+4 Informative! hahaha... The rating just makes this joke +10 Funny haha.. I would however like to know how the person who ranked it got 'informed' from that joke..
We don't really need to make 'web browsing' faster than it already is. Studies like this are just a mockery of human patience. I understand the need for speed when I'm downloading pirated videos or 'cracked' software, but I do not understand spending resrouces trying to make web pages load even faster. I do have that much patience. If this goes on any further, I can imagine a future where people would be working hard to get pages directly to there brain so they dont even have to spend time 'looking' at it.
I'm tired of hearing people say '5 blades is the physical/mechanical limit'. It's not. Think about increasing density for a second. I can forsee a quantum razor with 2.99 billion blades, built using 45 nm technology that not only removes all traces of hair from your skin, it also removes any hair that is to grow in the next 12 years using time-dependant quantum cutting.
With the pace at which technology is growing and (hopefuly beyond moore's law soon) the fear of buying a new computer is extremely high for middle income computer nerds. There is always something better up ahead. Just a few months ago I bought an X800 graphics card, supposedly the world's fastest graphics processor chip (few months ago), by now its almost going close to crap. With nanotechnology and a 'trillion transisters' on a single chip, we should not only anticipate a great leap in raw processor power and speeds, but also an overwhelming increase is in the rate of growth itself.
I can see a time not very far away when a computer buyer would say to another buyer 'so you still wanna buy the latest 1 Terahertz Pentium 7 system released today?.'.. 'Nah, dude, I think i'm going to wait a 'few hours' for the 3 Terahertz system to come out'..:P
I wouldn't say I have time to go and look for more 'meaningful' ways to explain how Quantum Mechanics was 'NOT' a widely tought and thoroughly researched field at the time frame you mentioned. I trust Dr. Clifford on that one. If we all started doing our own little research and bieng cynical to every word 'heard' on things that are well established we wouldn't have time to work on more important things.
You can imagine my surprise, having spent so long at a university, knowing respected and award winning professors claim to respect Mill's writings at some level, finally come accross someone who claims that 'the scientific community at large' does not. It realy does come as a shock.
About QM and energy relation, I guess you have answered yourself. QM is fundamental to 'many' fields and one of them is energy production. QM researchers some times work with the growing Fuel Cell research industry to solve problems at the basic levels. So saying that 'research in QM has nothing to do with energy' is strange to hear, if not completely bogus. Research in 'anything' helps almost any other thing. To disregard a particular application of a theory is utter narrow mindedness.
About the 'usefullness' of energy sources, that depends on the perception really. There are scientists (in the fields of human psychology and biology) working on trying to explain why people forget to wash their hands after relieving themselves. Some one like me, would hardly call that a usefull research to persue. Waste of mental capacity. However, it is science, and I respect it knowing that some of what comes out of it would, perhaps, indirectly help solve another more usefull problem some where else. I can sit here all day 'listing' and 'quoting' things that people claimed to be 'bogus' news articles. (A carpenter in Australia for example, about a year ago, claimed that he had 'revolutionised physics' sitting in his backyard thinking. I read the article, it was nothing but complete crap. A good laugh though. Couple of weeks later, scientists in Germany used part of the idea that carpenter was portraying (having no background in physics or math what so eveR) and they experimentaly developed an information teleportation device. Without me having to 'look' things up, i'm pretty certain you would be aware of entanglement research over the past few years in Germany.. If not, I really have no time to proove facts here. If you come up with a proof of it not being true, I'd definately want to know.
I am not claiming every idiot is capable of challenging theories, I am saying it takes a bigger idiot to miss the 'point' in things. You have so far 'claimed' that Quantum research was vastly common in 1963? I would realy enjoy the proof. Other than that you have repeated what I have been saying, in different words. You are disproving the possibility of hydrinos, which I am not even willing to challenge. I myself said I am aware of the mathematical limitations of Mills work, you have repeated me there again. My point was 'what the theory entails' is of importance to me and many others. I guess the problem is like Einstein put it wisely, its the educational institutions that end up being the bigger hinderance to scientific growth. The more books you read the less you are capable of independant thought. Before you reply asking me 'what does that mean'. I should make that clear... I have met alot of people who use sentences 'right' out of a book, idiot's guide to quantum mechanics perhaps, to proove or disprove many things (not just Mills). While i can understand why it would be hard to 'think' about it for a while instead of saying 'my books say its so so thats how its going to be'.
I find it realy reduntant at this point to be repeating, 'yes Mills might be a crackpot; like i said, however I cannot proove that because that guy has no background in physics and I donot believe that either relativistic or non-relativistic boundary conditions to the equations is defined by a 'set law'. For me to say that my dentist is a c
I'll only reply to the points that I find are necessary to repeat. You said 'Einstien was well respected for General Theory of relativity and that his studies were published in 4 years after he came up with them'. I would say you are wrong. I have friends who are Einstein historians and we know that his theory of general relativity met alot of scientific criticism and resistance. The point that his theory was published within 4 years has nothing to do with how 'acceptable' his theory was. By chance in mid-europe they had determined experimentaly, aspects of his theory and he was given a call of confirmation when that happened. That is when the scientific community remotely said 'okay lets give this a chance'. In a recent seminar by Dr. Clifford Will (who is working on the famous frame drag experiment to prove assumptions made by general relativity) he was explaining the resistance this theory met even after Einstiens death, by the scientific community. These bogus and ludicrous claims come from well renouned sources hehe.
As for Mills again, well he might be a crackpot, his studies in energy release were published in the Journal of Applied science (hardly a bogus journal) and they were supported by James Vicarro and most of his team (editor). (Most does not mean none, atleast in classical english hehe). Infact recently a research done by Jonathan Philips of the University of New mexico (did not find hydrinos) but did evaluate Mill's conditions and found certain properties and observed certain characteristics of plasma that only Mill's theory could accurately explain. (J. Appl. Phys. 96, 3095 (2004)) Right after that, the research team at University of colorado commented on a flaw in that experiment (J. Appl. Phys. 98, 066108 (2005)). After which Philips published another explanaition (J. Appl. Phys. 98, 066109 (2005)). So I have realy no idea what kind of educational institution you work with, it is definately some place without complete access to modern scientific debates. For you to conclude 'no scientist respects Mills work' would be a serious error in judgement.
I have yet to find a well renowned scientist who says 'everything Mills said is complete crap'. In fact, nobel prize winner Douglas Osheroff said a few years ago that Mills might be concluding his research to be more fundamental than it realy is, he was willing to attest that Mills is definately 'on to something'.
I am not here to claim that Mill's theory is a successor to QM. I have been exposed to QM ever since I was 8 years old and I have developed a great appreciation of the theory and its applications. At the same time the claim of Mills theory being 'total crap' does not realy make sense to me. It is hard for me to believe a blogger and ignore years of exposure to well respected scientific community. One person (i.e. Randall) cannot provide an acceptable replacement to the QM theories (they were a collaborative effort of more than 2 decades of research and literally hundreds of scientists)
For the Maxwell boundary conditions. Using Maxwell's nonradiative boundary counstraints to solve the wave equation you can predict higher levels of energy release from n states. Which Randall (either mistakenly or accurately) assumed is due to fractional Quantum states. I am aware of mathematical limitations of Randall's research (as well as the serious mistakes he made) and the possibilities as well. Most independant experiments done to disprove Randall have concluded that the 'energy yield produced' can be explained due to 'technical errors and limitations during experimentation'.
As for me giving journal citations to prove QM relates to energy production. It is realy trivial, read almost any random journal entry on Energy production and just read reference citations, atleast 60% of all advances in the field have indirect links with QM. QM are not magical energy source?. QM theory was first used to define energy production caused by light rays which NASA is still using as a propulsion energy source on space probes.
The entire post was about how Dr. Mills is wrong again. I never said he has proven himself or that he is right about everything he claimed. Plain english is: Dr. Mills made an assumption that in part makes sense to (not only me, many other scientists around the world). Some do not believe in the hydrino states, some do. Those who do not, even they plan to discover better ways of using this 'hinch' that Quantum states might have a huge role to play in energy production in the near future (even if we ignore the possibility of hydrinos).
In my scientific career, I have never read an article about a scientist and said 'this is bogus crap completely'. In the midst of the information the scientist published (either respected or not respected) there are things you can pick up and continue with the research in perhaps a different direction.
