These are all great studies. They come to real conclusions. But the methods used to arrive at the conclusions are empirical in nature. You just strengthen my argument. There is no governing dynamic theory that these studies apply beyond basic statistics.
The Orthodox rabbis I've spoken find it amazingly amusing that people take the creation story as literal truth, rather then a story about YHWH's power.
If you look to the clergy to settle the matter you are no more scientist than Reverand Jimmy in his Waco Texas megabox church. He is just as convinced that the bible is infallable. He makes blind assertions too.
Why do people come so willingly to evolution's defense? The lack of a rigorous formulation makes it vulnerable. It provides a plausible explanation for the origin of species, but has no predictive power at all. Even the theory of econometrics is more developed in this sense. If I were a biologist or an geneticist I would be embarrassed at the state of the field.
Ah, yes. The earth heats up, we all die out, and then it cools down again.
So you have been taught to say. Increased levels of CO2 can lead to warming of the atmosphere. Would that necessarily be bad? It may lead to increased agricultural output through the expansion of temperate zones. But it might also cause an increase in photosynthetic activity which would balance out the increases. You should not use hyperbolic statements as a substitute for thought in discussion of atmospheric CO2.
So you are back to carbonating the oceans and seeing what happens?
The oceans are already a sink for CO2 through the production of calcium carbonate, both through precipitation in chemical rich (warm) waters and generated by microorganizms (coral). All I am suggesting that that we imitate the natural process. I personally think it is a waste of time anyway. The CO2 cycle is self-regulating.
The idea of dissolving CO2 in oceans is incredibly reckless. Look at the consequences of degassing of a small lake and you can dismiss this silliness out of hand. The earth's natural mechanism for CO2 removal is limestone formation. Perhaps would be wiser to imitate that.
There is a bit of a difference between a discarded service module that can maintain its attitude for a few months and a fully fueled translunar rocket stage with docking capability. You do not know what you are talking about.
When Kennedy announced the Apollo program he was prepared to develop an enormous rocket (Saturn V) at the outset. The Chinese are clearly taking half measures. Even if the Lander mass was reduced by half it would still take a rocket 4 times as large as the one they are planning to land it on the moon. Nothing in the Shenzhou design suggests that kind of sophistication. Believe Chinese propaganda if you insist, but please don't pretend you are making any sense.
And finally develop a small craft to go between the station to the surface. It is very feasible to launch a large number of small crafts this way.
It is not at all feasible. Each craft would have meet basic mission requirements and be autonomous and storable in orbit or lunar orbit for months. A tall order for a country that has never docked spacecraft or developed high energy stages.. Then it would all have to come together perfectly at the time of the mission. Not likely.
It notice that is 1 year before the first planned landing for NASA's new lunar lander. For China to land on the moon by 2017 Apollo style they would have to have at least a 100 ton class booster and a huge, visible effort. The planned Long March 5 booster is only 25 ton class (like Arianne V or Atlas V). Development isn't even approaved yet and it will take 7 years to develop. I doubt if the Russians will be helping them. If you ask me I'd say the Chinese spokesman was smoking crack.
I think it's pretty ridiculous to argue that the governance of the Internet should remain in the hands of any one government, even the US.
It is even more ridiculous that other countries should expect the US assume risk and gratuitously abdicate the root servers to an international order that doesn't exist.
Gross Misrepresentation of GNU
on
NetBSD 2.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So you see the linux system is flawed in one sense.. the kernel is not tied to the userland (software that you run).
You don't know what you are talking about. Both BSD and Linux interface with 'userland' the same ways, through device drivers and the C library.
There's an effort among the BSD zealots to replace every GNU program with a BSD licensed replacement.
Such people are in the minority. The GNU Core Utilities are generally regarded as superior to their BSD counterparts. Indeed it was the builtin limitations of BSD utilities motivated many of the standards to which GNU software is written. May I also point out that BSD uses the GNU compiler stack. It won't be easy to purge BSD of that, unless you still fancy programming in old style C on the PDP-11.
Its a big pissing match. You can love linux and not like the GNU and i think most people fall into this category that give kudos to linux.
The only ones left pissing are the BSD fanboys. The GNU/Linux folks are too busy.
If this weren't true, everyone would be working on GNU/Hurd right now.
