The problem is that if there is a demand for embryos, then more people will step in to supply them by getting abortions,
Woah. I hear this argument a lot, but it seems quite knee-jerk. Can you even get stem cells from an abortion?
The biggest source of embryonic stem cells right now is just-recently-fertilized eggs from fertility clinics. As in, before even implantation occurs. These eggs were fertilized outside of the body and I really can't fathom how you would "extract" something so tiny from a woman having an abortion -- especially before implantation!
And even if remotely possible, why do it when it's much easier to get donated eggs and sperm and create pre-implantation embryos that way? Finally, if you think it's still such a problem, it's very easy to create a law saying "byproducts of abortion shall not be used for research on stem cells." There. Problem solved.
we feel the climate is cooling down from particulates more than it's heating up from CO2.
Do you also feel that your impressions from living in one area for a limited amout of time are more valid than global scientific measurements of mean temperature?
The earth as a whole is warming. Certain areas can show local cooling for periods of time, but on average, the earth is getting hotter.
As for anthropogenic particulate forcing, it exists but does not trump anthropogenic greenhouse forcing -- at least according to the state of the art in climate research. Particulates released by volcanos are another story, however.
Why would particulates lower global temperature? If the particles absorb heat in the atmosphere, the earth's mean temp would still rise.
Some particulates may cause a climate forcing in the direction of cooling by reflecting or absorbing and then radiating away the sun's radiation before it reaches the surface. However, the affects aren't well understood, and are probably much less than greenhouse warming. See here.
Venus is known for it's thick atmosphere. It's also known for its immense heat -- it's running at 700K.
It's also known for being closer to the sun. Sorry, but this isn't a very useful comparison.
It's interesting how mainstream media has declared that a majority of scientists say global warming is real and directly tied into carbon emissions. When the only consensus is that things are getting warmer
... in other words, that "global warming is real."
(opposite of when the planet was getting cooler in the 50's through 60's and causing the global cooling panic)
I have no trouble accepting that carbon emissions could cause warming, however the evidence isn't there yet.
The only evidence we can have is historical data, which fits quite nicely into our current climate models -- models in which human greenhouse gas emmissions are a significant (though obviously not the only) forcing on global climate.
Basically, the Baby Bells won't be required to share with anyone -- including CLECs.
What's the exact wording that makes this so? I still see nothing specifically regarding line sharing with clecs... only sharing of the "broadband transmission component" with other internet service providers.
That article was from yesterday, though -- speculating on what the outcome might be. I can't find any articles from today yet that specify the status of CLECs in this new arrangement. It seems like most of the authors don't understand the difference between ISPs and CLECs.
But I hope you're right. ISPs that rebrand dsl service they don't even really provide aren't a concern to me. But if Telcos were no longer required to share land lines with CLECs -- or to even to allow CLECs into their COs at all -- then a lot of internet users would be in a world of pain.
Some you can trust, they're good at their job, and are honorable people. Others, you can't trust, are not good at their job, and they're far from honorable.
Even if you're doing 85 in a 70 and someone is coming up doing 100 GET OUT OF THE WAY... don't be a self-righteous prick and try to govern the road.
Of course the person behind you has every right to be a self-righteous prick if you don't get out of the way by sticking 2 inches behind your bumper, switching their beams to high (if at night), and finally passing you on the right and cutting back in front of you without using their blinker when they get the chance. Oh, and some then proceed to slam on their breaks in front of you.
It doesn't matter what you think of the speed limit, camping in the fastlane is like arguing theology with a tsunami. All your protestations won't make a bit of difference to that 6-ton SUV hurtling down the road at 90mph,
And so the lack of safety is NOT the fault of the 6-ton SUV going 90mph without paying attention to what's in front of them how?
The EFF criticizes restrictions on aiding terrorist groups with non-terrorist activities.
This is the EFF's only beef with that section, by the way.
Is this restriction bad? No. Why not?
Let me just say that what follows has got to be the flimsiest piece of reasoning I have read on slashdot in a long while.
