Cloudstack is more of a management component; it's not a hypervisor. It supports multiple hypervisors and manages the resources that they host. The Cloudstack download page (http://cloudstack.org/download.html) indicates that they have an Amazon EC2 compatibility server. It describes it like this: "The CloudBridge provides an Amazon EC2 compatible API via both SOAP and REST web services. The EC2 API is translated to native CloudStack API calls by the CloudBridge. Clients can continue using existing EC2-compatible tools with the CloudBridge."
I have no sympathy for Palin. She's manipulative, power hungry, and has show no evidence that she would be remotely capable of handling the role of the Presidency.
Really? What evidence do you have of her manipulation and/or power hungriness? I suppose the less-than-one-term senator that is now our president showed he was capable? What Obama has shown since taking office is that he doesn't have what it takes. He has shown a disdain for the constitution (in many ways). He has shown a disrespect for the role of the judicial branch (his Interior Department being held in contempt of court) when it sutes his interests. In addition, our country is in worse economic shape now than it was 2.5 years ago when he took the helm. I don't believe that presidents alone can improve the economy much, but they can sure as hell make it worse by the policies that they choose to promote and the bills that they sign into law (after our illustrious congress has done their duty of writing rules to complicate our lives).
How's that hope and change working out for you?
Summary of the current article: Here's a tiny shred of scientific evidence that it may have happened before, therefore it is not impossible.
While I agree with your post overall, you're actually giving the article more credit than it deserves. The article says that "One reason this idea seems credible is that scientists think it may already have happened. Some models suggest that space-time expanded at a rate faster than light speed during a period of rapid inflation shortly after the Big Bang."
All the words that I italicized above indicate that this "evidence" is little more than conjecture. Oh, so if this thing happened before (which we're guessing since we can't figure out any other way to explain it...and we're smart folks, so we'll accept it as fact until someone comes up with a better "fact" to stick in our house of cards), then we might be able to reproduce it. The whole idea is laughable. I'm all for scientific research, but this just seems like someone's money being wasted on research that's going nowhere fast...I'm guessing it's my tax dollars being spent at warp speed.
If we have to do two tests on them each time they want a check, then that would mean even more money out of my (and the rest of the country's) pocket. What is your aversion to buying the soup (or a sandwich or whatever else) they _need_ for them?
as for point 3, this is an assumption of guilt with the requirement that I somehow prove the innocence of these people.. I thought the US system of judgment was predicated on innocence until proven guilty. No matter what systems are in place there will always be leeches, but the majority of people participating are honest individuals. The current private system of healthcare results in a 30% dead weight loss of consumer dollars into administration of the many different insurance companie's filing systems which would not be there if medicine were socialized.. but wait.. leeches are only bad when theyre poor, not when theyre wealthy insurance companies.
I'm sorry, when did we start on the topic of the justice system or the health care system? The original point I was disputing was the practice of handing a check to someone to 'help feed them.' This has nothing to do with the justice system or healthcare (except they need food to stay alive;) ). Back to the topic at hand: in many cases, these people are not able to feed themselves because they spend the money they do have on the non-essentials of life (like additictions to alcohol and/or drugs). Handing them a check to go buy food for themselves is many times just going to fund their addiction(s), as many people would rather have a crack rock then a good meal.
Bottom line: I, as a tax-paying American, would much rather my tax dollars go to giving food to the poor than handing them a check and expecting them to go buy food instead of another fix.
when democrats try to take 1 million of the waltons' 100 trillion dollar annual budget to help feed the poor
Here's the facts that liberals just don't want to accept:
This kind of Governing is called socialism (Wikipedia says: "system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control").
This kind of re-allocation rarely happens. Most of the money taken from the rich goes to protect Alaskan wilderness from people that actually want to use the land for something (i.e., drill the oil it has).
When money does go to "help feed the poor," that usually ends up being a welfare check which I doubt goes to pay for food a lot of the time. If they really wanted to help feed the poor, they'd stop giving them money, and start giving them a bowl of soup.
