Give me a 20 gigabyte + PDA, with media quality and feature ease of use on par with the ipod, with an 8 hour plus batter life at the same price as todays ipod and i, and i suspect many others, would buy it in a second.
Simply put, PDA's lack the battery life and storage capabilities of the ipod.
This relates to all portable devices with the exception of the ipod. Manufacturers keep adding more and more powerhungry and ill devised features to PDA' and Phones like video playback and camera support but always fail in two aspects:
The initial quality of the feature developed is horrible They forget to upgrade the systems which these features need to be avaliable, which means phone and PDA hardware.
The problem is space, no more no less, all this media, includeing thousands of songs, takes space, and consumers are not happy that they have to buy seperate memory for their device which is inferior to the built in memory of the ipod 20 fold.
Take one of my family member for example, who recently bought a $400 camera, but in the process noticed that an increaseing amount of digital cameras do not include out of the box memory. Where was the marketing team on that decision. Surely they think if the dont include memory, consumers will be inclined to buy seperate memory, but what they forget is that consumers have the choice of the one with or without memory. The choice is clear.
So to make it clear: PDA's fail because they have the features (poorly developed) but not the infrastructure.
Give me a PocketPC PDA, with an IBM or Toshiba 20 gig microdrive, with a battery that not only promises but actually has an 8 hour+ basttery life in media playback, with the same price as the ipod and i would litteraly trash my ipod and buy it right now.
But why are things the way that are?
I suspect a features race between PDA's phones and media playback devices has left PDA's mortally wounded. I suspect marketing kept pushing for more features, not better features, and never gave one ounce of their time to the engenieers crying out in horror at the strain being put on backward technology, only to realise their jobs redundancy and a lack of demand from a detached marketing department for better hardware.
Of course it may be a subject of the limits of todays technology, but again, not enough work is being put on the desks of hardware developers to make better storage and battery devices. Instead all the work is landing on the desks of software developers who lie awake at night, and pull out their hair, knowing full well they cannot possibly write a fully functional feature set with such hardware constraints.
Consumers arnt stupid, esspecially when the average teenager has limited funds, and has to make every cent count. Consumers know the PDA only has 32 meg out of the box, and the similar priced ipod has 60,000 meg.
Give me a 20 gig+, 8 hour+ battery (music playback), and fully developed programs (that means everything from a better UI to more effeciency) on a PDA for the same price as an ipod.
Another great example is phones, where half asses features like camera's and operating system features (video, music) are more focused on than actually making a better fucking phone. I say work on the technology until its perfected, then implement these powerhungry features once the phone itself has been perfected.
That's surprising, i live in Australia, on the East cost and we hear about it quite often, recently the large headlines have been
Australian Government to Vaccinate Population by 2007 Major vaccine producers run out of vaccine, due to massive buy ups from the government and increased strain from individuals. New batches of vaccine not expected until November Share Price of Producing companies skyrockets. Our health minister also unveiled a plan of quarantine if or more when there is an outbreak.
"If it is just us, it seems like and awful waste of space"
Increasingly complex molecules competed for energy and material to form larger and more sustainable molecules. The molecules that arranged themselves by chance to absorb the most energy and strongest structure surivied the longest, and this process continued until basic structures combined in a symbiotic relationship that would help sustain the period of those structures existance. This process continues until basic cell structures formed, and again combined by chance to form larger structures. Eventually the strongest and most energy effecient structure was developed by chance through the process of natural selection until we had basic repoductive structures. Mutations which led to longer life and thus more chance of reproduction continued until movement and adaption were constituents, from there entire structures began to work together to from basic cells, which over time developed processes for reproduction and survival through chance combination and mutation. Cells began to grow in complexity in a bid for survival, by chance some began working together to form multicellular groups, which became organisms with adaption relative to the abilities of each cell, then came encoded cellular variation to ensure multicellular groups continued to form by precedence. Over much time increased numbers of simple structures combined to form larger and more complex structures witht he ability for their own kenetic movement beyond growth, because of the natural selection of moveable multicellular organisms made them more adaptable then others and thus more likely to reproduce. Eventually all sorts of mutation and chance combination occured which would lead to ever more complex structures with better adaptability till the first regonizable biological systems formed. From there we have basic sea life and countless steps later down the evolution chain, human beings.
Of course, it might be out of order, and one would have to know that the time this would take would be immense.
For those who make the chance argument, stateing that such complex structures canot possibly arise by chance i say:
Look at the size of the universe, there must be at least 125 billion galaxies, each with roughly 100 billion stars, each with the possibility of terrestrial planetoids, each with a massive surface area with plenty or energy and materials for the possibility of forming the molecular strutuces by chance that are a prelude to life. Then take that number, and times it by the age of most galaxies.....All of a sudden the chance doesnt seem so small.
As for complexities, whos to say life is complex, its equally possible that life is mearly countless basic systems working symbiotically for the goal of survival and reproduction. I give the cargo cult as ana example: In World War 2 several tribes worshiped American cargo planes because the ability and complexities of human flight were so vast to them that the cargo planes could only be explained as items of a supernatural nature. It never appeared to them that these planes were not godly and no complex beyond their understanding, such is a cargo plane simply a number of systems discovered by humans by chance working in parrallel.
As for thurther complexity: If life is so complex that the possibility of chance is so small, then how does one explain oru manipulation of life, for example insulin producing bacteria, or the mapping of the genome. How does one explain the evolution and appearance of new viruses and bacterial strains by chance.
Life is beautiful, it is wonderous and magestic, but it is not beyond our understanding. It arose by chance, it's growth is determined by evolution and it is not complex. It just appears that way to some.