"Not in quantum mechanics you can't. In Mills' theory, perhaps, but that theory has zero experimental evidence outside of Mills' own claims."
Well that point again is wrong. If you do apply the boundary conditions given by Maxwell's equations instead of the ones we generaly apply we do get a possible hydrino state out of the wave equation.
"Superconductivity is not superfluidity, although there are certain mathematical analogies between the two in the context of the Bose-Einstein condensation of Cooper pairs. Practicing physicists do not refer to superconductors as applied superfluidity."
In the study I mentioned in my post, conditions and data from superfluidity experiments 'was' extensively used in developing superconductivity. I should put that in plain english as well, yes Superconductivity is not superfluidity, in the recent experiments in superfluidity have led to an advancement in superconductivity research. (If you realy are a practicing condense matter physicist, then maybe you have not yet covered both feilds in conjunction) others have.
"There is no experimental support for his theory, and it contradicts extremely well tested existing laws of physics."
There are no Quantum mechanical 'well tested' existing 'laws' of physics known to man today. Scientist say hydrinos are possible or not possible based on 'theories'. Just like some sci-fi fan came up with the 'string theory'. I would repeat, we do not have the technological means to produce evidence for quantum states with absolute certainty. Its large assumptions based on experiments that 'fit' the equations like they were originaly 'assumed' to. While we have conducted experiements and produced widely accepted data supporting the theories, I would still not call them 'laws' that cannot be broken.
"On the contrary, you have given no explanation whatsoever what superfluidity has to do with hydrinos or energy production. But beside that, my point was that fictional applications that obey no known laws of physics and have no verified experimental support are rather pointless to discuss in the context of applied physics."
Studies in superfluidity shed light at the state of atoms and molecules at almost absolute zero temperature. Where we can 'observe' behaviour such as energy yeild or absorption during superfluid phase changes etc. Quantum hydrodynamics is not just 'one' tiny field as you claim it is. ('superconductivity is not superfluidity' 'superfluidity has no real applications in energy production') In fact, even if you take up Quantum computing, studies in Quantum information and Entanglement can help 'clear' up confusions in the fields of energy production (and many other applications besides the obvious ones). There is no 'stand alone' field in science. Almost any information a scientist produces can, in some way be helpful to solution of many practical problems (some within the field, some outside).
As a scientist, it is strange to see other scientists who practice science without a final motive besides earning respect of the scientific community. If everyone was like that, we would not have a Quantum theory in the first place. Because apparently Classical physics laws negated the possibility of anything that the quantum theory predicts.
Interesting, you are a determined critic hehe. A rare find..
1) Correction: We would not KNOW what to look for if the point of science was to publish results. Results of what?. What hypothesis would we test if we had no purpose or point. The point is Mathematicaly you can have hydrino states. Why have a field Quantum Hydrodynamics when we're not looking for revolutionary break throughs in them?. Why study Quantum Entanglement when we don't believe in teleportation. You, my friend, are not looking through a scientist's point of view. You are looking through the point of view of someone who reads novels and books and say 'this is good this is bad'.
2) If we can build a time machine wouldn't that be great however that is not the point. The point of the entire post was what is the use of Superfluidity. I explained it can be used to 'determine' this 'theory' of Randal Mills if its 'realy true or not' and revolutionise energy production. I hope that much is clear. You cannot prove that hydrinos cannot exist, and you can not prove that they do. (why argue for either sides) I am explaining how this can help.
3) 'Einstien published his results and was well respected for his views.' Is that right. His theory of general relativity was rejected by major publication authorities. Why you may ask?. Because we did not have the technology to proove the effects of this so called 'gravity bed' that he claimed. Or the effects of 'time warping' due to traveling relative to a frame of reference. We did not have the technology or the scientific means to 'explain' why that would be true. He was respected for his experiements in wave-particle duality of light waves. That is what he won a nobel prize for. However there were people who 'believed it is true' and are still conducting experiment to proove that with certainty'. and there were also people who thought he was crazy. Now that his theories are proven, those people are forgotten.
4) About NMR data, like i said, we don't have the technology to produce those states in a stable form. As far as I'm concerned, I believe in the theory not the 'evidence' that it already happened. Why i said he has released data, is to proove a point that He's not doing some 'mysteriously' hidden thought experiments wanting the world to believe him.
5) Well I'd just say, every scientist is full of it until he prooves it otherwise. Until then he has to use equations, formulas, data from other experiments and his scientific instinct to believe in it until we have the means to prove it. Guilty as charged hehe.
6) 'Superfluidity isn't superconductivity': Superfluidity studies were used to determine possiblity of superconductive materials in fertilizer enhancements. (like i said do the research first). I am sure by the amount you know of Dr. Randal Mills, you are aware of the fact that Superconductivity is what you get from superfluid states.
Obviously some one probably heard about the Brave new world by aldous huxely long before it was published, doesn't mean we should discredit its actualy publicity date hehe. Study of superfluidity is a recent advancement, we didn't have a intensive and extensive studies being done back in 1973 in these fields. Infact in 1973 there were only 4 universities in the world that accepted Quantum Mechanics as an acceptable theory to be tought at the undergraduate level. Again I would say, people here at slashdot realy are jumpy at conclusions.
Apparently you missed the 'whole' point of the Science. Randall Mills can be 'whoever' the media claims him to be. At first thought I read similar stories as the above poster mentioned about Randall Mills being a 'crackpot'. However, my 'statement' was, 'IF' we can 'proove' the existance of SUCH states using studies in Quantum Hydrodynamics -> We would end up with a revolutionary break through in energy production.
As for simply dissing a scientist because a couple of blogs say he should be dissed, or becuase our minds can not accept a 'new' version of Quantum theory (dating back to Einstein's times, when people thought he was a crackpot because he said the Universe is a large intervowen space time fabric). You should probably do what I did, I studied all of his papers with a skeptic eye and figured out that it is possible (as far as theory and math goes), we just do not have the technological resources to attain that state in physicaly 'stable' form. As for him refusing to release the details of experiments. He has written 28 studies on the subject that have been 'published' by major scientific journals. He has released NMR-spectrography data for the hydrino states. I wouldn't call that 'hiding' or 'making up stuff'. Unless you also want to go skeptic on Scientific Journal's authority as well, be my guest.
Infact just for the reader's information, I am working with 2 professors at the University of Alberta, One of the visiting professors in our team is a lecturer at University of Vienna (which I might add is also extensively researching the 'same' subject. Possibility of increased energy yeild from quantum energy states of hydrogen. (and yes, my friend, just in the last 3 years 'new technologies' have been produced by research conducted in Superfluidity, Preservation of wild insects using research done in superconductivity of artificial fertilizer compounds (et al Dr. David Lawrie 2005)) Do a little study before jumping to conclusions.
While its very easy to judge people, its hard to 'proove' your judgements.
Well to the people who said 'Superfluidity is old news' It is true superfluidity has been around for many years (discovered by Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa, John F. Allen, and Don Misener in 1937). However the 'study of superfluidity' (also known as Quantum hydrodynamics) is a recent advancement. (and a very important one I might add)
For those wondering about its 'practical uses', Superfluidity not only unleashes possibilities for new technologies dealing with energy and heat transfer (superconductivity), it also brings us another step closer to developing a better means of energy production. (Check out the link below for more details)
For those of you with a background in atomic physics; If some how (using further experimentation in Superfluidity of helium) we can proove the possibility of electrons in quantum states 'lower' than n=1 (i.e. n=1/2, 1/4 etc) the amount of energy we can produce using hydrogen would increase by almost 70% compared to our present technology (greater than the amount produced by nuclear means) This in turn means that the race for nuclear energy going on in the east (russia, iran, cuba, north korea, china, india etc.) would end.
For more information on the possibility and importance of fractional primary quantum numbers click here.
Just a note, yes its 1984 in almost every country in the world basically. A few months ago President Bush's wife said on a public speech that she plans to create plans to promote 'Education for men' because in USA with all this 'feminism' going on men do not choose to study any more.
Over 50% of high school 'guys' quit before they graduate university and find jobs as Mechanics or other lower paying jobs. She was making sense. 2 weeks after, she dissapeared, President Bush cancelled all such 'educational' programs.