Because the non-terrorist activities aid the groups' image which helps them ultimately recruit members (such as future September 11 type hijackers, etc)
Oh, so terrorist recruits are suddenly motivated by "image" and not by irrational hatred against an anonymous enemy. I bet if we gave them all flashy sneakers they'd be getting recruits by the ton! Not to mention knowing about providing humanitarian aid or matters of international law. Those things must be new-terrorist magnets.
You know what else helps terrorists recruit more members? Invading their countries. But I don't hear you using the same logic against that action, do I?
and also, aiding them in those activities means they can spend less resources on them and reallocate those resources towards terrorist activities.
Oh right, if only Hamas were better at caring for orphaned children in palestine they'd be able to get so much more terrorizing done! Or what about this example, right from the EFF page:
Section 805 even extends to people engaged in activities to discourage terrorism, such as those offering training in effective peace negotiations or how to petition the United Nations regarding human rights abuses.
If only those terrorists knew more about alternatives to terrorism, they'd have so much more free time to go perform terrorism?
Complete non-sequitur.
Let's concentrate on the cases where other parts of the USA PATRIOT act was abused in order to suppress non-terrorist activites
such as giving non-terrorism-related advice to a suspeted terrorist
and target people uninvolved in terror
such as people who give non-terrorism related advice to a suspected terrorist.
just like they were "forced" to vote in favor of the Iraq war, only to oppose it come election time?
You deride the republicans, yet listen to their rhetoric wholeheartedly.
The bill authorizing force in Iraq authorized it as a last resort for the purpose of making sure Iraq complied with inspections under the assumption that iraq had WMDs.
Sen. Kerry had a speech around the time of that bill where he explained very clearly why he was voting for it -- and, moreover, what the president had promised to do with the power of the bill.
The president then broke his promise and rushed to war without any chance for diplomacy, and definitely without any hard evidence that Iraq was hoarding WMDs.
Those who voted for the bill certainly had something to complain about when we actually went to war.
But of course, the masses of people don't see the details of the bill -- or any bill -- and just think "he voted for the iraq war." That's the same problem with these "rider" bills -- people don't care about the details. They generalize to some abstract version of the bill based on its title and not what it actually says. Even Pres. Bush did this in the debates regarding the "partial-birth" abortion bill. And now you're guilty of it as well.
I can present any number of hypotheses that could alternately explain how the earth came to be, some using the existing evidence and others that do not
Yes you can. And here's what science should do with your theories
- the hypotheses with no existing evidence will be summarily ignored. If you want them to have credence, go do some research and find some evidence for them.
- the hypotheses with existing evidence may cause people to examine the evidence. If it's evidence that is already explained by an existing scientific theory, and you don't have any sound reasoning as to why your theory explains it better than the existing one, then your hypothesis will be summarily ignored. In the evolution debate, a lot of this ground has been covered (and been ignored by anti-evolutionists) aready. See the talk.origins, archive, for instance.
The only theories that should be "considered" are those that explain more evidence, better than what we currently have. And even then it'll take a lot of evidence and a long time for a revolutionary theory to come into acceptance. Until that time, there's no reason anyone should give your theory the same status as well-founded, mainstream, scientific theories.
That's how science works. It isn't some sort of "everybody's right in their own way" feel-good conjecture. It's about applying facts to hypotheses in repeatable ways, and narrowing down to the best theory that fits the evidence. Period.
This squabbling about global warming seems to greatly miss the point.
It doesn't matter "how many" of a certain set of studies support or don't support global warming. What matters is: are there any high-quality studies with clean methodology that haven't been refuted that support global warming, and are there any high-quality studies with clean methodology that haven't been refuted that show clear counterevidence against global warming?
Likewise, trying to claim there's some conspiracy in certain publications to only publish certain kinds of research is irrelevent. Maybe there are huge flaws with all the rejected studies?
Meta-studies, trying to say whether there's "consensus" or "dispute" are uselss. What matters is the evidence. Why do we always lose sight of that?
