I like digg, but its certainly not where/. gets all of its stories. Note that the sheer number of stories that digg has means that there is a lot more noise to filter out.
Plus, not being able to post in a threaded manner makes any sort of discussion there completely pointless (as opposed to here being perhaps pointless.)
Dude... CmdrTaco has a blog. You'll be able to find it here: http://slashdot.org/
That just might be why he expects "preferential treatment."
FYI, it looks like digg might go to ad-based revenue shortly, so start your whining about it there as well.
And digg has just as many, if not MORE, dupes as/. does.
Digg is cool, and has its pros - but look at the cons and it certainly isn't superior, just an alternative.
The idea has been around, but in its current form it has existed since ~1991 when the Discovery Institute was founded by hardline Christians and Christian Fundamentalists.
Not that how it was formed is a valid reason to dismiss it completely.
It's lack of scientific evidence, rigourous methodology, assumptions built upon analogy, and un-falsifiabity are reasons to dismiss it as being scientific.
In order to defeat your opponent, it is helpful to know them!
people speaking out against ID (who don't really understand what it stands for and just see it as a Bible-pushing fundamental Christian movement)
Generally, because the initial setup of the Discovery Institute was founded by hard-line Christians and Christian Fundamentalists. Even the best "scientific" paper on ID (Meyer) was funded directly by a steadfast C.Fundamentalist.
That's not a reason that people _should_ see it as a bible-thumping ideology, but it is _WHY_ they see it as such. It should be able to stand up to scientific scrutiny on its own, if it wishes to be portrayed like that - as the Meyer paper attempted.
Show that all species CANNOT go through enough mutations that it develops into a separate species.
Take a sample of all of the earth's current species. Far far into the future, show that no new species have ever developed.
To be falsifiable, the test doesn't have to be practical, just possible. The classic example is the theory "All swans are white." That is falsifiable, because all you'd have to do is be able to observe a non-white swan. Just one non-white swan - in the past, present, or future - in the entire swan population would falsify it. We are able to observe (see) white swans, the assumption is that we could just as easily observe (see) a non-white one if we were in the right place at the right time.
I hope that makes sense.
Evolutionary theory basically states that given enough time, new species will develop from previous ones. To falsify that, show that new "half-mutated" species (as you called them) are never ever created. An indefinite period of time isn't practical, but it is possible.
Personally, I don't understand the problem the ID camp has with macro-evolution if they accept the idea of micro-evoltion. If a species undergoes a mutation and separates from the original - leaving two populations, "normal" and mutated" - and mutations then happen constantly to both/either lines - they eventually differ by so much that they become classified as different species.
To say that we don't have a complete fossil record of macro-evolution is indeed true - there isn't a found fossil for EVERY step in the evolutionary chain. That being said, each "new" fossil we discover generally seems to fill in a gap. Paleontologists are at least able to theoretically test (find) the fossils.
Can anyone explain what that's about, please? I read the (or A) English translation of "The Stranger" about 15 years ago. Is that all that the "new" thing is? A different translation of one of Camus' works? And if so, can anyone make a comparison between versions? Or is this something completely different?
(If a Greek letter is retired, the name is scratched off the list and not replaced - for example, should "Beta" be retired after 2005, the 23rd storm in a future year would be "Gamma".)
"It will go to the Swahili alphabet or something else," joked Jim Lushine, severe weather expert at the National Weather Service in Miami.
Actually, when old names are retired, new names have to be drafted in to a database maintained specifically for Atlantic Ocean storms, said Mark Oliver, spokesman for the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, which maintains the database.
Yeah... so.... it looks like the NWS doesn't know precisely what will happen either.
(sorry for an MSN link, but that's what google found me!)
and I don't mean the openoffice-bin emerge either... the 250+ MB from-source one!!
I should've known better, seeing as how the final 2.0's were showing up on mirrors yesterday.
Of course, I should know better than to emerge the new 2.0 from source instead of the bin, becuase we'll prob see minor patches with it being mainstreamed now.... but that won't stop me!
I didn't realize that it was the "SQL" or any other standard. To myself, it just makes sense. I've used that format for years whereever possible: filenames, my laboratory notebook, memos, heck even personal checks!
Don't you think that the selling of a MS branded Antivirus app would be a tad illeagal?
* MS sells an OPTIONAL AV protection utility.
* MS continues to allow the OS itself to be vulnerable.
* (perhaps, MS actually writes a virus that affects windows...)
* MS sells more AV software demonstrating that it keeps people's PCs "safe."
/. is so fond of (bad) analogies. This would be like a (monopolistic) car company knowingly selling you an auto with a known defect(s) that MIGHT cause the car to randomly explode - and when non-affiliated mechanics have been fixing the issue, the car company promotes the fact that they know more about the car to fix it "better" - instead of doing a recall for free.
