I'd agree that matriarchal societies are in the minority but I world not say they are rare.
Pharaohs of Egypt have been female, Cleopatra the most famous. Other leaders previously thought to have been male are now discovered to actually be female.
Since modern history was rewritten by Christians who are predominately patriarchal, the assumption was that these leaders were all male. Only when other evidence presented itself (in Cleopatras case the well documented relationship with Anthony) would they write them to be female. The other alternative of course is that Anthony and Cleopatra were gay males, but in the view of these Christian writers the only thing more anti-god than a female in power was a gay male in power.
In Genesis 1:5, he called the light day and the dark night. So then how is it a period of time?
That was on the first "day". Yet the earth wasn't created until the third day so how could the first and second days be 24 hour periods as we understand them? And as you say the sun wasn't created until the fourth day so again how could days one thru three be referencing 24 hours?
I would disagree with you completely on the point of astrophysics and Genesis agreeing on creation. The "day age" theory doesn't hold water because the plants were created on day three and the sun wasn't created until day four.
Sure it does.
And the earth was without form and void - After the big bang, everything was just hot gas. It had no form, and as essentially uniform throughout the expanding universe(no void)
And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters - Once the universe expanded enough, the gas stated to coalesce into dust clouds, stars and solid objects.
Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear - The molten earth started to cool and form solid ground. Enough water was captured from asteroid bombardment to make seas.
Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth" - Plants would have to come first as there was no oxygen for animal life on a primitive earth. Just mostly nitrogen and carbon dioxide (like Venus).
Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years - As the plants change the atmosphere it switches from opaque to transparent, allowing clear view of the stars and moon (the lights)
Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven - Sea life would have happened first. Not sure about the birds. Maybe the very first birds came from sea life - flippers turned into wings for instance (think of a penguin)
Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind - Then land animals evolved
Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness - Then man, last of all
Fits perfectly with accepted planetary formation theory.
Incidentally who is the "us" referred to in Genesis 1:26? If this is literal, then there is more than one god?
I've got no problem with Genesis but I don't believe "day" means 24 hours in the context it is written in. Why? First of all, English wasn't yet invented, so "day" is now a translation through several different languages.
It is this "translation of a translation " problem that means you can take nothing in the bible at face value. For instance "spare the rod, spoil the child" some people take as justification to beat their children. They interpret 'rod" as a stick. However for shepherds, which is what many people were in the bible, a rod was just used to guide the sheep, not to beat them. The saying really means then if you dont guide your child properly, you spoil them.
Logically "day" then could just refer to an unspecified period of time. In that case astrophysics and Genesis would agree with how creation unfolded, and in my mind makes a lot more sense.
But the dog existed, it didn't evolve from some "pre-dog" animal which evolved from some "pre-pre-dog" creature. The same is true of chickens.
Dog's came from wolves. That's been genetically proven. And many animals have gone extinct during the time of man. Wooly Mammoth for instance.
As for belief in God and belief in evolution being exclusive, I will agree that you can believe in both. However, you MUST believe that God created the heaven and the earth and all things in it. If you dismiss the first chapters of Genesis as being fiction, then you MUST dismiss the entire Bible as being fiction.
Why? Jesus told a lot of parables to get his point across. None of these were meant to be taken literally.
If the first chicken egg came from say a family of turtles then yes I'd have to agree with you. However slight genetic variations that characterize evolution are just that -slight and over a long period of time. The first chicken would of had to have bred with the slightly non-chicken that it's parents were. Since changes are only slight then this breeding would have been viable. If the genetic change was useful then likely the decendants at some point would be chickens too, not a blend. Eventually there would be enough chickens that the slight non-chicken ancestor would just die out.
Think of it this way: If a person with red hair has children with someone with brown hair, the children won't have colour averaged hair - they will be red or brown. And the brown haired child may have red haired children as he now carries that genetic information from the parent.
Also, you seem to think that belief in evolution prevents a belief in God. This is not true. A majority of people worldwide (yes Christians included) believe in both.
I would counter that with bridges are built better because the engineers involved don't get half way across then go "I know what would be cool to put in! A loop!" and proceed to start building a loop without telling anyone and no clear requirement for one.
Or a new engineer on that bridge doesn't look at the work of his predecessor and go "what a pile of crap!" and proceed to rewrite it despite it being complete and functioning properly.