A few years ago in a campaign started by 'Adbusters Inc. Magazine and No Logo (TM)' The people of america decided to boycott Nike shoes because they were 'hiring cheap labour' mostly women of ages 15-25 in factories in korea. In a violation of human rights we boycotted them. Why did they hire women ? They said 'they are more controllable work force than men'...
So then, why are there so many programs focussed on trying to push women even in fields where they don't even want to go?.. What is up with increasing women work force?... well you guessed it.. They are more controlable or so say most psychologists.
There is no true democracy except this illusive image which only works because the government is making sure we make our education programs soo easy that people basicaly think they are smart without ever having to 'think'.
I live in Canada, but most of my friends went to the states after thier highschool education in UK. My friends who went to USA 2 of them are in Stanford and one got accepted in California Berkley (Smart and rich one). They find it funny that even in 'such' high level universities, teachers basicaly 'give' you A grades because they want a 'better' ranking in the end. Any one who can hold a pencil and a rubber can pass their exams. Why do that one may ask? hehe Why does the government allow this degradation of education systems and quality of teaching?. Well its a business idea really.. The dumber people are, the more productive and less 'thoughtful' they become.. Now wonder why even after tricking the world into believing that Iraq had WMD's, Bush still got elected. wierd huh.
Well said. However, I'm not a christian but just going through a few posts on Slashdot.com (even some of those in the tech section), I realise how much hatred there is amongst people against any thing that 'remotely' has a religeous theme to it. If we're soo afraid of 'media' imagery and 'hidden' messages in telivision programming, where do you think we get these ideas from anyways?.
I bet most people who had seen The chronicles of Narnia and read the books liked the movie to some level without thinking 'damn thts another one of those religeous ones' (like the Passion).
However if you just do a simple internet search on The Chronicles of Narnia review and read 'Christian allegory in the Chronicles of Narnia', you'd be like 'hey that is right, maybe I should hate this movie'. Thats silly
A Good movie is a good movie regardless of the theme. Passion of the christ was well choreographed, well directed, the camera the music the dialogues everything was well thought of.
The Kingdom of Heaven, was a major leap 'off' true history, that 'some wierd guy' who saved 'jerusalem' didn't even have any faith at a time when the world was divided into major religeons in battle - clearly shows how modern movie-goers hate to see a 'religeous' saviour. For that very purpose to appeal to critics like the ones who said 'Narnia is bad because of Religeous themes', the movie makers of Kingdom of Heaven changed history (or for those who don't like the words 'changed'.. they re-told a severely skewed version of it)?. How awsome is that?
I've been an IT administrator in a company that was funded by Microsoft. We were actualy given briefings quarterly showing 'studies' that prooved that Windows was better. Kind of like what McDonald's restaurants started doing after the movie 'Supersize me' blew their cover. They 'proved' to their employees that the company is doing the 'right' thing. Pretty much what Microsoft does even for mere end-product affiliates. I was the person in my IT department who suggested the team move to Linux, because I was sick of having to 'read' Microsoft manuals of their software when they 'launched' something new. It is true, Microsoft basicaly assumes that its 'end-user' even if its a Software engineer by training, is basicaly stupid. Explaining to the person who said 'Windows any one can run, linux is for specialists'. It does not end there.
Let's say (like in my case) I have a particular e-commerce solution to handle and I want my application and (OS) to be tailored to that solution. Let's also assume Windows DOES provide such a solution and it works great. Patches are seemless, updates are a breeze, I could deploy it with my eyes closed. Everything great so far. Let's say now though, my company starts dealing with another company that has a different e-commerce application working for them. Or my companies demands change. It wont be then a simple matter of 'upgrade' or 'download a patch to fix'. It would be a matter of making the program work for me, without having to pay thousands of dollars and relicensing new software?. Microsoft is basicaly a strictly 'product based business' NOT a solutions provider. There are alot of people who claim 'Microsoft has developed several seemless integration options' Such as the.NET framework (or other development technologies built to target Windows Developers). Lovely Idea. However, The amount we 'can' know about.NET framework without referring to a hacker's manual, is basicaly the amount Microsoft want's us to know 'safely'. So that someday when we need a better solution, We need to go back to microsoft and pay more. It would be silly for such a big corporation to PROVIDE a versatile solution if it wants to make money. Why wont Intel overclock their CPU's and send them off with a bigger heat sink before marketing? The cost? (it would be a mere 5 dollars over the original). Would you pay 5 dollars extra (over a 3.4 Ghz) for a 3.8 Ghz machine?. I definately would. (Do not say it is unstable, almost all of my home pc's run on P4 3.4 Ghz overclocked systems at 4.01 Ghz safely, and I do most of my office work on them). Same reason, why would Bill Gates unlock all the possibilities of Windows all at once for the hackers and programmers to explore?. Why not keep them coming back for more.
If you are going to have a 'technical' debate on Windows vs. Linux, i'd pose this question: When you have a dual processor Xeon system for your main file servers, and you want to use all that processor power and high pipeline bandwidth 'only' to ensure data security and smooth retrieval. If there is any one who has worked on powerful machines and used both Linux and Windows would understand when I say that 'a trimmed linux distribution' can deal alot better with raw hardware pottential than Windows OS can.
Bottom line is, I switched to linux to 'free' my company from the Microsoft bond.
It is TRUE, given the 'right' set of solutions, Microsoft OS and Linux distributions BOTH perform well. In some situations Microsoft has a clear victory, in others Linux rules the day. There never can be ONE study of ONE solution to proove LINUX is better or WINDOWS is better. There can be common sense that says on the long run, I'd rather know what i'm doing so that I can build upon it. Rather than having to call teacher Bill Gates for help.
When Napster was busted, the "hacker" community came up with new and far better methods of so-called "piracy" of both digital information and other forms of media over the internet. Going back to the time when the very first viruses were created, we find that, to battle these viruses the very first anti-virus software companies were formed. Then came the trojan horses and a new breed of hackers who 'hack into' systems to either 'destroy for fun' or steal information. The next logical step was to create companies that focused on internet securty, people that brought us hardware firewalls and SSL (and all other possible ways of enhancing internet security). What did the hackers do?, they evolved one step further. Microsoft recently developed a 'Genuine Windows detection tool' to prevent piracy. Hackers cracked that too. RIAA (USA), in its fight against the online mp3 sharing community, did all it could to eliminate companies like Kazaa and Limewire. Hackers kept on evolving every step of the way. When the first proxy servers were set up to 'monitor' and 'filter' information that was delivered to users over the internet, we developed anonymizer applications to defend our freedom to access all sorts of information. We have done it before, we will do it again.. so basically nothing to worry about folks... Just learn more and grow with the system instead of doubting it..
Just a while ago Microsoft had settled a lawsuit with Real Networks for $761 million. $256 million just went to malaria research from the Gates foundation. Is 30 million realy a big issue for Microsoft?. Its probably Bill Gates' wife missing 2 days grocery shopping. It makes sense why Microsoft would pay even after threatening to government to 'Withdraw Windows from the Korean Market' if the government did not comply with Bill Gates rules. Funny how eventualy Bill Gates will have more power than smaller governments, and the day is not far when we shall see news articles like 'Bill Gates urges Israel to re-write its constitution allowing more political power to the already predominantly Microsoft based computer economy in the country'. A few weeks ago Bill Gates had made a statement in Israel declaring war on google. Just think about it for a while. Bill Gates goes to a war infested country to say 'I am declaring war on Google, are ya with me folks?'.
Re:Don't worry- Intelligent Design will Save us!
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 0
It's also funny that people who believe in Evolution are worried, since its all survival of the fittest, may the fit of our people survive. We should look forward to the pandemic. All the weak jackass's will be eliminated from the human chart of evolution to create new 'flu' resistant species of humans. Wierd how in question like these evolutionists have the freakiest responses.. One of them said "Humans have stopped biological evolution to pave way for social evolution' wtf!?
