When people find some kind of compelling evidence to the contrary I suppose. Unfortunately the vast majority of the evidence supports evolutionary theory, some very strongly, and almost none that does not support it. (although there is a great deal that can - and does - discredit specific theories, such as what caused humans to evolve into bipedal animals instead of halfway quadrapeds, like the other apes)
On the other hand, a monkey with a stomach ache or whatever walking upright is NOT evidence of evolution. This would have to provide some distinct advantage to the monkey that would mean that it would be much more likely to survive and reproduce than it's fellows, and, only a little bit less importantly, this trait would need to be passed on to it's offspring. Unless this illness is genetic, the latter would not occur. And unless this illness is epidemic among those monkeys, walking upright is unlikely to allow this monkey to reproduce more sucessfully than it's fellow monkeys. I'll pay some attention when 5 generations or so his/her 500+ and rapidly growing decendants are all walking upright, and the monkeys who don't are declining in number. Not until then.
The real reason most people do not accept evolution is that they have little understanding of science, less of evolutionary theory, and are mostly unaware of all the facts and details science and observation have revealed about our incredibly vast and complex universe, or even that there is so much that we have learned. (they don't know that it is known, let alone know it for themselvs)
note to mods: I am not sure that the parent is a troll. It may be, but many, if not most people in the US at least, would be of this opinion.
Perhaps so. The ideas I posted only apply to the initial helplessness of humans.
To test this theory, you could look at the intelligence of several other mammals (or their instinct/intelligence reliance ratios) to their lifespans and developement rates. I just looked at chimps and gorrillas on wikipedia, and those seem to support the theory (lifespan puberty etc ages are about 1/3 less than human or so. We know that these apes do rely on learned behaviors a lot) But they are a poor example as genitic similarities to humans could skew to results a lot. Looking at dolphins and wolves (two other smart none primate animals) would be a good start.
" and children pretty much figure it out on their own"
I think it is instinctive, not learned. I have been watching my nieces. One loved walking (with help, you had to hold her hands) before she ever learned to crawl. Her balance was almost good enough to walk on her own at that point. (she had learned though that 'I can walk if they hold my hands' and wouldn't try). Another is now about 6 months. Stand her on her feet and provide balance and she is content to stand, and she provids all the support. (I did this less than a week ago) She can't quite sit up on her own yet though.
I think crawling, and rolling are learned behaviors, and walking, and the upright position are instinctive. Or, as you said it "bipedalism is not a learned thing in modern humans." I think you meant 'children learn that to function well they need to be upright, (due to their physical form) and so they learn to walk.' I think that they learn to walk because being upright is instinctively the right position to be in.
Theory #1 is wrong. The pelvic changes do not aid in large head births. In fact they do the opposit.
In mammals gestation period is linear with brain size, for most mammals anyway. Humans break that rule. If humans followed the pattern pregnancy would last about 20 months.
There is a reason that horses can run hours after birth, and even primates develop about a year faster (at first) than humans. Humans are born premature. About a year too soon. Why? The head won't fit later, and since we are bipedal, the hole in the pelvic bones can't get bigger. This is also why birth is so much harder on women than say cows. The pelvis is too small and puts more stress on the woman. As it is their hips come out of joint to make more room.
Theory #4 is questionable too, Why do we have hair on our heads and (mostly) nowhere else? #2 and #3 sound ok to me.
(these are not all my ideas, But I don't know the name or author of the book I got them from)
It doens't work in cats though, remember, 'curiosity killed the cat'
Increased intelligence in a really stupid animal usually would not be enough to help the animal, as it would still be too stupid. Instinct is what keeps these animals alive, and intelligence would only interfere with the instincts.
Also, according to this the human brain uses 20% of the energy and is about 5% of total mass. Intelligence costs, and if those costs are greater than the bennifits, it is a disadvantage.
So, the 'stable' and 'testing' kernels reside in the same source tree, and differ on;y by different configs?
A question for someone that knows more about the guts of the kernel than I, What(if any ) problems would this araingement cause? It this approach practical? I believe this is how the fire{fox,bird} developement started.
