds I know you?). Lots of interesting stories from Rockefeller...I'm not at all surprised that there is something about a 'limit to consciousness' in a Krauss paper.
It is neat to see the alma mater out in the "real world" though.
First, when I was a kid I learned that "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me".
You've not studied much psychology, have you? Words typically harm much more than sticks and stones. And wounds from sticks and stones heal much easier than wounds from words (okay, yeah, if I beat you to death then the discussion is moot, but that's not the point here). This little playground saying is perhaps one of the worst things we can tell children - the fact is that what we say is no less important than what we do.
I believe the Bible says that "the floodgates of the heavens and the deeps were opened". Does anyone know how much water was contained subterraneously that could have been released (think geysers on a massive scale)?
You might want to look up the Hydroplate Theory as one possible alternative (granted this link is from a creationist website I found on google, but the science is at least plausible, as opposed to the nonsense found here)
Re:Saviour for people in need in of transplants?
on
Synthetic Life In The Lab
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
f your car has a problem with it's breaks do you say "Does I really need this car?" and chuck it in the river
Interesting concept. I think if more people really thought about if they really needed a car or not they would be quite surprised to find that they do not. We'd also solve all those pesky issues about roll-over accidents, fuel economy, dependence on foreign oil, etc. etc.
That doesn't mean that all the current changes, however, are natural.
Interesting philosophical debate: If humans are a product of nature, and humans do something, shouldn't that still be considered "natural"? If the evolution of a species such as humans is then natural, and that evolution "naturally" results in technology which stresses an ecosystem in strange ways, is that bad? Is it good?
I think this whole debate is moot until people can decide on how to determine such fundamental things. Saying stuff like "because it will cause certain species to die off" doesn't mean anything in an amoral, evolutionistic world view: is it bad for species to die off?
I also like to point out for all you who like their statistics: correlation does not imply causality. (For instance: the fact that trees always move when there is wind does not mean that the movement of trees causes wind.) I do not yet think it is possible to set up an experiment to test the relationship between millions of variables and some average global temperature reading. The inertia and chaotic nature of the terrestrial atmospheric system also makes it quite difficult to put into a control system - do you use a PID controller? H-infinity? What *should* the setpoint be? The answer to most of these is "nobody knows".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm also betting that it's $300 k per capita, not "we actually spend $300k on each person". This definitely enters into the realm of corporate funny money and is probably a meaningless number.
Where is your data stored? How do you manage who owns the data? Do you own the data if you don't own the media on which it's stored? How do you enforce this?
Part of the reason people like their own cars, houses, whatever, is that they *own* it and it's tangible. People don't like to license music on a CD - the want to own the CD and do whatever they want with it (and the music on it - most people who advocate fair use aren't in the business of redistributing the music off the CD they purchased).
The issues of security and technological barriers aside, the issues of intellectual property and having control over your own [stuff] will become what's important...
Sounds like a web application to calculate average mileage is misuse of a tool...
It's my understanding that XML is basically just a standard way of saying what a [document] contains. Something like a format which says:
1. This is how you specify what type of data is in this block.
2. This is how you specify what should be used to look at data of type 'x'.
To me, that's about it. It sill requires that the receiving system knows what the heck to do with data of type 'x', or where to get the thing that number 2 above says is required to do something with data of type 'x'.
If that's all it is, I really don't understand why so many folks are so happy about XML. While I agree that it is great for looking at a document and saying, "OK, this document has data types 'x', 'y', and 'z'." If an [application] knows what to do with those data types, then great. Otherwise, the file is useless.
Granted, there is great value in having a standardized method of saying what's in a file (after all, a good bit of file formats and OS protection and the like is simply determining what the heck type of data is in a file). I think the problem is that for some reason, somwhere, "XML" got billed as doing something more than just wrapping data contents in some sort of standard metadata. For instance, in this article, you could have sent pricing information out in plain text, or binary, or whatever. They chose to use XML because... well, we'd have to ask the developers.
As far as I can tell, XML simply specifies how you tell people how you intend them to treat data, but doesn't have any mechanism by which that intent can be enforced or enabled.
I'd love to hear your comments on this, and definitely any clarfications.
Better be careful - 'lessen' is awful close to 'lesen' which is German for 'read'!!
You do bring up an interesting point about the non-uniform burden of tax revenue though. I do have to say though that if CA didn't pay so many taxes that only implies that taxes for everyone would be higher if we expected the same "services" from the government. It could be the case that we accept a reduced level of "service" for the same taxes. More likely than that, though, is we'd eat it as a larger deficit.
