This is the point that I think is the most offensive about this story to me. The cop did NOT know the law and basically lied, assuming that he was probably right about what the identification law stated. Oops.
Is this really like our own? From what little I know about planetary geology, I seem to recall that water did not just rain down on our planet, but was possibly created at or near our early planet from constituent atoms. Could someone clarify this?
Yes, the N95 is pretty sweet, but again, we're talking apples and oranges (ehem) here. It does have a lot of features the iPhone doesn't (yet), but it's unlikely to get hacked to have a touchscreen. Also, it isn't exactly a bargain either. I've held both (damn lucky friends of mine), and believe me, you can feel how much clunkier yet less durable it is than an iPhone. If only we could have the bastard offspring of Apple+Nokia.
I like many Apple products, but I can't afford an iPhone (I don't YET consider it a value when it doesn't offer 3G support, etc, and I can't afford to pay just for the style factor). Despite its shortcomings, however, I have been fairly impressed with its hackability (and the efforts those who've modified it for interesting new uses, including unlocking it). I haven't heard any peep out of Apple about discouraging this sort of thing (short of the obvious warnings warranties being voided). I think this approach with the iPhone, and also the highly hacked AppleTV, is enhancing the value of these products, which out of the box, aren't necessarily top of the line in many categories.
Perhaps they should just extend their logic a little more... how about just the 4 basic elements: earth, air, fire, water? the earth is flat? (2D geometry is easier than 3D, right?)
People in big cities may have to pay hundreds of dollars a month for parking. They have better roads, access to airports, etc. On the other hand, they don' t have as much access to open country, the air quality is lower, the crime rate is generally higher. It always seems like the subsidies go in favor of the country folk (think airfare and phone subsidies). Am I to feel bad that some guy who probably has a much bigger home than me (and LESS expensive) is having trouble getting cheap broadband? Is he going to subsidize parking garages in New York city? Most adults can choose where to live, we all know what we're getting.
The site worked great a not long ago, but now seems to be loading more slowly. I guess the popularity of this service may make it near unusable if they don't work out their bandwidth issues.
I too think it is a beautiful philosophy. Calling it science or even "theory" seems a stretch at best (scientists use the word theory a lot less loosely than other disciplines), and flat out insulting at worst, at least to the rest of us who bend over backwards trying to disprove ourselves, which is what any good theory does.
I wish more channels would offer their best ala carte programming online. Let them have their commercials there. Make a good experience for the viewer and they will go for it. Cut out the middle man altogether (unless of course, your cable company owns the internet access too...;)
lol. instead of acknowledging the merits of this particular topic, you try and make comparisons. the good old "democrats did it too!" whine. when it's a democrat president, we SHOULD hold them to the same standards. RIGHT NOW, however, the buck stops with Bush. This crowd control is a pathetic attempt to stifle alternative, constitutionally protected view points. clearly you're on the republican side. i'm on the american side.
There were many critiques in the discussion thread that I thought were perfectly valid, especially if they weren't posted as AC. The tagging system just seems ripe for abuse. How many "haha", "yes", "no" tags have been applied? How exactly does that help anyone? Not to mention the overly political tags. It's just a way for some to post their opinions without having to write out something more well reasoned, or god forbid, put their name to. So ya, genuine critiques are valid. Childish taunts are more reminiscent of FPS text chats.
"WE" "WE" "WE". That's where I have a philosophically different view point. I agree that there can be many natural causes of global warming, and over the long run, yes, many species may suffer. However, this time around, my problem is that, according to the data, WE are the cause of the changes to the environment. So sure, maybe a short term human blip is not much considering the history of the Earth. BUT, the problem is humans aren't going anywhere, we're probably here to stay and will continue to change our environment. This will, unfortunately, not just be a "blip" in the grand scheme of things. Also, on the topic of species constantly emerging and dying: Frankly, I like the coral.
Doesn't the ad still get called up? It's still accessed, just not displayed on the client side. Or am I not understanding how the Firefox ad blockers work? I thought it was all just a client side shuffling of what gets displayed on the page.
Never forget, the Diebold CEO is a major contributor to Bush. This is the man who said "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president" during the last campaign presidential, and incredible statement from someone who makes voting machines.
They will rebrand, reorganize, etc., but in the end, don't forget their loyalty is to one political party. That is where the lobbying money goes, so you know who to blame whenever there's an e-voting fiasco.
You're using big words, but I can't imagine you've possibly thought this through. Have you actually read peer-reviewed literature on the RNA origin hypothesis? There have been plenty of models suggested. Now we can even recreate in a laboratory setting the creation of random RNA sequences that have enzymatic activity such as ligation of other RNAs. Once you allow for the idea that nucleotides can come together all on their own (albeit at an exceedingly slow rate), you need nothing more than a long time and selective pressure to get to the point where you and I can debate this point on Slashdot. It sounds like you believe in a creator...please correct me if I'm wrong. If that is the case, you will always suggest that the spark of life can never have had a natural cause because it was always too complex, required preexisting components, etc. All I can say is that we'll continue to find more and more evidence for complexity arising from even simpler components, to the point where these simplest components have well established natural origins.
