Paraburdoo Tavern once had a sign saying `No admission without shirt and shoes. Tank-tops and thongs not acceptable' until shortly after somebody complied, turning up in a shirt and shoes. Only.
I've used IR on other laptops and desktops, no worries. If by `dual head' you mean flatscreen and external monitor at once, yes, it worked the once I tried it. I've used wireless on a variety of laptops and seen no problems.
My USB works better than under Windows. I plug my Sony DSC-F707 in, Linux sees it, sucks out the pictures, and scrubs the camera all automagically. No DLL and system conflicts, no bluescreens, not even any keys to hit, never dropped the ball.
Considering how hard Dell and co strive to make things non-standard and incompatible, this is pretty amazing. Especially so since nobody in the Linux community is holding a legal or financial gun to Dell's head and saying `it better work' like Microsoft do one way or another.
I've had Mandrake 8.2 running perfectly happy on, oddly enough, a Dell 8100 _and_ a Dell 7500. I didn't have use for IR, but the code _is_ in there. The 8100 was deleriously happy playing 3D games, but the built-in speakers, as you might expect, aren't much chop.
Conclusion: the original poster is a troll. Can we moderate him down to -5, clueless wonder?
...given Sun's dedication to making life hard for Microsoft at any price. $200k will be a lot cheaper than StarOffice was, and will be hit-for-hit value against MS when only about the 3000th Linuxified XBox hits the streets, given how much MS are losing on each one.
They'd make Xcellent LTSP terminals, with splendid graphics and more than enough RAM. You'd need to pay for a mouse, keyboard and mod chip for each, but they'd still be cheap.
And since `Linux is for people who hate Microsoft,' the value in unhelping MS with each sale can't be overlooked. (-:
Gold only has value because people agree that it does. If opinion shifts, then value disappears. This is as true for gold or diamonds as it is for dollars or pesos.
Agree. Aluminium `the eternal metal' was once rare and precious.
Do you have any links that are written by scientists doing real science rather than creationists waving their hands?
Yes, the link supplied was `written by real scientists doing real science'. You will also find many references in it to other `real scientists doing real science' and in fact it relies on some conclusions reluctantly arrived at by `real scientists' who don't like the direction their research is talking but are honest and so publish anyway.
If you can agree that the process of `doing science' can be categorised as two general activities, namely research and synthesis, it should be blindingly obvious that a lot of synthesis is omitted and a lot of research mis-reported either because it does not fit the worldview of the scientist(s) doing it or the scientist doesn't dare report it for fear of offending the worldview of others. Which of course makes it handwaving and not science.
Short on examples? Pick almost any homonid announcement ever made, or the peppered moth and its sticky situation. Big fanfare on the day, mumbled apology in footnote later. Only in the last few years have scientific journals been shamed into frequently reporting the failure of each icon with an actual indexed article.
Short on a really clear illustration of that stupidity at work IRL? Search for Harlan Bretz and read about forty years of shunning because his basic research did not fit prevailing scientific worldviews.
Here's [talkorigins.org] a nice link about the geologic column and problems with the Flood
Pffft! As if anything from t.o has any integrity! They've been shown time and again to consistently skip over or misread (ie talk past and fail to address) inconvenient facts; I remember seeing one incident in which they were given a text from Darwin and another from Hitler, only to get them the wrong way around. Like, d'oh? It's not as if ten seconds in a search engine wouldn't conclusively settle the issue, yet they were too arrogant and stupid to bother. Frightening, given the number of degrees available...
Come out from behind your non-pseudonym and I'll bother giving you an argument with extensive links. To materialist scientific research, no less.
I thought I read somewhere there was some volcanic activity that helped form the Grand Canyon.
It's more likely to be a story on a number of volcanic lava runs which have formed blockages in the Canyon, and scientists' amazement at how fast the Colorado River seems to have eaten through those blockages. I have had materialists tell me in consecutive breaths that volcanic rock is very hard and that water dissolves the silicates in volcanic rock very fast. Take your pick, I guess.
I might have seen it on PBS or something also.
If you did, it will almost certainly be so slanted as to seem horizontal.
One of my Atheist friends delights in adding `Atheists are the reason there is reason' stickers to things. You appear to be a living refutation of his stickers.
William Dembski's book Intelligent Design includes one of the best and most complete exposures of the mindlessness and fearfulness which goes into the `goddunnit' refrain, and shows how removing that fear frees science to be science instead of a self-limiting slave of materialism. It also supplies a number of thoughtful and agnostic approaches to dealing with design in nature. Read it.
