According to the author linked with my sig, Floriensis may be remanents of the Badui people. Knowledge of the Badui peoples were common among some Indonesian tribes. If you look, check out the article on Javanese Mystical Tradition for some background info.
Something deep in the recesses of my mind strikes a chord here... I vaguely remember a story that a Roman ship was lost and some Roman remains found on a pacific island somewhere. Mind you, it could have been a movie I saw once. Anyway, if hey do find that wooden hut with remains of a female half buried under it, would someone please check if she's got any shoes on?
And why is there a strong similarity of Tibetan/Nepalese head-dress with Islander head-dress? What's happening?? Why is the room spinning???
PS Being a Libertarian in a repressive society gives me a sense of freedom, but that's all.
More and more I'm finding that simple upgrade jobs are taking longer to do due to masses of dust and crap. Upgrading a 256mb to 1 gb takes maybe 5 mins. The last one took over an hour, It was so bad I took photos. The dust was so thick that I had to dismantle everything, vacuum, use artist brushes and compressed air, reassemble after oiling the fans! I even replaced the power supply as it was too stuffed with dust to be safe. By the time I finished, my workspace was filled with dust, crap everywhere. Next time I'll blow it out with compressed air outside in the sunlight.
Even if the galactic plane were thinner than the solar system's scale, it wouldn't matter. But it does matter. If the plane is 1,000 light years thick, then anything within that field, like a ring at 45 degrees to the plane, would remain at that angle as the attraction on all particles would be the same as the whole ring as it is blanketed by the same force vector. The symmetrical forces above and below the plane wouldn't have an effect as the ring is well within the thickness of the plane. However anything above the plane and (eg) about 75,000 light years out, would travel on a ballistic curve toward the center. Hard to prove. It would be interesting statistical physics to find out how many systems' plane is aligned to the galactic plane or at azimuth (90 degrees). That would be the cruncher. It would also be interesting to find out if there are gravity variations caused by the varying degrees of mass rotating around the center. If you had an observer at the edge of the galaxy, measuring the gravitational forces over a galactic period, would it vary? Are the spirals balanced? Is the plane uniform?
If the plane is microns thick, then the symmetrical forces that you are talking about will indeed have an effect.
True, and I've just convinced myself that you're right. I forgot that it depends on the 'depth' of the galactic plane, which is significant. A 2D plane, arising from a point, had no depth. A plane in a 3D universe, does. Anything enveloped along the depth of the plane (in this case 1000 light years), will have an effect on masses independent of spin, which masks the effect out anyway. So rings, moons, planets and even solar systems can and do have a variance of up to 20 degrees within the galactic plane.
The force of gravity is 'directional', as all matter of the galaxy is already on the same plane. So as the solar system matures further, rings and moons will eventually be forced into the same plane.
A simple system like 2 masses rotating around each other has a greater gravitational attraction in one plane. A third mass initially rotating around this simple system in a different plane, will eventually force this triad into a plane common to all 3 masses.
Although I've heard of NIN, I'm not familiar with their music. So when you said that you're a B. Eno fan, I was wondering how Eno and NIN relate? I appreciate Eno very much, especially before his Bowie period and I'm a bit stumped with your comparison. Is it 'Ghosts' that your talking about? Are there other tracks?
AMD + ATI is in competition with INTEL I doubt that, otherwise Intel would not be producing the X38 chips and their variants. I just recently built a custom system with an X38 chipset optimized for ATI crossfire with and Intel CPU socket. LOL And I had to put in a NVidia 8800GT! Works really well, especially with 4GB of 1200MHZ ram:)
Surely with all those sheep and possums and ex-cricketers, you should be able to think up something! Or, you could move to Australia and pay $90 for unlimited ISDN @ 128kb/s. Face it. NZ and it's subsidiary island of Australia doesn't rate in the big world of internets.
I'm replying to Shados and the AC. I can't argue against the rationality of what you've both said and implied. Answered like a true Darwinian. I also agree with the rationality, because that is the process that the theory states. Unfortunately, the theory doesn't allow for a parallel process to occur. Empirical evidence should show that in all populations, dwarfism and giganticism should regularly occur. That is in essence what Darwin was talking about, that there is enough variation in each population of species and that all variations have a more or less equal chance of surviving. Consequently those variations that suit the present natural conditions survive better and dominate. Yet I can't convince myself that this operates alone and is the sole cause of change. (I'm reluctant to use the word 'evolution', for it also burdened with the meaning of advancement as well as survival.) So the 'process' that thin, underfed animals survive, breed and their thin, underfed offspring continue to survive as the better fed larger animals die earlier, may force genetic variance, - thus a dwarf animal is produced. This makes a little bit more sense to me. And I'm not a layman as such. Darwin's theories also fall under the discipline of the history and philosophy of science.