Stallman himself has said that he wouldn't have pursued Hurd if the Linux kernel has been available when the Hurd project was launched. There is no controversy.
OTOH, I also love Debian. I think it's the best userland package management system I've ever seen. It's less flexible than BSD's roll-your-own userland, but far easier to manage.
If you like debian you'll love Gentoo. emerge, rc-update, etc-update can give you a fully up to date distro every day. The whole idea of major releases goes away.
Re:The rats didn't deserve this
on
Slacker or Sick
·
· Score: 1
I shudder to think of the trail of death left by pseudo-scientists performing acts of cruelty on behalf of hypochondriacs like you. Ever heard of sleep and exersize?
I'm not aware of any fossil evidence showing half-way mutated species. If someone knows of some, could they provide a link to a reputable website detailing this evidence?
Transitional forms abound in the fossil record. I think that is what you mean by half mutated species.
Transitional forms are consistent with the idea of evolution. But I hesitate to call it a theory. It doesn't deserve to be. Evolution is a hypothesis that is consistent with lots (tons!) of observations. I say this because evolution still has no mathematical formulation. It has no predictive power. Compare it to well formulated physical theories like Classical Dynamics, Quantum Mechanics, or even softer theories like Marshall's Supply and Demand. They are not easily assailed by muzzy thinking. But Biologists have been easy on themselves for over 150 years! They have not developed deep mathematical understanding of the forces control evolution. They are still waving their arms. What is their response when attacked? The attackers are simpletons, visigoths, fanatics. No further discussion required! Not an impressive defense of a profound idea. When biologists develop the the rich mathematical foundations of evolution, which surely exist, the debate with creationists will end.
Check out the "unsafe" keyword in C# and then get back to us.
LOL! Leave it to Micro$oft to make "unsafe" a language keyword. That one is definitely not in C++. How about "buggy" or "dubious"? Are they reserved words too?
Or C++ Managed Extensions, which by the magic of.NET can interoperate perfectly with C#.
Chortle. "Interoperate" and "perfectly" are not words ordinarily associated with Micro$oft products.
As much as I hate to give MS props, C# is one of my favorite languages to program in. I'm a GNU programmer at heart, but programming C# is like brain candy.
C# is more like a brain fart. If you were a real GNU programmer you would use C or Lisp or one of the other Stallman-approved languages. C# is a Java knock off. They also stole scheme's for-each primative and it doesn't even do as much.
I don't have to think about memory allocation or anything even remotely machine-related.
Meaning you don't have to deal with pointers and dynamic allocation. Jim Gosling got famous 10 years ago when he savaged C pointers in his Java whitepaper. The problem is by discarding pointers you also discard major functionality. If you anything in hardware or embedded development Java/C# are useless.
Competition is good. Even you anti-Microsoft pundints will have to admit, this will only make Google have to work harder;)
Sure. If Microsoft had the reputation for being a fair competitor I would agree with you. My guess is that they will resort to their traditional sleezy tactics to impede Google and flog an inferior search capability using monopoly assets (like IE, Windows, Office, MSN). Microsoft is now firing at random. They are clearly off balance.
Oh, and don't listen to anyone who compares WoW's GMs with Slashdot's moderation system. Tell me, does WoW have meta-GMs??? If one GM slaps you down, can two more GMs bring you back up? Slashdot is really the only discussion site on the web worth looking at, despite the occasional misspelling or duplicate post, and it is all due to your moderation system.
Slashdot's moderation system appeals only those who look to this site to for confirmation of their own views by the rest of the mob. Serious alternative views are moderated out of existance routinely. Moderation points are used to censor. They are dribbled out to a ready core of sycophants whom the Slashdot priesthood can trust to do their dirty work and enforce their views. I will not participate in Slashdot's moderation process again. I encourage other readers to do the same.
The Mars Science Laboratory will be launched in a few years, but I am beginning to agree with you. MSL could be another NASA 'Battlestar Galactica'. Why screw with success? A little continuity might be in order. A slightly improved Opportunity rover would be quite cheap. They last a long time. Their exploration value is absolutely without precedent. If two rovers are good, six would be better. I have to believe this opinion is circulating at NASA.
Slashdot Mirror
These are all great studies. They come to real conclusions. But the methods used to arrive at the conclusions are empirical in nature. You just strengthen my argument. There is no governing dynamic theory that these studies apply beyond basic statistics.
