Worth noting that it's doubtful that the ark will be found, assuming it actually exists. The reason being is that geologic records seem to indicate that the flood of the world was actually, only regional. In fact, timing seems to corrospond with the biblical text accounts. An interestig note, which I'm parroting, it seems the word for world was the same word for kingdom or land. Which supports the notion that when the whole "world" flooded, it actually only referred to a small region of the earth. Meaning, it was incorrectly translated to mean a more godly-scale of the earth rather than the more probably scale, being only that of the region. Furthermore, I don't recall the event, but there was some type of geological event which also nicely corrosponds to the timeline which seems to support the idea that it was the initiator for the regional flooding.
Taking that into account, the number of animals and required space would be greatly reduced.
So basically, it appears that some portion of it is actually supported by geologic record and another portion is explained by zealots (??) performing a poor translation or the story. So, admitting that I don't recall all of the details, assuming there was an ark and a flood, and there is something even left of the ark, something tells me that everyone is looking in the wrong place.
I played sports (track for school and basketball to pass time). They were fun. They didn't teach me anything that I didn't learn better elsewhere.
Just reread this thread and ask your self why people are getting so emotional about this. Simple fact is, sports are a fun activity. It's completley BS if you actually expect it to teach much in the way of life experiences, other than, weee, that was fun or booo, we lost.
Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule and I simply don't recall what the precentages of those studies reflected. I do, however, recall that the statistics were shamefully high. Meaning? Meaning that a very large portion of fathers are ignoring their children and pushing them into sports because it's all about the father. Worse, they actually expect it to teach some meaningful life experience beyond, weee or booo.
In a nutshell, there is a huge difference between the simple fact that sports are something you'll do for pass and to pass time, but it's nothing more. Period. Beyond that, there are things that really matter.
I think you taking this completely out of context. I never stated or argued anything like that. Just the same, you might question why you're so upset about something that really doesn't matter in the first place.
Education dollars were probably spent to get that athletics program running and in turn, probably kick in to ensure it stays around during lean times. How much of the money taken in is actually used for something worthwhile? How many labs, math books, science programs, lasers, microscopes, etc., have been paid for by that same sports program which is bringing in all this money? While I don't know the answer, I'm going to *assume* that usual answer is zero.
Ok. Point 1: You're in Texas. Texas is sport-crazy. Texas has always been sport-crazy. Your local problems are likely not representative of the nation as a whole.
Been to Nebraska or Iowa? Texas is hardly alone. Look around. There are tons of pro-crazy-sport states. It's just that Texas tends to have more bucks available to waste/spend on it.
There is some value in going out to practice & working your hind-end off for 3 or 4 hours. Sure it doesn't take intelligence, but it builds character & work ethic, which is just what many people in this post have been saying the U.S. is lacking.
When I posted this, I was wondering if the jocks would run t obe on the defensive. I guess so.
Tell me, how does football, for example, build character and work ethic better than anything else. Funny how, as a whole, our country seems to have some of the worst ethics and yet, is pressured the most to force kids into sports, to learn these ethics. Builds character? I thought parents were supposed to help with that?
Long story short, "builds character and ethics", is the party line that is complete BS. Which is to say, it may, but certainly no more than any other properly structured activity.
Now then, I don't believe anyone said it was bad. That is, sports are not bad. I enjoy them. I hate watching, but that's beside the point. There is nothing wrong with sports. The problem is that many fathers appear to make it their primary form of interaction with their child. That's pethetic, sad, and tragic. Worse, they are doing it for selfish emotional reasons rather than to build character and interact with their child. At the same time, football isn't providing anything that other structured events couldn't address. The downside is, it's pulling resources away from things that really matter.
LOL! If you have to ask, I think it's safe to say, you're a sports nut and blinded by reality.
Flash! Football star saves the world from plague and brings peace to the Middle East by simply tossing a ball. News at 11.
Did that really need to spelled out for you? In the grand scheme of things, there are things was matter (math, biology, physics, sociology, etc) and things that are just fluff (sports).