What MS should be doing is fixing the problem pro-actively, not retro-actively.
I'm unaffiliated with their site! That being said...
This same story was posted on www.digg.com about 30 hours before/. had it up.
That, and I'd bet that a lot of the/. readers who might care about Serenity have already seen it in the theater.
Plus, its not a linux-compatible stream.
at least as far as I understand it. RTFA and it mentions the liscensing fees.
Current DVD players (most made in China) need to buy the "rights" to decode/play the region specific DVD encodings. This liscensing cost makes up somewhere between 40%-50% (TFA says 40%) of the entire production cost per player.
With their own format, production costs drop by nearly 50%... units can be sold for less while making a larger profit... consumers buy more... company makes tons more money. (assuming that consumers do buy into the new format.)
I don't see how this is a bad thing, really. Sure, it might be a new format that noone can currently play at home, but that's the same thing with HD DVD and BlueRay. Also, DVDs are region encoded so that you can't always (easily) play them all as is (without hacking the player.)
It looks like the Chinese format won't be encumbered by DRM crap, but is geared towards anti-piracy. (not the same thing, right?)
Wow, you studied NQR?? I thought that I was at one of the few academic institutions that cared about NQR in the slightest bit. My MS thesis in ElecEng is based off of it. Or was what you did more like a report, not experimental research? Just curious.
NQR is only power hungry if pulsed. You can also do Continuous Wave (CW) NQR, which takes hardly any power... but then takes even longer to scan.
You're wrong though, in that it can typically detect trace amounts - it is possible, but you need a high fill factor in the the coil. To detect just trace amounts, you need to pass the particles through a really small coil.
Also, yes, it can do identification of compounds, however the problem is that C4, RDX, TNT, etc... all have widely different quadrupole transition frequencies. For instance, the RDX (nu-) line is around 3 MHz or so, while TNT's best line is all the way down near 500 kHz. This is a huge problem for a single system, because you need to tune the whole detection apparatus to within the bandwidth of the coil used for transmit and detection. For a simplish copper coil, you're looking at scan range of something like a 30kHz bandwidth. No problem, right? Wrong. The line(s) are most likely not where you hope they'll be.
You really want a homogeneous crystaline structure of the substance - something amorphous, or with varying crystal structure, will tend to have a wider line. The QR lines of many things tend to be around about 1kHz full-width half maximum (FWHM) for a nice uniform single crystal structure. If you don't have that simple single nice crystaline structure, the line "widens" and, in doing so, gives off a much weaker energy signal.
Now, take into account that the quadrupole transition frequencies SHIFT dependant upon temperature. (Some as greatly as 1kHz per Kelvin.) Basic experimental NQR research tends to use liquid nitrogen (77 K) to get the test substance at a nice equilibrium, giving a consistant and narrow lineshape. (Its cheap, convenient, and pretty safe.) In room temperature, the sample's temp can vary pretty greatly - don't run experiemts on hot or cold days, the thing needs to be at a near constant - which shifts the transition freq of the nuclei all over the place, and therefore broadens the line, weakening the return singal energy.
In regards to the Bomb vs Belt-Buckles thing: Large metal objects are obstacles to NQR. (as are peizo-electric things.) Since NQR is essentially the transmission and reception of radio waves, metal things just reflect the pulses, saturating the reciever, and tell you nothing else except "Hey! That's METAL!" - a really complex and expensive metal detector (or peizo-electric detector.)
We'd been working on exactly what you must have read up on for the class project - anti-persobnel and anti-tank plastic landmine explosvies detection. Unfortunately, we lost funding for the research on 9/11 when our paperwork was destroyed in the Pentagon. After that, landmines weren't considered a Homeland Security threat. Oh, but !@#!@# ANTHRAX was... so that's my line of research for my thesis. Pointless, imnsho, and unlikely to work anyways.
Aside : Our last source of funding, a well known bagillion-$ corporation, realized that it couldn't sell NQR explosives detectors to the TSA/DHS for the profit margin that it is accustomed to. They then cut funding - my tuition and living expenses! So now, I'm not only doing research that will cocluse with "Don't bother trying this, ever," but our USEFUL research that could easily save many lives/limbs every year has been pushed aside.
If anyone wants to help those UN peacekeepers hunting for landmines, we could sure use some research monies.
Slashdot Mirror
I like digg, but its certainly not where /. gets all of its stories. Note that the sheer number of stories that digg has means that there is a lot more noise to filter out.
/. does.
Plus, not being able to post in a threaded manner makes any sort of discussion there completely pointless (as opposed to here being perhaps pointless.)
Dude... CmdrTaco has a blog. You'll be able to find it here: http://slashdot.org/
That just might be why he expects "preferential treatment."