Breakeven point was achieved in england a while ago and was even featured in slashdot. mind you, that's years ago.
You're talking about JET (I was there in 1998). It's too small to continuously hold a stable reaction for long and as far as I know they've only achieved a fusion Q of 65% which means they were still pumping more energy into it than getting out.
That's still a record and a significant achievement, but ITER will be the first to break even.
Can you cite a reference to back up your statement?
It is a bit like referring to the remarks of Condoleeza Rice on matters of national security today as being simply those of "one moronic U.S. bureaucrat".
But she is a moronic U.S. bureaucrat.:-)
Seriously, just because you've been appointed to a position of power doesn't mean you are competent or should even be there. Recent case in point is Michael Brown, the former head of FEMA. If Katrina hadn't come along to expose this guys colossal incompetence then he'd probably be still there collecting a nice big public funded paycheque.
They claimed nuclear power would make electricity "too cheap to meter". I'm wondering what claims they're making for fusion that will turn out to be completely bogus?
The "they" you are talking about was one moronic U.S. bureaucrat: From the Canadian Nuclear FAQ:
It is a common perception that early nuclear power proponents boasted of electricity from nuclear reactors becoming "too cheap to meter" in the near future. In fact, while nuclear reactors have become one of the cheapest large-scale options for base-load electricity, it was never the expectation of earlier nuclear engineers that costs would come down low enough to render metering irrelevant.
In fact, the oft-quoted prediction, "too cheap to meter", was made in 1954 by an American bureaucrat, Lewis Strauss, in a speech that very much reflects the public's post-war euphoria over nuclear technology (and technology in general), galvanized by President Eisenhower's vaunted "Atoms for Peace" program launched in December 1953. Strauss' comments predated the first nuclear power plants by three years, and included other optimistic references to wiping out world hunger and extending human life expectancy.
That sounds like a CE program, not a CS program. When someone says "programming", I don't think "computer engineering", but maybe I'm just off-base.
It is a CE program. But I would expect that and more from CS (since I had to learn hardware, electrical and controls in addition to the above).
What's the point of just learning a language without learning how to apply it? That's like learning all the vocabulary of a spoken language but not the grammar. You don't know how to use what you've learned.
I'm all for teaching using practical applications that require integrating a grreat deal of different areas of knowledge, but I think that there is a bit of bashing of CS students on the basis of matteres that are really more related to engineering than the what CS is really about.
In not sure what you are trying to say. Good questions but there was nothing on that site that wasn't covered at some point in my computer engineering curriculum.
You make me sad, I never got assigned to do any of these cool projects. Do programs like this still exist?
Yes, faculty of Engineering University of Waterloo. The program is not unique though, there should be plenty of good schools that teach that sort of thing.
Wow that is scary. No wonder I can't find programmers that know how to do anything in an embedded environment without a button marked 'run'.
By the time I graduated 10 years ago, we had to (among other things):
- write a real time multi-tasking OS with a non trivial application for a Motorola 68K processor in C/asm
- write a compiler for a given language (their own unique language)
- write a real time multi-process application to control a PBX in C
- write a real time application to control a physical robot
None of these used an IDE, and nowhere was a language ever taught (except Prolog) - it was expected you learn the languages yourself as it was the application that was important to the class.
The complier course especially gave great insight as to what a compiler really does. The quality of my code improved immensely once I learned what the compiler really does with the code.
IDEs come and go. If you are teaching a language, then give them an environment that doesn't hide anything of the language from them. It could be an IDE if its minimal, or it could be just text. Better yet let them choose whatever they want, but give them problems that the IDE can't help them with.
the doctor is going to figure that he needs $450.00/hr to break even, that's Malpractice insurance (probably a third of the fee), his salary, staff's salary, depreciation on capital assets, and building and utilities;
so 125.00 * 80% ( what your insurance calls "usual and customary fee")= $100.00/450/hr =.22 hr * 60 min = 13 minute office call. In my last office call, the Dr. charged 125.00 + 37.50 , I paid a $25.00 copay, the insurance paid $37.50 + 15.00 and Dr wrote-off $85.00; then AFLAK send me a check for $25.00 because I got preventative treatment, a flu shot!
