yeah, I miss those days of 45 minutes to two hours of music before the batteries died and you had to go looking for 8 more D cells. Also, I miss my 8 pound cell phone, and cassette tapes.
Yeah, now that Apple is using x86 chips, they're going to abandon the one main thing that sets them apart (aesthetics aside) from every other box maker out there. As usual, Dvorak is talking out his ass.
you know, with the hymen question I truly don't know what the answer is. However, if another creature does share that particular anatomical feature (and I'd imagine some might, as males have an analogous chunk of tissue (of course, it atrophies during fetal development but leaves a faint remnant near the bladder that serves no discernible purpose), that creature might be the Bonobo, a close relative of the chimpanzee as we are, it also shares some similar traits as humans; they enjoy sex for pleasure rather than just procreation, engage in intercourse face to face, which i believe only appears in the animal kingdom with them and us, and females have a menstrual cycle like humans, unlike the other apes which undergo an estrus cycle (basically coming into heat, as opposed to being fertile much of the time).
On top of these similarities, the bonobo is a much more social animal than the chimp, with much less fighting and violence exhibited to other bonobos compared to chimp on chimp fighting.
From your comments, it's clear that you have little to no formal background in biology. For your first point, I expect you were referring to chromosomes when you said "rungs." I'm not sure what you mean when you say no other creature is like us, while I can't think of any offhand, I'm sure there is probably an animal out there that also has 46 chromosomes, although it's quite likely the genes on those chromosomes are ordered completely differently. The number of chromosomes an organism contains has nothing, repeat nothing to do with the level of complexity of the organism. For example a guinea pig has 64, a dog has 78, and there's a type of fern with 1260. Considering that your DNA only spends a relatively small portion of its time condensed as chromosomes anyway (it's a convenient way to manage and store the doubled DNA right before the cell divides), I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.
As for your second point about the physiological structure of the heart...you're completely wrong. ALL mammals share a very similar heart structure, four chambers, two atria, two ventricles. The left ventricle pumps deoxygenated blood to the lungs, the right ventricle pumps oxygenated blood to the body. The valves are very similar, the shape is nearly identical, and even the innervation of the cardiac muscle is similar. Guess what the first heart transplant was? It was a human receiving a chimpanzee heart (due to a lack of rejection treatment and tissue typing knowledge the recipient soon died but thats not the point). You're just totally off base with that.
Yep, you're absolutely right, in fact the summer of my freshman year of college I spent the summer working in my advisor's lab, and one of the things I did was set up an ultra high resolution double slit experiment using an image enhanced CCD system, a specially constructed detection box a HeNe laser, polarizing filters and enough neutral density filters that the measured intensity of the laser (At this point invisible to the eye) was on the order of nanowatts, such that the number of photons hitting the detector was 12 per frame. I then assembled the aggregate images into a quicktime movie. And guess what? With only 12 photons per frame, you still develop an observable diffraction pattern.
From your comment it seems like you dont have an understanding of the Big Bang theory; specifically where you say "...the big bang gases[sic] came from that created the universe"
But since no one has explained it to you, here goes:
First of all, the "Big Bang" refers to the creation of the universe as we know it, this is currently only described as a massive release of energy that resulted in the creation of a rapidly expanding universe with an incredibly large amount of energy. As it continued to expand, the fundamental forces of physics began to seperate out and exert their individual effects on the universe, which at this point had expanded enough that the temperature of the whole mess was low enough that matter in the form of protons, neutrons, and electrons began to form. Finally, after more expansion and cooling, this matter was of sufficiently low energy to be able to coalesce into atoms, mostly Hydrogen.
As for what "gave" the gasses the properties they have, I would argue that nothing "gave" anything, their properties are a direct result of their makeup, which determines their characteristics, from electronegativity to boiling point to optical properties (or color for the lay man)
That is a scientifc explanation for the creation of the universe, and guess what? There is room for god in there! Our understanding of physics breaks down at the moment of the big bang. No one knows or can say how this process happened or what caused it. If you like, you can say "this is the work of god." However, saying that god must have been responsible for something just because you personally don't understand something is entirely different from allowing the possibility that our current science cannot address because the laws of physics no longer apply.
Technically you are correct, but your reason is slightly off. The equation is
N=R*F(p)*n(e)*f(l)*f(i)*f(c)*L
It is used to calculate the odds of contacting an alien civilization.