I don't think you are missing anything. 'Survival of the Fittest' seems to be a good and acceptable explanation, but that's all it is. It doesn't fully describe the 'changes' as you put it. Eg. Large, woolly mammoths travel to this island across an ice bridge. Then they are stuck there. They survive till 1700BC as miniatures, as a result of them understanding that there is not enough food on the island to support the size of their large ancestors? No, that can't be it. So (according to Darwin), a pair of slightly smaller mammoths are born and they dominate breeding over their larger cousins? This goes on until they get as small as possible until they die out anyway? Something doesn't quite sit right there. All I'm saying is that there may be evidence that Darwin's theories don't fully explain these smaller habitats. The Cabbage moth in Northern Industrial England is another example or very rapid evolution. Also, by now you would think that genetically we would have found evidence of dwarf elephants? Not yet! ~
It's plainly obvious that Darwin or Lamark or Intelligent design all miss the mark. There is enough paradigm change evidence to warrant a different theory. Careful analysis of real data shows that there are other factors that Darwin can't explain. For example, the decline of the mammoth on a particular island in the Bering Sea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrangel_Island, showed that the mammoths 'evolved' to smaller and smaller sizes, until they were dwarf mammoths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth So in effect, a force of nature, had influence upon the evolution of mammoths' physical size to compensate for the size of the island (previously connected to the mainland), and evolved to be able to survive, holistically, on the vegetation on that island. There is other evidence that is currently in dispute, that the Indonesian human remains found on one island are diminutive and current scientific evidence shows that the natural human form was due to dwarfism, due to the limitations of the natural abundance of resources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis All this points out that there is more than 'survival of the fittest' or for that matter more than Lamark's concept of environment deciding that shape and form of lifeforms. - ummm... Giraffes have long necks so they can eats the leaves at tops of trees... So, in my opinion, there is another theory about to surface. Conceptually, it would need to include a force of nature that determines the final (though progressive) outcome of all lifeforms. Can you imagine? That some currently unknown factor, that I attribute to a specific criteria of 'nature', actually affects the evolution of lifeforms?
So a clear thinker would see that 'nature' (whatever aspect of that), has a direct influence on 'evolution' as we know it.
Well at least if NASA claim that they're going to smash it into the moon, and it actually lands, then they may just get some of their credibility back!
Toshiba have more corporate brains than Sony. It is a very complicated scenario, but briefly Toshiba came to the conclusion that the Full 1080P HD screen technology, although accepted wasn't being adopted in the larger screen sizes. People are buying HD screens in compatible resolutions or as full HD but in small sizes. Why? Well most people (world wide) have lounge rooms around 3x3M or about 10'x10' and smaller, where a full HD would be too large for the room. Or it's more of a personal viewing experience in a bedroom, kitchen or whatever. This meant that the real war is between HD formats and standard DVD which is so entrenched and suits smaller screens. Other factors that led to their decision were that Free to Air Digital HD is still 2 years away and that technology advancements are overtaking media storage. This obviates the need for consumers to purchase HD media. Even though it is almost impossible to buy a non-HD screen now, those who are buying screens are still buying small =>32" where HD DVD/Blu-Ray is just not warranted. Everyone is looking for the next gen technology which the insiders are seeing as Satellite/Microwave/Cable based encrypted systems, Flash (consumer HD on Flash drive), FTA encoded; and Internet, the last choice due to problems with the world wide infrastructure being slow and fragile. So some sort of localized storage like a drive in a TV or a Tivo style for encrypted media, flash rom for consumer purchases, standard DVD for those who don't care. Now the Studios have a big problem too. If they start putting out movie as HD only, then they'll go bust, so they don't. They are still pumping out DVDs because they can sell them. They can't sell any form of HD disk is the consumer doesn't have a player, or has a small screen where the HD isn't required. So as the next gen technologies are being researched and invented, the studios have to sit back and wait for a more suitable method of selling their wares.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the author linked with my sig, Floriensis may be remanents of the Badui people.
Knowledge of the Badui peoples were common among some Indonesian tribes.
If you look, check out the article on Javanese Mystical Tradition for some background info.
