I certainly do have an idea what FUD means, and while it may be missing the F part, saying that it costs more to bike than drive is creating uncertainty and doubt. It's more than just BS, it's FUD (or at least the UD part).
Oddly enough, that fact is actually the best documented part of what I said. See https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLNL_Energy_Chart300.jpg for more. Over 50% of energy is simply lost (heat, transportation, and high voltage requirements all play in) during the generation and transportation of energy.
However, it does look like I mistated this. Turns out that over 50% of energy is lost in generation, transmission, and distribution (and not just in transmission and distribution alone). I think the point still stands though
If you believe (2), you're bad at math, eating crap, or are paying for parking
You still haven't explained how this statement is incorrect, but you keep saying it is. Anyone eating sufficiently low on the trophic chain (ie, mostly fruits, vegetables, and grains with some meat and dairy) is going to have less impact and have relatively cheap meals (and thus have low cost biking transportation). After physical conditioning (so you are more efficient when biking), it's pretty safe to say that it costs less money to operate a bike than it does to operate a car
We can use my own commute as an example. I commute anywhere between 4 and 15 miles each day (round trip), depending on the day and what I need to do. My car gets decent mileage on the highway, but not so hot on the street, but parking is free. I end up using about a gallon of gas if I commute to work by car ($4.70 from the station across the street). I only spend 5 dollars TOTAL on food for myself each day, and I eat decently well. So, when I bike to work, unless I use up almost every scrap of energy that I have, it is certainly cheaper for me to bike. Even if gas prices were cut in half, it's still a reasonable assumption to say it is cheaper to bike, and we're still not taking into account all of the significant longer term costs that you agreed with.
This situation will vary between people depending on distance, fuel efficiency, etc, but the idea that it's cheaper to operate a car than bike is disproved by about a century of economic data, even of just people who own cars.
it still consumes more resources to walk/bike than it does to drive - Do the math.
I think you would be hard pressed to prove that point for any person with a decent diet.
1) Cars require more resources to build initially
2) Cars require more resources to run per mile (not just in terms of the fossil fuels themselves vs. human energy, but also in terms of the energy required to transport those fossil fuels around the world [hint, it's much greater than the energy used to bring you a peach or two] - 50% of the world's energy is burned just in transporting OTHER energy around the planet).
3) Cars cost more to maintain
4) Exercise is good for you and there are dozens of uncounted, beneficial health effects which will save you money later.
There are a lot of great reasons to bike, but $$ isn't one of them.
If one wants to call such a thing a DDoS attack, then one must also condemn Google every time they index the website.
I think most of the rest of your point stands, but this doesn't. The difference between google and AVG is that Google's servers coordinate so you don't end up with thousands or millions of requests from them in a short span of time (as many sites are reporting) and they obey robots.txt so you can opt out. If AVG had servers that kept track of the results of these scans so that every client didn't need to download a page but instead communicated with AVG for results, then the comparison would stand.
They've implemented a way to block requests from specific people or applications now. I mostly just ignore them because I hate them too, and they've made it very easy for me to do this.
My thoughts exactly. Put him somewhere that emphasizes his mistakes, but which also emphasizes that his life is not decided for him and that he could have a bright future if he works for it.
Blech, ORCs. They're slimy and murderous and you're never ACTUALLY going to audit their recipe anyway! Proprietary cake should be good enough for anybody.
Ok, I'll bite, given that this is the third post of yours that I've seen adamantly opposing this as proof of evolution.
Is it possible to discern that this "newly found" ability of these bacteria to thrive on a different nutrient was NOT already latent in the original ones they started with?
Yes, it is. First, RTFA, please. If you already did, I ask that you read it again with an open mind because I think you'll see that you missed something. You have continually asserted that maybe they always possessed this ability, but never expressed it until they needed to. However, in the experiment, somewhere around generation 20,000 is when this was enabled. Bacterial lines before generation 20,000 do not develop the gene, but lineages derived from that set do when "replayed." This, along with the fact that none of the other lines of bacteria show it under the same conditions (despite all originating in the same place) shows that this was not simply a case of a dormant gene becoming active. Only bacteria after a certain point in a certain genetic line were able to perform this function. That is adaptation and evolution since it outcompeted the other bacteria which lacked the trait.
Applying the word "evolution" to such adaptation doesn't justify the leap to claiming that birds came from reptiles or monkeys are the ancestors of people.