You should have asked them to explain the Canyon layers that are basically fossilized wind-blown sand dunes.
Yeah, wind-blown, right... for starters, there's nothing wrong from a catastrophist perspective with wind having blown on dunes; for seconds, those dunes were not formed by wind. For a sweeping overview, see here and for a more specific treatment of the dunes (and footprints, but see below) try this.
Or the layers with [land] animal tracks.
One of the things about floods is that they come up, and they go down. The kind of flood postulated here is not the polite little rush of water one envisions when one hears the word `flood'; think of facing a set of tidal waves several kilometers high, then map that around the horizon a bit (in many places) and throw in constant off-the-richter-scale earthquakes and vulcanism to make Ragnarok look like a penny-bomb. In between all of this chaos, things ebb and flow. For weeks, maybe even a month or so, your continent - or at least your bit of it - might be high and dry, only to suddenly be tipped over or drenched in the aftereffects of yet another Krakatoa. Everything gets some airtime, and some time underneath devastating mudflows, some time getting lava poured onto it, some time under many kilometers of water.
Land animal tracks, particularly tracks hurrying through water, are an expected feature of such a Deluge. They are evidence for it, not against it.
See for example `Brand, L.R. and Tang, T., 1991. Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin. Geology, vol. 19,pp. 1201-1204.' and try to tell me that they're a Creationist source. (-:
Anyway, I'm going to stop arguing with you, as you're obviously an overly-Christian zealot who is blinded by a book that was written a few thousand years ago by some people who we don't even really know wrote it.
All of your other bulldust was basically a leadup to this: `If you don't agree with me, you're a nutter!' In terms of reasoning, you just blew it.
It's people like you that get evolution banned from being taught in states like Kansas.
University's geology field camp out in Southwest Utah early tomorrow morning. Perhaps we can have this discussion again when I return after 5 weeks of observing and describing rocks in the region.
You're a bit north of target, an you're going to miss the interesting silty bits over towards Vegas.
why are many of the fossils in each layer have been aligned in one direction? Is Islam older than we thought, and they were all facing Mecca when they died? (-:
Which fossils in which rock formation?
The nautiloids, in the aptly name Nautiloid Canyon branch.
The rocks out there are mostly Triassic/Jurassic/Cretaceous
Not in the Grand Canyon. They're essentially all Paleozoic. Jurassic and friends have been - pardon me while I labour the point - lopped clean off. What remains features some amazing total and near-total absences (such as Ordovician and Silurian).
In researching the GC rocks, we are presented with another interesting quandary - the Coconino is supposedly too old to have been around at the same time as the critters which left footprints in it while it was still soft. And that phrase `still soft' bears thinking about as well.
there are some stream deposits and marine deposits. When critters die underwater and there is a current, they tend to align a certain way.
My point exactly.
Now... how do they fossilise if the water is - as we know streams today - full of scavengers ready to pick them apart, to say nothing of the destructive effects of a few days' pummelling by silt-laden stream water?
Turn to the bigger picture. At the current rate of erosion, we are losing enough ground to level the continents in ten or twenty million years (yes, including the effects of orogeny and all other known uplift factors: this is nett erosion), yet we are supposedly looking at rocks ten to a hundred times older than that. In that time, erosion by ocean currents should have turned Earth into a billiard ball covered by a couple of kilometers of seawater. Why haven't they?
And all of these were merely the beginning of questions. I'm beginning to think we should ban school, it seems to be blunting people's powers of reason.
And so on. Reams of answers, only a Google away. How so, since the mast majority of researchers in this world hew to the materialist/naturalist worldview constantly hammered into them by school, television, even comics? How are so few - and such ill-equipped - opponents able to uncover so much that speaks of a short and violent history for our planet, if its history is truly long and meandering?
Personally, I was a little disappointed that you got moderated into the dirt even though your material is all pretty much standard and imaginitive. You did at least put some effort into putting those obsolete ideas across.
Nevertheless, it's bedtime for me. Do your own searching. Sayonarah!
how did those huge silt deposits, consisting of material compatible with that missing from the Canyon, get to be heaped up downstream of it?
Sediments usually do heap up downstream of where they were eroded.
Yo, and wouldn't it be such an important point for me to make if they did? D'oh? I wasn't marketing to the `would-you-like-brains-with-that?' crowd, which perhaps I should be on SlashDot.
We're talking silty deposits tens to hundreds of meters thick, and well above the river bed. There's also the matter of tens of thousands of cubic kilometers of sediment which, if borne away gradually by the Colorado River, should have formed a really noticeable alluvial fan at the river's mouth - but didn't.