What I dont understand is, how come people claim Evolution is Scientific and Intelligent Design is religeon based. Both are 'hope' and 'faith' based theories.. To say everything is random chances and that in the begining there was 'nothing-ness', and 'universe' just 'self-created' in the Big Bang, and everthing from then onwards just kept on happening haphazardly until some human race developed on some planet Earth.. That doesn't sound very scientific to me. They say 'we're going to 'find' out the origin of the universe, we don't know everything yet. Well what do they think they would find out even if they did 'know' ?.. Something like 'oh some guy called Bob was sitting and he lit a match that created the big bang.. and big bob is still out there looking upon us?'.. Clearly using the word 'God' freaks people out these days, especialy so-called scientists who have no clue about anything.. Apparently all the high level scientists, including Einstein believed in a 'creator'. Obviously he 'knew' stuff evolutionists do not know.. About behaviour of things at the Quantum and Astronomical levels.. As for the title thread, Kansas has taken a good step towards liberating the American public from a narrow thinking which originated in 1800s.. Its about time we 'realise' that science does not believe in 'games of chance' being an explanaition to everything.. Both Evolution and ID should be tought under the same agenda.. 'We believe ___________ '... NOT 'WE KNOW'.. Americans are soo lost in 'State-Church' seperation "STILL" that they do not realise the stupidity of including any such theories under the banner of science..
As Einstien once said: "Religeon without Science is 'blind' and Science without religeon is 'heedless'"..And I say.. Religeon IN science is a result of someone being high on crack..
:There was no America when Galileo:
The people we call Americans right now are British too, mind you. There is hardly any 'American' left on American soil. So might as well call all Canadians and Americans (add astralians and Newzies to the list too) are basically british who came years ago killing the local population because they were more 'scientific' compared to the rest of the world who apparently believed in some 'Designer'. I dont see a difference now either. Its like Einstien Said Science without religeon is heedless, Religeon without science is blind. I realy cannot mention a 'great' scientist that didn't believe in a Designer. The point when you start recognising the complexity and purpose behind everything. When you study Quantum Mechanics or any area of modern physics, you realise how everything, even though its not related, falls into a perfect picture that is hardly a 'chance'.
"the theory you're talking about was put together by Copernicus, not Galileo."
True, but Galileo was the one punished for scientific thinking, point bieng, we negated copernicus, we negated Galileo. For the same purpose. They tried to prove Earth was not the centre of the universe.
For the person who said 'What does the designer look like and who designed the designer'. Well those are easy questions to ask isn't it easy answers like, lets take ANYONES explanaition (jews, christians, muslims.. anyone), how about, if there was no designer, who designed it?. If there was no one at all, then what is the difference between you and me and neandrathals? Brain is basically the same size, everything else is the same? Why do I hear evolutionist saying 'We don't know WHAT changed to bring about the modern human, it just appeared co-existing with the ancient man'. Well it definately wasn't BIOLOGY that made us start behaving like we do now, or making decisions?. IF we're just 'highly evolved' ANIMALS, I don't see a point in our evolutionist history where atleast ONE other animal also got the advantage of thought. Sure Donkeys didn't evolve to our level, but should'nt there be atleast one donkey alive today that says 'Dude stop hitting me, I can feel that' ?. Or shouldn't there be a monkey having relationship problems going to a monkey psychologist?. Why is there only ONE EVOLVED human and everyone else is basicaly in that old ancient boat. Its kind of odd, that only one kind of species evolved and everyone else basicaly just grew wings or started eating plants. If you know your astronomy, you'd know that If jupiter was slightly 'smaller' in size than it is right now, Earth would've been destroyed millions of years ago as a result of constant comet and asteroid collisions (Jupiter sheilds Earth). How do you explain that NO matter what amount of poultry of deforestation we seem to do, we never run low on oxygen. Its always a stable 21% with minor fluctuations. I'd like to think with the amount of life activity on earth it should've become 20 percent by now. It just always seems to remain constant. If you think about the fact that 77.6 percent Nitrogen in the air, if it was slightly lower or higher, most life would die out. So is there some animal up there that goes 'damn my meters indicate low oxygen, lets pump some in'. Or letsay it 'just is the way it is'... ?! How about 'eyes' evolved from Scales of reptiles?. Thats a bit odd , don't you think? If you change ANYTHING about an eye even slightly, it just wont work. So to say some marks on the skin, slowly evolved into this Camera like thing that has capability of focus from 2 cm to infinity and can capture more than 23 million colors (more than a camera can) and has self cleaning mechanisms inside it, thts just roll of the die?. Thats only the tip of the iceberg, I can pose to you soo many questions that lead back to the theory of one designer and question evolutionism 'if it was realy how the world happened, then world should be in a highly chaotic state right now'. When you go out looking for a girl friend, trust me on this one, you'r NOT thinking 'Man I need to spread my sperm to ensure th
The Truth is, America has a history of negating change. Early in the medieval era, The church had established that the world was the centre of the universe and galileo was locked up because he said 'it revolves around sun'. Americans and British faught to stop this 'new' thinking, which seemed 'un-acceptable'. Now we are finaly at a time when we can disprove most of evolution theory. It is true, there is evolution within species, but to say that at one point, the monkey has a baby that looks like a human being, and by some freak chance of nature he survives and all others die out, because apparently having no hair and a brain helps alot. Evolutionists go a bit too far by saying 'everything we have today is a random chance'. The 11 constants of the universe, the mass of the proton, the mass of the electron, is all just random chance. Plank's constant just by some roll of the dice happens to be that number that the entire universe adheres to. Some how it doesn't make sense when you think about this fact that had the mass of the electron been even off by 0.00000000000000000001 grams, the Universe wouldn't exist. So is everything some random chance?. Thats just typical american thinking 'we can't explain it, so we'd say it just is'. We accept now that there was a big bang that created the universe, what caused the big bang then?. Letsay it 'just happened', why? and where did the energy come from?. 'We don't know yet, but someday we would' hehe. Just look around, you guys, we already have an explanaition, live with it until its proven wrong. To say 'it just is'.. is not just unscientific, its what a lay man would say. At the time of charls darwin maybe it made sense that everything is the same, but now, after knowing soo much about human biology and the biology of all other creatures on our planet, and astronomical facts about how everything happened, its time to 're-think' the entire theory.
There are literally a million ways to earn money. Not only vocational courses, but trades like Welding and Automotive Repair mechanics can have you earning an easy 35,000-45,000 a year. If you work hard in it, you might as well open your own specialised trades business after a couple years experience and earn as much as doctors earn.
The reason I believe one should choose to go to university is to be able to invent and innovate. For that purpose you need the groundworks of knowledge in any subject that you choose. Besides the application of someone else's theories, you need to have enough knowledge to make your own. JAVA for example is 'just' someone's invention, which would be taken over by perhaps another invention a few years later. So is, WINDOWS,.NET Framework etc. So if you knew how these technologies were created instead of how to use them, I think, you'd be much better off int he future.
I think the most important thing to see here is that regardless of the 'realative' free-ness of foriegn markets we are still better off with trade. 'Free' Market means having open access to the cheapest and most efficient resources. (In principal, that includes labour and land). Since the most efficient cost-affective labour is found in India the best thing to do is actualy shift to india. Even if it means loosing jobs in america (which under economic rules were not 'efficient' enough to begin with). In other words, if IBM would have kept those jobs in America, America would actualy have been wasting valuable resources. Same applies for Mexicans. If Illegal MExicans were to be removed from the US Economy, alot of Americans who are now trying to get a degree or a small course to get a higher paying job would instead have been satisfied with un-skilled level jobs. Again, like i said, in-efficient use of limited labour resource. An important Scenario to reference here is, forexample Indians can be good doctors and Americans can be good engineers. It would be in 'everyone's best interest to have medical facilities focussed on hiring indian labour and all engineering requirements be focussed on the Americans. If there were a few americans who were planning on becoming doctors, they would now move onto fields like engineering and thereby 'improving' and 'specialising' in the resources they are best fitted to. This scenario would remove Indian Engineers who are inefficient and American doctors who are inefficient. It would not matter if the Indian or Mexican economy is subject to corruption. At the bottom of everything, every business and every household is watching out for itself. In doing so, even though it may not appear as such, it is still a free market.
If however, you do remove your 'so-called' non-free markets from the U.S. economy, you would be left with higher prices, lower levels of income and a staggeringly lower country-wide production or GDP.n In Essence what i'm trying to say is, the 'more' we interact with these 'non-free' markets the more 'free' we make the world market.
Slashdot Mirror
+4 Informative! hahaha... The rating just makes this joke +10 Funny haha.. I would however like to know how the person who ranked it got 'informed' from that joke..
haha.. What's funnier is the +4 Interesting Rating.. The people rating it clearly didn't get the joke..