'"Infringes" to me means I do physical harm to you or your property.'
I agree with this. The problem with most of these 'rights' that are being 'infirnged' on, is that they cause some kind of intangible harm. (the best example would be 'market value' harm. 'My neighbors weeds and ugly yard are harming my home value')
The problem here is that there is no action (or lack of action) that does not have some effect on the market value of something. That means nothing is off limits - and the net result is that there are no rights. (there is nothing that I can do that cannot be regulated/restricted etc)
Well, from what I have read (in, ummm, other./ posts, ummm...) is that while you can sue over patent infringment at anytime, damage awards can be limited to the time period before the plantiff should have known about the patent infringement. If you wait, you can't sue for dammages past that point.
Just a suggestion, File -> New Window is still there. Minimize your window and you should be good to go. Sometimes it is easier to change your habbits than others.
So, why don't the scientists bargain with the investors, say, the investor gets all the proceeds up to the origonal investment + X% per year, and the scientist gets the rest?
Call me crazy, but I do not think that this happens at all. (correct me if I am wrong please!) It is not so much current IP law as who ends up with the rights that is the problem.
In fact, imagine the amount of interest in science class there would be if scientists and engineers were paid this way! Talk about progress. . .
If you can find any such authority for the federal government fund any law enforcement in the Constitution I would be interested. I have read it. The federal government's powers over law enforcement are limited, and they nowhere include funding local law enforcement.
The role of the federal government is to take care of external relations with foriegn states, and regulate those powers that if they were left to the states would cause trouble. (trade wars and tarrifs to import things between new york and new jersey, (yes this happened) private wars between states (almost happened too!) etc. )
Unlike you, our founding fathers were not socialist. They would have shot down any such nonesense in a hurry. They called us the United states of America (yes, I got the capitalization right!) 'state' here is synonymous with 'nation' Learn some history please.
Moon telescope would only work in the shade??? Why? And if that is the case, explain how that is a disadvantage conpared to orbit, where you are in the shade less than half the time (if at all!) ( Oh.. Wait, I think you meant 'can only look at target x half the time because the moon itself is in the way' There are plenty of targets out there, and we deal with that problem with earth-based scopes just fine)
Far side of the moon? Yes, that would be a communications problem. So, don't put it there! There is no advantage to the dark side of the moon for a visible light scope. (not true for radio scopes)
1. Security ' Windows is much more popular and thus more targetted. It can also be locked down by any competent system admin.
And as such only matters in a corporate environment, where such a thing as a system administrator exists. Home users on the other hand . . .
"2. Philosophy ' Purchasing proprietary software usually guarantees a level of support, as opposed to relying on the "good will" nature of the community."
And in the case of windows you get - service packs. You get more free from Red Hat. While your statement is usually true, in the case of windows - especially for home users - it is not. The community usually pulls through for me on Linux, not windows.
"3. Stability ' Poorly written applications will crash regardless of the OS."
And poorly written apps will crash a poorly written OS. Granted this does not apply as much to 2k/XP as they did to the 9x stuff, but they still don't compare to Linux.
"4. Cost ' Support, training and service fees all need to be considered."
Again, only in the corporate enviroment.
Your rebuttal obviously came straight out of a TCO for corporate customers, much of it does not apply to anyone but a large company. For everyone else, the reasons listed in the grandparent post still matter.
And eventually have to throw the snow over the 50+ foot snow banks that surround the base. You also need the base to be able to move, or jack the base up and pile the snow under it.
The catch here is that the 'ground' is constantly rising because the snow never melts. Simply removing the snow will result in the base being in a big pit. Oh, and it does nothing for the ice breaking part.
(Hmmm, then nix the pile the snow under it part, the base has to move somehow...)
note: this post is directed at the dozens of 'shovel the snow' posts, not just yours.
Ok, so just what does it mean? Help them stand up? Hold their arm while they walk?? Hardly, if our soldiers need help walking, maby we need some new soldiers....:^)
Really though I do support our troops, The IRS would throw my butt in jail double-quick if I did not pay my taxes.
As far as I can tell 'support our troops' means what your parent post said, 'agree with what our troops are doing' If you can give me some concrete examples otherwise, I'd be interested.