N is the number of Extraterrestrial civilizations one would expect to be able to communicate with.
The number it returns cannot be zero as you pointed out, but it can be vanishingly close.
I'd say this would definitely incresase the probability of the drake equation resulting in a non-zero answer. Complex organic molecule formation is one of the biggies that you need for development of life.
Actually, there are no commercial reactors that use liquid metal as the coolant. Liquid metal coolant systems were only used in breeder reactors, which if you didn't know, haven't exactly had the best safety (sodium tends to explode if you have a leak between the primary and secondary [water] heat exchange loop) or productivity (yes, the breeders produced more fuel than they consumed, however, their energy output was less than their input) record. The liquid metal coolant wasn't there so that the core could be operated at higher tenperatures, it was there because the combined radioactivity of the core and surrounding U238/Pu239 produced so much heat that water becomes an insufficient cooling system, even under extremely high pressure. Liquid metal is the only thing able to absorb that much heat quickly.
And despite this distressing news of sales dropping less than half a percent, you can bet the RIAA is still pushing to increase the price of "popular" songs...
So you're saying that for example, a study involving oxygen binding rates on animal hemoglobins, some of which differ from the human hemoglobin by a single (small, neutral) protein are completely innefective because they're "too different from humans"? Many animals, and especially mammals share many genetic similarities with humans, particularly for things that are necessary to life, like the metabolic pathways. I am a biologist, and I can assure you that animal studies have provided immeasurable benefits to humankind despite their slight genetic differences.
Thats not really true, when biologists talk of genetic similarity, we're not speaking about the proportions of cysteine, guanine, adenine and thymine that make up DNA, but rather how well the specific order of genes is conserved between species. For the overwhelming majority of genes in mice and humans, the exact sequence differs by only a few base pairs here and there, over a sequence that can be thousands and thousands of base pairs long. Additionally, this single base pair difference might not even cause a change in the final protein product, due to the redundancy of the genetic code.
And as far as the other hand, men and women are a lot more the same than 1 difference in 45, its more like 99.99 percent identical in fact. The number of genes that the Y chromosome encodes can be counted on your fingers, and they all deal with the male reproductive system.
This isn't news, everyone knows GOTO results in faster code than GOSUB
I actually participated in the program mentioned..
on
The Prodigy Puzzle
·
· Score: 1
I actually participated in the Johns Hopkins Talent Search that the article mentions. I only scored an 1190 on the SAT in 7th grade, so I guess I wasn't that 1 kid out of 10,000 they were looking for, although I remember I did score well enough to be honored at a special ceremony. However, I also didn't really take it seriously, much like most of school from about the first grade on. I never ever felt "challenged" mentally by school until I took AP physics in high school (a calculus based class) before I had taken pre-calc. I honestly just wasn't interested enough to make it worth my time to study the material, I generally just remembered what we'd talked about in class and that was enough. I would never study, as I could easily get B's without opening a textbook, and I never saw the point in actually working just to get an A, when I could spend no effort and play computer games and get B's. I took the SAT junior year of high school, and scored a 1400, without any sort of review or prep, and figured that was fine for any sort of school i'd be applying to. Now, in the middle of my final year of college, I realize (to considerable dismay) that I am significantly smarter than just about all of my peers. Mind you, I attend a small, selective liberal arts college in the north-east, which was ranked somewhere around number 35 in the country by US News and World Report. Yet even here, I don't ever feel like doing the small amount of work I would take to consistently get A's, when I can pull a 3.2 GPA without trying.
Basically what I'm saying is for the small group of very intelligent young people out there, the current educational model does not encourage excitement and interest in learning for the "average" kid with an IQ in the 140+ range.
nice, he makes a big ostentatious show of covering up his RFID strip with foil so "they" can't get at him, and of course all that happens is "they" make a big show of harassing him.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, I miss those days of 45 minutes to two hours of music before the batteries died and you had to go looking for 8 more D cells. Also, I miss my 8 pound cell phone, and cassette tapes.
