It seems to me that it is plausible that there is absolute heat. As you indicated zero is tha absence of motion; But we already know that there is an absolute limit to speed -- the speed of light. Thermodynamics always refers to heat within a system. That is to say that the heat being measured is always within a specified area. The Big Bang implies that infinite density is possible but the speed of light is still a limitation at least up to that point.
I am always struck by the parallels in the arguments of those who would censor or limit access to video games and the actions of the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency in 1954 with regard to comic books. The substantive issues all seem to be the same. And where are these violent delinquents? I for one, would rather them be planted in front of a game console than on the streets. The solution is still the same let media industries regulate themselves.
I don't think implanted RFID tags will ever be popular either to employees or employers particularly in cultures that place some value on privacy and personal rights. (I understand the Air Force of Singapore recently placed an order with Applied Digital Solutions). But is this a problem for most of the free world? Can you imagine what it must be like to be a sales rep?
"Say... do you need a microchip implanted at the base of your skull so we can track you in our database?"
I just don't see the appeal.
It wasn't always this way. I have always been struck by the parallels between video game legislation and the laws passed against comic books in the past. For years, comic boos were rigidly censored. I am not sure that the re-introduction of violence produced more violent youth but that was the argument.
The US has been falling behind in these areas for some time. It sounds good but will it be funded? No Child Left Behind wasn't. I wonder if the political will is there to fund it or why it would be any diffrent now.
I am so sick of additions to and expansions of the National Security Act. This was supposed to be temporary (like Social Security was). What do we expect to have to show for it? To be more like the countries whose regimes we oppose?
Our jurisdiction adopted electronic voting. Apparently the election commission felt we need help to vote. Someone stands behind you in case you need help with the newfangled voting devices. I am not opposed to help if we need it but I am nostalgic for the good old days when I could go in a booth without concern over others helping me vote. I don't think they unduly influence my vote but I think it is a step in the wrong direction.
I understand what you are saying but I doubt this is the issue. Monstanto should have little interest in where their pollen goes. Their interest is in protecting their proprietarily work. I don't think their pollen would demonstrably damage crops especially if the crops are grown for food as most crops are.
If they are competitors, growing crops for seed is the issue. I doubt Monsanto pursues farmers who live adjacent to their test fields. This might not be the case for their competitors in adjacent fields, however. I am not aware of the specifics in this case though.
I do not understand why there is such opposition to biological patents. Monsanto has spent the time and research to develop seed strains for disease and weather resistant crops. I feel they have a right to protect that investment. I see a lot of people shaking their fists complaining that Monsanto is bulling farmers. I live in a rural area. There are farmers here. I haven't seen that. Indeed, they likely benefit from the seed Monsanto sells. As a stock holder why should I not benefit from the advances they make?
Lots of people own it. It is disheartening to see that while we are willing to put our money where our mouth is, others just want to see Monsanto punished for their inovations.
I remember sometime back I saw a webpage that had an animated gif of a cartoon figure urinating on a Microsoft logo. The person who ran it had posted replies from Microsoft lawyers demanding he remove it. Perhaps now they can.
My monitor has one. I punctured the membrane with a needle several times. A lot of posts here suggest this is not possible. Even with my meager programming skills I know it is. It would be very slow but possible. As Internet speeds increase so does the possibility / probability.
When I read A Brief History Of Time a few years ago (I understand it is now somewhat dated) I understood that the universe was tittering on the brink of continued expansion and collapsing in a few billion years. The data at that time suggested that the universe would continue to expand. As I recall this expansion was within 1% either way. 15% slower?!? Will there be a Big Crunch?
Try to buy any of the basic needs of life without being on a camera somewhere. Impossible. I live in rural area and I can't. Would this fly 30 years ago. I think not. Our social conscious is clearly changing. Our collective ire isn't likely much of a difference. If it were not more cost efficient to do so we wouldn't do it. But why would we suppose Big Brother is any more efficient than we the masses who can't even balance our checkbooks. Oh yeah, we have a national debt. He can't. I should also add I don't like being on camera.
