This is a distinction which I have made many times, yet, many people seem completely unable to seporate the two. We know natural selection occurs. We have observed this on both the micro and macro level. Evolution has not been observed and there are huge holes in the theory.
Thank you for not only raising the issue, but for spelling it more clearly than I have been able to in the past.
I wish they would make the distinction between serious injuries (going back home) and minor injuries (will be back on front line within a month or less).
The injury counts are always misleading, and usually worthless, unless you have some way of qaulifying them. After all, getting a tiny piece of shrapnel in your arm still counts as an injury, but hardly means it's life altering. In fact, minor wounds such as that, usually means the man is back in service in the next day (or les).
You have it pretty much, 100% backwards. MS does not pioneer anything. They wait for some other company, standards group, or working body, to come up with pioneering ideas, implementations, business plans, and especially market share. MS then comes in, embraces and extends it; never getting anywhere near correct or perfect.
I never understood why MS claims they spend on R&D, but it's obvious that their idea of R&D is different from the rest of the tech world. I guess for MS, R&D = market surveys, web site development, and technology scouts to find other companies that actually do R&D, and have come up with new, innovative products. That way, they can buy the company, steal the IP, or simply force them out of the market.
I agree with you. I get so tired of these people that think our soldiers go out of their way to harm innocent people. I just watch some videos of my brother in a long bow, hovering 10' over a highway to stop traffic. You can clearly hear him saying, "I hope these f-ers stop". He's saying this because fuel trucks, doing about 80mph area heading right at him. They did this so they could shoot a series suspected road-side bombs. They did this so innocent people wouldn't get hurt. And yes, traffic did come real close. These soldiers are regular guys doing the best they can given a crappy situation against a sub-human enemy. Most don't want to even be there. Most really do not want to hurt innocent people. But, just like here, no war needed, you can find serious assholes that don't have problems making everyone else look like idiots.
Simple fact is, as a rule of thumb, soldiers are not trying to hurt innocent people. These cry babies, like the one you replied to, seem to ignore the fact that these idiots are are the ones firing on soldiers from churches, from hospitals, from people's houses. And sadly, yes, innocent people die. Name one war where innocent people did not die. Unless they can name one war where innocent people did not die, they need to either shut the hell up or go over there and fight. They sound like idiots. No one ever said war was fair. No one ever said war was clean. It's a horrible tragic thing....sorry...just rambling...
I dicided to take pity on your ignorance, rather than leaving things with my simple snide remarks. Those of us that know what we're talking about, which obviously excludes you, know my comments are fact.
The fact that a wanna-be aerospace engineer is having to be told this, is really rather sad. Either your educators need to be slapped or you slept in some of your classes.
Simple fact is, in aviation, there is something called a, "standard day". Gasp! I even previously mentioned this fact. Gasp! When one knows what they're talking about, there is no *need* to specificy all the qualifiers. In other words, if such information is not given, it is presumed to be based on a "standard day". Thusly, if someone says, "Mach 1", with no other qualifiers, you should assume that they are talking about the speed of sound, at sea level, at 29.92 Hg (a surface pressure of 1013.25 millibars at sea level) inches of pressure. A "standard day" is considered THE baseline measurement. It is what instruments are calibrated against. A "standard day" is what prevents low flying planes from crashing in hills, mountains, trees, and houses.
Now then, if you're talking about speeds which are not aviation related, I can easily understand why people would need to always have such qualifiers, as a common standard would be unknown. But in aviation, a "standard day", exists for a reason. Learn to use it.
To complete your education, a standard day, also called a standard atmosphere, is: - A surface pressure of 1013.25 millibars (29.92 Hg) at sea level. - A surface temperature of 15 degrees Celsius at sea level. - A relative humidity of zero percent. - A density of 1.225 kg per cubic meter at sea level. - A lapse rate in the troposphere of 2 degrees C per 1 000 feet. - A tropopause of 36 000 feet with a temperature of -56.5 C. - An isothermal lapse rate in the stratosphere up to 80 000 feet.