I always think, that maybe the reason ID and creationalists fight progress and science is they think that discovery is taking the magic and beauty away from life. But instead, what they dont realise, is that all it is doing it disc
"If it is just us, it seems like and awful waste of space" - Carl Sagan
Increasingly complex molecules competed for energy and material to form larger and more sustainable molecules. The molecules that arranged themselves by chance to absorb the most energy and strongest structure surivied the longest, and this process continued until basic structures combined in a symbiotic relationship that would help sustain the period of those structures existance. This process continues until basic cell structures formed, and again combined by chance to form larger structures. Eventually the strongest and most energy effecient structure was developed by chance through the process of natural selection until we had basic repoductive structures. Mutations which led to longer life and thus more chance of reproduction continued until movement and adaption were constituents, from there entire structures began to work together to from basic cells, which over time developed processes for reproduction and survival through chance combination and mutation. Cells began to grow in complexity in a bid for survival, by chance some began working together to form multicellular groups, which became organisms with adaption relative to the abilities of each cell, then came encoded cellular variation to ensure multicellular groups continued to form by precedence. Over much time increased numbers of simple structures combined to form larger and more complex structures witht he ability for their own kenetic movement beyond growth, because of the natural selection of moveable multicellular organisms made them more adaptable then others and thus more likely to reproduce. Eventually all sorts of mutation and chance combination occured which would lead to ever more complex structures with better adaptability till the first regonizable biological systems formed. From there we have basic sea life and countless steps later down the evolution chain, human beings.
Of course, it might be out of order, and one would have to know that the time this would take would be immense.
For those who make the chance argument, stateing that such complex structures canot possibly arise by chance i say:
Look at the size of the universe, there must be at least 125 billion galaxies, each with roughly 100 billion stars, each with the possibility of terrestrial planetoids, each with a massive surface area with plenty or energy and materials for the possibility of forming the molecular strutuces by chance that are a prelude to life. Then take that number, and times it by the age of most galaxies.....All of a sudden the chance doesnt seem so small.
As for complexities, whos to say life is complex, its equally possible that life is mearly countless basic systems working symbiotically for the goal of survival and reproduction. I give the cargo cult as ana example: In World War 2 several tribes worshiped American cargo planes because the ability and complexities of human flight were so vast to them that the cargo planes could only be explained as items of a supernatural nature. It never appeared to them that these planes were not godly and no complex beyond their understanding, such is a cargo plane simply a number of systems discovered by humans by chance working in parrallel.
As for thurther complexity: If life is so complex that the possibility of chance is so small, then how does one explain oru manipulation of life, for example insulin producing bacteria, or the mapping of the genome. How does one explain the evolution and appearance of new viruses and bacterial strains by chance.
Life is beautiful, it is wonderous and magestic, but it is not beyond our understanding. It arose by chance, it's growth is determined by evolution and it is not complex. It just appears that way to some.
I always think, that maybe the reason ID and creationalists fight progress and science is they think that discovery is taking the magic and beauty away from life. But instead, what they dont realise, is that all it is doing it discovering more beautiful and wonderous details. We are not finding ans
I never suggested that the enviroment neccisary for life would be common, i mearly stated that given the scope of the universe it is probable that many systems like ours could exist. Of course, given lifes adaptability, it is ignorant to assume that the environment here is the one specifically needed for life. for instance we have already seen life in cave that never see light, and entire ecosystems surviving off the heat from volcanic vents.
Life will find a way, and given the scope of the universe, even if such systems were uncommon, as you stated, there would still be numorous possibilities.
some quick math tells me that even if a habitat suitiable for life was 0.1%, there would still be 150000000000000000000 locations in the universe.
0.01% gives 15000000000000000000
both these numbers to me are very nice, but still to optimistic.
Lets just say that solar systems like our own were only.00000001% of the systems in the universe. There would still be 150000000000000 locations close to supporting life.
Of course, all of this remains speculative, and massively over optemistic, until we start reaching for the stars.
But i will continue to say, that given the scope of the universe, the time avaliable and lifes adaptability, I believe life will be a very common occurance throughout the universe, it may just not be in the way of anything that would resemble life to us.
Increasingly complex molecules competed for energy and material to form larger and more sustainable molecules. The molecules that arranged themselves by chance to absorb the most energy and strongest structure surivied the longest, and this process continued until basic structures combined in a symbiotic relationship that would help sustain the period of those structures existance. This process continues until basic cell structures formed, and again combined by chance to form larger structures. Eventually the strongest and most energy effecient structure was developed by chance through the process of natural selection until we had basic repoductive structures. Mutations which led to longer life and thus more chance of reproduction continued until movement and adaption were constituents, from there entire structures began to work together to from basic cells, which over time developed processes for reproduction and survival through chance combination and mutation. Cells began to grow in complexity in a bid for survival, by chance some began working together to form multicellular groups, which became organisms with adaption relative to the abilities of each cell, then came encoded cellular variation to ensure multicellular groups continued to form by precedence. Over much time increased numbers of simple structures combined to form larger and more complex structures witht he ability for their own kenetic movement beyond growth, because of the natural selection of moveable multicellular organisms made them more adaptable then others and thus more likely to reproduce. Eventually all sorts of mutation and chance combination occured which would lead to ever more complex structures with better adaptability till the first regonizable biological systems formed. From there we have basic sea life and countless steps later down the evolution chain, human beings.
Of course, it might be out of order, and one would have to know that the time this would take would be immense.
For those who make the chance argument, stateing that such complex structures canot possibly arise by chance i say:
Look at the size of the universe, there must be at least 125 billion galaxies, each with roughly 100 billion stars, each with the possibility of terrestrial planetoids, each with a massive surface area with plenty or energy and materials for the possibility of forming the molecular strutuces by chance that are a prelude to life. Then take that number, and times it by the age of most galaxies.....All of a sudden the chance doesnt seem so small.
As for complexities, whos to say life is complex, its equally possible that life is mearly countless basic systems working symbiotically for the goal of survival and reproduction. I give the cargo cult as ana example: In World War 2 several tribes worshiped American cargo planes because the ability and complexities of human flight were so vast to them that the cargo planes could only be explained as items of a supernatural nature. It never appeared to them that these planes were not godly and no complex beyond their understanding, such is a cargo plane simply a number of systems discovered by humans by chance working in parrallel.
As for thurther complexity: If life is so complex that the possibility of chance is so small, then how does one explain oru manipulation of life, for example insulin producing bacteria, or the mapping of the genome. How does one explain the evolution and appearance of new viruses and bacterial strains by chance.