We don't really need to make 'web browsing' faster than it already is. Studies like this are just a mockery of human patience. I understand the need for speed when I'm downloading pirated videos or 'cracked' software, but I do not understand spending resrouces trying to make web pages load even faster. I do have that much patience. If this goes on any further, I can imagine a future where people would be working hard to get pages directly to there brain so they dont even have to spend time 'looking' at it.
I'm tired of hearing people say '5 blades is the physical/mechanical limit'. It's not. Think about increasing density for a second. I can forsee a quantum razor with 2.99 billion blades, built using 45 nm technology that not only removes all traces of hair from your skin, it also removes any hair that is to grow in the next 12 years using time-dependant quantum cutting.
What ideas, US is way ahead at this whole package of buying civil liberties for the same excuse 'criminals, paedophiles, and terrorists.'
NSA Phone Home anyone?
CIA wants internet-usage-information
FBI wants ability to barge in for a cup-a-coffee without a warrant
With the pace at which technology is growing and (hopefuly beyond moore's law soon) the fear of buying a new computer is extremely high for middle income computer nerds. There is always something better up ahead. Just a few months ago I bought an X800 graphics card, supposedly the world's fastest graphics processor chip (few months ago), by now its almost going close to crap. With nanotechnology and a 'trillion transisters' on a single chip, we should not only anticipate a great leap in raw processor power and speeds, but also an overwhelming increase is in the rate of growth itself.
:P
I can see a time not very far away when a computer buyer would say to another buyer 'so you still wanna buy the latest 1 Terahertz Pentium 7 system released today?.'.. 'Nah, dude, I think i'm going to wait a 'few hours' for the 3 Terahertz system to come out'..
I wouldn't say I have time to go and look for more 'meaningful' ways to explain how Quantum Mechanics was 'NOT' a widely tought and thoroughly researched field at the time frame you mentioned. I trust Dr. Clifford on that one. If we all started doing our own little research and bieng cynical to every word 'heard' on things that are well established we wouldn't have time to work on more important things.
You can imagine my surprise, having spent so long at a university, knowing respected and award winning professors claim to respect Mill's writings at some level, finally come accross someone who claims that 'the scientific community at large' does not. It realy does come as a shock.
About QM and energy relation, I guess you have answered yourself. QM is fundamental to 'many' fields and one of them is energy production. QM researchers some times work with the growing Fuel Cell research industry to solve problems at the basic levels. So saying that 'research in QM has nothing to do with energy' is strange to hear, if not completely bogus. Research in 'anything' helps almost any other thing. To disregard a particular application of a theory is utter narrow mindedness.
About the 'usefullness' of energy sources, that depends on the perception really. There are scientists (in the fields of human psychology and biology) working on trying to explain why people forget to wash their hands after relieving themselves. Some one like me, would hardly call that a usefull research to persue. Waste of mental capacity. However, it is science, and I respect it knowing that some of what comes out of it would, perhaps, indirectly help solve another more usefull problem some where else. I can sit here all day 'listing' and 'quoting' things that people claimed to be 'bogus' news articles. (A carpenter in Australia for example, about a year ago, claimed that he had 'revolutionised physics' sitting in his backyard thinking. I read the article, it was nothing but complete crap. A good laugh though. Couple of weeks later, scientists in Germany used part of the idea that carpenter was portraying (having no background in physics or math what so eveR) and they experimentaly developed an information teleportation device. Without me having to 'look' things up, i'm pretty certain you would be aware of entanglement research over the past few years in Germany.. If not, I really have no time to proove facts here. If you come up with a proof of it not being true, I'd definately want to know.
I am not claiming every idiot is capable of challenging theories, I am saying it takes a bigger idiot to miss the 'point' in things. You have so far 'claimed' that Quantum research was vastly common in 1963? I would realy enjoy the proof. Other than that you have repeated what I have been saying, in different words. You are disproving the possibility of hydrinos, which I am not even willing to challenge. I myself said I am aware of the mathematical limitations of Mills work, you have repeated me there again. My point was 'what the theory entails' is of importance to me and many others. I guess the problem is like Einstein put it wisely, its the educational institutions that end up being the bigger hinderance to scientific growth. The more books you read the less you are capable of independant thought. Before you reply asking me 'what does that mean'. I should make that clear... I have met alot of people who use sentences 'right' out of a book, idiot's guide to quantum mechanics perhaps, to proove or disprove many things (not just Mills). While i can understand why it would be hard to 'think' about it for a while instead of saying 'my books say its so so thats how its going to be'.
I find it realy reduntant at this point to be repeating, 'yes Mills might be a crackpot; like i said, however I cannot proove that because that guy has no background in physics and I donot believe that either relativistic or non-relativistic boundary conditions to the equations is defined by a 'set law'. For me to say that my dentist is a c
I'll only reply to the points that I find are necessary to repeat. You said 'Einstien was well respected for General Theory of relativity and that his studies were published in 4 years after he came up with them'. I would say you are wrong. I have friends who are Einstein historians and we know that his theory of general relativity met alot of scientific criticism and resistance. The point that his theory was published within 4 years has nothing to do with how 'acceptable' his theory was. By chance in mid-europe they had determined experimentaly, aspects of his theory and he was given a call of confirmation when that happened. That is when the scientific community remotely said 'okay lets give this a chance'. In a recent seminar by Dr. Clifford Will (who is working on the famous frame drag experiment to prove assumptions made by general relativity) he was explaining the resistance this theory met even after Einstiens death, by the scientific community. These bogus and ludicrous claims come from well renouned sources hehe.
As for Mills again, well he might be a crackpot, his studies in energy release were published in the Journal of Applied science (hardly a bogus journal) and they were supported by James Vicarro and most of his team (editor). (Most does not mean none, atleast in classical english hehe). Infact recently a research done by Jonathan Philips of the University of New mexico (did not find hydrinos) but did evaluate Mill's conditions and found certain properties and observed certain characteristics of plasma that only Mill's theory could accurately explain. (J. Appl. Phys. 96, 3095 (2004)) Right after that, the research team at University of colorado commented on a flaw in that experiment (J. Appl. Phys. 98, 066108 (2005)). After which Philips published another explanaition (J. Appl. Phys. 98, 066109 (2005)). So I have realy no idea what kind of educational institution you work with, it is definately some place without complete access to modern scientific debates. For you to conclude 'no scientist respects Mills work' would be a serious error in judgement.
I have yet to find a well renowned scientist who says 'everything Mills said is complete crap'. In fact, nobel prize winner Douglas Osheroff said a few years ago that Mills might be concluding his research to be more fundamental than it realy is, he was willing to attest that Mills is definately 'on to something'.
I am not here to claim that Mill's theory is a successor to QM. I have been exposed to QM ever since I was 8 years old and I have developed a great appreciation of the theory and its applications. At the same time the claim of Mills theory being 'total crap' does not realy make sense to me. It is hard for me to believe a blogger and ignore years of exposure to well respected scientific community. One person (i.e. Randall) cannot provide an acceptable replacement to the QM theories (they were a collaborative effort of more than 2 decades of research and literally hundreds of scientists)
For the Maxwell boundary conditions. Using Maxwell's nonradiative boundary counstraints to solve the wave equation you can predict higher levels of energy release from n states. Which Randall (either mistakenly or accurately) assumed is due to fractional Quantum states. I am aware of mathematical limitations of Randall's research (as well as the serious mistakes he made) and the possibilities as well. Most independant experiments done to disprove Randall have concluded that the 'energy yield produced' can be explained due to 'technical errors and limitations during experimentation'.
As for me giving journal citations to prove QM relates to energy production. It is realy trivial, read almost any random journal entry on Energy production and just read reference citations, atleast 60% of all advances in the field have indirect links with QM. QM are not magical energy source?. QM theory was first used to define energy production caused by light rays which NASA is still using as a propulsion energy source on space probes.
The entire post was about how Dr. Mills is wrong again. I never said he has proven himself or that he is right about everything he claimed. Plain english is: Dr. Mills made an assumption that in part makes sense to (not only me, many other scientists around the world). Some do not believe in the hydrino states, some do. Those who do not, even they plan to discover better ways of using this 'hinch' that Quantum states might have a huge role to play in energy production in the near future (even if we ignore the possibility of hydrinos).