If that seems answerable (-: please!:-) we might also ask where the hundreds of meters of sediment represented by the rocks not present in droves above the rim of the canyon - neatly shorn off, as I mentioned in a previous response - went. And then we turn to the really hard questions...
If you want something a bit more narrative, try here.
how did the tiny, little Colorado River get to carve out that big wide channel, uphill much of the way? Did the river form in the channel, or the channel form around the river?
Simple,
`Too simple, he missed.'
the river was there before it was going "uphill". As the Colorado plateau uplifted during the forming of the rockies, the river ate down through the rock instead of being uplifted with it.
Odd how it ate the (mostly harder) rocks in the middle faster than the (mostly softer) rocks at the ends, isn't it? D'ya think maybe this river, er, rises to a challenge or something? (-:
how did those enormous, flat rock horizons get there, made of various materials, without as much as a dimple in them where a small creek interrupted the expanse?
It's very dry, little creeks don't last long.
Here in Oz, we have places that don't get rained upon for years at a time too. They have creeks. We also have totally level mudflats. They have creeks too. Want to do some special pleading before you're buzzed off the show?
Since you're in the mood, you might want to have a stab at explaining how the Great Unconformity got itself so neatly planed off. That should be funny too...
the river maintained its course by increasing its rate of erosion
Yah, noticing its reduced rate of flow, it just reached over and wound up the dial marked `erosion rate'. D'ya happen to have a reference to hand pegging its reaction time? Teleology, anyone? (-:
slicing through the uplifting plateau like a "hot knife through butter"
Another point of mind that you didn't address is directly supported in your metaphor. The canyon didn't require a knife; something more akin to a shovel is in order. And if it did cut as you say, where are the alluvial fans at the mouths of the side canyons?
the ignorance you display of basic geology in your post (why are many of the fossils in each layer have been aligned in one direction...facing Mecca when they died? )
Try keeping up with the research. Actually, finding this was an education in itself. I ran across several evolutionists positing rapid rock formation in answer to Creationist claims of rapid rock formation. Um, what? Own goal? (-:
Those of you who modded the parent of this down did the right thing. Keep down the bad work!
Galeon is noticeably faster to load and run than Mozilla (8s to blank window, another 3 to load wife's plain web page over modem vs 16 and 3, loading Google takes 4 vs 5 secs) under Mandrake 8.2 on a P2-233 with 196MB RAM.
Or not. Have a gander at the real Grand Canyon one day and ask yourself a few questions, like:
how did those enormous, flat rock horizons get there, made of various materials, without as much as a dimple in them where a small creek interrupted the expanse?
how did the tiny, little Colorado River get to carve out that big wide channel, uphill much of the way? Did the river form in the channel, or the channel form around the river?
how did those huge silt deposits, consisting of material compatible with that missing from the Canyon, get to be heaped up downstream of it?
why are many of the fossils in each layer have been aligned in one direction? Is Islam older than we thought, and they were all facing Mecca when they died? (-:
and so on...
Geology is way overdue for another Harlan Bretz. Who wants to step into the breach?
Simple arithmetic: if it was CPU-bound, halving the clockspeed should roughly halve the FPS. Suspect the graphics chip. BTW, having it beaten by an iPaq in a graphics benchmark sucks rocks. A friend of mine got a 50-fold speed improvement in iPaq graphics by rewriting the GDI driver. Either the gfx driver is broken or there's something badly wrong with the gfx hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
AKA 1,000,000x
Paraburdoo Tavern once had a sign saying `No admission without shirt and shoes. Tank-tops and thongs not acceptable' until shortly after somebody complied, turning up in a shirt and shoes. Only.
But I say `wait and see.' (-:
I've used IR on other laptops and desktops, no worries. If by `dual head' you mean flatscreen and external monitor at once, yes, it worked the once I tried it. I've used wireless on a variety of laptops and seen no problems.
My USB works better than under Windows. I plug my Sony DSC-F707 in, Linux sees it, sucks out the pictures, and scrubs the camera all automagically. No DLL and system conflicts, no bluescreens, not even any keys to hit, never dropped the ball.
Considering how hard Dell and co strive to make things non-standard and incompatible, this is pretty amazing. Especially so since nobody in the Linux community is holding a legal or financial gun to Dell's head and saying `it better work' like Microsoft do one way or another.
Yes: clueless wonder.
'Coz I can do it the other way around fairly easily...
...the girlfriend's dad with the sense of humour.
I've had Mandrake 8.2 running perfectly happy on, oddly enough, a Dell 8100 _and_ a Dell 7500. I didn't have use for IR, but the code _is_ in there. The 8100 was deleriously happy playing 3D games, but the built-in speakers, as you might expect, aren't much chop.