Life is beautiful, it is wonderous and magestic, but it is not beyond our understanding. It arose by chance, it's growth is determined by evolution and it is not complex. It just appears that way to some.
I always think, that maybe the reason ID and creationalists fight progress and science is they think that discovery is taking the magic and beauty away from life. But instead, what they dont realise, is that all it is doing it discovering more beautiful and wonderous details. We are not finding answers, only more questions. We are giving power to ourselves and whatever purpose we serve. There is no need to be afraid, no need to be ignorant, only a need to be open to the wonders that surround us and fuel the need for discovery that comes with conscienceness.
I will warrant the dangers of Fission only to a degree, it is still the cleanest "practical" energy source we have avaliable and pebble bed reactors are incredibly safe.
As for the dangers of fusion..... I make no understatement when i say there are none. Other then the incredible heat at the centre of the reactor there is only sufficient fuel for a few milliseconds of fusion. Unless you are planning to check out what inside one while its operational there really are no saftly risks. Just keep a safe distance and in the event of a malfunction wiat for the reactor to cool down once the fuel has run out.
Microsoft acts like a business, talkes like a business, even tastes like a business, but most of us expect it to be something else.
Microsoft.....a business, noooo....Your lieing.
I will probably get Troll for this, but im sick of a fair portion of people on slashdot using words so strong as hate for a company, and always expecting a multinational corperation to act like something other then a business in a market economy.
I'll get troll for this, and it has been said before. But people....Microsoft is a business, a cold heartless business but a business none the less, save your hate for those you have hurt you dearly, for microsoft use the power of being a consumer...and dont spout monopoly because we all know linux has viable alterantives for most of their programs.
It's a harsh reality, i know, and i know someone here will have an allwise +5 insightful and witty comeback....but its just life.
To cave men a modern car would look so complex it would have to be made by a devine being.
In World War 2 when cargo aircraft were flying over pacific islands many of the primal natives developed the idea that these planes were huge bird gods.
There are many imaginative situations when technology and structure astounds us, and for some so much so to the point that they believe it is magic or work of a higher being.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ~Arthur C. Clarke
It is these type of thoughts that sloq progress and fuel ignorance.
Just because something appears complex now does not mean that it is the creation of a devine being, as human technologies have evolved, it is possible to see that biology haveing several hundred million years to perfect itself would have come to an outcome we see now.
Understanting the world around us is part of our purpose, complexity is no evidence of the existance of a god because complexity is realative to the technological context of the time.
It's funny and sad to see all my fellow Australian's making referance to their, 1 of 7, states but use of geography or landmarks such as major cities.
eg
I come from New South Wales, that state with Sydney in it.....You know, the one that held the 2000 Olympic games......no not Greece.....Australia, the big landmass in the southern hemisphere.
Oh for gods sake, we are 12049 km's South West of America.
Whats sad about it is that many of our international friends have very simple and sterotypical views and limited knowlege of our wonderful country.
Sure we are happy and very friendly people, but let me give you a hint. Koalas live in the wilderness, they are not poisonous, and many of us only see them in Zoos. There is no such thing as drop bears, i could count on my fingers, if i done the research, the people that have wrestled a crocodile and survived. The largest possible majority of the population lives on the southern seaboard in major cities and works in service industries such as accounting and management.
And most of all we DO NOT drink Fosters.
Alas, we are friendly, but dont be suprised when you step off your international flight and find yourself in a jungle of 3 million people surrounded with sky-scrapers rather then wild animals, because the best most of us see of nature is our front lawn and maybe our pet dog or cat.
The subject does not need back and forth debate. It needs common sense.
The bombs were needed and if you think otherwise you are wrong.
And i think statistical and physical data is much more useful as evidence then the possibility of a possible Japanese surrender on some intelligence officers desk.
I want to know if there are any Japanese in here and whether or not they believe that the bombing was the right thing to do.
Of course One persons opinion differ from anothers no matter the nationality so i dont want to make a generalisation, but i think the comment of a Japenese persons opinion on whether the bombings were necissary could add extra depth to the discussion.
Personally, im smart enough to know that we chose, tragically, the lesser of two evils.
So. If you are Japanese, do you accept that the bombings were the correct course of action for the time?
Right, so you would say that because of a secondary source from some amature historians on a cable channel you have the authority to say the bombing was not needed.
Frankly I think the evidence of suicide bombers and no Japanese surrender until after 2 bombings and a decralation of war by Russia is good enough evidence to say that the bombings were needed.
And if you are such a history buff you might have realised that many of Japans fanatical generals were ready to dig in for an invasion because of a profound religious belief that Japan was a land that could survive any storm.
And frankly, no matter what picture who want to paint of america at the time, i STRONGLY doupt that Truman and the military would authorise the bombings if they had clear cut evidence of an imminent surrender.
You were right about surrendering, but the problem was not physical communication, the connection between he Emperor and the militaries generals had been severed psychologically and neither were responsive to pleas by the US for surrender, the Japanese military had committed itself to a very literal suicide mission. Infact the Japanese military even use propaganda to ready Japanese people for a war on their home soil. How can you say a communication problem was the cause of word of surrender not getting through? Surly the Japanese would be able to call a cease fire as quickly as they did before the bombs were dropped, it only require a radio communication with American forces to announce a cease fire.
Even so, as you yourself stated Allied forces did not know that Japanese forces were "supposedly" going to surrender so to them dropping the bomb was at the time the best course of action. Its hard to look back and say American shouldn't have dropped the bomb because Japan was supposedly going to surrender....oh and America didn't know, but they should have known...somehow.
You must remember the announcement of Russia declaration of war came only after the two bombs had been dropped.
Japan was not going to surrender, they were willing to literally die for their cause and with that there came a realisation that anything other then a practical demonstration of military power in the form of a nuclear bomb would mean the loss of many many lives on all sides, and even worse, the possible occupation of Japan by soviet forces.
Frankly, it isn't proud Americans as you would put it, but common sense. I wont deny what happened was a tragedy but if you would have had millions die in a land invasion, that's your choice, but frankly I was happy the war ended without that.
Everyone has heard this a million times but i fear one more time cannot hurt.