For that matter, I don't really see whats so objectionable about fathers wanting to watch their sons play sports because thats what their fathers did for them. Seems natural to me.
It's called pethetic. If a father's primary interaction with his son is brief period in time as it relates to sports, that's very, very pethetic. Worse, it means that they do it to feel better (comfort) about themselves rather than a desire to be around and shape their children's lifes in ways that actually matter.
I don't know about you, but I've lived in several states and I don't normally have to look far to see that documented theory validated. It's a sad state of things. It speaks poorly of our society.
Why would I need to prove something which I did not state? I was talking about public highschools. If you had bothered to read the rest of the subthread, it would of become crystal clear before you posted.
Well, that may be, but I don't believe it's reflective of high school on down, which my comments specifically target. Admittedly, I didn't stress that part. Sorry for the confusion.
Ya, yet another way our resources are being drained away. I personally think it's insane to grant so many rights to people that shouldn't be here in the first place.
I agree. I personally think that too many funds are being diverted to sports activities rather than something that actually matters. In Texas, and from what I hear elsewhere, some schools are having trouble getting the funds for the books they need to teach. Heck, last year, I had to spend an extra $150, out of pocket, to by books that the damn school system should be provided. And I live in a fairly well off school system. Having said that, the athletic programs never seem to have problems getting their gear paid for, getting new tracks or getting new fields. If you took those taxes and applied them to books and computers, it would sure go a long, long ways. Just think of the millions wasted on athetics each year that could be better invested into something that actually mattered. Like, I don't know, maybe ways to make math and science interesting and fun?? What an odd thought.
Here's the really, really sad thing about sports. I've read one study and watched a documentary which identified the reason why most fathers push their children into sports activities. It also reflects on why many fathers are willing to divert so many funds to athletics. It's really kind of sad too. The reason is simple. By having their children participate in sports, it's one of the sole activities that fathers in the US do with their children. Everytime a father does this activity, it becomes a comfort activity allow them to regress to the time that they, in turn, did it with their father. In other words, sports are important to most US fathers because it was the only time they spent time with their father. In turn, doing so allows them to feel good because it's one of the few activities that they can associate with their father.
To me, this screams that more emoney needs to be spent on education and encouraging a broader range of social activities rather than wasting money on sports, just so fathers can feel good about themselves again.
Not that I'm doubting you but I thought it might be interesting to point something out. From time to time, odd things that don't nicely fit into the commonly accepted timelines are discovered. Many, are quietly filed away until some theory can account for it.
Along those line, ignorantly parroting, I saw a show only last night talking about a frozen man that had a copper head axe. The odd part was, he and his axe were dated back 1000 years before the copper age. A 1000 years, is a pretty good number of years. While I don't offer that this invalidates the copper age timeline, I think it might suggest that some technologies clearly existed LONG before they were prevailing technologies in other cultures.
So, to draw a parallel, I'm not saying that one must accept that the criteria falls into the stone-age, but, we should be prepared to accept that such technologies may have existed far earlier than common timelines allow, even if it may not actually be "10,000 years".
Ya, SCO OS, etc., has always sucked. Generally low quality software. Their Non-Stop Clustering solution, from first hand experience, I can all Always-Stopped Clustering. Using a couple of simple scripts and an MTA, I was able to start a couple of processes on one node in a cluster, which would crash and burn EVERY node in the cluter.
We wound up going to Compaq's NSC campus to prove that it wasn't us. They wouldn't even bother to attempt to reproduce on their own. They insisted that what I was telling them was impossible and that it was a user problem. So, we went to campus and installed the software. I happily destroyed two clusters, one of their people watch my every move (yes, they were watching for me to do something nasty or unethical). In only a couple of short minutes, every node attached to the cluster was destroyed, requiring a complete installation from the install CD's. They quietly acknowledged that it was not something I was doing. They never acknowledged they had a problem. They more or less left us without any answers.