As to the link, HAHAHAHAH!!!! 'vote to bring the troops home now!' 'vote to impeach [bush]!' Sweet, I didn't know those were going to be on the ballot, should be an interesting election. . . 8^()
There was a true democracy once, Athens. It only worked because it was so small, (one city) and it only lasted 80 years or so. It failed for the reasons that you give. To say that there will never again be one is not strictly true, just practically true.
From the article it is clear that DRM can only work with support from laws, and they have to be fairly oppressive laws, the 'critical flaw' in all DRM schemes is huge.
You are right about my math, it would take 1000T. This is only 1000 cubic meters * (cube 10 meters on a side, I think that is what I meant when I wrote 10 cubic meters. oops.) The point though is that this is small. A tank 10 times as large would dissapear up any of the canyons around here (Wasatch front, Utah) and be more like 3000 ft up.
Gravitational power storage is more practical than you think. First, the smallest of the great lakes (lake erie) is more than 10 times as large (volume) as lake mead (the largest hydroelectric in the US) I don't know Ontario's power use, but hoover dam's capacity is 2000 MW.
More to the point, see this Note the Pumped Storage Hydroelectric category. It is already 1/4 the size of conventional hydroelectric!
*1,000T = 1,000,000 kg = 1,000,000 liters. 1 liter = 1,000 cm^3, 1 m^3 = (100 cm)^3 = 1,000,000 cm^3 = 1,000 liters I figured I'd post my math this time so mistakes are easier to spot.
You get 50 bushels or 60*50=3000lbs of wheat per acre/year. I don't eat that much. If we could turn 1/4 of the earth into productive farm land, we would have more than enough to eat, and plenty of space to live left.
This is mostly an engineering (and social) problem. This is ignoring the oceans too. (I think! I did not do the 4 acres/person bit!) Although, granted, it is a big engineering problem. Hmm . . 2050 . . We may need a little bit more time. . .
Error: A 3MW wind turbine is a 3MW MAX power output turbine. It would generate far less than that on average. From this it sounds like every available site is used. My guess is that the original figure was achieved by adding up all the energy in available wind.
The problem with wind is as you stated: you get power when the wind blows, not necessarily when you need it. The solution to this problem is simple in theory. Storage. Get some good storage method and wind has no problem.
One storage method that will work in many places is water, on a hill. About 10 cubic meters of water 1000 ft up stores about 1 MWh of energy. This energy is easily stored and released with high efficiency, (pumps and turbines) This can be used easily anywhere there is a mountain 1000 ft high or more, and here in Utah at least, those are in abundance.
I read in another/. post that this is being done in West Virginia, and he had links.
Just to make myself clear here, I am not objecting to anything that you posted under your 3 points. However I am very offended by everything else. The parent poster was listing reasons from his perspective that told him that the video was suspect. He made it clear that he was not sure, even on the subjects that he was using to question the video's accuracy. He was trying to objectivly analyse the video and was looking for the truth.
You, on the other hand have no real interest in the truth. Your decision as to whether or not the video was real was based on whether or not that would benifit Bush. Your points may or may not be correct, this would not be the first time someone was right for the wrong reasons. But this much is sure, you decided that the video was not a fake before any of the evidence was presented. This is about as wrong a reason as you can get.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, a monkey with a stomach ache or whatever walking upright is NOT evidence of evolution. This would have to provide some distinct advantage to the monkey that would mean that it would be much more likely to survive and reproduce than it's fellows, and, only a little bit less importantly, this trait would need to be passed on to it's offspring. Unless this illness is genetic, the latter would not occur. And unless this illness is epidemic among those monkeys, walking upright is unlikely to allow this monkey to reproduce more sucessfully than it's fellow monkeys. I'll pay some attention when 5 generations or so his/her 500+ and rapidly growing decendants are all walking upright, and the monkeys who don't are declining in number. Not until then.