Is it possible that science is not a situation of thought contradictory to religion but merely something which adds weight to the beauty of the universe. People like to separate the two thought the ideals of scepticism, as such they like to rule that religion and science differ on the basis that one is sceptical and one already has the answers, or does not condone scepticism.
I feel personally that this is the wrong train if thought, and that we must come back to the absolute basics of intelligence. By this i mean that all possible theorists should themselves be seen as evidence for a point of view that EACH individual has to decide their own feelings on.
To me, I don't so much believe in the "Theory of Evolution" as i myself have gathered evidence from the original theory, and evidence that supports it and have decided to postulate my own set of beliefs on the origin and changes of life. In a way it is exactly like that of evolution but to me it is my own belief forged from the evidence and theories of others.
For you, not believing in evolution or the others is based upon a variation of this principal. What I think you have failed to do correctly is give evidence from different thought bases the correct amount of weighting. Very much like the debate of global warming as it is viewed by the media: i.e., evidence against global warming is given equal weighting in documentation rather then simple a side note, even though scientists who believe in global warming far outnumber those who don't, especially when evidence for the argument is much more profound then evidence which opposes it.
Frankly, evolution is a name for a train of thought that many people believe, but i would hope that all of those, including anyone who has different beliefs on a subject has given the correct weighting to evidence and formulated their own ideas rather then adopting those of leader figures or scientists.
Even science is sceptical of itself and that is the nature of it. Sure there are pieces that don't fit into the current theory, but that doesn't mean it is wrong, it simply means that it remains a theory for adoption and revisionment as new data and evidence is uncovered.
All things said and done the only evidence i need to make my own decision is a very practical piece of evidence, one that is becoming an increasingly large problem for the medical world. That evidence is in new bacteria that has become resistant thought some means to our treatments, I like to call this means "evolution" in terms with its classical meaning, and I don't see any problem with applying it to the larger scale of life on our planet.
You cant say that you don't buy the arguments for evolution simple because there are opposing arguments, simply because in any argument certain points have a much larger impact then others. And quite frankly, if each theory had 10 dot points of proof on a white paper i would not sit and say "because they all have a conflicting number of arguments i will not accept any line of thought" i would instead consider each point of evidence and weight it against its opposition.
Right now, without a doubt, evolution has the largest and most profound evidence supporting it. There are exceptions that are taken under the wing of other institutions of thought, but it is in science that a theory exists solely for the purpose to allow changes in itself.
The reason theories like "God did it" don't work, is because they are not open to scepticism like evolution is. It is time for people to stop weighing evidence on both sides of the fence equally, and it is time for people with opposing theories to stop contradicting each other and instead look at their own thoughts and ask themselves why their belief does not account for it. For evolution as a theory this is not hard, but for people who believe in the fantasy tales of the bible they run into a brick wall, because instead of reaching a mid point of acceptanc
Its Japan right, why all the project design and implementation when they can walk down to the local electronic store and pick up a few Playstation 3's?
Without th development of the Nuclear bomb i believe the second world war would have have eventually been won by allied forces regardless, the only difference the bomb made was the way on which it was won.
In that VE day in europe would still have occured on the same day and in the same manner, but from a pacific perspective things would be very different.
It is possibile that allied forces namely Australian and majorly American/Soviet forces would have eventually overwhelmed Japanese forces and quite a few possibilities arrise: The japanese were in a state of mind that made them come to suicide to defeat their own enimies and on part of the bombs use it caused them to loose that state of mind through sheer terror.
Without the use of the bomb 3 possibilites arrise: With continued fire bombing and a grim outlook the japanese would eventually surrender just as they did, but it would have taken longer, and cost more japanese lives. Or a invasion could have begun on part of allied forces in which the other two possibilites occur: That japan is totally occupied by soviet and american forces creating a east-west europe style terratorial oganisation for the mid pacific or (and this is less likely) the suicidal tendancies of the japanese soldiers and casualties in the possible 10's to 100's of millions on both sides might have forced allied forces and japan into a deadlock in which the civilian casualties and military casualties far outweighed any thurther need for military action, and i say ths is unlikely because the soviet union just as it showed in the european theater quite possibily would have pushed on regaurdless.
In two ways the moral implications for making the nuclear and its subsiquent use can be justified: 1. The bomb would have eventually been made anyway as is the sad truth and infact it would have eventually been used. On this part the use of the bomb as it was or its hypothetical use in a reality where is was not initially used on japan offered humanity with a deep realisation of our path, and i strong believe that the use of the bomb and its bad publicity imbued on every subsequent generation has forced somewhat of a buffer on the minds of at least much of wester society. In other words, it taught us a lesson that in some way helped us avert the disaster which could have been the cold war. 2. More practically speaking either through continued bombings or a major invasion, without the use of the two bombs many more lives would have been lost to what goes down as the most devestating and exponential war man-kind has ever seen.
Let us also not forget that disreguarding the horrific dark side of nuclear technologies much of the research that was done throughout World war 2 helped in some way to accelerate our technological progress and riase the standard of liveing for the majority of man-kind in large and small ways. It is no justification to our morals, but combined with the defeat of "evil" and the subseqent eventual peace between democracies i doupt anyone would feel the need to say World War two was not justified on the allied part. And as is the nature of the universe the evil was eventuallu destroyed and it trully showed both the best and worst in humanity, and what many fail to realise is that World War 2 showed that the good in humanity can outweight the bad.
Without the bomb, more people would have died, and the relative peace that, arguably, ensues the worlds Western population could not be guarenteed.
But to gain money in a capitalist economy you must first find acknowledgement in society for a good product.
Something doesnt sell, it it isnt good and thus by makeing money they are providing proof of doing something right, which thus deserves respect.
Try gainin respect in a capitalist economy as a company which makes products no one uses. It's as hard as it sounds.
Slashdot Mirror
Give me a 20 gigabyte + PDA, with media quality and feature ease of use on par with the ipod, with an 8 hour plus batter life at the same price as todays ipod and i, and i suspect many others, would buy it in a second.
Simply put, PDA's lack the battery life and storage capabilities of the ipod.