In my scientific career, I have never read an article about a scientist and said 'this is bogus crap completely'. In the midst of the information the scientist published (either respected or not respected) there are things you can pick up and continue with the research in perhaps a different direction.
"Not in quantum mechanics you can't. In Mills' theory, perhaps, but that theory has zero experimental evidence outside of Mills' own claims."
Well that point again is wrong. If you do apply the boundary conditions given by Maxwell's equations instead of the ones we generaly apply we do get a possible hydrino state out of the wave equation.
"Superconductivity is not superfluidity, although there are certain mathematical analogies between the two in the context of the Bose-Einstein condensation of Cooper pairs. Practicing physicists do not refer to superconductors as applied superfluidity."
In the study I mentioned in my post, conditions and data from superfluidity experiments 'was' extensively used in developing superconductivity. I should put that in plain english as well, yes Superconductivity is not superfluidity, in the recent experiments in superfluidity have led to an advancement in superconductivity research. (If you realy are a practicing condense matter physicist, then maybe you have not yet covered both feilds in conjunction) others have.
"There is no experimental support for his theory, and it contradicts extremely well tested existing laws of physics."
There are no Quantum mechanical 'well tested' existing 'laws' of physics known to man today. Scientist say hydrinos are possible or not possible based on 'theories'. Just like some sci-fi fan came up with the 'string theory'. I would repeat, we do not have the technological means to produce evidence for quantum states with absolute certainty. Its large assumptions based on experiments that 'fit' the equations like they were originaly 'assumed' to. While we have conducted experiements and produced widely accepted data supporting the theories, I would still not call them 'laws' that cannot be broken.
"On the contrary, you have given no explanation whatsoever what superfluidity has to do with hydrinos or energy production. But beside that, my point was that fictional applications that obey no known laws of physics and have no verified experimental support are rather pointless to discuss in the context of applied physics."
Studies in superfluidity shed light at the state of atoms and molecules at almost absolute zero temperature. Where we can 'observe' behaviour such as energy yeild or absorption during superfluid phase changes etc. Quantum hydrodynamics is not just 'one' tiny field as you claim it is. ('superconductivity is not superfluidity' 'superfluidity has no real applications in energy production') In fact, even if you take up Quantum computing, studies in Quantum information and Entanglement can help 'clear' up confusions in the fields of energy production (and many other applications besides the obvious ones). There is no 'stand alone' field in science. Almost any information a scientist produces can, in some way be helpful to solution of many practical problems (some within the field, some outside).
As a scientist, it is strange to see other scientists who practice science without a final motive besides earning respect of the scientific community. If everyone was like that, we would not have a Quantum theory in the first place. Because apparently Classical physics laws negated the possibility of anything that the quantum theory predicts.
Interesting, you are a determined critic hehe. A rare find..
1) Correction: We would not KNOW what to look for if the point of science was to publish results. Results of what?. What hypothesis would we test if we had no purpose or point. The point is Mathematicaly you can have hydrino states. Why have a field Quantum Hydrodynamics when we're not looking for revolutionary break throughs in them?. Why study Quantum Entanglement when we don't believe in teleportation. You, my friend, are not looking through a scientist's point of view. You are looking through the point of view of someone who reads novels and books and say 'this is good this is bad'.
2) If we can build a time machine wouldn't that be great however that is not the point. The point of the entire post was what is the use of Superfluidity. I explained it can be used to 'determine' this 'theory' of Randal Mills if its 'realy true or not' and revolutionise energy production. I hope that much is clear. You cannot prove that hydrinos cannot exist, and you can not prove that they do. (why argue for either sides) I am explaining how this can help.
3) 'Einstien published his results and was well respected for his views.' Is that right. His theory of general relativity was rejected by major publication authorities. Why you may ask?. Because we did not have the technology to proove the effects of this so called 'gravity bed' that he claimed. Or the effects of 'time warping' due to traveling relative to a frame of reference. We did not have the technology or the scientific means to 'explain' why that would be true. He was respected for his experiements in wave-particle duality of light waves. That is what he won a nobel prize for. However there were people who 'believed it is true' and are still conducting experiment to proove that with certainty'. and there were also people who thought he was crazy. Now that his theories are proven, those people are forgotten.
4) About NMR data, like i said, we don't have the technology to produce those states in a stable form. As far as I'm concerned, I believe in the theory not the 'evidence' that it already happened. Why i said he has released data, is to proove a point that He's not doing some 'mysteriously' hidden thought experiments wanting the world to believe him.
5) Well I'd just say, every scientist is full of it until he prooves it otherwise. Until then he has to use equations, formulas, data from other experiments and his scientific instinct to believe in it until we have the means to prove it. Guilty as charged hehe.
6) 'Superfluidity isn't superconductivity': Superfluidity studies were used to determine possiblity of superconductive materials in fertilizer enhancements. (like i said do the research first). I am sure by the amount you know of Dr. Randal Mills, you are aware of the fact that Superconductivity is what you get from superfluid states.
Obviously some one probably heard about the Brave new world by aldous huxely long before it was published, doesn't mean we should discredit its actualy publicity date hehe. Study of superfluidity is a recent advancement, we didn't have a intensive and extensive studies being done back in 1973 in these fields. Infact in 1973 there were only 4 universities in the world that accepted Quantum Mechanics as an acceptable theory to be tought at the undergraduate level. Again I would say, people here at slashdot realy are jumpy at conclusions.
Apparently you missed the 'whole' point of the Science. Randall Mills can be 'whoever' the media claims him to be. At first thought I read similar stories as the above poster mentioned about Randall Mills being a 'crackpot'. However, my 'statement' was, 'IF' we can 'proove' the existance of SUCH states using studies in Quantum Hydrodynamics -> We would end up with a revolutionary break through in energy production.
As for simply dissing a scientist because a couple of blogs say he should be dissed, or becuase our minds can not accept a 'new' version of Quantum theory (dating back to Einstein's times, when people thought he was a crackpot because he said the Universe is a large intervowen space time fabric). You should probably do what I did, I studied all of his papers with a skeptic eye and figured out that it is possible (as far as theory and math goes), we just do not have the technological resources to attain that state in physicaly 'stable' form. As for him refusing to release the details of experiments. He has written 28 studies on the subject that have been 'published' by major scientific journals. He has released NMR-spectrography data for the hydrino states. I wouldn't call that 'hiding' or 'making up stuff'. Unless you also want to go skeptic on Scientific Journal's authority as well, be my guest.
Infact just for the reader's information, I am working with 2 professors at the University of Alberta, One of the visiting professors in our team is a lecturer at University of Vienna (which I might add is also extensively researching the 'same' subject. Possibility of increased energy yeild from quantum energy states of hydrogen. (and yes, my friend, just in the last 3 years 'new technologies' have been produced by research conducted in Superfluidity, Preservation of wild insects using research done in superconductivity of artificial fertilizer compounds (et al Dr. David Lawrie 2005)) Do a little study before jumping to conclusions.
While its very easy to judge people, its hard to 'proove' your judgements.
Well to the people who said 'Superfluidity is old news' It is true superfluidity has been around for many years (discovered by Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa, John F. Allen, and Don Misener in 1937). However the 'study of superfluidity' (also known as Quantum hydrodynamics) is a recent advancement. (and a very important one I might add)
For those wondering about its 'practical uses', Superfluidity not only unleashes possibilities for new technologies dealing with energy and heat transfer (superconductivity), it also brings us another step closer to developing a better means of energy production. (Check out the link below for more details)
For those of you with a background in atomic physics; If some how (using further experimentation in Superfluidity of helium) we can proove the possibility of electrons in quantum states 'lower' than n=1 (i.e. n=1/2, 1/4 etc) the amount of energy we can produce using hydrogen would increase by almost 70% compared to our present technology (greater than the amount produced by nuclear means) This in turn means that the race for nuclear energy going on in the east (russia, iran, cuba, north korea, china, india etc.) would end.
For more information on the possibility and importance of fractional primary quantum numbers click here.
Just a note, yes its 1984 in almost every country in the world basically. A few months ago President Bush's wife said on a public speech that she plans to create plans to promote 'Education for men' because in USA with all this 'feminism' going on men do not choose to study any more.