Conclusion: the original poster is a troll. Can we moderate him down to -5, clueless wonder?
...given Sun's dedication to making life hard for Microsoft at any price. $200k will be a lot cheaper than StarOffice was, and will be hit-for-hit value against MS when only about the 3000th Linuxified XBox hits the streets, given how much MS are losing on each one.
They'd make Xcellent LTSP terminals, with splendid graphics and more than enough RAM. You'd need to pay for a mouse, keyboard and mod chip for each, but they'd still be cheap.
And since `Linux is for people who hate Microsoft,' the value in unhelping MS with each sale can't be overlooked. (-:
Agree. Aluminium `the eternal metal' was once rare and precious.
Yes, that's how money works too. Think about that for a while.
Yes, the link supplied was `written by real scientists doing real science'. You will also find many references in it to other `real scientists doing real science' and in fact it relies on some conclusions reluctantly arrived at by `real scientists' who don't like the direction their research is talking but are honest and so publish anyway.
If you can agree that the process of `doing science' can be categorised as two general activities, namely research and synthesis, it should be blindingly obvious that a lot of synthesis is omitted and a lot of research mis-reported either because it does not fit the worldview of the scientist(s) doing it or the scientist doesn't dare report it for fear of offending the worldview of others. Which of course makes it handwaving and not science.
Short on examples? Pick almost any homonid announcement ever made, or the peppered moth and its sticky situation. Big fanfare on the day, mumbled apology in footnote later. Only in the last few years have scientific journals been shamed into frequently reporting the failure of each icon with an actual indexed article.
Short on a really clear illustration of that stupidity at work IRL? Search for Harlan Bretz and read about forty years of shunning because his basic research did not fit prevailing scientific worldviews.
Pffft! As if anything from t.o has any integrity! They've been shown time and again to consistently skip over or misread (ie talk past and fail to address) inconvenient facts; I remember seeing one incident in which they were given a text from Darwin and another from Hitler, only to get them the wrong way around. Like, d'oh? It's not as if ten seconds in a search engine wouldn't conclusively settle the issue, yet they were too arrogant and stupid to bother. Frightening, given the number of degrees available...
Come out from behind your non-pseudonym and I'll bother giving you an argument with extensive links. To materialist scientific research, no less.
It's more likely to be a story on a number of volcanic lava runs which have formed blockages in the Canyon, and scientists' amazement at how fast the Colorado River seems to have eaten through those blockages. I have had materialists tell me in consecutive breaths that volcanic rock is very hard and that water dissolves the silicates in volcanic rock very fast. Take your pick, I guess.
If you did, it will almost certainly be so slanted as to seem horizontal.
One of my Atheist friends delights in adding `Atheists are the reason there is reason' stickers to things. You appear to be a living refutation of his stickers.
William Dembski's book Intelligent Design includes one of the best and most complete exposures of the mindlessness and fearfulness which goes into the `goddunnit' refrain, and shows how removing that fear frees science to be science instead of a self-limiting slave of materialism. It also supplies a number of thoughtful and agnostic approaches to dealing with design in nature. Read it.
Yeah, wind-blown, right... for starters, there's nothing wrong from a catastrophist perspective with wind having blown on dunes; for seconds, those dunes were not formed by wind. For a sweeping overview, see here and for a more specific treatment of the dunes (and footprints, but see below) try this.
One of the things about floods is that they come up, and they go down. The kind of flood postulated here is not the polite little rush of water one envisions when one hears the word `flood'; think of facing a set of tidal waves several kilometers high, then map that around the horizon a bit (in many places) and throw in constant off-the-richter-scale earthquakes and vulcanism to make Ragnarok look like a penny-bomb. In between all of this chaos, things ebb and flow. For weeks, maybe even a month or so, your continent - or at least your bit of it - might be high and dry, only to suddenly be tipped over or drenched in the aftereffects of yet another Krakatoa. Everything gets some airtime, and some time underneath devastating mudflows, some time getting lava poured onto it, some time under many kilometers of water.
Land animal tracks, particularly tracks hurrying through water, are an expected feature of such a Deluge. They are evidence for it, not against it.
See for example `Brand, L.R. and Tang, T., 1991. Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin. Geology, vol. 19,pp. 1201-1204.' and try to tell me that they're a Creationist source. (-:
All of your other bulldust was basically a leadup to this: `If you don't agree with me, you're a nutter!' In terms of reasoning, you just blew it.
When did Kansas ban the teaching of evolution?
