Honestly. You don't use Wikipedia directly for academic stuff. You use it as a starting point, but you never reference it. Any college student can tell you this.
'Shaky reputation in the Academic world.' Hah. It's got a great rep - as a starting point.
Hey. Not to be picky, but I'm pretty certain that the people who wrote and signed the starting legal documents for this country were either deists (of the 'divine watchmaker' sort), agnostics or atheists. At least, that's what you can glean from their writings.
Meanwhile, you have to understand that about 90% of the scientific community for which that technology is attributed are also of the deist/agnost/atheist group.
http://www.nwcreation.net/atheism.html
So yeah. I wouldn't be attributing the good stuff in this country to 'ignorant' 'religious zealots', unless of course, you _like_ fooling yourself.
"Does this mean that whatever happens to organisms/populations is an evolutionary process?"
Yes. Any genetic adaptation due to environmental pressures.
"Your message reminds me of the Popper's objection to evolution: it is impossible to disprove it since whichever way organisms turn out is fine from the evolutionary standpoint."
Evolution as a process is impossible to disprove because organisms adapt at the genetic level. This does not mean, however, that it is impossible to test - which is what falsifiability is about. You have to be able to ask and get a clear answer to the question. The idea that the answer has to, in some cases, be false is an unfortunate artifact of the term.
That said, it's impossible to disprove because it is an _observed process_. Disproving it would involve something like taking observations in similar conditions to the originals (colonies of bacteria, the difference in species on the Galapagos Islands, etc), and find that the information previously seen is false. If you can't show that the observations are false, you can only refine the mechanism by which it works, or give another theory as to how the observations come about.
By the by. Saying, 'some dude did it' is not a valid theory. You would then have to explain the existence of the dude, which would have to be a much bigger and complex problem than you started out with.
"He concluded then that evolution is not a scientific theory according to his definition."
Fortunately, no one has paid attention to his definition - one which seems to have completely missed the point of one of the key concepts in science (falsifiability).
Not for free. As with anything, when a network is regulated 'open', it means that the owners of the network have to sell airtime to all parties who request it.
More often than not, those who request it request ubiquitous access at a prorate (ie: per-bit price).
This sort of regulation is one that I feel is OK. Cellular networks are WAY too pervasive to be considered 'private' anymore.
Meanwhile, if they shared network space, the cellular companies could have extreme amounts of service, it would enable them to provide 'anywhere' wireless broadband at affordable rates, and would probably end the municipal wifi push that they've been railing against.
Actually, the same argument that can be made for fossil fuels and global warming can be made here: it's carbon that was statically trapped that will now be released into the atmo.
Actually, if they're burning natural gas (or bio-methane), there's no need; it burns cleanly.
Use it with a quasiturbine (google it!), and the 500PSI head becomes an additional form of energy. Use a quasiturbine in detonation mode, and you get an engine efficiency which is close enough to Carnot to kiss him on the lips, in a nice light package producing higher-than-ICE torque.
Unfortunately, the guy who's got the patent on the things hasn't finished prototyping a combustion model yet. This is really annoying, as he's held the patent for 7 years now. Let's hope he doesn't renew, and someone can do something useful with the design.
It's not in the significant processing of a single script. There are no less than forty maintenance scripts of various languages running in, for example, Ubuntu by default. They do pose a degree of overhead, both in interpretation and loading.
When I say compile, I also mean linking the most common POSIX stuff (ls, echo, mount, grep, cut, head, tail, ps, mkdir, sleep, etc...) dynamically in, so as to reduce runtime overhead. A good system would be something of the nature of a busybox lib that gets linked in on load. The scripts could be converted directly to C code that would then get compiled.
Or something. It's possible that it wouldn't help things at all.
"Have we stopped caring about size and performance of programs?"
In apps like codecs and statistical analysis (both of which commonly use FFTW), we haven't. Though, a lot of the time, we just throw it up to good 'ole SSE.
Though, I feel our dependance on interpreted languages is getting to be a bit much. Same for XML. Same for all the UI sparkliness. All that extra processing power is going to parsing human-readable data and pretty, and I'm not exactly for it.