Sure it does. Give me one good reason why over the course of generations genes in monkeys couldn't slowly be mutated to stand upright and gain benefits from it. Remember, these bacteria took 35,000 generations to achieve this minor mutation. If we assume that the monkeys had 15 year generations (which I believe is quite long, maybe someone else can chime in who knows more on primate generational times), that is 500,000 years to make 35,000 generations for this beneficial mutation. Current science and anthropology think spines straightened over the course of millions of years, which means that it took even longer. It really is no leap. It just takes longer time scales and more generations than you seem to be able to comprehend (and most of us can't) at one time.
I think you ought to rethink your concept of "evolution" to mean more of the generation of random traits through mutation where beneficial results sometimes arise. Sometimes cancer or miscarriage results, and sometimes it's the difference between blue and brown eyes. But what you need to keep in mind is that all of these complex adaptations are not one single mutation. They are chained mutations that just happened to be beneficial with numerous, uncountable numbers of failures (eg:miscarriages and pre-reproductive deaths) over generational timescales. Your eyes didn't develop from one mutation. Nor did the lens in your eye or even the membrane on the lens. It is all the result of MANY mutations. That's why it's reasonable to make the "leap."
My personal experience has been that programming really can help with a physics education. I took AP Physics in high school and then university level physics course once in college (where I am now). I am not a physics major, but I did have to take a number of physics courses.
What I will say is that my background in programming really helped me to get through physics. Whenever I thought that I couldn't get through a problem, I told myself to think of it like a program. I know the beginning and the end, but what's in the middle? I would then break the problem into the discrete steps using the equations and relations I knew and solve the problem. Without my programming experience, it was certainly doable, as proven by the other students, but maybe not as easily.
I think that at least some background in programming could be especially useful, especially one that focuses a little more in on algorithm design (so maybe a scripting language?) so they can really see how the class actually applies to them. Just my two cents.
I'm not even going to address the fallacies of that logic. All I'm going to do is point out that more people have died in the Iraq War than died in the September 11th attacks.
The fact that people are are and have died because of this earthquake does not make the means of transmission of the information less relevant. Robert1 was not heartless in anything he said, nor did he say anything inflammatory. His language, IMO, was relatively neutral.
I will say something potentially inflammatory though. The fact that there is an earthquake does not change the fact that this country violates human rights every day. To not discuss topical/relevant violations would be stupid. Hurricane Katrina did not mean that we should stop discussing the war in Iraq, did it? I realize there is a difference of scale, but I think the point stands.
The fact is, it is impressive that this much information on this quake is available in such a short time. I believe that was the point that your parent was making.
Ahhh, I haven't memorized the rick astley youtube links yet. But when it came up, I did what any sane person should do and quickly turned on my speakers.
You really don't want to miss the opportunity when it happens. You never know when you will be rickrolled next!
it should be unbundled when sold by OEMs so a different browser or media player could be included.
To some extent, this does/did happen. There was a long period of time during which every computer bought seemed to have musicmatch jukebox (customized, no less) on it. Then, with the deal HP had with Apple, HP computers all came with itunes for a while (do they still?). So why is it such a problem to bundle in another browser if they're bundling in media players?
I don't necessarily frown on microsoft bundling software with their operating system. Really, we can choose to use it or not use it. What I frown on is them bundling broken software (namely IE) that appears to casual users as if it works fine. This creates a situation where users won't move past internet explorer because they don't understand that it's a problem at all. That's what I frown on.
To me, this then means that Opera should not necessarily take this case to court, but instead to the OEMs (like you said). They don't need to unbundle IE or change any of its OS integration. They just need to add in other browsers to show users they exist. They did it with media players, why not with browsers?
The Beslan school hostage situation was in late August (or early September) 2004 - about 3 years and 3 months ago. Now, maybe that's still not current, but it's very different from the 6 years you were exaggerating to in your post.
Interesting as a comparison tool, but just remember when reading this that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." I'm not sure that this parent was suggesting anything that needs this response, but I think it's an important consideration regardless.
try making hydrogen in bulk (ie, enough to run your car on). Then, watch your energy bill skyrocket in your house and know that your money is going to cartels, but it's just the coal and natural gas ones this time. If you do that, it's probably cheaper and cleaner to buy gasoline.
Honestly, I never bookmark anything on slashdot because it's news (and so is in passing) - but I bookmarked this. This is a resource. I do perl application coding for the web, and while I don't pretend to be an expert in any form, this could be really useful if I ever need to scale up performance - thanks for posting this!