Long story short, when somebody who knows what they're talking about that talks about the speed of sound, they can specify a bunch of crap, or they can normalize to a standard day. We find that it saves a lot of time and prevents confusion.
As I understand it, when someone says "speed of sound", it's always relative to the speed of sound at sea level, given a specific temp and humidity (standard day). Things like this are pretty normal in aviation.
Hehe. I remeber being in a friend's 1967 'Stang, with a 351Clev and 4.11 posi-end. It was pretty fast, but only topped out around 120MPH. Needless to say, we laugh and laugh when an old Grimlin passed us up, fish-tailing and smoke pooring from its tires.
Maybe they could splice in some dog genes to get a cat that wags it's tail and plays fetch.
My cat already does this. He comes when called too. He used to "speak" on command (have not done that in a long time) and even alerts us when his food and water reserves are below par.;) When describing my cat (my wife's actually) to people, I commonly call it a, "cat-dog". AFAIC, we have a "cat-dog" because we treated like a dog.
No. They can idle down considerably. Depending on the size of the engine, they can idle down to something like 1200 - 2500RPM. Some of the smaller, nitro car engines can hit 40-50k RPM, but they can get down and idle well too.
Basically, I agree with you -- there is no compelling evidence to a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark.
Actually, there is, assuming you hear the original story. Granted, "compelling", might be a bit strong. Nonetheless, there certainly is a fair amount of supporting evidence. Once you start at square one, with the original hebrew (IIRC) text, you'll see that it was NOT a global flood. Rather, it's a story of an epic, regional flood. The geo record and timelines do match up.
Periodically, there is a show on Discovery Channel (IIRC), which does a pretty good job of scientifically supporting the story. For them, after scientifically ruling out the original, commonly repeated, story, they went back to the actual text. There, they found, that an obvious translation error had occured and had been perpetuated through the years. The revised story, as originally penned, does seem to have some amount of "leg" to stand on.
Well, the Adam and Eve issue (as someone else pointed out) is that we don't have enough genetic diversity in one couple to produce all of humanity. Just consider the inbreeding problems that the royalty of Europe had a few hundred years ago due to intermarriage. If you wanted to populate the moon, for example, you could not just send one couple. Within a few generations, inbreeding related problems would be their downfall.
Or, given enough time, over enough generations, might explain the genetic diversity. IIRC, if you can survive past 8-10 generations, and manage the breeding, you're not doomed. In the long run, over many thousands of years, diversity can be restored. If you stop and think about it, people still need to get blood tests to guard against genetic problems. That, to me, suggests that we not as diverse as is commonly believed.
Regarding Noah's Ark, this is actually a reference to a big issue in Darwin's time -- that of biological diversity. Again, Noah's Ark involves the idea of "a pair of every animal species" (which involves the same inbreeding issues as Adam and Eve) but even if you ignore that, there's the problem of the sheer number of species in the world.
Actually, last I heard, the story of Noah's Ark was pretty well supported. The problem is, most everyone has the wrong story. Last I heard, the major problems that traditionally exist for Noa and his boat, actually spring forth from bad translations, plain and simple. Accordingly, it seems that the hebrew word for world and land (meaning, the region), are the same word. Which means, people decided that since it was a biblical story, it surely must mean the larger of the two. The geo record does support vast floods of epic proportions, specific to the region, which does match up with the timeline. Once we accept that, since he wasn't carrying ALL of the world's animals, only regional animals, fitting them all on the boat becomes feasible. Then, since the regional animals are free to breed to non-regional populations, the generic diversity is free to remain just that, diverse.
Long story short, Noa's Ark is really a story of theologically driven, bad translations. Who knows if Noa really had his boat, but the evidence, when properly viewed, does suggest that it's well within plausibility. And, it's supported by the readily available evidence.
No. And that is exactly my point. A language which runs on top of parrot is generating parrot byte-code. If it's not generating parrot byte-code, it's not "native", and therefore, not running on parrot.