Interesting. Things were quite different during those wars. Perhaps it is better that we are not so focused. My objection is that in declaring wars against such things as poverty or homelessness etc. what we really seem to be saying is I care about such issues but cant think of anything more constructive than to proclaim "I declare war against it". It wrongly frames the issue and ultimately reduces our ability to address them realistically.
The problem is we keep waging these silly ubiquitous wars. If we fight everything we will win nothing. How can we expect to win if what we are fighting is not even clearly defined?
We have a war on terrorism, a war on drugs, a war on cancer, a war on fast food. When will it end!
I hope you don't think the conversation is stale. I get a little slow witted sometimes but I have been giving what you said a lot of thought. There are some gaps in evolutionary theory. I wouldn't bother but peer review is important:). The theory itself is sound but the process by which it occurs has always been a matter of contention. Darwin thought evolution proceeded by passing on genes to offspring. Wallace thought it was from the passing on the will of the parents. Today there is debate over whether "punctuated equilibrium" might explain some aspects of the process.
One interesting corollary is the ratio of extinct species to relatively unchanged ones i.e. some species of sharks and crocodiles. I suppose in those cases a spectrum could be said to exist rather than a series of gaps in the fossil record. Those simple changes such as size could be explained by microevolution. Anyway, I don't think we have much of a chance.
Yes, I think we are in agreement. It is true that the "gaps" in the sense I used the term serves as confirmation of evolutionary theory. But the number of gaps is increasing because, as you pointed out, the number of transitional species we discover are increasing. It is debatable how many gaps each new discovery adds. One would expect a one to one correspondence but it is not always a liner relationship (branching). Also, it could be semantically interpreted to mean each new species creates a "gap" before and after its kind.
Slashdot Mirror
There is an "E" in Google.
It seems to me that it is plausible that there is absolute heat. As you indicated zero is tha absence of motion; But we already know that there is an absolute limit to speed -- the speed of light. Thermodynamics always refers to heat within a system. That is to say that the heat being measured is always within a specified area. The Big Bang implies that infinite density is possible but the speed of light is still a limitation at least up to that point.
I am always struck by the parallels in the arguments of those who would censor or limit access to video games and the actions of the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency in 1954 with regard to comic books. The substantive issues all seem to be the same. And where are these violent delinquents? I for one, would rather them be planted in front of a game console than on the streets. The solution is still the same let media industries regulate themselves.
I don't think implanted RFID tags will ever be popular either to employees or employers particularly in cultures that place some value on privacy and personal rights. (I understand the Air Force of Singapore recently placed an order with Applied Digital Solutions). But is this a problem for most of the free world? Can you imagine what it must be like to be a sales rep? "Say... do you need a microchip implanted at the base of your skull so we can track you in our database?" I just don't see the appeal.
Most Ebola outbreaks seem to have originated from the Congo but I would be wary. KEEP AWAY FROM THE BLEEDING MONKEYS!!!
It wasn't always this way. I have always been struck by the parallels between video game legislation and the laws passed against comic books in the past. For years, comic boos were rigidly censored. I am not sure that the re-introduction of violence produced more violent youth but that was the argument.
The US has been falling behind in these areas for some time. It sounds good but will it be funded? No Child Left Behind wasn't. I wonder if the political will is there to fund it or why it would be any diffrent now.
I am so sick of additions to and expansions of the National Security Act. This was supposed to be temporary (like Social Security was). What do we expect to have to show for it? To be more like the countries whose regimes we oppose?
The British don't mind. See European Vacation.
Our jurisdiction adopted electronic voting. Apparently the election commission felt we need help to vote. Someone stands behind you in case you need help with the newfangled voting devices. I am not opposed to help if we need it but I am nostalgic for the good old days when I could go in a booth without concern over others helping me vote. I don't think they unduly influence my vote but I think it is a step in the wrong direction.
... And then brain spam. Must buy more viagra...Must buy more viagra...
It was revealed in some Star Trek Episode that vulcans live longer than humans. Apparently they don't age as well.