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly do have an idea what FUD means, and while it may be missing the F part, saying that it costs more to bike than drive is creating uncertainty and doubt. It's more than just BS, it's FUD (or at least the UD part).
Oddly enough, that fact is actually the best documented part of what I said. See https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLNL_Energy_Chart300.jpg for more. Over 50% of energy is simply lost (heat, transportation, and high voltage requirements all play in) during the generation and transportation of energy.
However, it does look like I mistated this. Turns out that over 50% of energy is lost in generation, transmission, and distribution (and not just in transmission and distribution alone). I think the point still stands though
You still haven't explained how this statement is incorrect, but you keep saying it is. Anyone eating sufficiently low on the trophic chain (ie, mostly fruits, vegetables, and grains with some meat and dairy) is going to have less impact and have relatively cheap meals (and thus have low cost biking transportation). After physical conditioning (so you are more efficient when biking), it's pretty safe to say that it costs less money to operate a bike than it does to operate a car
We can use my own commute as an example. I commute anywhere between 4 and 15 miles each day (round trip), depending on the day and what I need to do. My car gets decent mileage on the highway, but not so hot on the street, but parking is free. I end up using about a gallon of gas if I commute to work by car ($4.70 from the station across the street). I only spend 5 dollars TOTAL on food for myself each day, and I eat decently well. So, when I bike to work, unless I use up almost every scrap of energy that I have, it is certainly cheaper for me to bike. Even if gas prices were cut in half, it's still a reasonable assumption to say it is cheaper to bike, and we're still not taking into account all of the significant longer term costs that you agreed with.
This situation will vary between people depending on distance, fuel efficiency, etc, but the idea that it's cheaper to operate a car than bike is disproved by about a century of economic data, even of just people who own cars.
I think you would be hard pressed to prove that point for any person with a decent diet.
1) Cars require more resources to build initially
2) Cars require more resources to run per mile (not just in terms of the fossil fuels themselves vs. human energy, but also in terms of the energy required to transport those fossil fuels around the world [hint, it's much greater than the energy used to bring you a peach or two] - 50% of the world's energy is burned just in transporting OTHER energy around the planet).
3) Cars cost more to maintain
4) Exercise is good for you and there are dozens of uncounted, beneficial health effects which will save you money later.
I'm sorry, but this is just pure FUD
I think most of the rest of your point stands, but this doesn't. The difference between google and AVG is that Google's servers coordinate so you don't end up with thousands or millions of requests from them in a short span of time (as many sites are reporting) and they obey robots.txt so you can opt out. If AVG had servers that kept track of the results of these scans so that every client didn't need to download a page but instead communicated with AVG for results, then the comparison would stand.
They've implemented a way to block requests from specific people or applications now. I mostly just ignore them because I hate them too, and they've made it very easy for me to do this.
My thoughts exactly. Put him somewhere that emphasizes his mistakes, but which also emphasizes that his life is not decided for him and that he could have a bright future if he works for it.
Blech, ORCs. They're slimy and murderous and you're never ACTUALLY going to audit their recipe anyway! Proprietary cake should be good enough for anybody.
Ok, I'll bite, given that this is the third post of yours that I've seen adamantly opposing this as proof of evolution.
Yes, it is. First, RTFA, please. If you already did, I ask that you read it again with an open mind because I think you'll see that you missed something. You have continually asserted that maybe they always possessed this ability, but never expressed it until they needed to. However, in the experiment, somewhere around generation 20,000 is when this was enabled. Bacterial lines before generation 20,000 do not develop the gene, but lineages derived from that set do when "replayed." This, along with the fact that none of the other lines of bacteria show it under the same conditions (despite all originating in the same place) shows that this was not simply a case of a dormant gene becoming active. Only bacteria after a certain point in a certain genetic line were able to perform this function. That is adaptation and evolution since it outcompeted the other bacteria which lacked the trait.
Sure it does. Give me one good reason why over the course of generations genes in monkeys couldn't slowly be mutated to stand upright and gain benefits from it. Remember, these bacteria took 35,000 generations to achieve this minor mutation. If we assume that the monkeys had 15 year generations (which I believe is quite long, maybe someone else can chime in who knows more on primate generational times), that is 500,000 years to make 35,000 generations for this beneficial mutation. Current science and anthropology think spines straightened over the course of millions of years, which means that it took even longer. It really is no leap. It just takes longer time scales and more generations than you seem to be able to comprehend (and most of us can't) at one time.