So, you're stuck with either running parrot vm, not running the parrot vm, or some hybrid. And frankly, if you have some hybrid environment, that's not parrot's fault.
You seem to be looking for someone to argue with for absoluetely no reason. Frankly, YOU seem to be the angry one here.
The parent poster did not say that others will use a different VM. They will run on Parrot. They will just have to interoperate at the lowest common denominator.
No, he said some will run parrot and others will run other scripting languages which do have have native features of parrot. Well, duh, if you're running a scripting language which does not have native support in parrot, you're running a different vm. Either the "feature" will run "natively" in parrot, or it's not running in parrot. Or, at a minimum, some language hybrid-parrot-vm. Either way, you're not running, "parrot". Which means, what was his point.
I'm so glad you're willing to admit this about your self. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.
The rest of your garbage can be ignored because it shows your ignorance. If you have a language, which can not "natively" run in the parrot VM, then you're not running the parrot VM. That's the whole point of my comment, which went WAY over your ignorant head.
Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. I had assumed, register assignment, at hardware level, would be implemented via a per architecture optimizer via the parrot-jit-like technology. Therefore, allowing for optimial performance on each of the platforms that parrot ran on. Likewise, I assumed that architectures that had more registers would be yet more performance friendly to parrot.
Not to mention, not all batteries, even at the same capacity, are equal, especially if they are part of a pack. And, the associated charger can make a huge difference in both ACTUAL charged capacity and the cycle life of said batteries.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a distinction which I have made many times, yet, many people seem completely unable to seporate the two. We know natural selection occurs. We have observed this on both the micro and macro level. Evolution has not been observed and there are huge holes in the theory.
Thank you for not only raising the issue, but for spelling it more clearly than I have been able to in the past.
I actually said "Pioneer new markets of untapped revenue" - not "pioneer or develop new technology".
Opps. So you did! Sorry about that. Sounds like we on the same page.
I wish they would make the distinction between serious injuries (going back home) and minor injuries (will be back on front line within a month or less).
The injury counts are always misleading, and usually worthless, unless you have some way of qaulifying them. After all, getting a tiny piece of shrapnel in your arm still counts as an injury, but hardly means it's life altering. In fact, minor wounds such as that, usually means the man is back in service in the next day (or les).
You have it pretty much, 100% backwards. MS does not pioneer anything. They wait for some other company, standards group, or working body, to come up with pioneering ideas, implementations, business plans, and especially market share. MS then comes in, embraces and extends it; never getting anywhere near correct or perfect.
I never understood why MS claims they spend on R&D, but it's obvious that their idea of R&D is different from the rest of the tech world. I guess for MS, R&D = market surveys, web site development, and technology scouts to find other companies that actually do R&D, and have come up with new, innovative products. That way, they can buy the company, steal the IP, or simply force them out of the market.
I can tell you, for a fact, that they don't know.
Vladimir Harkonnen is an EVIL GENIUS, not the stupid disgusting perverted sadist Lynch portrayed.
Did you read the book?????????
In the book, Vladimir Harkonnen IS a disgusting, perverted, sadist AND an evil genius.
Exactly!!!!
If there was a brownie point button, I'd be pushing it for you!
At 700-800 rounds per minute (cyclic) for the onboard weapon, I really DO NOT want to see what one of these things will do to a flesh-and-blood.
Pretty much the same thing an M4 or M16 will do to a body.
I agree with you. I get so tired of these people that think our soldiers go out of their way to harm innocent people. I just watch some videos of my brother in a long bow, hovering 10' over a highway to stop traffic. You can clearly hear him saying, "I hope these f-ers stop". He's saying this because fuel trucks, doing about 80mph area heading right at him. They did this so they could shoot a series suspected road-side bombs. They did this so innocent people wouldn't get hurt. And yes, traffic did come real close. These soldiers are regular guys doing the best they can given a crappy situation against a sub-human enemy. Most don't want to even be there. Most really do not want to hurt innocent people. But, just like here, no war needed, you can find serious assholes that don't have problems making everyone else look like idiots.