This relates to all portable devices with the exception of the ipod. Manufacturers keep adding more and more powerhungry and ill devised features to PDA' and Phones like video playback and camera support but always fail in two aspects:
The initial quality of the feature developed is horrible
They forget to upgrade the systems which these features need to be avaliable, which means phone and PDA hardware.
The problem is space, no more no less, all this media, includeing thousands of songs, takes space, and consumers are not happy that they have to buy seperate memory for their device which is inferior to the built in memory of the ipod 20 fold.
Take one of my family member for example, who recently bought a $400 camera, but in the process noticed that an increaseing amount of digital cameras do not include out of the box memory. Where was the marketing team on that decision. Surely they think if the dont include memory, consumers will be inclined to buy seperate memory, but what they forget is that consumers have the choice of the one with or without memory. The choice is clear.
So to make it clear: PDA's fail because they have the features (poorly developed) but not the infrastructure.
Give me a PocketPC PDA, with an IBM or Toshiba 20 gig microdrive, with a battery that not only promises but actually has an 8 hour+ basttery life in media playback, with the same price as the ipod and i would litteraly trash my ipod and buy it right now.
But why are things the way that are?
I suspect a features race between PDA's phones and media playback devices has left PDA's mortally wounded. I suspect marketing kept pushing for more features, not better features, and never gave one ounce of their time to the engenieers crying out in horror at the strain being put on backward technology, only to realise their jobs redundancy and a lack of demand from a detached marketing department for better hardware.
Of course it may be a subject of the limits of todays technology, but again, not enough work is being put on the desks of hardware developers to make better storage and battery devices. Instead all the work is landing on the desks of software developers who lie awake at night, and pull out their hair, knowing full well they cannot possibly write a fully functional feature set with such hardware constraints.
Consumers arnt stupid, esspecially when the average teenager has limited funds, and has to make every cent count. Consumers know the PDA only has 32 meg out of the box, and the similar priced ipod has 60,000 meg.
Give me a 20 gig+, 8 hour+ battery (music playback), and fully developed programs (that means everything from a better UI to more effeciency) on a PDA for the same price as an ipod.
Another great example is phones, where half asses features like camera's and operating system features (video, music) are more focused on than actually making a better fucking phone. I say work on the technology until its perfected, then implement these powerhungry features once the phone itself has been perfected.
That's surprising, i live in Australia, on the East cost and we hear about it quite often, recently the large headlines have been
Australian Government to Vaccinate Population by 2007
Major vaccine producers run out of vaccine, due to massive buy ups from the government and increased strain from individuals.
New batches of vaccine not expected until November
Share Price of Producing companies skyrockets.
Our health minister also unveiled a plan of quarantine if or more when there is an outbreak.
To paraphrase Carl Sagan:
"If it is just us, it seems like and awful waste of space"
Increasingly complex molecules competed for energy and material to form larger and more sustainable molecules. The molecules that arranged themselves by chance to absorb the most energy and strongest structure surivied the longest, and this process continued until basic structures combined in a symbiotic relationship that would help sustain the period of those structures existance. This process continues until basic cell structures formed, and again combined by chance to form larger structures. Eventually the strongest and most energy effecient structure was developed by chance through the process of natural selection until we had basic repoductive structures. Mutations which led to longer life and thus more chance of reproduction continued until movement and adaption were constituents, from there entire structures began to work together to from basic cells, which over time developed processes for reproduction and survival through chance combination and mutation. Cells began to grow in complexity in a bid for survival, by chance some began working together to form multicellular groups, which became organisms with adaption relative to the abilities of each cell, then came encoded cellular variation to ensure multicellular groups continued to form by precedence. Over much time increased numbers of simple structures combined to form larger and more complex structures witht he ability for their own kenetic movement beyond growth, because of the natural selection of moveable multicellular organisms made them more adaptable then others and thus more likely to reproduce. Eventually all sorts of mutation and chance combination occured which would lead to ever more complex structures with better adaptability till the first regonizable biological systems formed. From there we have basic sea life and countless steps later down the evolution chain, human beings.
Of course, it might be out of order, and one would have to know that the time this would take would be immense.
For those who make the chance argument, stateing that such complex structures canot possibly arise by chance i say:
Look at the size of the universe, there must be at least 125 billion galaxies, each with roughly 100 billion stars, each with the possibility of terrestrial planetoids, each with a massive surface area with plenty or energy and materials for the possibility of forming the molecular strutuces by chance that are a prelude to life. Then take that number, and times it by the age of most galaxies.....All of a sudden the chance doesnt seem so small.
As for complexities, whos to say life is complex, its equally possible that life is mearly countless basic systems working symbiotically for the goal of survival and reproduction. I give the cargo cult as ana example: In World War 2 several tribes worshiped American cargo planes because the ability and complexities of human flight were so vast to them that the cargo planes could only be explained as items of a supernatural nature. It never appeared to them that these planes were not godly and no complex beyond their understanding, such is a cargo plane simply a number of systems discovered by humans by chance working in parrallel.
As for thurther complexity: If life is so complex that the possibility of chance is so small, then how does one explain oru manipulation of life, for example insulin producing bacteria, or the mapping of the genome. How does one explain the evolution and appearance of new viruses and bacterial strains by chance.
Life is beautiful, it is wonderous and magestic, but it is not beyond our understanding. It arose by chance, it's growth is determined by evolution and it is not complex. It just appears that way to some.