Something deep in the recesses of my mind strikes a chord here...
I vaguely remember a story that a Roman ship was lost and some Roman remains found on a pacific island somewhere.
Mind you, it could have been a movie I saw once.
Anyway, if hey do find that wooden hut with remains of a female half buried under it, would someone please check if she's got any shoes on?
And why is there a strong similarity of Tibetan/Nepalese head-dress with Islander head-dress?
What's happening?? Why is the room spinning???
PS Being a Libertarian in a repressive society gives me a sense of freedom, but that's all.
More and more I'm finding that simple upgrade jobs are taking longer to do due to masses of dust and crap.
Upgrading a 256mb to 1 gb takes maybe 5 mins. The last one took over an hour, It was so bad I took photos.
The dust was so thick that I had to dismantle everything, vacuum, use artist brushes and compressed air, reassemble after oiling the fans! I even replaced the power supply as it was too stuffed with dust to be safe.
By the time I finished, my workspace was filled with dust, crap everywhere.
Next time I'll blow it out with compressed air outside in the sunlight.
The symmetrical forces above and below the plane wouldn't have an effect as the ring is well within the thickness of the plane.
However anything above the plane and (eg) about 75,000 light years out, would travel on a ballistic curve toward the center.
Hard to prove.
It would be interesting statistical physics to find out how many systems' plane is aligned to the galactic plane or at azimuth (90 degrees). That would be the cruncher. It would also be interesting to find out if there are gravity variations caused by the varying degrees of mass rotating around the center. If you had an observer at the edge of the galaxy, measuring the gravitational forces over a galactic period, would it vary? Are the spirals balanced? Is the plane uniform?
If the plane is microns thick, then the symmetrical forces that you are talking about will indeed have an effect.
True, and I've just convinced myself that you're right. I forgot that it depends on the 'depth' of the galactic plane, which is significant.
A 2D plane, arising from a point, had no depth. A plane in a 3D universe, does.
Anything enveloped along the depth of the plane (in this case 1000 light years), will have an effect on masses independent of spin, which masks the effect out anyway.
So rings, moons, planets and even solar systems can and do have a variance of up to 20 degrees within the galactic plane.
The force of gravity is 'directional', as all matter of the galaxy is already on the same plane. So as the solar system matures further, rings and moons will eventually be forced into the same plane.
A simple system like 2 masses rotating around each other has a greater gravitational attraction in one plane. A third mass initially rotating around this simple system in a different plane, will eventually force this triad into a plane common to all 3 masses.
Message received and understood.
Although if pressed, I would recommend some early Faust and other Krautrock.
Although I've heard of NIN, I'm not familiar with their music. So when you said that you're a B. Eno fan, I was wondering how Eno and NIN relate?
I appreciate Eno very much, especially before his Bowie period and I'm a bit stumped with your comparison.
Is it 'Ghosts' that your talking about? Are there other tracks?
I just recently built a custom system with an X38 chipset optimized for ATI crossfire with and Intel CPU socket.
LOL And I had to put in a NVidia 8800GT!
Works really well, especially with 4GB of 1200MHZ ram
Send them an email and ask.
Surely with all those sheep and possums and ex-cricketers, you should be able to think up something!
Or, you could move to Australia and pay $90 for unlimited ISDN @ 128kb/s.
Face it. NZ and it's subsidiary island of Australia doesn't rate in the big world of internets.
Try Whirlpool http://bc.whirlpool.net.au/
Lots of better plans there.
According to Kurt Vonnegut Jnr, it stands for arsehole - *
The lag would be terrible!
Imagine trying to do chat.
Not really, I mean no one mentioned that they could use one of those energy efficient bulbs and reduce the power consumption to about 20 watts.
I'm replying to Shados and the AC.
I can't argue against the rationality of what you've both said and implied. Answered like a true Darwinian. I also agree with the rationality, because that is the process that the theory states.
Unfortunately, the theory doesn't allow for a parallel process to occur.
Empirical evidence should show that in all populations, dwarfism and giganticism should regularly occur. That is in essence what Darwin was talking about, that there is enough variation in each population of species and that all variations have a more or less equal chance of surviving. Consequently those variations that suit the present natural conditions survive better and dominate.
Yet I can't convince myself that this operates alone and is the sole cause of change. (I'm reluctant to use the word 'evolution', for it also burdened with the meaning of advancement as well as survival.)