All in all, I'd have to agree that just saying "your dumb if you can't afford a house if you make six figures" is naive at best. The number of factors involved, are, well, quite daunting; most folks aren't willing to think about that though.
Sure, part of it is spatial inflation, but much of it is people not willing to stand pat and say, "woah now, that's just too much for product X". I know it's difficult when it's something like a house, but you can always choose to live in an area with a much lower cost of living. There are places other than Silicon Valley (increasingly in the Midwest and Southeast) with good "IT jobs" where you can make "a pittance" and live like a monarch - you'd be surprised how much house $120k will buy you in the Southeast!
Rather than whining that 6 digits isn't enough due to cost of living, be the smart shopper and say, "I'm gonna stop supporting this crap and move." If, however, the cost of moving (including non-monetary things like family strife or whatever) is more than what you save by moving, then you have no right to complain, because you're complaining about your own choices.
It's not like anyone's forcing you to stay in a place where your income to expenses ratio, regardless of what the actual numerical value happens to be, is not what you want. And if they *are* forcing you, well, that's another issue entirely...
I guess, as one of the other posters above suggested, that it all really does depend on what you mean by "Operating System". (I am amused that they say, "well, it's like firmware BIOS"; BIOS means something like "built-in operating system" or "basic input/output system" depending on to whom you talk, and that is exactly what an operating system is...in my book anyway.)
There actually is an OS on all the "disc based" systems. Xbox actually has a specialized version of Windows NT and runs DirectX. Sony's PSn boxes also have a kind of OS. What do you think manages disc reads, writing to/from hard disks/memory cards, and handles all the I/O scheduling and the like? The fact that you can change an XBox to run [Linux] means that you're changing the OS on the thing.
Just because hardware doesn't change doesn't mean it doesn't have an operating system. You'd be surprised at how many things have an "operating system" - like cell phones for example. Even your automobile engine controller probably has an operating system...
A fun one:
Java:
C++:
The C++ version could have been written IDENTICALLY (except for the 'public' modifier on the definition) to the Java version, but it was not. I'm not sure what the compiled difference might be, but there is a difference between these two bits of code, notably that in the C++ version there is a tertiary operator evaluated as an argument to a call to Ack, where this is not the case in the Java version. I would guess that this would be a more difficult thing for a compiler to figure out.
The differences in the methcall sources are even worse; in the C++ version of NthToggle, there are unnecessary dereferences of the this pointer that will kill performance, as well as in the call to new NthToggle(val, 3) in the C++ version is written with the coded constant new NthToggle(true,3) in the java version! It's hardly fair to compare things of this nature.
The trouble with benchmarking different languages is hard enough due to inherent differences between languages; it's not really enlightening to introduce artificial differences such as these.
This is my opinion, but the thing I can't stand about "spatial" file managers OR the strange "non-spatial" things many people mention is that you can only see where you're currently at. I actually loved the tree-view in Win95+ Explorer and am glad that OSX 10.3 at least put something kind of like it back in the Finder (though WinX is, unfortunately, still better in this respect I think).
What I want in a file system, at least from a "physical layout" standpoint, is the ability to see from a high level the overall structure of the system - how things are stored relative to each other. Basically, a summary "map" where you can see the organization without having to traverse it. The tree-view is currently the best implementation of this - I'd love to see innovations related to some kind of multi-demensional tree-like view that's easy to use and not necessarily 3D or too much animation (I've been trying to think of some but not come up with anything yet). Having an expanded tree view in the side of my explorer window allows me to get to just about ANY location (assuming an intelligent organization of files) in 1 click (perhaps 2 clicks and a scroll). The Windows implementation actually allows you to drag files / folders from the "browse" window over into the tree view, so you don't even need to open a second window at all to do your "spatial copy or move". <Prior Art>I could even envision an implementation where in the tree view you could have something like a "query shortcut" that when you clicked would run a query to show in the browse rather than just contents of a physical directory.</Prior Art>
The thing that gets me is all this "trying to make a computer mimic the physical world" for things like "desktops" and "files" and that sort of thing. One power of computers is that it frees us from some of the limitations of the physical world like having to store things in drawers and the like. I think we'll contstrain ourselves greatly by trying to make computer interfaces mimic the physical.
I could go on, but I've got to get back to work. Hopefully this gives the crowd enough more discussion for a while...
Oh, I don't consider this an attack at all - you have nicely fleshed out the little bit that I mentioned saying that "being reconciled with God allows us to love God and others...". You are indeed right in that our actions prove our faith, but you can have actions without faith, and Christ talked a lot about this particular topic to the Pharisees :-) It's Christ's work on the cross that allows us to "follow Christ", is all I'm saying; I will admit that is just a belief that I hold, but as far as I know, from everything I have learned and experienced and observed, it is true.