Anyway, just wanted to add to what you said above - from a quick (admittedly incomplete) search, it appears that Dr. Peiser has no history of contributing to serious research, nor of working with people that do, which may make the editors of a major publication like Science still less likely to want to publish his work.
You have got to be kidding. How in the hell did you come to the conclusion that a failed google search somehow 'proves' that a person hasn't done any serious research?
You have got to be kidding. How in the hell did you come to the conclusion that the parent was claiming to have "proved" anything, when the strongest word they used was "appears"?
Strap your knee down, it appears to be convulsing.
*enters 1 + 1 into the built-in calculator* *gets 2 as an answer* *enters 1 + 1 into the built-in calculator* *gets 2 as an answer* *enters 1 + 1 into the built-in calculator* *gets 2,124,972, 421 as an answer* *enters 1 + 1 into the built-in calculator* *gets 2 as an answer*
From TFA: "In principle, quantum computers would need only 10,000 qubits to outperform today's state-of-the-art computers with billions and billions of regular bits," Lafyatis said.
Sure, for specific classes of problems that quantum computers are really really good at. But the whole discussion in this thread was about quantum computers simulating classical computers doing their everyday, mundane, classical computer things.
The quote shines no light on the actual question: How powerful of a quantum computer would you need to completely simulate a classical computer of a certain size/amount of processing power?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that if there is a demand for embryos, then more people will step in to supply them by getting abortions,
Woah. I hear this argument a lot, but it seems quite knee-jerk. Can you even get stem cells from an abortion?
The biggest source of embryonic stem cells right now is just-recently-fertilized eggs from fertility clinics. As in, before even implantation occurs. These eggs were fertilized outside of the body and I really can't fathom how you would "extract" something so tiny from a woman having an abortion -- especially before implantation!
And even if remotely possible, why do it when it's much easier to get donated eggs and sperm and create pre-implantation embryos that way? Finally, if you think it's still such a problem, it's very easy to create a law saying "byproducts of abortion shall not be used for research on stem cells." There. Problem solved.
It's totally a non-argument.
we feel the climate is cooling down from particulates more than it's heating up from CO2.
Do you also feel that your impressions from living in one area for a limited amout of time are more valid than global scientific measurements of mean temperature?
The earth as a whole is warming. Certain areas can show local cooling for periods of time, but on average, the earth is getting hotter.
As for anthropogenic particulate forcing, it exists but does not trump anthropogenic greenhouse forcing -- at least according to the state of the art in climate research. Particulates released by volcanos are another story, however.
Why would particulates lower global temperature? If the particles absorb heat in the atmosphere, the earth's mean temp would still rise.
Some particulates may cause a climate forcing in the direction of cooling by reflecting or absorbing and then radiating away the sun's radiation before it reaches the surface. However, the affects aren't well understood, and are probably much less than greenhouse warming. See here.
Venus is known for it's thick atmosphere. It's also known for its immense heat -- it's running at 700K.
It's also known for being closer to the sun. Sorry, but this isn't a very useful comparison.
(opposite of when the planet was getting cooler in the 50's through 60's and causing the global cooling panic)
this is a bit of a myth.
I have no trouble accepting that carbon emissions could cause warming, however the evidence isn't there yet.
The only evidence we can have is historical data, which fits quite nicely into our current climate models -- models in which human greenhouse gas emmissions are a significant (though obviously not the only) forcing on global climate.
Basically, the Baby Bells won't be required to share with anyone -- including CLECs.
What's the exact wording that makes this so? I still see nothing specifically regarding line sharing with clecs... only sharing of the "broadband transmission component" with other internet service providers.
That article was from yesterday, though -- speculating on what the outcome might be. I can't find any articles from today yet that specify the status of CLECs in this new arrangement. It seems like most of the authors don't understand the difference between ISPs and CLECs.
But I hope you're right. ISPs that rebrand dsl service they don't even really provide aren't a concern to me. But if Telcos were no longer required to share land lines with CLECs -- or to even to allow CLECs into their COs at all -- then a lot of internet users would be in a world of pain.
too bad doctors can't find a way to suck the fat out of a womans ass and shove that in the boobs.