FYI, it looks like digg might go to ad-based revenue shortly, so start your whining about it there as well.
And digg has just as many, if not MORE, dupes as
Digg is cool, and has its pros - but look at the cons and it certainly isn't superior, just an alternative.
Alchemy and Numerology are both closer to science than ID as well.
Both give testable predictions and are falsifiable!
Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus... (the list goes on and on)
Listen to me. Since so many religions contradict each other, I found science to be the only source I can trust!
Seriously, for users of VIM, I could see this being a really nice extension thingy.
Some nice ideas you have going on there, digitect!
I'd mod you up if I had the points.
The blind users having problems using OpenDoc formats I understand.
Did you mean {Blind and Deaf} together, as in people have both of those disabilities?
I do not I understand the problem with OpenDoc and being (only) deaf. If there really is one, can someone explain it, please?
(and if "deaf" shouldn't be included in the parent, no problem, mistakes are made. I'm curious, not trolling.)
If you really care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design
The idea has been around, but in its current form it has existed since ~1991 when the Discovery Institute was founded by hardline Christians and Christian Fundamentalists.
Not that how it was formed is a valid reason to dismiss it completely.
It's lack of scientific evidence, rigourous methodology, assumptions built upon analogy, and un-falsifiabity are reasons to dismiss it as being scientific.
In order to defeat your opponent, it is helpful to know them!
Generally, because the initial setup of the Discovery Institute was founded by hard-line Christians and Christian Fundamentalists. Even the best "scientific" paper on ID (Meyer) was funded directly by a steadfast C.Fundamentalist.
That's not a reason that people _should_ see it as a bible-thumping ideology, but it is _WHY_ they see it as such. It should be able to stand up to scientific scrutiny on its own, if it wishes to be portrayed like that - as the Meyer paper attempted.
Show that all species CANNOT go through enough mutations that it develops into a separate species.
Take a sample of all of the earth's current species. Far far into the future, show that no new species have ever developed.
To be falsifiable, the test doesn't have to be practical, just possible. The classic example is the theory "All swans are white." That is falsifiable, because all you'd have to do is be able to observe a non-white swan. Just one non-white swan - in the past, present, or future - in the entire swan population would falsify it. We are able to observe (see) white swans, the assumption is that we could just as easily observe (see) a non-white one if we were in the right place at the right time.
I hope that makes sense.
Evolutionary theory basically states that given enough time, new species will develop from previous ones. To falsify that, show that new "half-mutated" species (as you called them) are never ever created. An indefinite period of time isn't practical, but it is possible.
Personally, I don't understand the problem the ID camp has with macro-evolution if they accept the idea of micro-evoltion. If a species undergoes a mutation and separates from the original - leaving two populations, "normal" and mutated" - and mutations then happen constantly to both/either lines - they eventually differ by so much that they become classified as different species.
To say that we don't have a complete fossil record of macro-evolution is indeed true - there isn't a found fossil for EVERY step in the evolutionary chain. That being said, each "new" fossil we discover generally seems to fill in a gap. Paleontologists are at least able to theoretically test (find) the fossils.
... to catch a spammer?
Zonk mentions his/her having read a "new" Camus.
Can anyone explain what that's about, please? I read the (or A) English translation of "The Stranger" about 15 years ago. Is that all that the "new" thing is? A different translation of one of Camus' works? And if so, can anyone make a comparison between versions? Or is this something completely different?
The old designs, and this one, are meant for completely different purposes.
You don't use a dump truck to take a cross-country trip.
It was in parentheses...
Yeah... so.... it looks like the NWS doesn't know precisely what will happen either.
(sorry for an MSN link, but that's what google found me!)
It would be a capital "A" (which is close enough anyways) because it is formal name.
aside: I'm glad I saw your post before I tried to copy over the characters.
and I don't mean the openoffice-bin emerge either... the 250+ MB from-source one!!
I should've known better, seeing as how the final 2.0's were showing up on mirrors yesterday.
Of course, I should know better than to emerge the new 2.0 from source instead of the bin, becuase we'll prob see minor patches with it being mainstreamed now.... but that won't stop me!
I didn't realize that it was the "SQL" or any other standard. To myself, it just makes sense. I've used that format for years whereever possible: filenames, my laboratory notebook, memos, heck even personal checks!
Viva la YYYY-MM-DD-tion!!!
Build everything in ANALOG!
use 2005-04-13, and NOT 2005-4-13. That placeholder zero is useful so that files sort chronologically.
thank you.
He was overheard muttering "I hacked the FBI and wiretapped NORAD."
Don't you think that the selling of a MS branded Antivirus app would be a tad illeagal?
/. is so fond of (bad) analogies. This would be like a (monopolistic) car company knowingly selling you an auto with a known defect(s) that MIGHT cause the car to randomly explode - and when non-affiliated mechanics have been fixing the issue, the car company promotes the fact that they know more about the car to fix it "better" - instead of doing a recall for free.