I don't see it either: (Google Images). No one looks as freakish as Nimoy.
I understand what you are saying but I doubt this is the issue. Monstanto should have little interest in where their pollen goes. Their interest is in protecting their proprietarily work. I don't think their pollen would demonstrably damage crops especially if the crops are grown for food as most crops are.
If they are competitors, growing crops for seed is the issue. I doubt Monsanto pursues farmers who live adjacent to their test fields. This might not be the case for their competitors in adjacent fields, however. I am not aware of the specifics in this case though.
I do not understand why there is such opposition to biological patents. Monsanto has spent the time and research to develop seed strains for disease and weather resistant crops. I feel they have a right to protect that investment. I see a lot of people shaking their fists complaining that Monsanto is bulling farmers. I live in a rural area. There are farmers here. I haven't seen that. Indeed, they likely benefit from the seed Monsanto sells. As a stock holder why should I not benefit from the advances they make?
Lots of people own it. It is disheartening to see that while we are willing to put our money where our mouth is, others just want to see Monsanto punished for their inovations.
I remember sometime back I saw a webpage that had an animated gif of a cartoon figure urinating on a Microsoft logo. The person who ran it had posted replies from Microsoft lawyers demanding he remove it. Perhaps now they can.
My monitor has one. I punctured the membrane with a needle several times. A lot of posts here suggest this is not possible. Even with my meager programming skills I know it is. It would be very slow but possible. As Internet speeds increase so does the possibility / probability.
I BELIEVE!
When I read A Brief History Of Time a few years ago (I understand it is now somewhat dated) I understood that the universe was tittering on the brink of continued expansion and collapsing in a few billion years. The data at that time suggested that the universe would continue to expand. As I recall this expansion was within 1% either way. 15% slower?!? Will there be a Big Crunch?
Try to buy any of the basic needs of life without being on a camera somewhere. Impossible. I live in rural area and I can't. Would this fly 30 years ago. I think not. Our social conscious is clearly changing. Our collective ire isn't likely much of a difference. If it were not more cost efficient to do so we wouldn't do it. But why would we suppose Big Brother is any more efficient than we the masses who can't even balance our checkbooks. Oh yeah, we have a national debt. He can't. I should also add I don't like being on camera.
Interesting. Things were quite different during those wars. Perhaps it is better that we are not so focused. My objection is that in declaring wars against such things as poverty or homelessness etc. what we really seem to be saying is I care about such issues but cant think of anything more constructive than to proclaim "I declare war against it". It wrongly frames the issue and ultimately reduces our ability to address them realistically.
The problem is we keep waging these silly ubiquitous wars. If we fight everything we will win nothing. How can we expect to win if what we are fighting is not even clearly defined?
We have a war on terrorism, a war on drugs, a war on cancer, a war on fast food. When will it end!
I hope you don't think the conversation is stale. I get a little slow witted sometimes but I have been giving what you said a lot of thought. There are some gaps in evolutionary theory. I wouldn't bother but peer review is important :). The theory itself is sound but the process by which it occurs has always been a matter of contention. Darwin thought evolution proceeded by passing on genes to offspring. Wallace thought it was from the passing on the will of the parents. Today there is debate over whether "punctuated equilibrium" might explain some aspects of the process.
One interesting corollary is the ratio of extinct species to relatively unchanged ones i.e. some species of sharks and crocodiles. I suppose in those cases a spectrum could be said to exist rather than a series of gaps in the fossil record. Those simple changes such as size could be explained by microevolution. Anyway, I don't think we have much of a chance.
Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful. Good words are not persuasive; persuasive words are not good
--Lau Tsu
Yes, I think we are in agreement. It is true that the "gaps" in the sense I used the term serves as confirmation of evolutionary theory. But the number of gaps is increasing because, as you pointed out, the number of transitional species we discover are increasing. It is debatable how many gaps each new discovery adds. One would expect a one to one correspondence but it is not always a liner relationship (branching). Also, it could be semantically interpreted to mean each new species creates a "gap" before and after its kind.