...to actually be working, does this place cold-fusion in a scientifically more advanced state the hot-fusion? After all, hot-fusion has a theory and little scientific proof that it can actually work and be sustained. On the other hand, if it's proven to be for real, cold fusion is proven to work and is simply lacking strong theory to explain everything.
Seems to me, the more viable and truly scientific work is going on with cold-fusion.
On one camp, we have tons and tons of money and theory and no experiment shown to support that theory (AFAIK; correct me as needed). On spite of this, hot-fusion is thought of as accepted and proven science.
In the other camp, we can scientists performing experiments which are roughly meeting or exceeding expectations and simply lacking in some portions of theory which might explain everything that is going on. In spite of this, cold-fusion is ignored and rejected.
Which is real science? Science finding new things it doesn't understand and attempts to explain or science failing to prove which it hopes might work, one day, given enough funding. Seems to me, hot-fusion is looking more like snake-oil than cold-fusion ever did. Cold-fusion, during the early days of just plain fraud, was quickly shown for what it is. The fact that two guys were invalidated hardly invalidates a whole field of study. My point? Would seem that many "scientists" and failing to look beyond their ego to do real science. If it's being peer reviewed and being replicated, that's science.
That's really the whole point of MySQL. You get a less than ANSI-SQL database which is trivial to use for trivial non-DBAs (non-database experts), when trivial database tasks are targeted.
In otherwords, those that buy MS Access do so because they irrationally think they should, rather then rationally attempting to justify it based on price.
Just the same, if you are in the market for an expert, then MySQL should immediately be skipped. In stead, look at Firebird, PostgreSQL, Sybase's freebee product (forget the name) and even SQLite for great, lowcost solutions. All of which are much better than MySQL (LOL) or Access.
I understand and think your posting contains some logic. Great! That alone is rather rather these days!;)
But, if the design is so complex that it can not be proven safe, and people scream about the concept of having to prove it unsafe, what can you do? Is that the case to say it shouldn't be built? What other option is there?
Furthermore, if you're left with having to prove something is unsafe, you can't exactly expect the manufacturer to do a good job of that. After all, it's in their own best interest to prove it safe, not the inverse. Thusly, it makes since to make work, the original scheme. Just the same, if the original scheme is too complex to prove safe, we're back in a loop. So, to get out, I guess the only thing that makes sense is to shift it to the FAA? Who else? A third part hired by the manufacturer? Isn't that going to lead the same problems that run rampant in accounting and auditing companies (Anderson, etc)? I've seen that junk first hand and AFAIKT, Anderson just happen to be the one that got caught.
At any rate, after my ramblings...how does all that make the FAA hypocritical, regardless of process picked?
Ya, I think I remember reading that it has the potential to make people deaf (serious ear damage), when standing 100', inside a building, where the walls are 1' thick brick and concrete.
The link says that it can maintain supersonic speed without afterburners. That's different from going supersonic without after burners.
In other words, according to the link you provided, the plane must still use afterburners to reach its supersonic cruise speed. Afterwhich, afterburners are not required to maintain the speed.
The sheer hypocrisy of Boeing then creating the 777 says it all. That aircraft is only allowed to fly because the certicication authority (FAA) was unable to prove that it is unsafe, previous generations had to be proved to be safe, but with over-complexity that is no longer possible.
I guess since I'm not clued in, I don't really follow that statement. How does the FAA certifying the 777 mean that they are hypocrits? If the system is so complex that it can no longer be *proved" safe, wouldn't the next best logical arrangement be to prove that it's not unsafe? Regardless of the answer, how does that indicate that the FAA is being hypocritical?
Sorry in advance if I'm asking a question to which I missed and you've already answered. I'm simply not following the logic.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to love reading that book when I was in 7th and 8th grade. I had forgotten all about it.
Worth noting that it's doubtful that the ark will be found, assuming it actually exists. The reason being is that geologic records seem to indicate that the flood of the world was actually, only regional. In fact, timing seems to corrospond with the biblical text accounts. An interestig note, which I'm parroting, it seems the word for world was the same word for kingdom or land. Which supports the notion that when the whole "world" flooded, it actually only referred to a small region of the earth. Meaning, it was incorrectly translated to mean a more godly-scale of the earth rather than the more probably scale, being only that of the region. Furthermore, I don't recall the event, but there was some type of geological event which also nicely corrosponds to the timeline which seems to support the idea that it was the initiator for the regional flooding.