The real reason most people do not accept evolution is that they have little understanding of science, less of evolutionary theory, and are mostly unaware of all the facts and details science and observation have revealed about our incredibly vast and complex universe, or even that there is so much that we have learned. (they don't know that it is known, let alone know it for themselvs)
note to mods: I am not sure that the parent is a troll. It may be, but many, if not most people in the US at least, would be of this opinion.
To test this theory, you could look at the intelligence of several other mammals (or their instinct/intelligence reliance ratios) to their lifespans and developement rates. I just looked at chimps and gorrillas on wikipedia, and those seem to support the theory (lifespan puberty etc ages are about 1/3 less than human or so. We know that these apes do rely on learned behaviors a lot) But they are a poor example as genitic similarities to humans could skew to results a lot. Looking at dolphins and wolves (two other smart none primate animals) would be a good start.
I think it is instinctive, not learned. I have been watching my nieces. One loved walking (with help, you had to hold her hands) before she ever learned to crawl. Her balance was almost good enough to walk on her own at that point. (she had learned though that 'I can walk if they hold my hands' and wouldn't try). Another is now about 6 months. Stand her on her feet and provide balance and she is content to stand, and she provids all the support. (I did this less than a week ago) She can't quite sit up on her own yet though.
I think crawling, and rolling are learned behaviors, and walking, and the upright position are instinctive. Or, as you said it "bipedalism is not a learned thing in modern humans." I think you meant 'children learn that to function well they need to be upright, (due to their physical form) and so they learn to walk.' I think that they learn to walk because being upright is instinctively the right position to be in.
In mammals gestation period is linear with brain size, for most mammals anyway. Humans break that rule. If humans followed the pattern pregnancy would last about 20 months.
There is a reason that horses can run hours after birth, and even primates develop about a year faster (at first) than humans. Humans are born premature. About a year too soon. Why? The head won't fit later, and since we are bipedal, the hole in the pelvic bones can't get bigger. This is also why birth is so much harder on women than say cows. The pelvis is too small and puts more stress on the woman. As it is their hips come out of joint to make more room.
Theory #4 is questionable too, Why do we have hair on our heads and (mostly) nowhere else? #2 and #3 sound ok to me.
(these are not all my ideas, But I don't know the name or author of the book I got them from)
Increased intelligence in a really stupid animal usually would not be enough to help the animal, as it would still be too stupid. Instinct is what keeps these animals alive, and intelligence would only interfere with the instincts.
Also, according to this the human brain uses 20% of the energy and is about 5% of total mass. Intelligence costs, and if those costs are greater than the bennifits, it is a disadvantage.
A question for someone that knows more about the guts of the kernel than I, What(if any ) problems would this araingement cause? It this approach practical? I believe this is how the fire{fox,bird} developement started.
I agree with this. The problem with most of these 'rights' that are being 'infirnged' on, is that they cause some kind of intangible harm. (the best example would be 'market value' harm. 'My neighbors weeds and ugly yard are harming my home value')
The problem here is that there is no action (or lack of action) that does not have some effect on the market value of something. That means nothing is off limits - and the net result is that there are no rights. (there is nothing that I can do that cannot be regulated/restricted etc)
Well, from what I have read (in, ummm, other ./ posts, ummm...) is that while you can sue over patent infringment at anytime, damage awards can be limited to the time period before the plantiff should have known about the patent infringement. If you wait, you can't sue for dammages past that point.
Actually, Bacteria do just that.
Just a suggestion, File -> New Window is still there. Minimize your window and you should be good to go. Sometimes it is easier to change your habbits than others.
Call me crazy, but I do not think that this happens at all. (correct me if I am wrong please!) It is not so much current IP law as who ends up with the rights that is the problem.
In fact, imagine the amount of interest in science class there would be if scientists and engineers were paid this way! Talk about progress. . .
The role of the federal government is to take care of external relations with foriegn states, and regulate those powers that if they were left to the states would cause trouble. (trade wars and tarrifs to import things between new york and new jersey, (yes this happened) private wars between states (almost happened too!) etc. )
Unlike you, our founding fathers were not socialist. They would have shot down any such nonesense in a hurry. They called us the United states of America (yes, I got the capitalization right!) 'state' here is synonymous with 'nation' Learn some history please.