I always think, that maybe the reason ID and creationalists fight progress and science is they think that discovery is taking the magic and beauty away from life. But instead, what they dont realise, is that all it is doing it disc
"If it is just us, it seems like and awful waste of space" - Carl Sagan Increasingly complex molecules competed for energy and material to form larger and more sustainable molecules. The molecules that arranged themselves by chance to absorb the most energy and strongest structure surivied the longest, and this process continued until basic structures combined in a symbiotic relationship that would help sustain the period of those structures existance. This process continues until basic cell structures formed, and again combined by chance to form larger structures. Eventually the strongest and most energy effecient structure was developed by chance through the process of natural selection until we had basic repoductive structures. Mutations which led to longer life and thus more chance of reproduction continued until movement and adaption were constituents, from there entire structures began to work together to from basic cells, which over time developed processes for reproduction and survival through chance combination and mutation. Cells began to grow in complexity in a bid for survival, by chance some began working together to form multicellular groups, which became organisms with adaption relative to the abilities of each cell, then came encoded cellular variation to ensure multicellular groups continued to form by precedence. Over much time increased numbers of simple structures combined to form larger and more complex structures witht he ability for their own kenetic movement beyond growth, because of the natural selection of moveable multicellular organisms made them more adaptable then others and thus more likely to reproduce. Eventually all sorts of mutation and chance combination occured which would lead to ever more complex structures with better adaptability till the first regonizable biological systems formed. From there we have basic sea life and countless steps later down the evolution chain, human beings. Of course, it might be out of order, and one would have to know that the time this would take would be immense. For those who make the chance argument, stateing that such complex structures canot possibly arise by chance i say: Look at the size of the universe, there must be at least 125 billion galaxies, each with roughly 100 billion stars, each with the possibility of terrestrial planetoids, each with a massive surface area with plenty or energy and materials for the possibility of forming the molecular strutuces by chance that are a prelude to life. Then take that number, and times it by the age of most galaxies.....All of a sudden the chance doesnt seem so small. As for complexities, whos to say life is complex, its equally possible that life is mearly countless basic systems working symbiotically for the goal of survival and reproduction. I give the cargo cult as ana example: In World War 2 several tribes worshiped American cargo planes because the ability and complexities of human flight were so vast to them that the cargo planes could only be explained as items of a supernatural nature. It never appeared to them that these planes were not godly and no complex beyond their understanding, such is a cargo plane simply a number of systems discovered by humans by chance working in parrallel. As for thurther complexity: If life is so complex that the possibility of chance is so small, then how does one explain oru manipulation of life, for example insulin producing bacteria, or the mapping of the genome. How does one explain the evolution and appearance of new viruses and bacterial strains by chance. Life is beautiful, it is wonderous and magestic, but it is not beyond our understanding. It arose by chance, it's growth is determined by evolution and it is not complex. It just appears that way to some. I always think, that maybe the reason ID and creationalists fight progress and science is they think that discovery is taking the magic and beauty away from life. But instead, what they dont realise, is that all it is doing it discovering more beautiful and wonderous details. We are not finding ans
To add:
To paraphrase Carl Sagan:
"If it is just us, it seems like and awful waste of space"
I never suggested that the enviroment neccisary for life would be common, i mearly stated that given the scope of the universe it is probable that many systems like ours could exist. Of course, given lifes adaptability, it is ignorant to assume that the environment here is the one specifically needed for life. for instance we have already seen life in cave that never see light, and entire ecosystems surviving off the heat from volcanic vents.
.00000001% of the systems in the universe. There would still be 150000000000000 locations close to supporting life.
Life will find a way, and given the scope of the universe, even if such systems were uncommon, as you stated, there would still be numorous possibilities.
some quick math tells me that even if a habitat suitiable for life was 0.1%, there would still be 150000000000000000000 locations in the universe.
0.01% gives 15000000000000000000
both these numbers to me are very nice, but still to optimistic.
Lets just say that solar systems like our own were only
Of course, all of this remains speculative, and massively over optemistic, until we start reaching for the stars.
But i will continue to say, that given the scope of the universe, the time avaliable and lifes adaptability, I believe life will be a very common occurance throughout the universe, it may just not be in the way of anything that would resemble life to us.
Increasingly complex molecules competed for energy and material to form larger and more sustainable molecules. The molecules that arranged themselves by chance to absorb the most energy and strongest structure surivied the longest, and this process continued until basic structures combined in a symbiotic relationship that would help sustain the period of those structures existance. This process continues until basic cell structures formed, and again combined by chance to form larger structures. Eventually the strongest and most energy effecient structure was developed by chance through the process of natural selection until we had basic repoductive structures. Mutations which led to longer life and thus more chance of reproduction continued until movement and adaption were constituents, from there entire structures began to work together to from basic cells, which over time developed processes for reproduction and survival through chance combination and mutation. Cells began to grow in complexity in a bid for survival, by chance some began working together to form multicellular groups, which became organisms with adaption relative to the abilities of each cell, then came encoded cellular variation to ensure multicellular groups continued to form by precedence. Over much time increased numbers of simple structures combined to form larger and more complex structures witht he ability for their own kenetic movement beyond growth, because of the natural selection of moveable multicellular organisms made them more adaptable then others and thus more likely to reproduce. Eventually all sorts of mutation and chance combination occured which would lead to ever more complex structures with better adaptability till the first regonizable biological systems formed. From there we have basic sea life and countless steps later down the evolution chain, human beings.
Of course, it might be out of order, and one would have to know that the time this would take would be immense.
For those who make the chance argument, stateing that such complex structures canot possibly arise by chance i say:
Look at the size of the universe, there must be at least 125 billion galaxies, each with roughly 100 billion stars, each with the possibility of terrestrial planetoids, each with a massive surface area with plenty or energy and materials for the possibility of forming the molecular strutuces by chance that are a prelude to life. Then take that number, and times it by the age of most galaxies.....All of a sudden the chance doesnt seem so small.
As for complexities, whos to say life is complex, its equally possible that life is mearly countless basic systems working symbiotically for the goal of survival and reproduction. I give the cargo cult as ana example: In World War 2 several tribes worshiped American cargo planes because the ability and complexities of human flight were so vast to them that the cargo planes could only be explained as items of a supernatural nature. It never appeared to them that these planes were not godly and no complex beyond their understanding, such is a cargo plane simply a number of systems discovered by humans by chance working in parrallel.
As for thurther complexity: If life is so complex that the possibility of chance is so small, then how does one explain oru manipulation of life, for example insulin producing bacteria, or the mapping of the genome. How does one explain the evolution and appearance of new viruses and bacterial strains by chance.
Life is beautiful, it is wonderous and magestic, but it is not beyond our understanding. It arose by chance, it's growth is determined by evolution and it is not complex. It just appears that way to some.