...sorry...just rambling...
Simple fact is, as a rule of thumb, soldiers are not trying to hurt innocent people. These cry babies, like the one you replied to, seem to ignore the fact that these idiots are are the ones firing on soldiers from churches, from hospitals, from people's houses. And sadly, yes, innocent people die. Name one war where innocent people did not die. Unless they can name one war where innocent people did not die, they need to either shut the hell up or go over there and fight. They sound like idiots. No one ever said war was fair. No one ever said war was clean. It's a horrible tragic thing.
I dicided to take pity on your ignorance, rather than leaving things with my simple snide remarks. Those of us that know what we're talking about, which obviously excludes you, know my comments are fact.
The fact that a wanna-be aerospace engineer is having to be told this, is really rather sad. Either your educators need to be slapped or you slept in some of your classes.
Simple fact is, in aviation, there is something called a, "standard day". Gasp! I even previously mentioned this fact. Gasp! When one knows what they're talking about, there is no *need* to specificy all the qualifiers. In other words, if such information is not given, it is presumed to be based on a "standard day". Thusly, if someone says, "Mach 1", with no other qualifiers, you should assume that they are talking about the speed of sound, at sea level, at 29.92 Hg (a surface pressure of 1013.25 millibars at sea level) inches of pressure. A "standard day" is considered THE baseline measurement. It is what instruments are calibrated against. A "standard day" is what prevents low flying planes from crashing in hills, mountains, trees, and houses.
Now then, if you're talking about speeds which are not aviation related, I can easily understand why people would need to always have such qualifiers, as a common standard would be unknown. But in aviation, a "standard day", exists for a reason. Learn to use it.
To complete your education, a standard day, also called a standard atmosphere, is:
- A surface pressure of 1013.25 millibars (29.92 Hg) at sea level.
- A surface temperature of 15 degrees Celsius at sea level.
- A relative humidity of zero percent.
- A density of 1.225 kg per cubic meter at sea level.
- A lapse rate in the troposphere of 2 degrees C per 1 000 feet.
- A tropopause of 36 000 feet with a temperature of -56.5 C.
- An isothermal lapse rate in the stratosphere up to 80 000 feet.
Long story short, when somebody who knows what they're talking about that talks about the speed of sound, they can specify a bunch of crap, or they can normalize to a standard day. We find that it saves a lot of time and prevents confusion.
We? I think you're a gag. A joke.
I recently started my first project with VxWorks about 30-days ago. I can honestly say that I'm not the least bit impressed.
As I understand it, when someone says "speed of sound", it's always relative to the speed of sound at sea level, given a specific temp and humidity (standard day). Things like this are pretty normal in aviation.
Hehe. I remeber being in a friend's 1967 'Stang, with a 351Clev and 4.11 posi-end. It was pretty fast, but only topped out around 120MPH. Needless to say, we laugh and laugh when an old Grimlin passed us up, fish-tailing and smoke pooring from its tires.
Those little cars can sure be fast.
Maybe they could splice in some dog genes to get a cat that wags it's tail and plays fetch.
;) When describing my cat (my wife's actually) to people, I commonly call it a, "cat-dog". AFAIC, we have a "cat-dog" because we treated like a dog.
My cat already does this. He comes when called too. He used to "speak" on command (have not done that in a long time) and even alerts us when his food and water reserves are below par.
No. They can idle down considerably. Depending on the size of the engine, they can idle down to something like 1200 - 2500RPM. Some of the smaller, nitro car engines can hit 40-50k RPM, but they can get down and idle well too.
Basically, I agree with you -- there is no compelling evidence to a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark.
Actually, there is, assuming you hear the original story. Granted, "compelling", might be a bit strong. Nonetheless, there certainly is a fair amount of supporting evidence. Once you start at square one, with the original hebrew (IIRC) text, you'll see that it was NOT a global flood. Rather, it's a story of an epic, regional flood. The geo record and timelines do match up.