Yeah, now that Apple is using x86 chips, they're going to abandon the one main thing that sets them apart (aesthetics aside) from every other box maker out there. As usual, Dvorak is talking out his ass.
you know, with the hymen question I truly don't know what the answer is. However, if another creature does share that particular anatomical feature (and I'd imagine some might, as males have an analogous chunk of tissue (of course, it atrophies during fetal development but leaves a faint remnant near the bladder that serves no discernible purpose), that creature might be the Bonobo, a close relative of the chimpanzee as we are, it also shares some similar traits as humans; they enjoy sex for pleasure rather than just procreation, engage in intercourse face to face, which i believe only appears in the animal kingdom with them and us, and females have a menstrual cycle like humans, unlike the other apes which undergo an estrus cycle (basically coming into heat, as opposed to being fertile much of the time). On top of these similarities, the bonobo is a much more social animal than the chimp, with much less fighting and violence exhibited to other bonobos compared to chimp on chimp fighting.
From your comments, it's clear that you have little to no formal background in biology. For your first point, I expect you were referring to chromosomes when you said "rungs." I'm not sure what you mean when you say no other creature is like us, while I can't think of any offhand, I'm sure there is probably an animal out there that also has 46 chromosomes, although it's quite likely the genes on those chromosomes are ordered completely differently. The number of chromosomes an organism contains has nothing, repeat nothing to do with the level of complexity of the organism. For example a guinea pig has 64, a dog has 78, and there's a type of fern with 1260. Considering that your DNA only spends a relatively small portion of its time condensed as chromosomes anyway (it's a convenient way to manage and store the doubled DNA right before the cell divides), I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.
As for your second point about the physiological structure of the heart...you're completely wrong. ALL mammals share a very similar heart structure, four chambers, two atria, two ventricles. The left ventricle pumps deoxygenated blood to the lungs, the right ventricle pumps oxygenated blood to the body. The valves are very similar, the shape is nearly identical, and even the innervation of the cardiac muscle is similar. Guess what the first heart transplant was? It was a human receiving a chimpanzee heart (due to a lack of rejection treatment and tissue typing knowledge the recipient soon died but thats not the point). You're just totally off base with that.
I said something to this effect last week! http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171832&cid =14310329
That was not a consumer CCD, unless you put $20,000 in "consumer" range.
Yep, you're absolutely right, in fact the summer of my freshman year of college I spent the summer working in my advisor's lab, and one of the things I did was set up an ultra high resolution double slit experiment using an image enhanced CCD system, a specially constructed detection box a HeNe laser, polarizing filters and enough neutral density filters that the measured intensity of the laser (At this point invisible to the eye) was on the order of nanowatts, such that the number of photons hitting the detector was 12 per frame. I then assembled the aggregate images into a quicktime movie. And guess what? With only 12 photons per frame, you still develop an observable diffraction pattern.
m
Check it out here:
http://www1.union.edu/~malekis/QM2004/qm_heis3.ht
From your comment it seems like you dont have an understanding of the Big Bang theory; specifically where you say "...the big bang gases[sic] came from that created the universe" But since no one has explained it to you, here goes: First of all, the "Big Bang" refers to the creation of the universe as we know it, this is currently only described as a massive release of energy that resulted in the creation of a rapidly expanding universe with an incredibly large amount of energy. As it continued to expand, the fundamental forces of physics began to seperate out and exert their individual effects on the universe, which at this point had expanded enough that the temperature of the whole mess was low enough that matter in the form of protons, neutrons, and electrons began to form. Finally, after more expansion and cooling, this matter was of sufficiently low energy to be able to coalesce into atoms, mostly Hydrogen. As for what "gave" the gasses the properties they have, I would argue that nothing "gave" anything, their properties are a direct result of their makeup, which determines their characteristics, from electronegativity to boiling point to optical properties (or color for the lay man) That is a scientifc explanation for the creation of the universe, and guess what? There is room for god in there! Our understanding of physics breaks down at the moment of the big bang. No one knows or can say how this process happened or what caused it. If you like, you can say "this is the work of god." However, saying that god must have been responsible for something just because you personally don't understand something is entirely different from allowing the possibility that our current science cannot address because the laws of physics no longer apply.
exactly, and since the drake equation calculates our odds of contacting ANOTHER civilization, that is a possible outcome if there are no others.
Technically you are correct, but your reason is slightly off. The equation is N=R*F(p)*n(e)*f(l)*f(i)*f(c)*L It is used to calculate the odds of contacting an alien civilization. N is the number of Extraterrestrial civilizations one would expect to be able to communicate with. The number it returns cannot be zero as you pointed out, but it can be vanishingly close.