I always think, that maybe the reason ID and creationalists fight progress and science is they think that discovery is taking the magic and beauty away from life. But instead, what they dont realise, is that all it is doing it discovering more beautiful and wonderous details. We are not finding answers, only more questions. We are giving power to ourselves and whatever purpose we serve. There is no need to be afraid, no need to be ignorant, only a need to be open to the wonders that surround us and fuel the need for discovery that comes with conscienceness.
nlite
Dangers of Fission or Fusion
I will warrant the dangers of Fission only to a degree, it is still the cleanest "practical" energy source we have avaliable and pebble bed reactors are incredibly safe.
As for the dangers of fusion..... I make no understatement when i say there are none. Other then the incredible heat at the centre of the reactor there is only sufficient fuel for a few milliseconds of fusion. Unless you are planning to check out what inside one while its operational there really are no saftly risks. Just keep a safe distance and in the event of a malfunction wiat for the reactor to cool down once the fuel has run out.
Microsoft acts like a business, talkes like a business, even tastes like a business, but most of us expect it to be something else.
Microsoft.....a business, noooo....Your lieing.
I will probably get Troll for this, but im sick of a fair portion of people on slashdot using words so strong as hate for a company, and always expecting a multinational corperation to act like something other then a business in a market economy.
I'll get troll for this, and it has been said before. But people....Microsoft is a business, a cold heartless business but a business none the less, save your hate for those you have hurt you dearly, for microsoft use the power of being a consumer...and dont spout monopoly because we all know linux has viable alterantives for most of their programs.
It's a harsh reality, i know, and i know someone here will have an allwise +5 insightful and witty comeback....but its just life.
To cave men a modern car would look so complex it would have to be made by a devine being.
In World War 2 when cargo aircraft were flying over pacific islands many of the primal natives developed the idea that these planes were huge bird gods.
There are many imaginative situations when technology and structure astounds us, and for some so much so to the point that they believe it is magic or work of a higher being.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ~Arthur C. Clarke
It is these type of thoughts that sloq progress and fuel ignorance.
Just because something appears complex now does not mean that it is the creation of a devine being, as human technologies have evolved, it is possible to see that biology haveing several hundred million years to perfect itself would have come to an outcome we see now.
Understanting the world around us is part of our purpose, complexity is no evidence of the existance of a god because complexity is realative to the technological context of the time.
It's funny and sad to see all my fellow Australian's making referance to their, 1 of 7, states but use of geography or landmarks such as major cities.
eg
I come from New South Wales, that state with Sydney in it.....You know, the one that held the 2000 Olympic games......no not Greece.....Australia, the big landmass in the southern hemisphere.
Oh for gods sake, we are 12049 km's South West of America.
Whats sad about it is that many of our international friends have very simple and sterotypical views and limited knowlege of our wonderful country.
Sure we are happy and very friendly people, but let me give you a hint. Koalas live in the wilderness, they are not poisonous, and many of us only see them in Zoos. There is no such thing as drop bears, i could count on my fingers, if i done the research, the people that have wrestled a crocodile and survived. The largest possible majority of the population lives on the southern seaboard in major cities and works in service industries such as accounting and management.
And most of all we DO NOT drink Fosters.
Alas, we are friendly, but dont be suprised when you step off your international flight and find yourself in a jungle of 3 million people surrounded with sky-scrapers rather then wild animals, because the best most of us see of nature is our front lawn and maybe our pet dog or cat.
Good Luck and God Speed Discovery.
The subject does not need back and forth debate. It needs common sense. The bombs were needed and if you think otherwise you are wrong. And i think statistical and physical data is much more useful as evidence then the possibility of a possible Japanese surrender on some intelligence officers desk.
This is simple, but i think it might be profound.
I want to know if there are any Japanese in here and whether or not they believe that the bombing was the right thing to do.
Of course One persons opinion differ from anothers no matter the nationality so i dont want to make a generalisation, but i think the comment of a Japenese persons opinion on whether the bombings were necissary could add extra depth to the discussion.
Personally, im smart enough to know that we chose, tragically, the lesser of two evils.
So. If you are Japanese, do you accept that the bombings were the correct course of action for the time?
Right, so you would say that because of a secondary source from some amature historians on a cable channel you have the authority to say the bombing was not needed.
Frankly I think the evidence of suicide bombers and no Japanese surrender until after 2 bombings and a decralation of war by Russia is good enough evidence to say that the bombings were needed.
And if you are such a history buff you might have realised that many of Japans fanatical generals were ready to dig in for an invasion because of a profound religious belief that Japan was a land that could survive any storm.
And frankly, no matter what picture who want to paint of america at the time, i STRONGLY doupt that Truman and the military would authorise the bombings if they had clear cut evidence of an imminent surrender.
You were right about surrendering, but the problem was not physical communication, the connection between he Emperor and the militaries generals had been severed psychologically and neither were responsive to pleas by the US for surrender, the Japanese military had committed itself to a very literal suicide mission. Infact the Japanese military even use propaganda to ready Japanese people for a war on their home soil. How can you say a communication problem was the cause of word of surrender not getting through? Surly the Japanese would be able to call a cease fire as quickly as they did before the bombs were dropped, it only require a radio communication with American forces to announce a cease fire.
Even so, as you yourself stated Allied forces did not know that Japanese forces were "supposedly" going to surrender so to them dropping the bomb was at the time the best course of action. Its hard to look back and say American shouldn't have dropped the bomb because Japan was supposedly going to surrender....oh and America didn't know, but they should have known...somehow.
You must remember the announcement of Russia declaration of war came only after the two bombs had been dropped.
Japan was not going to surrender, they were willing to literally die for their cause and with that there came a realisation that anything other then a practical demonstration of military power in the form of a nuclear bomb would mean the loss of many many lives on all sides, and even worse, the possible occupation of Japan by soviet forces.
Frankly, it isn't proud Americans as you would put it, but common sense. I wont deny what happened was a tragedy but if you would have had millions die in a land invasion, that's your choice, but frankly I was happy the war ended without that.
I know, we Australians certainly dont care one bit of our private information is mishandled.
Everyone has heard this a million times but i fear one more time cannot hurt.