Over 50% of high school 'guys' quit before they graduate university and find jobs as Mechanics or other lower paying jobs. She was making sense. 2 weeks after, she dissapeared, President Bush cancelled all such 'educational' programs.
A few years ago in a campaign started by 'Adbusters Inc. Magazine and No Logo (TM)' The people of america decided to boycott Nike shoes because they were 'hiring cheap labour' mostly women of ages 15-25 in factories in korea. In a violation of human rights we boycotted them. Why did they hire women ? They said 'they are more controllable work force than men'...
So then, why are there so many programs focussed on trying to push women even in fields where they don't even want to go?.. What is up with increasing women work force?... well you guessed it.. They are more controlable or so say most psychologists.
There is no true democracy except this illusive image which only works because the government is making sure we make our education programs soo easy that people basicaly think they are smart without ever having to 'think'.
I live in Canada, but most of my friends went to the states after thier highschool education in UK. My friends who went to USA 2 of them are in Stanford and one got accepted in California Berkley (Smart and rich one). They find it funny that even in 'such' high level universities, teachers basicaly 'give' you A grades because they want a 'better' ranking in the end. Any one who can hold a pencil and a rubber can pass their exams. Why do that one may ask? hehe Why does the government allow this degradation of education systems and quality of teaching?. Well its a business idea really.. The dumber people are, the more productive and less 'thoughtful' they become.. Now wonder why even after tricking the world into believing that Iraq had WMD's, Bush still got elected. wierd huh.
Well said. However, I'm not a christian but just going through a few posts on Slashdot.com (even some of those in the tech section), I realise how much hatred there is amongst people against any thing that 'remotely' has a religeous theme to it. If we're soo afraid of 'media' imagery and 'hidden' messages in telivision programming, where do you think we get these ideas from anyways?. I bet most people who had seen The chronicles of Narnia and read the books liked the movie to some level without thinking 'damn thts another one of those religeous ones' (like the Passion). However if you just do a simple internet search on The Chronicles of Narnia review and read 'Christian allegory in the Chronicles of Narnia', you'd be like 'hey that is right, maybe I should hate this movie'. Thats silly A Good movie is a good movie regardless of the theme. Passion of the christ was well choreographed, well directed, the camera the music the dialogues everything was well thought of. The Kingdom of Heaven, was a major leap 'off' true history, that 'some wierd guy' who saved 'jerusalem' didn't even have any faith at a time when the world was divided into major religeons in battle - clearly shows how modern movie-goers hate to see a 'religeous' saviour. For that very purpose to appeal to critics like the ones who said 'Narnia is bad because of Religeous themes', the movie makers of Kingdom of Heaven changed history (or for those who don't like the words 'changed'.. they re-told a severely skewed version of it)?. How awsome is that?
I've been an IT administrator in a company that was funded by Microsoft. We were actualy given briefings quarterly showing 'studies' that prooved that Windows was better. Kind of like what McDonald's restaurants started doing after the movie 'Supersize me' blew their cover. They 'proved' to their employees that the company is doing the 'right' thing. Pretty much what Microsoft does even for mere end-product affiliates.
.NET framework (or other development technologies built to target Windows Developers). Lovely Idea. However, The amount we 'can' know about .NET framework without referring to a hacker's manual, is basicaly the amount Microsoft want's us to know 'safely'. So that someday when we need a better solution, We need to go back to microsoft and pay more. It would be silly for such a big corporation to PROVIDE a versatile solution if it wants to make money. Why wont Intel overclock their CPU's and send them off with a bigger heat sink before marketing? The cost? (it would be a mere 5 dollars over the original). Would you pay 5 dollars extra (over a 3.4 Ghz) for a 3.8 Ghz machine?. I definately would. (Do not say it is unstable, almost all of my home pc's run on P4 3.4 Ghz overclocked systems at 4.01 Ghz safely, and I do most of my office work on them). Same reason, why would Bill Gates unlock all the possibilities of Windows all at once for the hackers and programmers to explore?. Why not keep them coming back for more.
I was the person in my IT department who suggested the team move to Linux, because I was sick of having to 'read' Microsoft manuals of their software when they 'launched' something new. It is true, Microsoft basicaly assumes that its 'end-user' even if its a Software engineer by training, is basicaly stupid. Explaining to the person who said 'Windows any one can run, linux is for specialists'. It does not end there.
Let's say (like in my case) I have a particular e-commerce solution to handle and I want my application and (OS) to be tailored to that solution. Let's also assume Windows DOES provide such a solution and it works great. Patches are seemless, updates are a breeze, I could deploy it with my eyes closed. Everything great so far. Let's say now though, my company starts dealing with another company that has a different e-commerce application working for them. Or my companies demands change. It wont be then a simple matter of 'upgrade' or 'download a patch to fix'. It would be a matter of making the program work for me, without having to pay thousands of dollars and relicensing new software?. Microsoft is basicaly a strictly 'product based business' NOT a solutions provider. There are alot of people who claim 'Microsoft has developed several seemless integration options' Such as the
If you are going to have a 'technical' debate on Windows vs. Linux, i'd pose this question: When you have a dual processor Xeon system for your main file servers, and you want to use all that processor power and high pipeline bandwidth 'only' to ensure data security and smooth retrieval. If there is any one who has worked on powerful machines and used both Linux and Windows would understand when I say that 'a trimmed linux distribution' can deal alot better with raw hardware pottential than Windows OS can.
Bottom line is, I switched to linux to 'free' my company from the Microsoft bond.
It is TRUE, given the 'right' set of solutions, Microsoft OS and Linux distributions BOTH perform well. In some situations Microsoft has a clear victory, in others Linux rules the day. There never can be ONE study of ONE solution to proove LINUX is better or WINDOWS is better. There can be common sense that says on the long run, I'd rather know what i'm doing so that I can build upon it. Rather than having to call teacher Bill Gates for help.
When Napster was busted, the "hacker" community came up with new and far better methods of so-called "piracy" of both digital information and other forms of media over the internet. Going back to the time when the very first viruses were created, we find that, to battle these viruses the very first anti-virus software companies were formed. Then came the trojan horses and a new breed of hackers who 'hack into' systems to either 'destroy for fun' or steal information. The next logical step was to create companies that focused on internet securty, people that brought us hardware firewalls and SSL (and all other possible ways of enhancing internet security). What did the hackers do?, they evolved one step further. Microsoft recently developed a 'Genuine Windows detection tool' to prevent piracy. Hackers cracked that too. RIAA (USA), in its fight against the online mp3 sharing community, did all it could to eliminate companies like Kazaa and Limewire. Hackers kept on evolving every step of the way. When the first proxy servers were set up to 'monitor' and 'filter' information that was delivered to users over the internet, we developed anonymizer applications to defend our freedom to access all sorts of information. We have done it before, we will do it again.. so basically nothing to worry about folks... Just learn more and grow with the system instead of doubting it..
Just a while ago Microsoft had settled a lawsuit with Real Networks for $761 million. $256 million just went to malaria research from the Gates foundation. Is 30 million realy a big issue for Microsoft?. Its probably Bill Gates' wife missing 2 days grocery shopping. It makes sense why Microsoft would pay even after threatening to government to 'Withdraw Windows from the Korean Market' if the government did not comply with Bill Gates rules. Funny how eventualy Bill Gates will have more power than smaller governments, and the day is not far when we shall see news articles like 'Bill Gates urges Israel to re-write its constitution allowing more political power to the already predominantly Microsoft based computer economy in the country'. A few weeks ago Bill Gates had made a statement in Israel declaring war on google. Just think about it for a while. Bill Gates goes to a war infested country to say 'I am declaring war on Google, are ya with me folks?'.
It's also funny that people who believe in Evolution are worried, since its all survival of the fittest, may the fit of our people survive. We should look forward to the pandemic. All the weak jackass's will be eliminated from the human chart of evolution to create new 'flu' resistant species of humans. Wierd how in question like these evolutionists have the freakiest responses.. One of them said "Humans have stopped biological evolution to pave way for social evolution' wtf!?