Taking that into account, the number of animals and required space would be greatly reduced.
So basically, it appears that some portion of it is actually supported by geologic record and another portion is explained by zealots (??) performing a poor translation or the story. So, admitting that I don't recall all of the details, assuming there was an ark and a flood, and there is something even left of the ark, something tells me that everyone is looking in the wrong place.
Thought you might be curious.
You actually made me laugh out loud!
That's funny!
Thank you!
Well, you've gotten all defensive now.
I played sports (track for school and basketball to pass time). They were fun. They didn't teach me anything that I didn't learn better elsewhere.
Just reread this thread and ask your self why people are getting so emotional about this. Simple fact is, sports are a fun activity. It's completley BS if you actually expect it to teach much in the way of life experiences, other than, weee, that was fun or booo, we lost.
Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule and I simply don't recall what the precentages of those studies reflected. I do, however, recall that the statistics were shamefully high. Meaning? Meaning that a very large portion of fathers are ignoring their children and pushing them into sports because it's all about the father. Worse, they actually expect it to teach some meaningful life experience beyond, weee or booo.
In a nutshell, there is a huge difference between the simple fact that sports are something you'll do for pass and to pass time, but it's nothing more. Period. Beyond that, there are things that really matter.
I think you taking this completely out of context. I never stated or argued anything like that. Just the same, you might question why you're so upset about something that really doesn't matter in the first place.
Food for thought.
Education dollars were probably spent to get that athletics program running and in turn, probably kick in to ensure it stays around during lean times. How much of the money taken in is actually used for something worthwhile? How many labs, math books, science programs, lasers, microscopes, etc., have been paid for by that same sports program which is bringing in all this money? While I don't know the answer, I'm going to *assume* that usual answer is zero.
If that's true, I think that's pretty selfish.
Ok. Point 1: You're in Texas. Texas is sport-crazy. Texas has always been sport-crazy. Your local problems are likely not representative of the nation as a whole.
Been to Nebraska or Iowa? Texas is hardly alone. Look around. There are tons of pro-crazy-sport states. It's just that Texas tends to have more bucks available to waste/spend on it.
There is some value in going out to practice & working your hind-end off for 3 or 4 hours. Sure it doesn't take intelligence, but it builds character & work ethic, which is just what many people in this post have been saying the U.S. is lacking.
When I posted this, I was wondering if the jocks would run t obe on the defensive. I guess so.
Tell me, how does football, for example, build character and work ethic better than anything else. Funny how, as a whole, our country seems to have some of the worst ethics and yet, is pressured the most to force kids into sports, to learn these ethics. Builds character? I thought parents were supposed to help with that?
Long story short, "builds character and ethics", is the party line that is complete BS. Which is to say, it may, but certainly no more than any other properly structured activity.
Now then, I don't believe anyone said it was bad. That is, sports are not bad. I enjoy them. I hate watching, but that's beside the point. There is nothing wrong with sports. The problem is that many fathers appear to make it their primary form of interaction with their child. That's pethetic, sad, and tragic. Worse, they are doing it for selfish emotional reasons rather than to build character and interact with their child. At the same time, football isn't providing anything that other structured events couldn't address. The downside is, it's pulling resources away from things that really matter.
Why does athletics not matter?
LOL! If you have to ask, I think it's safe to say, you're a sports nut and blinded by reality.
Flash! Football star saves the world from plague and brings peace to the Middle East by simply tossing a ball. News at 11.
Did that really need to spelled out for you? In the grand scheme of things, there are things was matter (math, biology, physics, sociology, etc) and things that are just fluff (sports).
For that matter, I don't really see whats so objectionable about fathers wanting to watch their sons play sports because thats what their fathers did for them. Seems natural to me.