I think you ought to rethink your concept of "evolution" to mean more of the generation of random traits through mutation where beneficial results sometimes arise. Sometimes cancer or miscarriage results, and sometimes it's the difference between blue and brown eyes. But what you need to keep in mind is that all of these complex adaptations are not one single mutation. They are chained mutations that just happened to be beneficial with numerous, uncountable numbers of failures (eg:miscarriages and pre-reproductive deaths) over generational timescales. Your eyes didn't develop from one mutation. Nor did the lens in your eye or even the membrane on the lens. It is all the result of MANY mutations. That's why it's reasonable to make the "leap."
My personal experience has been that programming really can help with a physics education. I took AP Physics in high school and then university level physics course once in college (where I am now). I am not a physics major, but I did have to take a number of physics courses.
What I will say is that my background in programming really helped me to get through physics. Whenever I thought that I couldn't get through a problem, I told myself to think of it like a program. I know the beginning and the end, but what's in the middle? I would then break the problem into the discrete steps using the equations and relations I knew and solve the problem. Without my programming experience, it was certainly doable, as proven by the other students, but maybe not as easily.
I think that at least some background in programming could be especially useful, especially one that focuses a little more in on algorithm design (so maybe a scripting language?) so they can really see how the class actually applies to them. Just my two cents.
I'm not even going to address the fallacies of that logic. All I'm going to do is point out that more people have died in the Iraq War than died in the September 11th attacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
We're fighting this war so that people don't die at home? That's a pretty good example of a self-fulfilling prophecy if you ask me.
I don't know. As long as it's integrated within certain limits, I think it's ok
The fact that people are are and have died because of this earthquake does not make the means of transmission of the information less relevant. Robert1 was not heartless in anything he said, nor did he say anything inflammatory. His language, IMO, was relatively neutral.
I will say something potentially inflammatory though. The fact that there is an earthquake does not change the fact that this country violates human rights every day. To not discuss topical/relevant violations would be stupid. Hurricane Katrina did not mean that we should stop discussing the war in Iraq, did it? I realize there is a difference of scale, but I think the point stands.
The fact is, it is impressive that this much information on this quake is available in such a short time. I believe that was the point that your parent was making.
ahh, the original open source software.
This article on wired's site talks about that: http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/04/scientists-prov.html
In short - it's going to be a while
Correct, but so was your parent
SBC's old browser was lousy too.You're right, but only if you're moving in geologic time. The referenced event was the University of Texas sniper
Ahhh, I haven't memorized the rick astley youtube links yet. But when it came up, I did what any sane person should do and quickly turned on my speakers.
You really don't want to miss the opportunity when it happens. You never know when you will be rickrolled next!
To some extent, this does/did happen. There was a long period of time during which every computer bought seemed to have musicmatch jukebox (customized, no less) on it. Then, with the deal HP had with Apple, HP computers all came with itunes for a while (do they still?). So why is it such a problem to bundle in another browser if they're bundling in media players?
I don't necessarily frown on microsoft bundling software with their operating system. Really, we can choose to use it or not use it. What I frown on is them bundling broken software (namely IE) that appears to casual users as if it works fine. This creates a situation where users won't move past internet explorer because they don't understand that it's a problem at all. That's what I frown on.
To me, this then means that Opera should not necessarily take this case to court, but instead to the OEMs (like you said). They don't need to unbundle IE or change any of its OS integration. They just need to add in other browsers to show users they exist. They did it with media players, why not with browsers?
The Beslan school hostage situation was in late August (or early September) 2004 - about 3 years and 3 months ago. Now, maybe that's still not current, but it's very different from the 6 years you were exaggerating to in your post.
Interesting as a comparison tool, but just remember when reading this that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." I'm not sure that this parent was suggesting anything that needs this response, but I think it's an important consideration regardless.
try making hydrogen in bulk (ie, enough to run your car on). Then, watch your energy bill skyrocket in your house and know that your money is going to cartels, but it's just the coal and natural gas ones this time. If you do that, it's probably cheaper and cleaner to buy gasoline.
I thought arnold was going to "terminate" the fires.
Honestly, I never bookmark anything on slashdot because it's news (and so is in passing) - but I bookmarked this. This is a resource. I do perl application coding for the web, and while I don't pretend to be an expert in any form, this could be really useful if I ever need to scale up performance - thanks for posting this!