The tornado analogy is not meant to be an analogy for evolution; it's meant to be an analogy for the origin of life. Evolution may work as a gradual ratcheting up, but it only works amongst reproducing organisms. The simplest thing we have that is theorized to be capable of evolving is a bacterium, which is orders of magnitude more complex than a 747. While it is hypothesized that in the past there may have been simpler forms capable of reproduction and evolution, we would need to have a full-blown theory -- a workable model -- of such, to see whether such a thing would be more or less complex than a 747.
As a biologist, I can tell you your thoughts on bacteria are wrong on so many levels. First, what we would call the simplest form of LIFE capable of evolving is a virus, and derivatives thereof. Amazingly enough, there are even simpler things which we would not immediately think of as LIFE that are capable of evolving. In fact, one of the most interesting theories on the origins of life is that of the self-replicating RNA. RNA is ribonucleic acid, a polymer made up of ribonucleotides. These ribonucleotides can spontaneously polymerize at an agonizingly slow rate (maybe other factors present in the primordial Earth could speed it up). However, once you allow the possibility of RNA assembly, you can start to get macromolecules, and at some point, one of these RNA sequences could acquire an enzymatic activity. The most intriguing activity being replication. So far, in a laboratory setting, scientists have be able to select RNA sequences (from random ribonucleotide polymers) that have the ability to ligate two RNAs together. This is an extraordinary proof of principle that a very simple self-replicating molecule can arrive from even simpler components. Once you have RNA (which is already an information carrier, like DNA), random mutations can be the force for evolution.
Never lose sight of the fact that all evolution is about cumulated changes over time. In a sense, it could also provide a framework to think about the origin of "life". The tornado analogy fails even there, since exceedingly simple "life" is nowhere near as complex as a 747 (on the other hand your comparison is wrong because a bacterium is far more complex than a puny jumbojet).
...you'd think they'd do something original and exciting. unfortunately, you can't teach creativity, and it's not a marketable skill in china right now. i've always wondered (being from a 3rd world country myself), what happened to some sense of pride in leading rather than always following. make no mistake, a lot of what they do with the knockoffs is pretty cool, but in my mind, always just the next obvious step after someone else's genius. we won't be seeing any true originality out from china in a while.
lol... "orson scott card" and "great analysis" go together like "michael crichton" and "sound scientific reasoning". both are pseudoscience douchebags. i used to love reading their fiction until i realized they thought they were actually scientists. unfortunately, both have done a great deal to harm public perception of science.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the point that I think is the most offensive about this story to me. The cop did NOT know the law and basically lied, assuming that he was probably right about what the identification law stated. Oops.
Is this really like our own? From what little I know about planetary geology, I seem to recall that water did not just rain down on our planet, but was possibly created at or near our early planet from constituent atoms. Could someone clarify this?
Eh... sort of. That was a technology "demo" of a not-yet-existing "product" either on an actual iPhone or a hasty iPhone knockoff.
Yes, the N95 is pretty sweet, but again, we're talking apples and oranges (ehem) here. It does have a lot of features the iPhone doesn't (yet), but it's unlikely to get hacked to have a touchscreen. Also, it isn't exactly a bargain either. I've held both (damn lucky friends of mine), and believe me, you can feel how much clunkier yet less durable it is than an iPhone. If only we could have the bastard offspring of Apple+Nokia.
I like many Apple products, but I can't afford an iPhone (I don't YET consider it a value when it doesn't offer 3G support, etc, and I can't afford to pay just for the style factor). Despite its shortcomings, however, I have been fairly impressed with its hackability (and the efforts those who've modified it for interesting new uses, including unlocking it). I haven't heard any peep out of Apple about discouraging this sort of thing (short of the obvious warnings warranties being voided). I think this approach with the iPhone, and also the highly hacked AppleTV, is enhancing the value of these products, which out of the box, aren't necessarily top of the line in many categories.
Perhaps they should just extend their logic a little more... how about just the 4 basic elements: earth, air, fire, water? the earth is flat? (2D geometry is easier than 3D, right?)
People in big cities may have to pay hundreds of dollars a month for parking. They have better roads, access to airports, etc. On the other hand, they don' t have as much access to open country, the air quality is lower, the crime rate is generally higher. It always seems like the subsidies go in favor of the country folk (think airfare and phone subsidies). Am I to feel bad that some guy who probably has a much bigger home than me (and LESS expensive) is having trouble getting cheap broadband? Is he going to subsidize parking garages in New York city? Most adults can choose where to live, we all know what we're getting.
I wish they'd launch George Lucas into space. Enough already.
Oh, and by the way, make sure you cut a check to every taxpayer who funded it in the first place...
The site worked great a not long ago, but now seems to be loading more slowly. I guess the popularity of this service may make it near unusable if they don't work out their bandwidth issues.
Nah, the RIAA wouldn't be that devious, would it?
I too think it is a beautiful philosophy. Calling it science or even "theory" seems a stretch at best (scientists use the word theory a lot less loosely than other disciplines), and flat out insulting at worst, at least to the rest of us who bend over backwards trying to disprove ourselves, which is what any good theory does.