As much as I disagree with your particular viewpoint in general politics, I must commend your statement about all politicians being completely disconnected from the common man.:)
By the way, just wanted to let you know that part of your username is spelled wrong. It's actually YHWH. Perhaps you should read the appropriate article on Wikipedia:
The whole article assumes several things...
1. Macro-evolution occurs. A quote: "Our emergence on to the land is one of the more significant rites of passage in our evolutionary history." This quote (and specifically the use of the term "history") shows that he had a pre-conceived belief about what happened, and he was going to interpret whatever evidence he found in that light. As I said in my first post, there's no way that it can be shown that this fossil is a stage of development between two (or more) species. The only thing we know is that this is an animal that we haven't seen before.
2. The time ranges that are being used. A quote: "We knew that the rocks on Ellesmere Island offered a glimpse into the right time period." They assumed the time period, and then you say that from the newly discovered animal they could "predict... the timeperiod." How did finding that animal in that area tell anything about the time period?
One more thing...you said in your logic steps: "but still looks a lot like a fish." It seems like quite a logic leap to say that one animal that resembles some other animal must have been a descendent of that second animal.
The method of speciation is debatable, but the process of speciation is not.
I don't quite understand what you mean. I thought everything in science was debatable. I guess I don't know how you distinguish method (definition: "Orderly arrangement of parts or steps to accomplish an end") from process (definition: "A series of actions, changes, or functions bringing about a result").
And, yes, I should have said 'origin of species' rather than universe.
I'm sorry, but "the" missing link? This is the stupidest evolution cheerleading article I've seen yet. Evoultion has an indefinite (meaning undefined) number of missing links, and this is just one species that really can't be proven to be a missing link at all.
You can't point to a species (or a group of species) and say "this is the previous generation" or "this is the subsequent generation." This cannot be proven or disproven to be a missing link between any two animals. This kind of wild speculation has no place in science.
Here's the basic logic of the article (albeit, simplified greatly):
A: aquatic animals that exist today don't have arms B: land animals that exist today do have arms C: this animal appears to be aquatic and it also has arms Conclusion: THIS MUST BE THE MISSING LINK!!!!11!!11
Does anyone else but me see the flawed logic that exists here?
Evolution approaches theories by assuming a HUGE number of assertions are true, trying to find evidence to back them up (all the time skewing your interpretations of the evidence based on your assumptions), and teaching those assumptions as facts to the unknowing masses in the mean time. This is a flawed system in and of itself, as the next generation of 'scientists' will think that these assumptions have been proven (after all, why would they teach them in a classroom if they haven't been proven??).
I'm not saying that we need to _assume_ that God made the universe either (that happens to be my opinion, but that's beside the point), but why can't we at least accept the fact that we don't have enough scientific evidence to make even an educated guess as to what the true origin of the universe is? Is there something wrong with saying "we don't know that right now, but we're investigating it"?
8. I still don't see how a copy error is new information. Your use of the phrase 'gets changed to' suggests that there was something to begin with, not _new_ information being _added_. But, maybe we're just splitting hairs of the use of terms. Most creationists will readily agree that micro-evolution occurs, because there is obvious evidence to support it. The problem is that macro-evolution is a big assumption that this process occuring over millions/billions of years (depending on who you talk to) produces different animals. This hypothesis has yet to be backed up by any evidence that doesn't involve a serious number of assumptions. 9. No, the assumption is not that all genetic mutations causes degeneration, he said that it _generally_ causes degeneration. Be careful about using absolutes (especially when referring to someone else's point:) ). And those examples themselves may or may not be genetic mutations: A cow producing more milk, or the different sized dogs sounds a lot more like genetic traits (like me and my Dad having dark hair) than mutations, but I'm not a geneticist so... 12. Point taken:)
7. That assumes that the animal in question lived in the same area that it's fossil was found. If you remove that assumption, the house of cards falls. 8. The point is that it isn't new genetic information. It's simply a copy of existing information that got copied to the wrong place. 9. Note that in all the examples you pointed out, there was an intelligence (i.e., man) that directed (selected) what mutations would survive to the next generation(s). 10. Once again, the Linux kernel has intelligent design behind it; it didn't just mutate over those generations. But, I see the point you're trying to make. However, show me an example of some animal that incrementally changed to another animal (which, in order to be a valid set of examples, requires a number of intermediate generations to be shown also). 12. ad hominem = name calling (e.g., 'idiot,' 'moron,' 'uneducated jerk,' etc). But I saw no name calling in pikine's point. He merely pointed out that these men had other motives, other than advancing the cause of science or the knowledge of man kind.