Yeah. I'll stick to XFCE. I just wich there was a non-commercial bash compiler around; that would make things a bit quicker.
Ah, the couple didn't have a radar gun. They had cameras. And, given a known distance between two points on the camera, you can accurately judge the speed of any object passing between those two points at ground level, ie: a car, using simple math.
"Fordiman, first of all: why would you want to defend an Anonymous Coward?"
I'm not. I believe it's a human right to make fun of anything.
"I mean, you are resentful because some guy here laughed at your geek tatoo."
That's not the point I was making. He was a linux fan. I only got a smile, but it was one of appreciation.
"I understand some people may see it as a way of breaking the tension but it's just I don't consider global warming something you should be telling jokes about... even if you 'can't' fix it."
And I'd ask 'Why not?' What is it about a serious issue that makes it immune from a joke? A joke doesn't preclude something getting done about it. A joke is not necessarily insulting. The best jokes are ones that put a subject in an unexpected light, as the AC did. It was funny, and that's all that's needed to make it appropriate.
"Do you also think that because my country "is" so screwed up I need to let the pain go away by insulting some dudes on a website?"
I said nothing of the sort. First, I don't think Argentina, at least the people in it, are screwed up. I'm half tempted to call that straw man. I *like* Argentinians. But the seriousness... it's a bit much for a laid back guy like myself. As for letting the pain go; no, I don't think that's the intent. I said that the issues may be the source of the seriousness, and that the seriousness is likely the reason a joke about a serious issue pisses you off. There's nothing to do there with pain, just the 'tude.
"In Argentina there has not been anything that can be called civil war for about hundred and fifty years."
I am misinformed then. I apologize.
"Well I don't think there exists any translation for insults, they are just bad words and that's it. You can give them the meaning you want."
I was lucky enough to hear someone described as such once. That was the meaning given in English when I asked. You're right, though. Curse words are pretty open to translation; it's the feeling that matters, not the syllables.
Not to disagree with you; reducing environmental impact - whether it causes harm or not - is a Good Thing (tm), but you have an inaccuracy in your statement: "clearly knows more than the legions of scientists who attest that there is global warming that can be correlated to human release of carbon dioxide"
There are not legions. There is a slight majority. The legions are those that agree that there is global warming. The jury's still out for a good portion of the science community as to a human cause. The 'correlation' you cite is the 'hockey stick' graph, which, IIRC, has a section of history intentionally left out during medieval times, not to mention has standard deviations larger than the delta average. A majority of scientists choose to ignore the potential inaccuracy in the research, as the averages still pan out, and it's better to be safe - and try to do something now - than to be wrong and live in Waterworld.
I mean, honestly, I wouldn't want to stare at Mel Gibson's crazy ass either.
But thanks for making the argument anyway. It's good for greenies to look like zealotous freaks so that no one will take them seriously.
Ok, dude? It's cool that you're Argentinian. I've been to Argentina, and I had a good time, but one thing I can say: damn are you guys serious.
No, really. Like, I couldn't get anyone to crack a smile without the liberal use of your excellent wines. Actually, wait. I did get some grins for my Tux tatoo. Still...
Now, I'm all for being serious when it's warranted, like if I'm in charge of fixing the problem in question - actually, no I'm not. Even if I were in charge of fixing the problem, I'd break the tension first by cracking a joke, then get to the work.
Still. All I'm saying is: lighten up. People tell jokes because laughing makes them feel less like the world is collapsing in on them - which, while it might be, is a paralyzing thought to most people. It doesn't make them pricks (at least, I think that's what boludo roughly translates to). They're just people, you know?
I also know that Argentina has been in more recent civil wars than I can count, and I get that that helps the ire at those who would laugh at everything - but, I'm sorry, you won't get much sympathy for a humorless point of view in the world at large; you'll just get a -1 Troll moderation on Slashdot, and Dugg down if you're so inclined.