Last fall I walked into a clinic without an appointment for my flu shot. Waited 5 minutes, got my shot and never had to pay a nickel.
Course I live in Canada and we have universal heath care.
What's wrong is people like yourself who continually insist that others bear the burden for her. People get sick. They die. There is not an inherent right to have your illnesses cured because they are heartbreaking.
So justify it. And do so without emotionally charged arguments, because we all know it is a terrible thing when a loved one gets cancer. That fact has nothing whatsoever to do with forcing me to pay for her care.
That's cold. I guess you haven't heard of a term called 'social responsibility'.
So with that attitude, we shouldn't be spending funds on people when they get into car accidents, need medical care for disabilities or even complications from childbirth. If they survive on their own then great, otherwise well thanks for trying.
Your 'leave them to the wolves' attitude is disgusting.
I honestly cannot understand why anyone would want to do their own maintenance, on a modern car anyway.
I own a Mazda Tribute with 120K Km and have opened the hood maybe twice, and that was to put windshield fluid in it. I take it back to the dealer on schedule (works out to average $70 per visit, two visits per year) and they take care of everything.
If I tried to do it myself. with the cost of tools and a pessimistic $50/h that I value my time at, it would cost me more to do it myself. I'd much rather be doing something more valuable with my spare time.
And trust me, Quebec is better off without you. Americans enjoy coming here, contrary to English Canadians who'd rather see the French culture wiped off the North American map
What a crock of shit. This is simply a lie propagated by separatist assholes who try to justify their increasingly sorry and irrelevant existence. It's not the French culture we hate, its just these whining lying separatists that have to go.
Going from 40 - 70% power output is fairly safe but operating outside that range can become vary dangerous vary quickly. This becomes vary extreme when working at the extremes aka 0-10% and 90+%.
Not sure where you get this belief from. Are you mixing up capacity factor will percentage power output? Capacity factor is the power output as a function of theoretical output. For reactors this is lower than 100% due to downtime, not throttling down. 60% is the crude break even point for nuclear vs. coal. CANDU reactors typically achieve 85% or more of the rated capacity - among the highest of any power generating source. As for power output, when running the reactors typically run at 100%. Not sure why you think that's dangerous.
With that argument you can't replace fossil fuel with nuclear as it can't adapt to rapidly changing energy demand's
Why not? You do realize that a nuclear reactor doesn't just magically pump electricity into the grid? A nuclear reactor just boils water to generate steam to turn a turbine. You can either throttle down the reaction or you can take some of the turbines offline. Either way, you can meet some varying energy demands, although I agree it is not as flexible as say a fossil fuel based generator plant.
as I said in the later part of my post you can STORE ENERGY.
Ah yes. these wonderful batteries that can store the energy demands of an entire city yet can't drive an electric car father than 100 miles. There has to be a lot more advancement in battery technology before storage to the scale like you are suggesting becomes viable.
Coal is only 50% of our power right now and it's a long way from running out so it's not really an issue.
Running out is not the issue with coal (although estimates are there are only 50 years of reserves), it's the pollution. Emissions from coal plants kill 22000 people each year in the U.S. alone, and costs society billions in health care dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
Pharaohs of Egypt have been female, Cleopatra the most famous. Other leaders previously thought to have been male are now discovered to actually be female.
Since modern history was rewritten by Christians who are predominately patriarchal, the assumption was that these leaders were all male. Only when other evidence presented itself (in Cleopatras case the well documented relationship with Anthony) would they write them to be female. The other alternative of course is that Anthony and Cleopatra were gay males, but in the view of these Christian writers the only thing more anti-god than a female in power was a gay male in power.
And the earth was without form and void - After the big bang, everything was just hot gas. It had no form, and as essentially uniform throughout the expanding universe(no void)
And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters - Once the universe expanded enough, the gas stated to coalesce into dust clouds, stars and solid objects.
Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear - The molten earth started to cool and form solid ground. Enough water was captured from asteroid bombardment to make seas.
Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth" - Plants would have to come first as there was no oxygen for animal life on a primitive earth. Just mostly nitrogen and carbon dioxide (like Venus).
Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years - As the plants change the atmosphere it switches from opaque to transparent, allowing clear view of the stars and moon (the lights)
Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven - Sea life would have happened first. Not sure about the birds. Maybe the very first birds came from sea life - flippers turned into wings for instance (think of a penguin)
Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind - Then land animals evolved
Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness - Then man, last of all
Fits perfectly with accepted planetary formation theory.