* MS sells an OPTIONAL AV protection utility.
* MS continues to allow the OS itself to be vulnerable.
* (perhaps, MS actually writes a virus that affects windows...)
* MS sells more AV software demonstrating that it keeps people's PCs "safe."
What MS should be doing is fixing the problem pro-actively, not retro-actively.
The analogy might make SOME sense if Ford was a convicted monopoly and decided to start manufacturing the tires as well.
I'm unaffiliated with their site! That being said...
/. had it up. /. readers who might care about Serenity have already seen it in the theater.
This same story was posted on www.digg.com about 30 hours before
That, and I'd bet that a lot of the
Plus, its not a linux-compatible stream.
at least as far as I understand it. RTFA and it mentions the liscensing fees.
Current DVD players (most made in China) need to buy the "rights" to decode/play the region specific DVD encodings. This liscensing cost makes up somewhere between 40%-50% (TFA says 40%) of the entire production cost per player.
With their own format, production costs drop by nearly 50%... units can be sold for less while making a larger profit... consumers buy more... company makes tons more money. (assuming that consumers do buy into the new format.)
I don't see how this is a bad thing, really. Sure, it might be a new format that noone can currently play at home, but that's the same thing with HD DVD and BlueRay. Also, DVDs are region encoded so that you can't always (easily) play them all as is (without hacking the player.)
It looks like the Chinese format won't be encumbered by DRM crap, but is geared towards anti-piracy. (not the same thing, right?)
Wow, you studied NQR?? I thought that I was at one of the few academic institutions that cared about NQR in the slightest bit. My MS thesis in ElecEng is based off of it. Or was what you did more like a report, not experimental research? Just curious.
NQR is only power hungry if pulsed. You can also do Continuous Wave (CW) NQR, which takes hardly any power... but then takes even longer to scan.
You're wrong though, in that it can typically detect trace amounts - it is possible, but you need a high fill factor in the the coil. To detect just trace amounts, you need to pass the particles through a really small coil.
Also, yes, it can do identification of compounds, however the problem is that C4, RDX, TNT, etc... all have widely different quadrupole transition frequencies. For instance, the RDX (nu-) line is around 3 MHz or so, while TNT's best line is all the way down near 500 kHz. This is a huge problem for a single system, because you need to tune the whole detection apparatus to within the bandwidth of the coil used for transmit and detection. For a simplish copper coil, you're looking at scan range of something like a 30kHz bandwidth. No problem, right? Wrong. The line(s) are most likely not where you hope they'll be.
You really want a homogeneous crystaline structure of the substance - something amorphous, or with varying crystal structure, will tend to have a wider line. The QR lines of many things tend to be around about 1kHz full-width half maximum (FWHM) for a nice uniform single crystal structure. If you don't have that simple single nice crystaline structure, the line "widens" and, in doing so, gives off a much weaker energy signal.
Now, take into account that the quadrupole transition frequencies SHIFT dependant upon temperature. (Some as greatly as 1kHz per Kelvin.) Basic experimental NQR research tends to use liquid nitrogen (77 K) to get the test substance at a nice equilibrium, giving a consistant and narrow lineshape. (Its cheap, convenient, and pretty safe.) In room temperature, the sample's temp can vary pretty greatly - don't run experiemts on hot or cold days, the thing needs to be at a near constant - which shifts the transition freq of the nuclei all over the place, and therefore broadens the line, weakening the return singal energy.
In regards to the Bomb vs Belt-Buckles thing: Large metal objects are obstacles to NQR. (as are peizo-electric things.) Since NQR is essentially the transmission and reception of radio waves, metal things just reflect the pulses, saturating the reciever, and tell you nothing else except "Hey! That's METAL!" - a really complex and expensive metal detector (or peizo-electric detector.)
We'd been working on exactly what you must have read up on for the class project - anti-persobnel and anti-tank plastic landmine explosvies detection. Unfortunately, we lost funding for the research on 9/11 when our paperwork was destroyed in the Pentagon. After that, landmines weren't considered a Homeland Security threat. Oh, but !@#!@# ANTHRAX was... so that's my line of research for my thesis. Pointless, imnsho, and unlikely to work anyways.
Aside : Our last source of funding, a well known bagillion-$ corporation, realized that it couldn't sell NQR explosives detectors to the TSA/DHS for the profit margin that it is accustomed to. They then cut funding - my tuition and living expenses! So now, I'm not only doing research that will cocluse with "Don't bother trying this, ever," but our USEFUL research that could easily save many lives/limbs every year has been pushed aside.
If anyone wants to help those UN peacekeepers hunting for landmines, we could sure use some research monies.