Hm. Naming problem. Colloquially they're called 'module trackers' or 'midi/music sequencers', but essentially they're both the same thing: a program that places hardware/user-defined notes in user-designed spots in songs. To the talented, they are a good as a room full of fine musical instruments. To the less talented, they're much like a cat with a tether attached to its tail, labeled 'swing me'.
There are also 'sound editors', like Sound Forge, that allow you to mess with the raw sound data, and Cakewalk and Audacity, which are excellent 'multitrack recorders' with SF-like functionality built in (Cakewalk's a MUCH better program, but as for Audacity, 'free' is a good selling point).
None of these could be considered 'music editors', which to me implies something that can take in raw PCM data and let you select out and remove, add, and modify notes. No such program exists to my knowledge.
If I say, 'I'm not going to lay off 500 workers' and I lay off 510 workers, then I've lied. I've layed of 500 workser, plus an additional 10. More of a logical AND than a ==.
Yes. How does the cat avoid starvation? Either he dies (dead cats fall however they can), or he eats the butter (in which case, the butter-side-down rule fails to apply).
You're right, of course. Conservation in the home is step one. Of course, conservation in the production industry is another very good step.
Why not conserve that additional 10%?
Low powered CPU cores, higher efficiency appliances, LED light bulbs, and similar efficiency improvements could see that personal conservation isn't needed for several years.
I dunno. Are you one of the sorts who oppose things like thorium-based reactors for political reasons rather than on their merits?
Slashdot Mirror
Dude. Way too much text for a bad pun.
Or not.
Honestly. You don't use Wikipedia directly for academic stuff. You use it as a starting point, but you never reference it. Any college student can tell you this.
'Shaky reputation in the Academic world.' Hah. It's got a great rep - as a starting point.
Yeah, seriously.
For example, my own band is know to exactly three of my brain cells, thereby making it the most obscure and therefore the best band EVAR.
"(3) used open languages like Python or an ISO standard like Object Oriented Pascal for scripting instead of Visual Basic"
If they were going to gall all open, they'd probably be more likely to use JScript.
Actually, I believe Franklin was attempting to prove that lightning was electricity in a poorly thought out experiment.
Actually, when the majority and the constitution battle, it's *supposed* to be that the constitution wins out.
That, as we have seen, is not always the case.
Hey. Not to be picky, but I'm pretty certain that the people who wrote and signed the starting legal documents for this country were either deists (of the 'divine watchmaker' sort), agnostics or atheists. At least, that's what you can glean from their writings.
Meanwhile, you have to understand that about 90% of the scientific community for which that technology is attributed are also of the deist/agnost/atheist group.
http://www.nwcreation.net/atheism.html
So yeah. I wouldn't be attributing the good stuff in this country to 'ignorant' 'religious zealots', unless of course, you _like_ fooling yourself.
"Does this mean that whatever happens to organisms/populations is an evolutionary process?"
Yes. Any genetic adaptation due to environmental pressures.
"Your message reminds me of the Popper's objection to evolution: it is impossible to disprove it since whichever way organisms turn out is fine from the evolutionary standpoint."
Evolution as a process is impossible to disprove because organisms adapt at the genetic level. This does not mean, however, that it is impossible to test - which is what falsifiability is about. You have to be able to ask and get a clear answer to the question. The idea that the answer has to, in some cases, be false is an unfortunate artifact of the term.
That said, it's impossible to disprove because it is an _observed process_. Disproving it would involve something like taking observations in similar conditions to the originals (colonies of bacteria, the difference in species on the Galapagos Islands, etc), and find that the information previously seen is false. If you can't show that the observations are false, you can only refine the mechanism by which it works, or give another theory as to how the observations come about.
By the by. Saying, 'some dude did it' is not a valid theory. You would then have to explain the existence of the dude, which would have to be a much bigger and complex problem than you started out with.
"He concluded then that evolution is not a scientific theory according to his definition."
Fortunately, no one has paid attention to his definition - one which seems to have completely missed the point of one of the key concepts in science (falsifiability).
Not for free. As with anything, when a network is regulated 'open', it means that the owners of the network have to sell airtime to all parties who request it.
