* both school buses had problems with their hydraulic brake systems, which led to reduce braking capabilities
* NTSB did its own inspection... and failed eight of the 20 remaining buses serving the school district
* also noted that a third bus... that was sent to the hospital that day to pick up students suffered a brake failure in the hospital parking lot and hit three cars.
I had an idea, actually this morning, about taking the 'naked' out of the body scanner. Using edge detection on the image would show the outline of the body, as well as the outline of any detected objects. A red line figure on a black background shouldn't be objectionable. That way the image isn't distorted, and could actually be more useful than interpreting gray blobs.
Of course, there is still the radiation exposure to deal with, but at least removing some of the problem wouldn't hurt.
Our legal system is an adversarial one, which has the tendency to mean that the more you can pay for it, the more likely you are to have a much better outcome.
Why is that? Why is a fundamental right, that of equal justice, dependent upon your wealth?
People talk about making health care a fundamental right, what about taking back our fundamental rights to fair justice? Let's start making the legal system work FOR the people, instead of people subject TO the legal system.
One cup of raw carrots does not react in the body in the same fashion that one cup of cooked carrots does. The human body will process more calories more quickly from cooked carrots than from raw carrots. They are measured to be exactly the same calories though.
This is really germane to me today, having just come from the doctor's office. I have been struggling for years with weight, high cholesterol, and high triglycerides. Taking dietitian's advice hasn't helped much. Eating far more fruits and vegetables and cutting down on fats hasn't done a damn thing. I exercise as much as I can. The only thing that significantly helps cholesterol for me is medication.
Now, the really aggravating thing is that the doctor's advice today in some ways directly contradicts the dietitian's advice that I have been trying to follow. Some fruits and vegetables are bad, at least for me. Carrots, potatoes, and bananas are apparently bad for me, but they are things that were strongly recommended to me.
The upshot is that medical science is in its infancy. It is strongly based on generalized statistics, not specific cause and effect.
>>If you accept micro-evolution, then it is only logical to also accept macro.
It does not necessarily follow. As an example from a different line of science, there was this guy Newton who described physics rather well. Until this other guy came along and said it doesn't really work quite right for things that are really small, really massive, or really fast. His name was Einstein.
My point being that just because something works on one scale does not imply that it works on a different scale. Evolution on a micro level is testable, meaning that it can lead to a theory. Evolution on a macro level is untestable, meaning that one can only hypothesize about it.
I've always tried to draw an analogy to the physical world. In car manufacturing, what component(s) gets 'reused' more: a complete engine, or an individual bolt. An individual bolt has many more applications than a complete engine.
Therefore, small useful software components will likely be reused more than large complete components.
I am a Christian. I believe in God. I believe that Jesus Christ died so that we may be saved.
Me, too. Also, like many fellow/.ers, I am relatively literate in the sciences, with a BSEE and a technical vocation.
Intelligent Design is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable.
Unfortunately, I tend to see that evolution as the origin of species is unprovable also. I won't go into this to much because of a lack of time, so I will jump to my particular soap box.
The answer is to avoid the controversy! Teach DNA as the basis of biology. I don't see how any person, creationist or evolutionist, can argue with a DNA based curriculum. It could be taught, using experiments, as soon as the fourth grade!
I'll give the answer first: The answer is DNA.
When you really examine the evidence for macro-evolution, it is rather thin. So many suppositions have been made based upon single fragments of skeletons that it really becomes almost a belief system in and of itself. If that is true, then who is to say that one belief system has merit over another? People compare theories of evolution with theories of gravity or even relativity, but the level of experimental proof for evolution as the origin of species is virtually non-existent. On the other hand, one can design and perform experiments that show other scientific theories to be true to the extent of our scientific perceptions.
That's where DNA comes in. DNA has been shown to be the basis of all life as we know it. One can do DNA experiments as simple as the level of a 4th grader, all the way up to the multiple-PhD bio-engineer. It doesn't challenge religion, and it meets any scientific scrutiny one could throw at it.
So, teach DNA as the basis of biology!
I have not seen the show, but I have read about what you are talking about. A current theory is that Lake Agassiz, a 'super great lake', catastrophically drained into the upper Atlantic causing a shift in salinity, thus a shift in the temperature current flow, thus a shift in climate. Ref: http://scienceweek.com/2003/sw030627.htm
All this talk about historic climate change is like an ant talking about the nature of an elephant. We are too small, and the details are too big. To hear environmentalists talk about it, we are on the verge of disaster, but to hear geologists talk about it, we are just barely coming out of the last ice age. From a geological standpoint, everything I have read about says that our planet should be about 10 degrees warmer than what it is today. We're coming out of 'abnormal' climtes, and apparently inching back toward 'normal'. A google on "cenozoic ice age" will be instructive, as is this page: http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ "During most of the last 1 billion years the globe had no permanent ice." North and south pole ice is an anomaly.
Slashdot Mirror
* both school buses had problems with their hydraulic brake systems, which led to reduce braking capabilities
... and failed eight of the 20 remaining buses serving the school district
... that was sent to the hospital that day to pick up students suffered a brake failure in the hospital parking lot and hit three cars.
* NTSB did its own inspection
* also noted that a third bus
http://threeriverspublishing.com/TRP/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9620:texting-and-driving-caused-bus-wreck&catid=66&Itemid=264/
Yeah, sounds like the only problem was texting. (sarc)
Oh, by the way, it's *already* illegal for drivers younger than 21 to text while driving in Missouri.