I wish more channels would offer their best ala carte programming online. Let them have their commercials there. Make a good experience for the viewer and they will go for it. Cut out the middle man altogether (unless of course, your cable company owns the internet access too... ;)
lol. instead of acknowledging the merits of this particular topic, you try and make comparisons. the good old "democrats did it too!" whine. when it's a democrat president, we SHOULD hold them to the same standards. RIGHT NOW, however, the buck stops with Bush. This crowd control is a pathetic attempt to stifle alternative, constitutionally protected view points. clearly you're on the republican side. i'm on the american side.
There were many critiques in the discussion thread that I thought were perfectly valid, especially if they weren't posted as AC. The tagging system just seems ripe for abuse. How many "haha", "yes", "no" tags have been applied? How exactly does that help anyone? Not to mention the overly political tags. It's just a way for some to post their opinions without having to write out something more well reasoned, or god forbid, put their name to. So ya, genuine critiques are valid. Childish taunts are more reminiscent of FPS text chats.
The tagging system on Slashdot is getting really pathetic. What kind of jerkoff tags this posting "haha". You think you can do better?
"WE" "WE" "WE". That's where I have a philosophically different view point. I agree that there can be many natural causes of global warming, and over the long run, yes, many species may suffer. However, this time around, my problem is that, according to the data, WE are the cause of the changes to the environment. So sure, maybe a short term human blip is not much considering the history of the Earth. BUT, the problem is humans aren't going anywhere, we're probably here to stay and will continue to change our environment. This will, unfortunately, not just be a "blip" in the grand scheme of things. Also, on the topic of species constantly emerging and dying: Frankly, I like the coral.
Your comment is off topic (as is mine, probably). I hope your whole thread gets modded down to obscurity. Stop whining about mod points.
Doesn't the ad still get called up? It's still accessed, just not displayed on the client side. Or am I not understanding how the Firefox ad blockers work? I thought it was all just a client side shuffling of what gets displayed on the page.
They will rebrand, reorganize, etc., but in the end, don't forget their loyalty is to one political party. That is where the lobbying money goes, so you know who to blame whenever there's an e-voting fiasco.
You're using big words, but I can't imagine you've possibly thought this through. Have you actually read peer-reviewed literature on the RNA origin hypothesis? There have been plenty of models suggested. Now we can even recreate in a laboratory setting the creation of random RNA sequences that have enzymatic activity such as ligation of other RNAs. Once you allow for the idea that nucleotides can come together all on their own (albeit at an exceedingly slow rate), you need nothing more than a long time and selective pressure to get to the point where you and I can debate this point on Slashdot. It sounds like you believe in a creator...please correct me if I'm wrong. If that is the case, you will always suggest that the spark of life can never have had a natural cause because it was always too complex, required preexisting components, etc. All I can say is that we'll continue to find more and more evidence for complexity arising from even simpler components, to the point where these simplest components have well established natural origins.
As a biologist, I can tell you your thoughts on bacteria are wrong on so many levels. First, what we would call the simplest form of LIFE capable of evolving is a virus, and derivatives thereof. Amazingly enough, there are even simpler things which we would not immediately think of as LIFE that are capable of evolving. In fact, one of the most interesting theories on the origins of life is that of the self-replicating RNA. RNA is ribonucleic acid, a polymer made up of ribonucleotides. These ribonucleotides can spontaneously polymerize at an agonizingly slow rate (maybe other factors present in the primordial Earth could speed it up). However, once you allow the possibility of RNA assembly, you can start to get macromolecules, and at some point, one of these RNA sequences could acquire an enzymatic activity. The most intriguing activity being replication. So far, in a laboratory setting, scientists have be able to select RNA sequences (from random ribonucleotide polymers) that have the ability to ligate two RNAs together. This is an extraordinary proof of principle that a very simple self-replicating molecule can arrive from even simpler components. Once you have RNA (which is already an information carrier, like DNA), random mutations can be the force for evolution.
Never lose sight of the fact that all evolution is about cumulated changes over time. In a sense, it could also provide a framework to think about the origin of "life". The tornado analogy fails even there, since exceedingly simple "life" is nowhere near as complex as a 747 (on the other hand your comparison is wrong because a bacterium is far more complex than a puny jumbojet).
PNAS does not post papers in review on its web site. This paper was PUBLISHED online on July 17th.
...you'd think they'd do something original and exciting. unfortunately, you can't teach creativity, and it's not a marketable skill in china right now. i've always wondered (being from a 3rd world country myself), what happened to some sense of pride in leading rather than always following. make no mistake, a lot of what they do with the knockoffs is pretty cool, but in my mind, always just the next obvious step after someone else's genius. we won't be seeing any true originality out from china in a while.
lol... "orson scott card" and "great analysis" go together like "michael crichton" and "sound scientific reasoning". both are pseudoscience douchebags. i used to love reading their fiction until i realized they thought they were actually scientists. unfortunately, both have done a great deal to harm public perception of science.