Well, thank you for that interesting, however unreadable and offensive, reply. I want to summarize your post by listing some of the names that you used to describe Christians (which makes up a majority of the population in the world, by the way):
nutjobs
whackos
dim-wits
Also, let's see what you have to say about Americans as a whole:
slack-jawed yokels
religious lunatics
riff-raff
Thanks again for your idiotic and completely uncontrolled point-of-view! By the way, if you want anyone to take you seriously, you might want to work on your typing/grammar skills a little (oh, and posting as AC doesn't help you any:) ).
Well, thanks for the tip on the book. I'll keep that in mind.
If you're interested in learning more about how fundamentalist Christians really think creation took place, may I recommend the book "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science" by Henry Morris. It very clearly explains why many Christians consider the theory of evolution to be absurd.:)
I really was referring to the 'Big Bang' idea that pervades evolution: that everything exploded into existance. This doesn't seem plausible to me. The amount of organization that exists in just a cell of human tissue is incomprehendable. Just trying to clarify my statement:)
Here is the rub: the scientists' beliefs are better. I can't really put it any other way, and I'm not willing to succumb to the popular weakness of accepting all beliefs as being equally valid. I'm an engineer --- and I see a world around me that exists because of the power of science.
First off, did you read my fourth paragraph at all? Sure, you're not as abrasive as the person that says 'you're an idiot if you don't believe _____,' but what you're saying is essentially the same thing.
Secondly, I was not intending to use the term 'Chritian scientist' to refer to the 'Christian Science' movement, but rather to a Scientist who is a Christian.
Lastly, when you say "Science is predicated on a belief that the scientific method is valid," are you saying that science assumes that all things can be proven using the scientific meathod? If so, then how can science be seen as any more valid than the Fundamentalists viewpoint of Biblical infalibility?
I'm trying to be as in-abrasive as possible, but your statements seem to contradict each other from my point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we've all suffered enough at this point...
Cloudstack is more of a management component; it's not a hypervisor. It supports multiple hypervisors and manages the resources that they host. The Cloudstack download page (http://cloudstack.org/download.html) indicates that they have an Amazon EC2 compatibility server. It describes it like this: "The CloudBridge provides an Amazon EC2 compatible API via both SOAP and REST web services. The EC2 API is translated to native CloudStack API calls by the CloudBridge. Clients can continue using existing EC2-compatible tools with the CloudBridge."
hmm...looks a lot like something I once saw on Star Trek TNG (the pilot episode, no less): http://stavatars.net/images/locations/planets/planet_farpoint_station02.jpg
Actually, two points make a line, which is "a special case of a curve, namely a curve with a null curvature." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve
I have no sympathy for Palin. She's manipulative, power hungry, and has show no evidence that she would be remotely capable of handling the role of the Presidency.
Really? What evidence do you have of her manipulation and/or power hungriness? I suppose the less-than-one-term senator that is now our president showed he was capable? What Obama has shown since taking office is that he doesn't have what it takes. He has shown a disdain for the constitution (in many ways). He has shown a disrespect for the role of the judicial branch (his Interior Department being held in contempt of court) when it sutes his interests. In addition, our country is in worse economic shape now than it was 2.5 years ago when he took the helm. I don't believe that presidents alone can improve the economy much, but they can sure as hell make it worse by the policies that they choose to promote and the bills that they sign into law (after our illustrious congress has done their duty of writing rules to complicate our lives). How's that hope and change working out for you?
Summary of the current article: Here's a tiny shred of scientific evidence that it may have happened before, therefore it is not impossible.
While I agree with your post overall, you're actually giving the article more credit than it deserves. The article says that "One reason this idea seems credible is that scientists think it may already have happened. Some models suggest that space-time expanded at a rate faster than light speed during a period of rapid inflation shortly after the Big Bang."