They do. It's called breast reconstruction surgery. They can also take the fat/skin from the waist. But I guess it's just not done cosmetically.
Some you can trust, they're good at their job, and are honorable people. Others, you can't trust, are not good at their job, and they're far from honorable.
Sadly, it seems the latter outnumber the former.
Sturgeon's Law, man. Sturgeon's Law.
Even if you're doing 85 in a 70 and someone is coming up doing 100 GET OUT OF THE WAY... don't be a self-righteous prick and try to govern the road.
Of course the person behind you has every right to be a self-righteous prick if you don't get out of the way by sticking 2 inches behind your bumper, switching their beams to high (if at night), and finally passing you on the right and cutting back in front of you without using their blinker when they get the chance. Oh, and some then proceed to slam on their breaks in front of you.
Right?
It doesn't matter what you think of the speed limit, camping in the fastlane is like arguing theology with a tsunami. All your protestations won't make a bit of difference to that 6-ton SUV hurtling down the road at 90mph,
And so the lack of safety is NOT the fault of the 6-ton SUV going 90mph without paying attention to what's in front of them how?
"animé" is the french term for animation, pronouced almost the same as japanese a-ni-me. Hence, there's a lot of confusion between them.
What about an installed web browser that supports SSL? Would that be enough to demonstrate "criminal intent"?
"You wouldn't use encryption if you didn't have something to hide!!"
"Yeah, it's called my credit card number"
What about an installed web server that supports SSL? Would that be enough to demonstrate "criminal intent"?
"You wouldn't use encryption if you didn't have something to hide!!"
"Yeah, it's called my credit card number"
The EFF criticizes restrictions on aiding terrorist groups with non-terrorist activities.
This is the EFF's only beef with that section, by the way.
Is this restriction bad? No. Why not?
Let me just say that what follows has got to be the flimsiest piece of reasoning I have read on slashdot in a long while.
Because the non-terrorist activities aid the groups' image which helps them ultimately recruit members (such as future September 11 type hijackers, etc)
Oh, so terrorist recruits are suddenly motivated by "image" and not by irrational hatred against an anonymous enemy. I bet if we gave them all flashy sneakers they'd be getting recruits by the ton! Not to mention knowing about providing humanitarian aid or matters of international law. Those things must be new-terrorist magnets.
You know what else helps terrorists recruit more members? Invading their countries. But I don't hear you using the same logic against that action, do I?
and also, aiding them in those activities means they can spend less resources on them and reallocate those resources towards terrorist activities.
Oh right, if only Hamas were better at caring for orphaned children in palestine they'd be able to get so much more terrorizing done! Or what about this example, right from the EFF page:
Section 805 even extends to people engaged in activities to discourage terrorism, such as those offering training in effective peace negotiations or how to petition the United Nations regarding human rights abuses.
If only those terrorists knew more about alternatives to terrorism, they'd have so much more free time to go perform terrorism?
Complete non-sequitur.
Let's concentrate on the cases where other parts of the USA PATRIOT act was abused in order to suppress non-terrorist activites
such as giving non-terrorism-related advice to a suspeted terrorist
and target people uninvolved in terror
such as people who give non-terrorism related advice to a suspected terrorist.
just like they were "forced" to vote in favor of the Iraq war, only to oppose it come election time?
You deride the republicans, yet listen to their rhetoric wholeheartedly.
The bill authorizing force in Iraq authorized it as a last resort for the purpose of making sure Iraq complied with inspections under the assumption that iraq had WMDs.
Sen. Kerry had a speech around the time of that bill where he explained very clearly why he was voting for it -- and, moreover, what the president had promised to do with the power of the bill.
The president then broke his promise and rushed to war without any chance for diplomacy, and definitely without any hard evidence that Iraq was hoarding WMDs.
Those who voted for the bill certainly had something to complain about when we actually went to war.