What I dont understand is, how come people claim Evolution is Scientific and Intelligent Design is religeon based. Both are 'hope' and 'faith' based theories.. To say everything is random chances and that in the begining there was 'nothing-ness', and 'universe' just 'self-created' in the Big Bang, and everthing from then onwards just kept on happening haphazardly until some human race developed on some planet Earth.. That doesn't sound very scientific to me. They say 'we're going to 'find' out the origin of the universe, we don't know everything yet. Well what do they think they would find out even if they did 'know' ?.. Something like 'oh some guy called Bob was sitting and he lit a match that created the big bang.. and big bob is still out there looking upon us?'.. Clearly using the word 'God' freaks people out these days, especialy so-called scientists who have no clue about anything.. Apparently all the high level scientists, including Einstein believed in a 'creator'. Obviously he 'knew' stuff evolutionists do not know.. About behaviour of things at the Quantum and Astronomical levels.. As for the title thread, Kansas has taken a good step towards liberating the American public from a narrow thinking which originated in 1800s.. Its about time we 'realise' that science does not believe in 'games of chance' being an explanaition to everything.. Both Evolution and ID should be tought under the same agenda.. 'We believe ___________ '... NOT 'WE KNOW'.. Americans are soo lost in 'State-Church' seperation "STILL" that they do not realise the stupidity of including any such theories under the banner of science.. As Einstien once said: "Religeon without Science is 'blind' and Science without religeon is 'heedless'"..And I say.. Religeon IN science is a result of someone being high on crack..
:There was no America when Galileo: The people we call Americans right now are British too, mind you. There is hardly any 'American' left on American soil. So might as well call all Canadians and Americans (add astralians and Newzies to the list too) are basically british who came years ago killing the local population because they were more 'scientific' compared to the rest of the world who apparently believed in some 'Designer'. I dont see a difference now either. Its like Einstien Said Science without religeon is heedless, Religeon without science is blind. I realy cannot mention a 'great' scientist that didn't believe in a Designer. The point when you start recognising the complexity and purpose behind everything. When you study Quantum Mechanics or any area of modern physics, you realise how everything, even though its not related, falls into a perfect picture that is hardly a 'chance'. "the theory you're talking about was put together by Copernicus, not Galileo." True, but Galileo was the one punished for scientific thinking, point bieng, we negated copernicus, we negated Galileo. For the same purpose. They tried to prove Earth was not the centre of the universe. For the person who said 'What does the designer look like and who designed the designer'. Well those are easy questions to ask isn't it easy answers like, lets take ANYONES explanaition (jews, christians, muslims.. anyone), how about, if there was no designer, who designed it?. If there was no one at all, then what is the difference between you and me and neandrathals? Brain is basically the same size, everything else is the same? Why do I hear evolutionist saying 'We don't know WHAT changed to bring about the modern human, it just appeared co-existing with the ancient man'. Well it definately wasn't BIOLOGY that made us start behaving like we do now, or making decisions?. IF we're just 'highly evolved' ANIMALS, I don't see a point in our evolutionist history where atleast ONE other animal also got the advantage of thought. Sure Donkeys didn't evolve to our level, but should'nt there be atleast one donkey alive today that says 'Dude stop hitting me, I can feel that' ?. Or shouldn't there be a monkey having relationship problems going to a monkey psychologist?. Why is there only ONE EVOLVED human and everyone else is basicaly in that old ancient boat. Its kind of odd, that only one kind of species evolved and everyone else basicaly just grew wings or started eating plants. If you know your astronomy, you'd know that If jupiter was slightly 'smaller' in size than it is right now, Earth would've been destroyed millions of years ago as a result of constant comet and asteroid collisions (Jupiter sheilds Earth). How do you explain that NO matter what amount of poultry of deforestation we seem to do, we never run low on oxygen. Its always a stable 21% with minor fluctuations. I'd like to think with the amount of life activity on earth it should've become 20 percent by now. It just always seems to remain constant. If you think about the fact that 77.6 percent Nitrogen in the air, if it was slightly lower or higher, most life would die out. So is there some animal up there that goes 'damn my meters indicate low oxygen, lets pump some in'. Or letsay it 'just is the way it is'... ?! How about 'eyes' evolved from Scales of reptiles?. Thats a bit odd , don't you think? If you change ANYTHING about an eye even slightly, it just wont work. So to say some marks on the skin, slowly evolved into this Camera like thing that has capability of focus from 2 cm to infinity and can capture more than 23 million colors (more than a camera can) and has self cleaning mechanisms inside it, thts just roll of the die?. Thats only the tip of the iceberg, I can pose to you soo many questions that lead back to the theory of one designer and question evolutionism 'if it was realy how the world happened, then world should be in a highly chaotic state right now'. When you go out looking for a girl friend, trust me on this one, you'r NOT thinking 'Man I need to spread my sperm to ensure th
The Truth is, America has a history of negating change. Early in the medieval era, The church had established that the world was the centre of the universe and galileo was locked up because he said 'it revolves around sun'. Americans and British faught to stop this 'new' thinking, which seemed 'un-acceptable'. Now we are finaly at a time when we can disprove most of evolution theory. It is true, there is evolution within species, but to say that at one point, the monkey has a baby that looks like a human being, and by some freak chance of nature he survives and all others die out, because apparently having no hair and a brain helps alot. Evolutionists go a bit too far by saying 'everything we have today is a random chance'. The 11 constants of the universe, the mass of the proton, the mass of the electron, is all just random chance. Plank's constant just by some roll of the dice happens to be that number that the entire universe adheres to. Some how it doesn't make sense when you think about this fact that had the mass of the electron been even off by 0.00000000000000000001 grams, the Universe wouldn't exist. So is everything some random chance?. Thats just typical american thinking 'we can't explain it, so we'd say it just is'. We accept now that there was a big bang that created the universe, what caused the big bang then?. Letsay it 'just happened', why? and where did the energy come from?. 'We don't know yet, but someday we would' hehe. Just look around, you guys, we already have an explanaition, live with it until its proven wrong. To say 'it just is'.. is not just unscientific, its what a lay man would say. At the time of charls darwin maybe it made sense that everything is the same, but now, after knowing soo much about human biology and the biology of all other creatures on our planet, and astronomical facts about how everything happened, its time to 're-think' the entire theory.
There are literally a million ways to earn money. Not only vocational courses, but trades like Welding and Automotive Repair mechanics can have you earning an easy 35,000-45,000 a year. If you work hard in it, you might as well open your own specialised trades business after a couple years experience and earn as much as doctors earn. The reason I believe one should choose to go to university is to be able to invent and innovate. For that purpose you need the groundworks of knowledge in any subject that you choose. Besides the application of someone else's theories, you need to have enough knowledge to make your own. JAVA for example is 'just' someone's invention, which would be taken over by perhaps another invention a few years later. So is, WINDOWS, .NET Framework etc. So if you knew how these technologies were created instead of how to use them, I think, you'd be much better off int he future.
I think the most important thing to see here is that regardless of the 'realative' free-ness of foriegn markets we are still better off with trade. 'Free' Market means having open access to the cheapest and most efficient resources. (In principal, that includes labour and land). Since the most efficient cost-affective labour is found in India the best thing to do is actualy shift to india. Even if it means loosing jobs in america (which under economic rules were not 'efficient' enough to begin with). In other words, if IBM would have kept those jobs in America, America would actualy have been wasting valuable resources. Same applies for Mexicans. If Illegal MExicans were to be removed from the US Economy, alot of Americans who are now trying to get a degree or a small course to get a higher paying job would instead have been satisfied with un-skilled level jobs. Again, like i said, in-efficient use of limited labour resource. An important Scenario to reference here is, forexample Indians can be good doctors and Americans can be good engineers. It would be in 'everyone's best interest to have medical facilities focussed on hiring indian labour and all engineering requirements be focussed on the Americans. If there were a few americans who were planning on becoming doctors, they would now move onto fields like engineering and thereby 'improving' and 'specialising' in the resources they are best fitted to. This scenario would remove Indian Engineers who are inefficient and American doctors who are inefficient. It would not matter if the Indian or Mexican economy is subject to corruption. At the bottom of everything, every business and every household is watching out for itself. In doing so, even though it may not appear as such, it is still a free market. If however, you do remove your 'so-called' non-free markets from the U.S. economy, you would be left with higher prices, lower levels of income and a staggeringly lower country-wide production or GDP.n In Essence what i'm trying to say is, the 'more' we interact with these 'non-free' markets the more 'free' we make the world market.