IIRC, evolution simply lost it's protected status. Which is necessary if science is to avoid religious stagnation. Or don't you think it can stand on its own merits?
You're a bit north of target, an you're going to miss the interesting silty bits over towards Vegas.
The nautiloids, in the aptly name Nautiloid Canyon branch.
Not in the Grand Canyon. They're essentially all Paleozoic. Jurassic and friends have been - pardon me while I labour the point - lopped clean off. What remains features some amazing total and near-total absences (such as Ordovician and Silurian).
In researching the GC rocks, we are presented with another interesting quandary - the Coconino is supposedly too old to have been around at the same time as the critters which left footprints in it while it was still soft. And that phrase `still soft' bears thinking about as well.
My point exactly.
Now... how do they fossilise if the water is - as we know streams today - full of scavengers ready to pick them apart, to say nothing of the destructive effects of a few days' pummelling by silt-laden stream water?
Turn to the bigger picture. At the current rate of erosion, we are losing enough ground to level the continents in ten or twenty million years (yes, including the effects of orogeny and all other known uplift factors: this is nett erosion), yet we are supposedly looking at rocks ten to a hundred times older than that. In that time, erosion by ocean currents should have turned Earth into a billiard ball covered by a couple of kilometers of seawater. Why haven't they?
And all of these were merely the beginning of questions. I'm beginning to think we should ban school, it seems to be blunting people's powers of reason.
Austin answers the footprints and dunes here.
There is a much more detailed treatement of the Coconino footprints here.
Read about Tapeats in a bit more detail here
You will no doubt notice that all of these giant oysters, found many km up in the Andes, died closed.
And so on. Reams of answers, only a Google away. How so, since the mast majority of researchers in this world hew to the materialist/naturalist worldview constantly hammered into them by school, television, even comics? How are so few - and such ill-equipped - opponents able to uncover so much that speaks of a short and violent history for our planet, if its history is truly long and meandering?
Personally, I was a little disappointed that you got moderated into the dirt even though your material is all pretty much standard and imaginitive. You did at least put some effort into putting those obsolete ideas across.
Nevertheless, it's bedtime for me. Do your own searching. Sayonarah!
Yo, and wouldn't it be such an important point for me to make if they did? D'oh? I wasn't marketing to the `would-you-like-brains-with-that?' crowd, which perhaps I should be on SlashDot.
We're talking silty deposits tens to hundreds of meters thick, and well above the river bed. There's also the matter of tens of thousands of cubic kilometers of sediment which, if borne away gradually by the Colorado River, should have formed a really noticeable alluvial fan at the river's mouth - but didn't.
If that seems answerable (-: please!
If you want something a bit more narrative, try here.
`Too simple, he missed.'
Odd how it ate the (mostly harder) rocks in the middle faster than the (mostly softer) rocks at the ends, isn't it? D'ya think maybe this river, er, rises to a challenge or something? (-:
Here in Oz, we have places that don't get rained upon for years at a time too. They have creeks. We also have totally level mudflats. They have creeks too. Want to do some special pleading before you're buzzed off the show?
Since you're in the mood, you might want to have a stab at explaining how the Great Unconformity got itself so neatly planed off. That should be funny too...
Yah, noticing its reduced rate of flow, it just reached over and wound up the dial marked `erosion rate'. D'ya happen to have a reference to hand pegging its reaction time? Teleology, anyone? (-:
Another point of mind that you didn't address is directly supported in your metaphor. The canyon didn't require a knife; something more akin to a shovel is in order. And if it did cut as you say, where are the alluvial fans at the mouths of the side canyons?
Try keeping up with the research. Actually, finding this was an education in itself. I ran across several evolutionists positing rapid rock formation in answer to Creationist claims of rapid rock formation. Um, what? Own goal? (-:
Those of you who modded the parent of this down did the right thing. Keep down the bad work!
Galeon is noticeably faster to load and run than Mozilla (8s to blank window, another 3 to load wife's plain web page over modem vs 16 and 3, loading Google takes 4 vs 5 secs) under Mandrake 8.2 on a P2-233 with 196MB RAM.
Geology is way overdue for another Harlan Bretz. Who wants to step into the breach?
We can use MIPS portables here.
Simple arithmetic: if it was CPU-bound, halving the clockspeed should roughly halve the FPS. Suspect the graphics chip. BTW, having it beaten by an iPaq in a graphics benchmark sucks rocks. A friend of mine got a 50-fold speed improvement in iPaq graphics by rewriting the GDI driver. Either the gfx driver is broken or there's something badly wrong with the gfx hardware.