But of course, the masses of people don't see the details of the bill -- or any bill -- and just think "he voted for the iraq war." That's the same problem with these "rider" bills -- people don't care about the details. They generalize to some abstract version of the bill based on its title and not what it actually says. Even Pres. Bush did this in the debates regarding the "partial-birth" abortion bill. And now you're guilty of it as well.
Goes to show that none of 'em have the balls to stand up for what they believe in, let alone for what's best for their constituents.
Because the ones that do, lose elections. That was the point.
Thanks! this one works great
I can present any number of hypotheses that could alternately explain how the earth came to be, some using the existing evidence and others that do not
Yes you can. And here's what science should do with your theories
- the hypotheses with no existing evidence will be summarily ignored. If you want them to have credence, go do some research and find some evidence for them.
- the hypotheses with existing evidence may cause people to examine the evidence. If it's evidence that is already explained by an existing scientific theory, and you don't have any sound reasoning as to why your theory explains it better than the existing one, then your hypothesis will be summarily ignored. In the evolution debate, a lot of this ground has been covered (and been ignored by anti-evolutionists) aready. See the talk.origins, archive, for instance.
The only theories that should be "considered" are those that explain more evidence, better than what we currently have. And even then it'll take a lot of evidence and a long time for a revolutionary theory to come into acceptance. Until that time, there's no reason anyone should give your theory the same status as well-founded, mainstream, scientific theories.
That's how science works. It isn't some sort of "everybody's right in their own way" feel-good conjecture. It's about applying facts to hypotheses in repeatable ways, and narrowing down to the best theory that fits the evidence. Period.
This squabbling about global warming seems to greatly miss the point.
It doesn't matter "how many" of a certain set of studies support or don't support global warming. What matters is: are there any high-quality studies with clean methodology that haven't been refuted that support global warming, and are there any high-quality studies with clean methodology that haven't been refuted that show clear counterevidence against global warming?
Likewise, trying to claim there's some conspiracy in certain publications to only publish certain kinds of research is irrelevent. Maybe there are huge flaws with all the rejected studies?
Meta-studies, trying to say whether there's "consensus" or "dispute" are uselss. What matters is the evidence. Why do we always lose sight of that?
Anyway, just wanted to add to what you said above - from a quick (admittedly incomplete) search, it appears that Dr. Peiser has no history of contributing to serious research, nor of working with people that do, which may make the editors of a major publication like Science still less likely to want to publish his work.
You have got to be kidding. How in the hell did you come to the conclusion that a failed google search somehow 'proves' that a person hasn't done any serious research?
You have got to be kidding. How in the hell did you come to the conclusion that the parent was claiming to have "proved" anything, when the strongest word they used was "appears"?
Strap your knee down, it appears to be convulsing.
Well if Ayn Rand said it, it has to be true!
I can't figure out which would be worse -- a government run by christian fundamentalists, or one run by objectivists. Hmmm..
Actually it's more like:
*enters 1 + 1 into the built-in calculator*
*gets 2 as an answer*
*enters 1 + 1 into the built-in calculator*
*gets 2 as an answer*
*enters 1 + 1 into the built-in calculator*
*gets 2,124,972, 421 as an answer*
*enters 1 + 1 into the built-in calculator*
*gets 2 as an answer*
hmm. the answer's probably 2!
Make that log2(N) qbits. 2^N would be a bit excessive (to factor 15 they'd need 32000 qbits. They used 7 of them)
I thought it was around 2N qbits to factor an N-bit number.
From TFA: "In principle, quantum computers would need only 10,000 qubits to outperform today's state-of-the-art computers with billions and billions of regular bits," Lafyatis said.
Sure, for specific classes of problems that quantum computers are really really good at. But the whole discussion in this thread was about quantum computers simulating classical computers doing their everyday, mundane, classical computer things.
The quote shines no light on the actual question: How powerful of a quantum computer would you need to completely simulate a classical computer of a certain size/amount of processing power?
See my post right below yours -- you can get the audio data for use on a windows machine.