I had an idea, actually this morning, about taking the 'naked' out of the body scanner. Using edge detection on the image would show the outline of the body, as well as the outline of any detected objects. A red line figure on a black background shouldn't be objectionable. That way the image isn't distorted, and could actually be more useful than interpreting gray blobs.
Of course, there is still the radiation exposure to deal with, but at least removing some of the problem wouldn't hurt.
It may not be as much about pre-owned games as rentals. I suspect this may an attempt to regain revenue from the rental stream, such as gamefly.
I don't like lawyers, and the cynical part of me says that the flight may be 'billable time'.
>>Why shouldn't my justice be dependent on my wealth?
You should care because you are likely 'poor' compared to a multi-billion-dollar company.
Our legal system is an adversarial one, which has the tendency to mean that the more you can pay for it, the more likely you are to have a much better outcome.
Why is that? Why is a fundamental right, that of equal justice, dependent upon your wealth?
People talk about making health care a fundamental right, what about taking back our fundamental rights to fair justice? Let's start making the legal system work FOR the people, instead of people subject TO the legal system.
>>I want the suck!
I think you're at the wrong web-site for that.
One cup of raw carrots does not react in the body in the same fashion that one cup of cooked carrots does. The human body will process more calories more quickly from cooked carrots than from raw carrots. They are measured to be exactly the same calories though.
This is really germane to me today, having just come from the doctor's office. I have been struggling for years with weight, high cholesterol, and high triglycerides. Taking dietitian's advice hasn't helped much. Eating far more fruits and vegetables and cutting down on fats hasn't done a damn thing. I exercise as much as I can. The only thing that significantly helps cholesterol for me is medication.
Now, the really aggravating thing is that the doctor's advice today in some ways directly contradicts the dietitian's advice that I have been trying to follow. Some fruits and vegetables are bad, at least for me. Carrots, potatoes, and bananas are apparently bad for me, but they are things that were strongly recommended to me.
The upshot is that medical science is in its infancy. It is strongly based on generalized statistics, not specific cause and effect.
"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."
>>If you accept micro-evolution, then it is only logical to also accept macro.
It does not necessarily follow. As an example from a different line of science, there was this guy Newton who described physics rather well. Until this other guy came along and said it doesn't really work quite right for things that are really small, really massive, or really fast. His name was Einstein.
My point being that just because something works on one scale does not imply that it works on a different scale. Evolution on a micro level is testable, meaning that it can lead to a theory. Evolution on a macro level is untestable, meaning that one can only hypothesize about it.
>>wonder what it would look like if you were standing on the surface...
It would be dark.
I've always tried to draw an analogy to the physical world. In car manufacturing, what component(s) gets 'reused' more: a complete engine, or an individual bolt. An individual bolt has many more applications than a complete engine. Therefore, small useful software components will likely be reused more than large complete components.
I am a Christian. I believe in God. I believe that Jesus Christ died so that we may be saved.
/.ers, I am relatively literate in the sciences, with a BSEE and a technical vocation.
Me, too. Also, like many fellow
Intelligent Design is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable.
Unfortunately, I tend to see that evolution as the origin of species is unprovable also. I won't go into this to much because of a lack of time, so I will jump to my particular soap box.
The answer is to avoid the controversy! Teach DNA as the basis of biology. I don't see how any person, creationist or evolutionist, can argue with a DNA based curriculum. It could be taught, using experiments, as soon as the fourth grade!
Concurrency does not necessarily imply causality.
Glad you posted these.
Keep in mind, though, that these 'species' are generally based upon a sample of... one. And partial ones at that.
I'll give the answer first: The answer is DNA.
When you really examine the evidence for macro-evolution, it is rather thin. So many suppositions have been made based upon single fragments of skeletons that it really becomes almost a belief system in and of itself. If that is true, then who is to say that one belief system has merit over another? People compare theories of evolution with theories of gravity or even relativity, but the level of experimental proof for evolution as the origin of species is virtually non-existent. On the other hand, one can design and perform experiments that show other scientific theories to be true to the extent of our scientific perceptions.
That's where DNA comes in. DNA has been shown to be the basis of all life as we know it. One can do DNA experiments as simple as the level of a 4th grader, all the way up to the multiple-PhD bio-engineer. It doesn't challenge religion, and it meets any scientific scrutiny one could throw at it.
So, teach DNA as the basis of biology!
I have not seen the show, but I have read about what you are talking about. A current theory is that Lake Agassiz, a 'super great lake', catastrophically drained into the upper Atlantic causing a shift in salinity, thus a shift in the temperature current flow, thus a shift in climate. Ref: http://scienceweek.com/2003/sw030627.htm
All this talk about historic climate change is like an ant talking about the nature of an elephant. We are too small, and the details are too big. To hear environmentalists talk about it, we are on the verge of disaster, but to hear geologists talk about it, we are just barely coming out of the last ice age. From a geological standpoint, everything I have read about says that our planet should be about 10 degrees warmer than what it is today. We're coming out of 'abnormal' climtes, and apparently inching back toward 'normal'. A google on "cenozoic ice age" will be instructive, as is this page: http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ "During most of the last 1 billion years the globe had no permanent ice." North and south pole ice is an anomaly.