Compare these findings with...
Can you dispute evolution's position on this list?
The Orthodox rabbis I've spoken find it amazingly amusing that people take the creation story as literal truth, rather then a story about YHWH's power.
If you look to the clergy to settle the matter you are no more scientist than Reverand Jimmy in his Waco Texas megabox church. He is just as convinced that the bible is infallable. He makes blind assertions too.
Why do people come so willingly to evolution's defense? The lack of a rigorous formulation makes it vulnerable. It provides a plausible explanation for the origin of species, but has no predictive power at all. Even the theory of econometrics is more developed in this sense. If I were a biologist or an geneticist I would be embarrassed at the state of the field.
Ah, yes. The earth heats up, we all die out, and then it cools down again.
So you have been taught to say. Increased levels of CO2 can lead to warming of the atmosphere. Would that necessarily be bad? It may lead to increased agricultural output through the expansion of temperate zones. But it might also cause an increase in photosynthetic activity which would balance out the increases. You should not use hyperbolic statements as a substitute for thought in discussion of atmospheric CO2.
So you are back to carbonating the oceans and seeing what happens?
The oceans are already a sink for CO2 through the production of calcium carbonate, both through precipitation in chemical rich (warm) waters and generated by microorganizms (coral). All I am suggesting that that we imitate the natural process. I personally think it is a waste of time anyway. The CO2 cycle is self-regulating.
Ca ions are already present in the oceans massive quantities.
The idea of dissolving CO2 in oceans is incredibly reckless. Look at the consequences of degassing of a small lake and you can dismiss this silliness out of hand. The earth's natural mechanism for CO2 removal is limestone formation. Perhaps would be wiser to imitate that.
There is a bit of a difference between a discarded service module that can maintain its attitude for a few months and a fully fueled translunar rocket stage with docking capability. You do not know what you are talking about.
When Kennedy announced the Apollo program he was prepared to develop an enormous rocket (Saturn V) at the outset. The Chinese are clearly taking half measures. Even if the Lander mass was reduced by half it would still take a rocket 4 times as large as the one they are planning to land it on the moon. Nothing in the Shenzhou design suggests that kind of sophistication. Believe Chinese propaganda if you insist, but please don't pretend you are making any sense.
And finally develop a small craft to go between the station to the surface. It is very feasible to launch a large number of small crafts this way.
It is not at all feasible. Each craft would have meet basic mission requirements and be autonomous and storable in orbit or lunar orbit for months. A tall order for a country that has never docked spacecraft or developed high energy stages.. Then it would all have to come together perfectly at the time of the mission. Not likely.
if you lose a craft, you do not lose as much).
An absurd statement.
It notice that is 1 year before the first planned landing for NASA's new lunar lander. For China to land on the moon by 2017 Apollo style they would have to have at least a 100 ton class booster and a huge, visible effort. The planned Long March 5 booster is only 25 ton class (like Arianne V or Atlas V). Development isn't even approaved yet and it will take 7 years to develop. I doubt if the Russians will be helping them. If you ask me I'd say the Chinese spokesman was smoking crack.
I think it's pretty ridiculous to argue that the governance of the Internet should remain in the hands of any one government, even the US.
It is even more ridiculous that other countries should expect the US assume risk and gratuitously abdicate the root servers to an international order that doesn't exist.
So you see the linux system is flawed in one sense.. the kernel is not tied to the userland (software that you run).
You don't know what you are talking about. Both BSD and Linux interface with 'userland' the same ways, through device drivers and the C library.
There's an effort among the BSD zealots to replace every GNU program with a BSD licensed replacement.
Such people are in the minority. The GNU Core Utilities are generally regarded as superior to their BSD counterparts. Indeed it was the builtin limitations of BSD utilities motivated many of the standards to which GNU software is written. May I also point out that BSD uses the GNU compiler stack. It won't be easy to purge BSD of that, unless you still fancy programming in old style C on the PDP-11.
Its a big pissing match. You can love linux and not like the GNU and i think most people fall into this category that give kudos to linux.
The only ones left pissing are the BSD fanboys. The GNU/Linux folks are too busy.
If this weren't true, everyone would be working on GNU/Hurd right now.
Stallman himself has said that he wouldn't have pursued Hurd if the Linux kernel has been available when the Hurd project was launched. There is no controversy.