All the words that I italicized above indicate that this "evidence" is little more than conjecture. Oh, so if this thing happened before (which we're guessing since we can't figure out any other way to explain it...and we're smart folks, so we'll accept it as fact until someone comes up with a better "fact" to stick in our house of cards), then we might be able to reproduce it. The whole idea is laughable. I'm all for scientific research, but this just seems like someone's money being wasted on research that's going nowhere fast...I'm guessing it's my tax dollars being spent at warp speed.
How many times do I have to ask the same question...
Doesn't it make even more sense to buy them the soup (or whatever), then we can be _sure_ that they won't use the money in the wrong way?
If we have to do two tests on them each time they want a check, then that would mean even more money out of my (and the rest of the country's) pocket. What is your aversion to buying the soup (or a sandwich or whatever else) they _need_ for them?
I'm sorry, when did we start on the topic of the justice system or the health care system? The original point I was disputing was the practice of handing a check to someone to 'help feed them.' This has nothing to do with the justice system or healthcare (except they need food to stay alive ;) ). Back to the topic at hand: in many cases, these people are not able to feed themselves because they spend the money they do have on the non-essentials of life (like additictions to alcohol and/or drugs). Handing them a check to go buy food for themselves is many times just going to fund their addiction(s), as many people would rather have a crack rock then a good meal.
Bottom line: I, as a tax-paying American, would much rather my tax dollars go to giving food to the poor than handing them a check and expecting them to go buy food instead of another fix.
Here's the facts that liberals just don't want to accept:
As much as I disagree with your particular viewpoint in general politics, I must commend your statement about all politicians being completely disconnected from the common man. :)
A really good way to play a practical joke on someone...
:)
- Term papers
- Contracts
- I could go on forever
It just sounds so dirty. Besides, I have to wonder, how could you....never mind.
By the way, just wanted to let you know that part of your username is spelled wrong. It's actually YHWH. Perhaps you should read the appropriate article on Wikipedia:
e ls_of_YHWH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YHWH#Using_the_vow
shouldn't that read: A reptile that may have lived 225 million years ago ??
The whole article assumes several things... 1. Macro-evolution occurs. A quote: "Our emergence on to the land is one of the more significant rites of passage in our evolutionary history." This quote (and specifically the use of the term "history") shows that he had a pre-conceived belief about what happened, and he was going to interpret whatever evidence he found in that light. As I said in my first post, there's no way that it can be shown that this fossil is a stage of development between two (or more) species. The only thing we know is that this is an animal that we haven't seen before. 2. The time ranges that are being used. A quote: "We knew that the rocks on Ellesmere Island offered a glimpse into the right time period." They assumed the time period, and then you say that from the newly discovered animal they could "predict ... the timeperiod." How did finding that animal in that area tell anything about the time period?
One more thing...you said in your logic steps: "but still looks a lot like a fish." It seems like quite a logic leap to say that one animal that resembles some other animal must have been a descendent of that second animal.
I'd love to see this hard evidence you speak of. Just contradiction of my point doesn't help very much. :)
The method of speciation is debatable, but the process of speciation is not.
I don't quite understand what you mean. I thought everything in science was debatable. I guess I don't know how you distinguish method (definition: "Orderly arrangement of parts or steps to accomplish an end") from process (definition: "A series of actions, changes, or functions bringing about a result").
And, yes, I should have said 'origin of species' rather than universe.
I'm sorry, but "the" missing link? This is the stupidest evolution cheerleading article I've seen yet. Evoultion has an indefinite (meaning undefined) number of missing links, and this is just one species that really can't be proven to be a missing link at all.
You can't point to a species (or a group of species) and say "this is the previous generation" or "this is the subsequent generation." This cannot be proven or disproven to be a missing link between any two animals. This kind of wild speculation has no place in science.
Here's the basic logic of the article (albeit, simplified greatly):
A: aquatic animals that exist today don't have arms
B: land animals that exist today do have arms
C: this animal appears to be aquatic and it also has arms
Conclusion: THIS MUST BE THE MISSING LINK!!!!11!!11
Does anyone else but me see the flawed logic that exists here?