Is it possible that science is not a situation of thought contradictory to religion but merely something which adds weight to the beauty of the universe. People like to separate the two thought the ideals of scepticism, as such they like to rule that religion and science differ on the basis that one is sceptical and one already has the answers, or does not condone scepticism.
I feel personally that this is the wrong train if thought, and that we must come back to the absolute basics of intelligence. By this i mean that all possible theorists should themselves be seen as evidence for a point of view that EACH individual has to decide their own feelings on.
To me, I don't so much believe in the "Theory of Evolution" as i myself have gathered evidence from the original theory, and evidence that supports it and have decided to postulate my own set of beliefs on the origin and changes of life. In a way it is exactly like that of evolution but to me it is my own belief forged from the evidence and theories of others.
For you, not believing in evolution or the others is based upon a variation of this principal. What I think you have failed to do correctly is give evidence from different thought bases the correct amount of weighting. Very much like the debate of global warming as it is viewed by the media: i.e., evidence against global warming is given equal weighting in documentation rather then simple a side note, even though scientists who believe in global warming far outnumber those who don't, especially when evidence for the argument is much more profound then evidence which opposes it.
Frankly, evolution is a name for a train of thought that many people believe, but i would hope that all of those, including anyone who has different beliefs on a subject has given the correct weighting to evidence and formulated their own ideas rather then adopting those of leader figures or scientists.
Even science is sceptical of itself and that is the nature of it. Sure there are pieces that don't fit into the current theory, but that doesn't mean it is wrong, it simply means that it remains a theory for adoption and revisionment as new data and evidence is uncovered.
All things said and done the only evidence i need to make my own decision is a very practical piece of evidence, one that is becoming an increasingly large problem for the medical world. That evidence is in new bacteria that has become resistant thought some means to our treatments, I like to call this means "evolution" in terms with its classical meaning, and I don't see any problem with applying it to the larger scale of life on our planet.
You cant say that you don't buy the arguments for evolution simple because there are opposing arguments, simply because in any argument certain points have a much larger impact then others. And quite frankly, if each theory had 10 dot points of proof on a white paper i would not sit and say "because they all have a conflicting number of arguments i will not accept any line of thought" i would instead consider each point of evidence and weight it against its opposition.
Right now, without a doubt, evolution has the largest and most profound evidence supporting it. There are exceptions that are taken under the wing of other institutions of thought, but it is in science that a theory exists solely for the purpose to allow changes in itself.
The reason theories like "God did it" don't work, is because they are not open to scepticism like evolution is. It is time for people to stop weighing evidence on both sides of the fence equally, and it is time for people with opposing theories to stop contradicting each other and instead look at their own thoughts and ask themselves why their belief does not account for it. For evolution as a theory this is not hard, but for people who believe in the fantasy tales of the bible they run into a brick wall, because instead of reaching a mid point of acceptanc
Its Japan right, why all the project design and implementation when they can walk down to the local electronic store and pick up a few Playstation 3's?
Thirty percent of people know that seventy percent of statistics are made up on the spot.
Without th development of the Nuclear bomb i believe the second world war would have have eventually been won by allied forces regardless, the only difference the bomb made was the way on which it was won.
In that VE day in europe would still have occured on the same day and in the same manner, but from a pacific perspective things would be very different.
It is possibile that allied forces namely Australian and majorly American/Soviet forces would have eventually overwhelmed Japanese forces and quite a few possibilities arrise: The japanese were in a state of mind that made them come to suicide to defeat their own enimies and on part of the bombs use it caused them to loose that state of mind through sheer terror.
Without the use of the bomb 3 possibilites arrise: With continued fire bombing and a grim outlook the japanese would eventually surrender just as they did, but it would have taken longer, and cost more japanese lives. Or a invasion could have begun on part of allied forces in which the other two possibilites occur: That japan is totally occupied by soviet and american forces creating a east-west europe style terratorial oganisation for the mid pacific or (and this is less likely) the suicidal tendancies of the japanese soldiers and casualties in the possible 10's to 100's of millions on both sides might have forced allied forces and japan into a deadlock in which the civilian casualties and military casualties far outweighed any thurther need for military action, and i say ths is unlikely because the soviet union just as it showed in the european theater quite possibily would have pushed on regaurdless.
In two ways the moral implications for making the nuclear and its subsiquent use can be justified: 1. The bomb would have eventually been made anyway as is the sad truth and infact it would have eventually been used. On this part the use of the bomb as it was or its hypothetical use in a reality where is was not initially used on japan offered humanity with a deep realisation of our path, and i strong believe that the use of the bomb and its bad publicity imbued on every subsequent generation has forced somewhat of a buffer on the minds of at least much of wester society. In other words, it taught us a lesson that in some way helped us avert the disaster which could have been the cold war. 2. More practically speaking either through continued bombings or a major invasion, without the use of the two bombs many more lives would have been lost to what goes down as the most devestating and exponential war man-kind has ever seen.
Let us also not forget that disreguarding the horrific dark side of nuclear technologies much of the research that was done throughout World war 2 helped in some way to accelerate our technological progress and riase the standard of liveing for the majority of man-kind in large and small ways. It is no justification to our morals, but combined with the defeat of "evil" and the subseqent eventual peace between democracies i doupt anyone would feel the need to say World War two was not justified on the allied part. And as is the nature of the universe the evil was eventuallu destroyed and it trully showed both the best and worst in humanity, and what many fail to realise is that World War 2 showed that the good in humanity can outweight the bad.
Without the bomb, more people would have died, and the relative peace that, arguably, ensues the worlds Western population could not be guarenteed.
Australia does not filter the internet, and laws that were hopeing to allow it have faded from knowlege.
The most our governement gets upto is monitoring of interent traffic with a warrent.
Right now, we internet users around the globe rely on people not being able to understand the dynamics of the internet to allow us to be free.
But to gain money in a capitalist economy you must first find acknowledgement in society for a good product. Something doesnt sell, it it isnt good and thus by makeing money they are providing proof of doing something right, which thus deserves respect. Try gainin respect in a capitalist economy as a company which makes products no one uses. It's as hard as it sounds.
They are a business in a world orientated around survival.
Respect is earnt, whether that is through good or evil practice is another matter.