Incidentally who is the "us" referred to in Genesis 1:26? If this is literal, then there is more than one god?
It is this "translation of a translation " problem that means you can take nothing in the bible at face value. For instance "spare the rod, spoil the child" some people take as justification to beat their children. They interpret 'rod" as a stick. However for shepherds, which is what many people were in the bible, a rod was just used to guide the sheep, not to beat them. The saying really means then if you dont guide your child properly, you spoil them.
Logically "day" then could just refer to an unspecified period of time. In that case astrophysics and Genesis would agree with how creation unfolded, and in my mind makes a lot more sense.
So if you take it literally then you dont eat pork nor touch a woman while she is menstruating because she is unclean?
Yea, but you came up with the wrong answer.
Think of it this way: If a person with red hair has children with someone with brown hair, the children won't have colour averaged hair - they will be red or brown. And the brown haired child may have red haired children as he now carries that genetic information from the parent.
Also, you seem to think that belief in evolution prevents a belief in God. This is not true. A majority of people worldwide (yes Christians included) believe in both.
Or a new engineer on that bridge doesn't look at the work of his predecessor and go "what a pile of crap!" and proceed to rewrite it despite it being complete and functioning properly.
yea, an invisible tank is great until you get out and forget where it's parked.
That's still a record and a significant achievement, but ITER will be the first to break even.
Can you cite a reference to back up your statement?
Seriously, just because you've been appointed to a position of power doesn't mean you are competent or should even be there. Recent case in point is Michael Brown, the former head of FEMA. If Katrina hadn't come along to expose this guys colossal incompetence then he'd probably be still there collecting a nice big public funded paycheque.
I don't think so. The scale of ITER was chosen specifically so it would break even in terms of energy in vs. energy out.
It is a common perception that early nuclear power proponents boasted of electricity from nuclear reactors becoming "too cheap to meter" in the near future. In fact, while nuclear reactors have become one of the cheapest large-scale options for base-load electricity, it was never the expectation of earlier nuclear engineers that costs would come down low enough to render metering irrelevant.
In fact, the oft-quoted prediction, "too cheap to meter", was made in 1954 by an American bureaucrat, Lewis Strauss, in a speech that very much reflects the public's post-war euphoria over nuclear technology (and technology in general), galvanized by President Eisenhower's vaunted "Atoms for Peace" program launched in December 1953. Strauss' comments predated the first nuclear power plants by three years, and included other optimistic references to wiping out world hunger and extending human life expectancy.
What's the point of just learning a language without learning how to apply it? That's like learning all the vocabulary of a spoken language but not the grammar. You don't know how to use what you've learned.
By the time I graduated 10 years ago, we had to (among other things):
- write a real time multi-tasking OS with a non trivial application for a Motorola 68K processor in C/asm
- write a compiler for a given language (their own unique language)
- write a real time multi-process application to control a PBX in C
- write a real time application to control a physical robot
None of these used an IDE, and nowhere was a language ever taught (except Prolog) - it was expected you learn the languages yourself as it was the application that was important to the class.
The complier course especially gave great insight as to what a compiler really does. The quality of my code improved immensely once I learned what the compiler really does with the code.
IDEs come and go. If you are teaching a language, then give them an environment that doesn't hide anything of the language from them. It could be an IDE if its minimal, or it could be just text. Better yet let them choose whatever they want, but give them problems that the IDE can't help them with.
Naw, too complicated. They're either more advanced or less. Two choices - 50/50.
Course I live in Canada and we have universal heath care.
So with that attitude, we shouldn't be spending funds on people when they get into car accidents, need medical care for disabilities or even complications from childbirth. If they survive on their own then great, otherwise well thanks for trying.
Your 'leave them to the wolves' attitude is disgusting.
I own a Mazda Tribute with 120K Km and have opened the hood maybe twice, and that was to put windshield fluid in it. I take it back to the dealer on schedule (works out to average $70 per visit, two visits per year) and they take care of everything.
If I tried to do it myself. with the cost of tools and a pessimistic $50/h that I value my time at, it would cost me more to do it myself. I'd much rather be doing something more valuable with my spare time.