So the 'process' that thin, underfed animals survive, breed and their thin, underfed offspring continue to survive as the better fed larger animals die earlier, may force genetic variance, - thus a dwarf animal is produced. This makes a little bit more sense to me.
And I'm not a layman as such. Darwin's theories also fall under the discipline of the history and philosophy of science.
I don't think you are missing anything. 'Survival of the Fittest' seems to be a good and acceptable explanation, but that's all it is. It doesn't fully describe the 'changes' as you put it.
Eg. Large, woolly mammoths travel to this island across an ice bridge. Then they are stuck there.
They survive till 1700BC as miniatures, as a result of them understanding that there is not enough food on the island to support the size of their large ancestors? No, that can't be it.
So (according to Darwin), a pair of slightly smaller mammoths are born and they dominate breeding over their larger cousins? This goes on until they get as small as possible until they die out anyway?
Something doesn't quite sit right there.
All I'm saying is that there may be evidence that Darwin's theories don't fully explain these smaller habitats.
The Cabbage moth in Northern Industrial England is another example or very rapid evolution.
Also, by now you would think that genetically we would have found evidence of dwarf elephants? Not yet!
~
It's plainly obvious that Darwin or Lamark or Intelligent design all miss the mark.
There is enough paradigm change evidence to warrant a different theory.
Careful analysis of real data shows that there are other factors that Darwin can't explain.
For example, the decline of the mammoth on a particular island in the Bering Sea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrangel_Island, showed that the mammoths 'evolved' to smaller and smaller sizes, until they were dwarf mammoths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth
So in effect, a force of nature, had influence upon the evolution of mammoths' physical size to compensate for the size of the island (previously connected to the mainland), and evolved to be able to survive, holistically, on the vegetation on that island.
There is other evidence that is currently in dispute, that the Indonesian human remains found on one island are diminutive and current scientific evidence shows that the natural human form was due to dwarfism, due to the limitations of the natural abundance of resources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
All this points out that there is more than 'survival of the fittest' or for that matter more than Lamark's concept of environment deciding that shape and form of lifeforms. - ummm... Giraffes have long necks so they can eats the leaves at tops of trees...
So, in my opinion, there is another theory about to surface. Conceptually, it would need to include a force of nature that determines the final (though progressive) outcome of all lifeforms.
Can you imagine? That some currently unknown factor, that I attribute to a specific criteria of 'nature', actually affects the evolution of lifeforms?
So a clear thinker would see that 'nature' (whatever aspect of that), has a direct influence on 'evolution' as we know it.
Well at least if NASA claim that they're going to smash it into the moon, and it actually lands, then they may just get some of their credibility back!
thnx,
Found the same as your sig on Forumwarez... I wondered what it meant!
Re: Sig.
I get the 2 girls bit... but the cup?
Toshiba have more corporate brains than Sony.
It is a very complicated scenario, but briefly Toshiba came to the conclusion that the Full 1080P HD screen technology, although accepted wasn't being adopted in the larger screen sizes. People are buying HD screens in compatible resolutions or as full HD but in small sizes.
Why? Well most people (world wide) have lounge rooms around 3x3M or about 10'x10' and smaller, where a full HD would be too large for the room. Or it's more of a personal viewing experience in a bedroom, kitchen or whatever.
This meant that the real war is between HD formats and standard DVD which is so entrenched and suits smaller screens.
Other factors that led to their decision were that Free to Air Digital HD is still 2 years away and that technology advancements are overtaking media storage.
This obviates the need for consumers to purchase HD media. Even though it is almost impossible to buy a non-HD screen now, those who are buying screens are still buying small =>32" where HD DVD/Blu-Ray is just not warranted.
Everyone is looking for the next gen technology which the insiders are seeing as Satellite/Microwave/Cable based encrypted systems, Flash (consumer HD on Flash drive), FTA encoded; and Internet, the last choice due to problems with the world wide infrastructure being slow and fragile.
So some sort of localized storage like a drive in a TV or a Tivo style for encrypted media, flash rom for consumer purchases, standard DVD for those who don't care.
Now the Studios have a big problem too. If they start putting out movie as HD only, then they'll go bust, so they don't. They are still pumping out DVDs because they can sell them. They can't sell any form of HD disk is the consumer doesn't have a player, or has a small screen where the HD isn't required.
So as the next gen technologies are being researched and invented, the studios have to sit back and wait for a more suitable method of selling their wares.
Old Australian Convict joke:
Wombats... "Eats roots, shoots and leaves" (Big Wide Evil Grin)