Word processing is Word but ed is the standard text editor!
OTOH, I also love Debian. I think it's the best userland package management system I've ever seen. It's less flexible than BSD's roll-your-own userland, but far easier to manage.
If you like debian you'll love Gentoo. emerge, rc-update, etc-update can give you a fully up to date distro every day. The whole idea of major releases goes away.
Freudian slip I guess.
...fail, balanced, and unafraid.
I shudder to think of the trail of death left by pseudo-scientists performing acts of cruelty on behalf of hypochondriacs like you. Ever heard of sleep and exersize?
I'm not aware of any fossil evidence showing half-way mutated species. If someone knows of some, could they provide a link to a reputable website detailing this evidence?
Transitional forms abound in the fossil record. I think that is what you mean by half mutated species.Transitional forms are consistent with the idea of evolution. But I hesitate to call it a theory. It doesn't deserve to be. Evolution is a hypothesis that is consistent with lots (tons!) of observations. I say this because evolution still has no mathematical formulation. It has no predictive power. Compare it to well formulated physical theories like Classical Dynamics, Quantum Mechanics, or even softer theories like Marshall's Supply and Demand. They are not easily assailed by muzzy thinking. But Biologists have been easy on themselves for over 150 years! They have not developed deep mathematical understanding of the forces control evolution. They are still waving their arms. What is their response when attacked? The attackers are simpletons, visigoths, fanatics. No further discussion required! Not an impressive defense of a profound idea. When biologists develop the the rich mathematical foundations of evolution, which surely exist, the debate with creationists will end.
Check out the "unsafe" keyword in C# and then get back to us.
LOL! Leave it to Micro$oft to make "unsafe" a language keyword. That one is definitely not in C++. How about "buggy" or "dubious"? Are they reserved words too?
Or C++ Managed Extensions, which by the magic of .NET can interoperate perfectly with C#.
Chortle. "Interoperate" and "perfectly" are not words ordinarily associated with Micro$oft products.
As much as I hate to give MS props, C# is one of my favorite languages to program in. I'm a GNU programmer at heart, but programming C# is like brain candy.
C# is more like a brain fart. If you were a real GNU programmer you would use C or Lisp or one of the other Stallman-approved languages. C# is a Java knock off. They also stole scheme's for-each primative and it doesn't even do as much.
I don't have to think about memory allocation or anything even remotely machine-related.
Meaning you don't have to deal with pointers and dynamic allocation. Jim Gosling got famous 10 years ago when he savaged C pointers in his Java whitepaper. The problem is by discarding pointers you also discard major functionality. If you anything in hardware or embedded development Java/C# are useless.
Competition is good. Even you anti-Microsoft pundints will have to admit, this will only make Google have to work harder ;)
Sure. If Microsoft had the reputation for being a fair competitor I would agree with you. My guess is that they will resort to their traditional sleezy tactics to impede Google and flog an inferior search capability using monopoly assets (like IE, Windows, Office, MSN). Microsoft is now firing at random. They are clearly off balance.
a lot of depts have trouble implementing these Sharepoint solutions and other things
IT folks who specialize in M$ products aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.
If you are going to subject animals to pain and cruelty you should at least do it for some reasonable scientific purpose. This study is inane.
Oh, and don't listen to anyone who compares WoW's GMs with Slashdot's moderation system. Tell me, does WoW have meta-GMs??? If one GM slaps you down, can two more GMs bring you back up? Slashdot is really the only discussion site on the web worth looking at, despite the occasional misspelling or duplicate post, and it is all due to your moderation system.
Slashdot's moderation system appeals only those who look to this site to for confirmation of their own views by the rest of the mob. Serious alternative views are moderated out of existance routinely. Moderation points are used to censor. They are dribbled out to a ready core of sycophants whom the Slashdot priesthood can trust to do their dirty work and enforce their views. I will not participate in Slashdot's moderation process again. I encourage other readers to do the same.
The Mars Science Laboratory will be launched in a few years, but I am beginning to agree with you. MSL could be another NASA 'Battlestar Galactica'. Why screw with success? A little continuity might be in order. A slightly improved Opportunity rover would be quite cheap. They last a long time. Their exploration value is absolutely without precedent. If two rovers are good, six would be better. I have to believe this opinion is circulating at NASA.