More often than not, those who request it request ubiquitous access at a prorate (ie: per-bit price).
This sort of regulation is one that I feel is OK. Cellular networks are WAY too pervasive to be considered 'private' anymore.
Meanwhile, if they shared network space, the cellular companies could have extreme amounts of service, it would enable them to provide 'anywhere' wireless broadband at affordable rates, and would probably end the municipal wifi push that they've been railing against.
Actually, the same argument that can be made for fossil fuels and global warming can be made here: it's carbon that was statically trapped that will now be released into the atmo.
Actually, if they're burning natural gas (or bio-methane), there's no need; it burns cleanly.
Use it with a quasiturbine (google it!), and the 500PSI head becomes an additional form of energy. Use a quasiturbine in detonation mode, and you get an engine efficiency which is close enough to Carnot to kiss him on the lips, in a nice light package producing higher-than-ICE torque.
Unfortunately, the guy who's got the patent on the things hasn't finished prototyping a combustion model yet. This is really annoying, as he's held the patent for 7 years now. Let's hope he doesn't renew, and someone can do something useful with the design.
It's not in the significant processing of a single script. There are no less than forty maintenance scripts of various languages running in, for example, Ubuntu by default. They do pose a degree of overhead, both in interpretation and loading.
When I say compile, I also mean linking the most common POSIX stuff (ls, echo, mount, grep, cut, head, tail, ps, mkdir, sleep, etc...) dynamically in, so as to reduce runtime overhead. A good system would be something of the nature of a busybox lib that gets linked in on load. The scripts could be converted directly to C code that would then get compiled.
Or something. It's possible that it wouldn't help things at all.
"Have we stopped caring about size and performance of programs?"
In apps like codecs and statistical analysis (both of which commonly use FFTW), we haven't. Though, a lot of the time, we just throw it up to good 'ole SSE.
Though, I feel our dependance on interpreted languages is getting to be a bit much. Same for XML. Same for all the UI sparkliness. All that extra processing power is going to parsing human-readable data and pretty, and I'm not exactly for it.
Yeah. I'll stick to XFCE. I just wich there was a non-commercial bash compiler around; that would make things a bit quicker.
True, but 'energy from heat' is almost always 'energy from heat transfer'; ie: they'll still burn their legs, though not quite as blisteringly.
The best option here is not to generate the heat in the first place, using low-power, low-dissipation components.
Agreed. The space race, for example, produced a lot more new technology and neat stuff than any war - which are usually the drivers for new tech.
That said, I do believe the computer and internet were driver by the cold war (ARPANET was originally a 'fast-response' network, IIRC).
Ah, the couple didn't have a radar gun. They had cameras. And, given a known distance between two points on the camera, you can accurately judge the speed of any object passing between those two points at ground level, ie: a car, using simple math.
"Fordiman, first of all: why would you want to defend an Anonymous Coward?"
I'm not. I believe it's a human right to make fun of anything.
"I mean, you are resentful because some guy here laughed at your geek tatoo."
That's not the point I was making. He was a linux fan. I only got a smile, but it was one of appreciation.
"I understand some people may see it as a way of breaking the tension but it's just I don't consider global warming something you should be telling jokes about... even if you 'can't' fix it."
And I'd ask 'Why not?' What is it about a serious issue that makes it immune from a joke? A joke doesn't preclude something getting done about it. A joke is not necessarily insulting. The best jokes are ones that put a subject in an unexpected light, as the AC did. It was funny, and that's all that's needed to make it appropriate.
"Do you also think that because my country "is" so screwed up I need to let the pain go away by insulting some dudes on a website?"
I said nothing of the sort. First, I don't think Argentina, at least the people in it, are screwed up. I'm half tempted to call that straw man. I *like* Argentinians. But the seriousness... it's a bit much for a laid back guy like myself. As for letting the pain go; no, I don't think that's the intent. I said that the issues may be the source of the seriousness, and that the seriousness is likely the reason a joke about a serious issue pisses you off. There's nothing to do there with pain, just the 'tude.