Periodically, there is a show on Discovery Channel (IIRC), which does a pretty good job of scientifically supporting the story. For them, after scientifically ruling out the original, commonly repeated, story, they went back to the actual text. There, they found, that an obvious translation error had occured and had been perpetuated through the years. The revised story, as originally penned, does seem to have some amount of "leg" to stand on.
Please allow me to play devil's advocate here.
Well, the Adam and Eve issue (as someone else pointed out) is that we don't have enough genetic diversity in one couple to produce all of humanity. Just consider the inbreeding problems that the royalty of Europe had a few hundred years ago due to intermarriage. If you wanted to populate the moon, for example, you could not just send one couple. Within a few generations, inbreeding related problems would be their downfall.
Or, given enough time, over enough generations, might explain the genetic diversity. IIRC, if you can survive past 8-10 generations, and manage the breeding, you're not doomed. In the long run, over many thousands of years, diversity can be restored. If you stop and think about it, people still need to get blood tests to guard against genetic problems. That, to me, suggests that we not as diverse as is commonly believed.
Regarding Noah's Ark, this is actually a reference to a big issue in Darwin's time -- that of biological diversity. Again, Noah's Ark involves the idea of "a pair of every animal species" (which involves the same inbreeding issues as Adam and Eve) but even if you ignore that, there's the problem of the sheer number of species in the world.
Actually, last I heard, the story of Noah's Ark was pretty well supported. The problem is, most everyone has the wrong story. Last I heard, the major problems that traditionally exist for Noa and his boat, actually spring forth from bad translations, plain and simple. Accordingly, it seems that the hebrew word for world and land (meaning, the region), are the same word. Which means, people decided that since it was a biblical story, it surely must mean the larger of the two. The geo record does support vast floods of epic proportions, specific to the region, which does match up with the timeline. Once we accept that, since he wasn't carrying ALL of the world's animals, only regional animals, fitting them all on the boat becomes feasible. Then, since the regional animals are free to breed to non-regional populations, the generic diversity is free to remain just that, diverse.
Long story short, Noa's Ark is really a story of theologically driven, bad translations. Who knows if Noa really had his boat, but the evidence, when properly viewed, does suggest that it's well within plausibility. And, it's supported by the readily available evidence.
This is the best read I've had on /. in a long while. Good job!
No. And that is exactly my point. A language which runs on top of parrot is generating parrot byte-code. If it's not generating parrot byte-code, it's not "native", and therefore, not running on parrot.
So, you're stuck with either running parrot vm, not running the parrot vm, or some hybrid. And frankly, if you have some hybrid environment, that's not parrot's fault.
You seem to be looking for someone to argue with for absoluetely no reason. Frankly, YOU seem to be the angry one here.
err...supposed to say, "does not have native"
The parent poster did not say that others will use a different VM. They will run on Parrot. They will just have to interoperate at the lowest common denominator.
No, he said some will run parrot and others will run other scripting languages which do have have native features of parrot. Well, duh, if you're running a scripting language which does not have native support in parrot, you're running a different vm. Either the "feature" will run "natively" in parrot, or it's not running in parrot. Or, at a minimum, some language hybrid-parrot-vm. Either way, you're not running, "parrot". Which means, what was his point.
So much anger...so clueless...
I'm so glad you're willing to admit this about your self. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.
The rest of your garbage can be ignored because it shows your ignorance. If you have a language, which can not "natively" run in the parrot VM, then you're not running the parrot VM. That's the whole point of my comment, which went WAY over your ignorant head.
Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. I had assumed, register assignment, at hardware level, would be implemented via a per architecture optimizer via the parrot-jit-like technology. Therefore, allowing for optimial performance on each of the platforms that parrot ran on. Likewise, I assumed that architectures that had more registers would be yet more performance friendly to parrot.
Not to mention, not all batteries, even at the same capacity, are equal, especially if they are part of a pack. And, the associated charger can make a huge difference in both ACTUAL charged capacity and the cycle life of said batteries.