The AC says:
The AC, is in fact, quite mistaken. What he quoted here is not the core tenet of Christianity; this is just a nice way to live with God thrown in for good measure. What Christianity is is this:
God and mankind had a good releationship, but this relationship was broken because people choose to live without acknowledging God. People are incapable of reconciling this relationship, so God, because He loves people, sent His son Jesus Christ to die on the cross and suffer horribly as a reconciliation so we can have a restored relationship with God. The restored relationship with God is what allows people to actually succeed in loving others and God...
That is the core of Christianity; not the Pope, not communion, not hymns, not going to church every week, not even the Bible. You can verify this for yourself, it's not some "theory" about Christianity - you should be quite able to go pick up a Bible and read it and you should see this is the case, and if you are so inclined, I'd recommend it.
As a man who has decided to commit himself to Christ, I kind of am distressed and saddened by the fact that people do not really understand my faith and lump it in with "you narrow-minded American Christian!". Especially since I am a scientist, love physics, and don't see a conflict between evolution and a universe created by God (if God is all powerful, why can't He use evolution?)
Anyway, at least I hope that you have an understanding now that the common perceptions of "Christianity" might not be universally accurate. Another instance of "don't believe everything you see on TV! (or read on /.!)"
Trouble with this is, most retail gas stations sell 87, 89, and 93. I've occasionally seen 86 and 92 octane, but I really have never seen 91 posted anywhere... my car has a 10+:1 comp ratio and requires "91+". I'll be durned if I can find anything less than 93 though...
And that's just pure theory - I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen arcs from the ends of wires, etc. connecting to a mere 1.5 V battery.
ma = mv^2/r
F = GMm/r^2 so v^2 = GMm/r
So kinetic energy K = m/2 GM/r
Potential energy, though, is defined as the integral from an infinite distance to the current radius:
U = GMm/r
Oddly enough, this means that the kinetic energy is always half the potential energy for a circular orbit (2K = U)
Also, note that if your kinetic energy equals or exceeds your potential, then you're at or above escape velocity and aren't in orbit any more (Vescape^2 = GM/r).
1. There is already lots of pirating because people think that the store prices for CDs are too high.
2. My guess is that the slope of the demand curve for purchased online music is really high and quite nonlinear; my guess is that any price increase will dramatically lower the demand for purchased music (because it's just as simple to download a clandestine copy) while lowering prices will increase demand at some more measured pace. (This is opposed to gasoline, where huge changes in price have little effect on demand, at least in the current range of prices. In the US.)
These observations lead me to believe that folks need to do some updated thinking about economic theory and products/services which have basically no implementation cost. There has to be a reason for someone to pay for something, and when you have (effectively) instantaneously delivery of digital content at potentially zero price, it's quite difficult to build a business distributing music (I would argue there is still a lot of room to create music - the RIAA has never been in the business of creating music though, which is why they are upset. Their entire business model of music distribution is falling apart).
Anyway, I suppose that if they raised prices they would quickly find out that demand would plummet. In this instance, what would happen is that they would probably kill iTunes rather than rake in more money; my guess is that even if they forced *every* provider to raise prices they'd just lose volume. (This is because if there is any one provider with a lower cost, the lack of barriers on the internet would quickly shift all business to the lowest-cost source. The one hiccup here is, of course, the iPod, which definitely complicates the analysis.)
That's about all for today on this, I think...I'm sure I didn't cover every facet, but we're still in the early stages of the Intellectual Property Revolution.
I'm A. Watson, by the way...
It is neat to see the alma mater out in the "real world" though.
You might want to look up the Hydroplate Theory as one possible alternative (granted this link is from a creationist website I found on google, but the science is at least plausible, as opposed to the nonsense found here)
Granted, I'm not familiar with all the intricacies of this definition, but it is an interesting one and eliminates the discussion about "souls".
I think this whole debate is moot until people can decide on how to determine such fundamental things. Saying stuff like "because it will cause certain species to die off" doesn't mean anything in an amoral, evolutionistic world view: is it bad for species to die off?
I also like to point out for all you who like their statistics: correlation does not imply causality. (For instance: the fact that trees always move when there is wind does not mean that the movement of trees causes wind.) I do not yet think it is possible to set up an experiment to test the relationship between millions of variables and some average global temperature reading. The inertia and chaotic nature of the terrestrial atmospheric system also makes it quite difficult to put into a control system - do you use a PID controller? H-infinity? What *should* the setpoint be? The answer to most of these is "nobody knows".
*shrug*
Hehe - It's actually a quote from my roommate while playing Munchkin.