It's called pethetic. If a father's primary interaction with his son is brief period in time as it relates to sports, that's very, very pethetic. Worse, it means that they do it to feel better (comfort) about themselves rather than a desire to be around and shape their children's lifes in ways that actually matter.
I don't know about you, but I've lived in several states and I don't normally have to look far to see that documented theory validated. It's a sad state of things. It speaks poorly of our society.
Why would I need to prove something which I did not state? I was talking about public highschools. If you had bothered to read the rest of the subthread, it would of become crystal clear before you posted.
Well, that may be, but I don't believe it's reflective of high school on down, which my comments specifically target. Admittedly, I didn't stress that part. Sorry for the confusion.
Ya, yet another way our resources are being drained away. I personally think it's insane to grant so many rights to people that shouldn't be here in the first place.
I agree. I personally think that too many funds are being diverted to sports activities rather than something that actually matters. In Texas, and from what I hear elsewhere, some schools are having trouble getting the funds for the books they need to teach. Heck, last year, I had to spend an extra $150, out of pocket, to by books that the damn school system should be provided. And I live in a fairly well off school system. Having said that, the athletic programs never seem to have problems getting their gear paid for, getting new tracks or getting new fields. If you took those taxes and applied them to books and computers, it would sure go a long, long ways. Just think of the millions wasted on athetics each year that could be better invested into something that actually mattered. Like, I don't know, maybe ways to make math and science interesting and fun?? What an odd thought.
Here's the really, really sad thing about sports. I've read one study and watched a documentary which identified the reason why most fathers push their children into sports activities. It also reflects on why many fathers are willing to divert so many funds to athletics. It's really kind of sad too. The reason is simple. By having their children participate in sports, it's one of the sole activities that fathers in the US do with their children. Everytime a father does this activity, it becomes a comfort activity allow them to regress to the time that they, in turn, did it with their father. In other words, sports are important to most US fathers because it was the only time they spent time with their father. In turn, doing so allows them to feel good because it's one of the few activities that they can associate with their father.
To me, this screams that more emoney needs to be spent on education and encouraging a broader range of social activities rather than wasting money on sports, just so fathers can feel good about themselves again.
Hopefully someone will mod you up. Great insight!
I agree. Quick peeks vi YafRay work great. And PovRay is simply awesome!
LOL!
Thanksfully and perhaps even more oddly, my wife is probably a bigger fan of the show than I am.
Cheers!
Woe...woe...WOE!
;)
Are you trying to imply that there is not such thing as SG-1????? Are you implying Egypt doesn't exist either?!?!
And for the record, this years season was way too short. It had what, 6 episodes? Shesh.
Cheers!
Not that I'm doubting you but I thought it might be interesting to point something out. From time to time, odd things that don't nicely fit into the commonly accepted timelines are discovered. Many, are quietly filed away until some theory can account for it.
Along those line, ignorantly parroting, I saw a show only last night talking about a frozen man that had a copper head axe. The odd part was, he and his axe were dated back 1000 years before the copper age. A 1000 years, is a pretty good number of years. While I don't offer that this invalidates the copper age timeline, I think it might suggest that some technologies clearly existed LONG before they were prevailing technologies in other cultures.
So, to draw a parallel, I'm not saying that one must accept that the criteria falls into the stone-age, but, we should be prepared to accept that such technologies may have existed far earlier than common timelines allow, even if it may not actually be "10,000 years".
Ya, SCO OS, etc., has always sucked. Generally low quality software. Their Non-Stop Clustering solution, from first hand experience, I can all Always-Stopped Clustering. Using a couple of simple scripts and an MTA, I was able to start a couple of processes on one node in a cluster, which would crash and burn EVERY node in the cluter.
We wound up going to Compaq's NSC campus to prove that it wasn't us. They wouldn't even bother to attempt to reproduce on their own. They insisted that what I was telling them was impossible and that it was a user problem. So, we went to campus and installed the software. I happily destroyed two clusters, one of their people watch my every move (yes, they were watching for me to do something nasty or unethical). In only a couple of short minutes, every node attached to the cluster was destroyed, requiring a complete installation from the install CD's. They quietly acknowledged that it was not something I was doing. They never acknowledged they had a problem. They more or less left us without any answers.