I'd say this would definitely incresase the probability of the drake equation resulting in a non-zero answer. Complex organic molecule formation is one of the biggies that you need for development of life.
they can't regulate the whole internet now can they
Well, maybe there's a reason that the US fights to keep ICANN in charge instead of the UN.
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmille r.pdf
Also, this decision is unfortunately only binding for the dover area school district, not the rest of the state.
Actually, there are no commercial reactors that use liquid metal as the coolant. Liquid metal coolant systems were only used in breeder reactors, which if you didn't know, haven't exactly had the best safety (sodium tends to explode if you have a leak between the primary and secondary [water] heat exchange loop) or productivity (yes, the breeders produced more fuel than they consumed, however, their energy output was less than their input) record. The liquid metal coolant wasn't there so that the core could be operated at higher tenperatures, it was there because the combined radioactivity of the core and surrounding U238/Pu239 produced so much heat that water becomes an insufficient cooling system, even under extremely high pressure. Liquid metal is the only thing able to absorb that much heat quickly.
And despite this distressing news of sales dropping less than half a percent, you can bet the RIAA is still pushing to increase the price of "popular" songs...
So you're saying that for example, a study involving oxygen binding rates on animal hemoglobins, some of which differ from the human hemoglobin by a single (small, neutral) protein are completely innefective because they're "too different from humans"? Many animals, and especially mammals share many genetic similarities with humans, particularly for things that are necessary to life, like the metabolic pathways. I am a biologist, and I can assure you that animal studies have provided immeasurable benefits to humankind despite their slight genetic differences.
Thats not really true, when biologists talk of genetic similarity, we're not speaking about the proportions of cysteine, guanine, adenine and thymine that make up DNA, but rather how well the specific order of genes is conserved between species. For the overwhelming majority of genes in mice and humans, the exact sequence differs by only a few base pairs here and there, over a sequence that can be thousands and thousands of base pairs long. Additionally, this single base pair difference might not even cause a change in the final protein product, due to the redundancy of the genetic code.
And as far as the other hand, men and women are a lot more the same than 1 difference in 45, its more like 99.99 percent identical in fact. The number of genes that the Y chromosome encodes can be counted on your fingers, and they all deal with the male reproductive system.
I for one, would prefer to welcome, our large-breasted, gorgeous overlords.
I wouldn't trust the manufacturer's claims about lifespan anyway. Ive have plenty of discs rated at shelf lives of 10+ years degrade in under 4 years.
I hope the ink is hypo-allergenic..
The web is used (rightly or wrongly) to deliver two distinct things.
1) Porn
2) Spam
This isn't news, everyone knows GOTO results in faster code than GOSUB
I actually participated in the Johns Hopkins Talent Search that the article mentions. I only scored an 1190 on the SAT in 7th grade, so I guess I wasn't that 1 kid out of 10,000 they were looking for, although I remember I did score well enough to be honored at a special ceremony. However, I also didn't really take it seriously, much like most of school from about the first grade on. I never ever felt "challenged" mentally by school until I took AP physics in high school (a calculus based class) before I had taken pre-calc. I honestly just wasn't interested enough to make it worth my time to study the material, I generally just remembered what we'd talked about in class and that was enough. I would never study, as I could easily get B's without opening a textbook, and I never saw the point in actually working just to get an A, when I could spend no effort and play computer games and get B's. I took the SAT junior year of high school, and scored a 1400, without any sort of review or prep, and figured that was fine for any sort of school i'd be applying to. Now, in the middle of my final year of college, I realize (to considerable dismay) that I am significantly smarter than just about all of my peers. Mind you, I attend a small, selective liberal arts college in the north-east, which was ranked somewhere around number 35 in the country by US News and World Report. Yet even here, I don't ever feel like doing the small amount of work I would take to consistently get A's, when I can pull a 3.2 GPA without trying.
Basically what I'm saying is for the small group of very intelligent young people out there, the current educational model does not encourage excitement and interest in learning for the "average" kid with an IQ in the 140+ range.
nice, he makes a big ostentatious show of covering up his RFID strip with foil so "they" can't get at him, and of course all that happens is "they" make a big show of harassing him.
Fucking hilarious.
sounds like she comes from good people