Evolution approaches theories by assuming a HUGE number of assertions are true, trying to find evidence to back them up (all the time skewing your interpretations of the evidence based on your assumptions), and teaching those assumptions as facts to the unknowing masses in the mean time. This is a flawed system in and of itself, as the next generation of 'scientists' will think that these assumptions have been proven (after all, why would they teach them in a classroom if they haven't been proven??).
I'm not saying that we need to _assume_ that God made the universe either (that happens to be my opinion, but that's beside the point), but why can't we at least accept the fact that we don't have enough scientific evidence to make even an educated guess as to what the true origin of the universe is? Is there something wrong with saying "we don't know that right now, but we're investigating it"?
It seems like a good time for VMWare to open up it's disk format, now that Qemu has it completely reverse-engineered. :)
8. I still don't see how a copy error is new information. Your use of the phrase 'gets changed to' suggests that there was something to begin with, not _new_ information being _added_. But, maybe we're just splitting hairs of the use of terms. Most creationists will readily agree that micro-evolution occurs, because there is obvious evidence to support it. The problem is that macro-evolution is a big assumption that this process occuring over millions/billions of years (depending on who you talk to) produces different animals. This hypothesis has yet to be backed up by any evidence that doesn't involve a serious number of assumptions. :) ). And those examples themselves may or may not be genetic mutations: A cow producing more milk, or the different sized dogs sounds a lot more like genetic traits (like me and my Dad having dark hair) than mutations, but I'm not a geneticist so... :)
9. No, the assumption is not that all genetic mutations causes degeneration, he said that it _generally_ causes degeneration. Be careful about using absolutes (especially when referring to someone else's point
12. Point taken
7. That assumes that the animal in question lived in the same area that it's fossil was found. If you remove that assumption, the house of cards falls.
8. The point is that it isn't new genetic information. It's simply a copy of existing information that got copied to the wrong place.
9. Note that in all the examples you pointed out, there was an intelligence (i.e., man) that directed (selected) what mutations would survive to the next generation(s).
10. Once again, the Linux kernel has intelligent design behind it; it didn't just mutate over those generations. But, I see the point you're trying to make. However, show me an example of some animal that incrementally changed to another animal (which, in order to be a valid set of examples, requires a number of intermediate generations to be shown also).
12. ad hominem = name calling (e.g., 'idiot,' 'moron,' 'uneducated jerk,' etc). But I saw no name calling in pikine's point. He merely pointed out that these men had other motives, other than advancing the cause of science or the knowledge of man kind.
Also, let's see what you have to say about Americans as a whole:
Thanks again for your idiotic and completely uncontrolled point-of-view! By the way, if you want anyone to take you seriously, you might want to work on your typing/grammar skills a little (oh, and posting as AC doesn't help you any
Well, thanks for the tip on the book. I'll keep that in mind.
:)
If you're interested in learning more about how fundamentalist Christians really think creation took place, may I recommend the book "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science" by Henry Morris. It very clearly explains why many Christians consider the theory of evolution to be absurd.
I really was referring to the 'Big Bang' idea that pervades evolution: that everything exploded into existance. This doesn't seem plausible to me. The amount of organization that exists in just a cell of human tissue is incomprehendable. Just trying to clarify my statement :)
Here is the rub: the scientists' beliefs are better. I can't really put it any other way, and I'm not willing to succumb to the popular weakness of accepting all beliefs as being equally valid. I'm an engineer --- and I see a world around me that exists because of the power of science.
First off, did you read my fourth paragraph at all? Sure, you're not as abrasive as the person that says 'you're an idiot if you don't believe _____,' but what you're saying is essentially the same thing.
Secondly, I was not intending to use the term 'Chritian scientist' to refer to the 'Christian Science' movement, but rather to a Scientist who is a Christian.
Lastly, when you say "Science is predicated on a belief that the scientific method is valid," are you saying that science assumes that all things can be proven using the scientific meathod? If so, then how can science be seen as any more valid than the Fundamentalists viewpoint of Biblical infalibility?
I'm trying to be as in-abrasive as possible, but your statements seem to contradict each other from my point of view.