Their products and support sucks.
...to actually be working, does this place cold-fusion in a scientifically more advanced state the hot-fusion? After all, hot-fusion has a theory and little scientific proof that it can actually work and be sustained. On the other hand, if it's proven to be for real, cold fusion is proven to work and is simply lacking strong theory to explain everything.
Seems to me, the more viable and truly scientific work is going on with cold-fusion.
On one camp, we have tons and tons of money and theory and no experiment shown to support that theory (AFAIK; correct me as needed). On spite of this, hot-fusion is thought of as accepted and proven science.
In the other camp, we can scientists performing experiments which are roughly meeting or exceeding expectations and simply lacking in some portions of theory which might explain everything that is going on. In spite of this, cold-fusion is ignored and rejected.
Which is real science? Science finding new things it doesn't understand and attempts to explain or science failing to prove which it hopes might work, one day, given enough funding. Seems to me, hot-fusion is looking more like snake-oil than cold-fusion ever did. Cold-fusion, during the early days of just plain fraud, was quickly shown for what it is. The fact that two guys were invalidated hardly invalidates a whole field of study. My point? Would seem that many "scientists" and failing to look beyond their ego to do real science. If it's being peer reviewed and being replicated, that's science.
MySQL expert?
That's really the whole point of MySQL. You get a less than ANSI-SQL database which is trivial to use for trivial non-DBAs (non-database experts), when trivial database tasks are targeted.
In otherwords, those that buy MS Access do so because they irrationally think they should, rather then rationally attempting to justify it based on price.
Just the same, if you are in the market for an expert, then MySQL should immediately be skipped. In stead, look at Firebird, PostgreSQL, Sybase's freebee product (forget the name) and even SQLite for great, lowcost solutions. All of which are much better than MySQL (LOL) or Access.
First, thanks.
;)
I understand and think your posting contains some logic. Great! That alone is rather rather these days!
But, if the design is so complex that it can not be proven safe, and people scream about the concept of having to prove it unsafe, what can you do? Is that the case to say it shouldn't be built? What other option is there?
Furthermore, if you're left with having to prove something is unsafe, you can't exactly expect the manufacturer to do a good job of that. After all, it's in their own best interest to prove it safe, not the inverse. Thusly, it makes since to make work, the original scheme. Just the same, if the original scheme is too complex to prove safe, we're back in a loop. So, to get out, I guess the only thing that makes sense is to shift it to the FAA? Who else? A third part hired by the manufacturer? Isn't that going to lead the same problems that run rampant in accounting and auditing companies (Anderson, etc)? I've seen that junk first hand and AFAIKT, Anderson just happen to be the one that got caught.
At any rate, after my ramblings...how does all that make the FAA hypocritical, regardless of process picked?
Ya, I think I remember reading that it has the potential to make people deaf (serious ear damage), when standing 100', inside a building, where the walls are 1' thick brick and concrete.
That's some serious noise pollution!
The link says that it can maintain supersonic speed without afterburners. That's different from going supersonic without after burners.
In other words, according to the link you provided, the plane must still use afterburners to reach its supersonic cruise speed. Afterwhich, afterburners are not required to maintain the speed.
Did I misunderstand?
The sheer hypocrisy of Boeing then creating the 777 says it all. That aircraft is only allowed to fly because the certicication authority (FAA) was unable to prove that it is unsafe, previous generations had to be proved to be safe, but with over-complexity that is no longer possible.
I guess since I'm not clued in, I don't really follow that statement. How does the FAA certifying the 777 mean that they are hypocrits? If the system is so complex that it can no longer be *proved" safe, wouldn't the next best logical arrangement be to prove that it's not unsafe? Regardless of the answer, how does that indicate that the FAA is being hypocritical?
Sorry in advance if I'm asking a question to which I missed and you've already answered. I'm simply not following the logic.