Far side of the moon? Yes, that would be a communications problem. So, don't put it there! There is no advantage to the dark side of the moon for a visible light scope. (not true for radio scopes)
Cost? yea, you are probably right on that one.
1. Security ' Windows is much more popular and thus more targetted. It can also be locked down by any competent system admin.
And as such only matters in a corporate environment, where such a thing as a system administrator exists. Home users on the other hand . . .
"2. Philosophy ' Purchasing proprietary software usually guarantees a level of support, as opposed to relying on the "good will" nature of the community."
And in the case of windows you get - service packs. You get more free from Red Hat. While your statement is usually true, in the case of windows - especially for home users - it is not. The community usually pulls through for me on Linux, not windows.
"3. Stability ' Poorly written applications will crash regardless of the OS."
And poorly written apps will crash a poorly written OS. Granted this does not apply as much to 2k/XP as they did to the 9x stuff, but they still don't compare to Linux.
"4. Cost ' Support, training and service fees all need to be considered."
Again, only in the corporate enviroment.
Your rebuttal obviously came straight out of a TCO for corporate customers, much of it does not apply to anyone but a large company. For everyone else, the reasons listed in the grandparent post still matter.
The catch here is that the 'ground' is constantly rising because the snow never melts. Simply removing the snow will result in the base being in a big pit. Oh, and it does nothing for the ice breaking part.
(Hmmm, then nix the pile the snow under it part, the base has to move somehow...)
note: this post is directed at the dozens of 'shovel the snow' posts, not just yours.
Just looked at DOSBox and the screenshots for the cvs version look promising if you want to run win 3.11
Don't you mean 4 billion connections? (one for each possible ipv4 address?) ;^)
Really though I do support our troops, The IRS would throw my butt in jail double-quick if I did not pay my taxes.
As far as I can tell 'support our troops' means what your parent post said, 'agree with what our troops are doing' If you can give me some concrete examples otherwise, I'd be interested.
As to the link, HAHAHAHAH!!!! 'vote to bring the troops home now!' 'vote to impeach [bush]!' Sweet, I didn't know those were going to be on the ballot, should be an interesting election. . . 8^()
From the article it is clear that DRM can only work with support from laws, and they have to be fairly oppressive laws, the 'critical flaw' in all DRM schemes is huge.
Gravitational power storage is more practical than you think. First, the smallest of the great lakes (lake erie) is more than 10 times as large (volume) as lake mead (the largest hydroelectric in the US) I don't know Ontario's power use, but hoover dam's capacity is 2000 MW.
More to the point, see this Note the Pumped Storage Hydroelectric category. It is already 1/4 the size of conventional hydroelectric!
*1,000T = 1,000,000 kg = 1,000,000 liters. 1 liter = 1,000 cm^3, 1 m^3 = (100 cm)^3 = 1,000,000 cm^3 = 1,000 liters I figured I'd post my math this time so mistakes are easier to spot.
This is mostly an engineering (and social) problem. This is ignoring the oceans too. (I think! I did not do the 4 acres/person bit!) Although, granted, it is a big engineering problem. Hmm . . 2050 . . We may need a little bit more time. . .
Error: A 3MW wind turbine is a 3MW MAX power output turbine. It would generate far less than that on average. From this it sounds like every available site is used. My guess is that the original figure was achieved by adding up all the energy in available wind.
One storage method that will work in many places is water, on a hill. About 10 cubic meters of water 1000 ft up stores about 1 MWh of energy. This energy is easily stored and released with high efficiency, (pumps and turbines) This can be used easily anywhere there is a mountain 1000 ft high or more, and here in Utah at least, those are in abundance.
I read in another /. post that this is being done in West Virginia, and he had links.
Find a park with a merry-go-round. Get on, spin it, and then try to hit something on the other side of the merry-go-round with a ball. Have fun!
You, on the other hand have no real interest in the truth. Your decision as to whether or not the video was real was based on whether or not that would benifit Bush. Your points may or may not be correct, this would not be the first time someone was right for the wrong reasons. But this much is sure, you decided that the video was not a fake before any of the evidence was presented. This is about as wrong a reason as you can get.