"In Argentina there has not been anything that can be called civil war for about hundred and fifty years."
I am misinformed then. I apologize.
"Well I don't think there exists any translation for insults, they are just bad words and that's it. You can give them the meaning you want."
I was lucky enough to hear someone described as such once. That was the meaning given in English when I asked. You're right, though. Curse words are pretty open to translation; it's the feeling that matters, not the syllables.
Not to disagree with you; reducing environmental impact - whether it causes harm or not - is a Good Thing (tm), but you have an inaccuracy in your statement:
"clearly knows more than the legions of scientists who attest that there is global warming that can be correlated to human release of carbon dioxide"
There are not legions. There is a slight majority. The legions are those that agree that there is global warming. The jury's still out for a good portion of the science community as to a human cause. The 'correlation' you cite is the 'hockey stick' graph, which, IIRC, has a section of history intentionally left out during medieval times, not to mention has standard deviations larger than the delta average. A majority of scientists choose to ignore the potential inaccuracy in the research, as the averages still pan out, and it's better to be safe - and try to do something now - than to be wrong and live in Waterworld.
I mean, honestly, I wouldn't want to stare at Mel Gibson's crazy ass either.
But thanks for making the argument anyway. It's good for greenies to look like zealotous freaks so that no one will take them seriously.
Ok, dude? It's cool that you're Argentinian. I've been to Argentina, and I had a good time, but one thing I can say: damn are you guys serious.
No, really. Like, I couldn't get anyone to crack a smile without the liberal use of your excellent wines. Actually, wait. I did get some grins for my Tux tatoo. Still...
Now, I'm all for being serious when it's warranted, like if I'm in charge of fixing the problem in question - actually, no I'm not. Even if I were in charge of fixing the problem, I'd break the tension first by cracking a joke, then get to the work.
Still. All I'm saying is: lighten up. People tell jokes because laughing makes them feel less like the world is collapsing in on them - which, while it might be, is a paralyzing thought to most people. It doesn't make them pricks (at least, I think that's what boludo roughly translates to). They're just people, you know?
I also know that Argentina has been in more recent civil wars than I can count, and I get that that helps the ire at those who would laugh at everything - but, I'm sorry, you won't get much sympathy for a humorless point of view in the world at large; you'll just get a -1 Troll moderation on Slashdot, and Dugg down if you're so inclined.
Hm. Naming problem. Colloquially they're called 'module trackers' or 'midi/music sequencers', but essentially they're both the same thing: a program that places hardware/user-defined notes in user-designed spots in songs. To the talented, they are a good as a room full of fine musical instruments. To the less talented, they're much like a cat with a tether attached to its tail, labeled 'swing me'.
There are also 'sound editors', like Sound Forge, that allow you to mess with the raw sound data, and Cakewalk and Audacity, which are excellent 'multitrack recorders' with SF-like functionality built in (Cakewalk's a MUCH better program, but as for Audacity, 'free' is a good selling point).
None of these could be considered 'music editors', which to me implies something that can take in raw PCM data and let you select out and remove, add, and modify notes. No such program exists to my knowledge.
Hey, know anyone good with Mono and Linux audio? You could have him/her work with them, then you wouldn't need wine.
Actually, that statement doesn't apply.
If I say, 'I'm not going to lay off 500 workers' and I lay off 510 workers, then I've lied. I've layed of 500 workser, plus an additional 10. More of a logical AND than a ==.
Witless?
Hah.
Have fun in dreamland, bucko. Vista's another one that's been quickly cracked.
Yes. How does the cat avoid starvation? Either he dies (dead cats fall however they can), or he eats the butter (in which case, the butter-side-down rule fails to apply).
You're right, of course. Conservation in the home is step one. Of course, conservation in the production industry is another very good step.
Why not conserve that additional 10%?
Low powered CPU cores, higher efficiency appliances, LED light bulbs, and similar efficiency improvements could see that personal conservation isn't needed for several years.
I dunno. Are you one of the sorts who oppose things like thorium-based reactors for political reasons rather than on their merits?