Speak for yourself.
If I'd been born in the USA, right now I'd be in bed. I would have been in bed yesterday too, unable to open my eyes, having some trouble breathing, unable to sleep because of the constant drip of my nose into my throat.
I wouldn't qualify for any insurance covered treatment in the USA because my allergies are a pre-existing condition, dontcha know. I'd maybe get some cough medicine, which would do nothing more but get me a little high and keep me in bed longer.
As it turns out, I was born in Canada. When my allergies suddenly struck me at age 6, I was put on a strict immunotherapy regimen and stayed on it for 7 years.
How much did this cost me? $0.
How much would it have cost in the USA? More than I want to think about.
The one thing most people complain about is wait times. They think that their broken finger deserves faster attention than someone who was impaled on a spike. I'll gladly wait, rather than have a system where the amount of money you have dictates the quality, speed, or presence of care.
That just brings the question "who's inflating the ballooon ?"
Does it? That's like saying a childs growth begs the question of who's adding cells. A more pertinent view would be, "What internal process does the universe use to generate this space?"
To which any scientist will simply say, "We don't know... yet. But we're working on it;)"
And it would STILL violate relativity theory, for as the ants would measure eachother's speed, their measurements could exceed c, something we're presumably not seeing.
There's nothing about it that violates relativity! The idea that nothing can move faster than C is a law of this universe, but it applies only to things contained within this universe, not necessarily the universe itself. Empty space contains no discernible information. If the universe was completely limited to moving no faster than C, we wouldn't observe comsic background radiation; the universe would have expanded behind it, so that we would not be able to observe the entire universe (including what we're made of!) from a point so far away from its origin.
If the ants were to try and measure each other's speed... they wouldn't see anything! If their distance is so great (about 4200 parsecs) that the continual expansion of space exceeds the capability of light to travel that distance, the light will simply never reach them. Before that distance, they'd observe an increasing shift to red as light travels through the expanding space; the distance is so great, that the very small amount of expansion is compounded enough to stretch out the light, which is what causes the shift.
Now...I might not have explained in the clearest way (it's been a while since I studied this sort of thing, and IANAP), but this sort of thing confuses even the hardcore cosmologists if they think about it too hard without some coffee first.
Imagine two fleas running away from each other on a balloon as you blow it up. They're running at a fixed speed, and you're increasing the distance between them. Over a distance, their motion relative to each other will far exceed their possible maximum speed, because the distance between them is expanding while they run. Replace the fleas with galaxies and the balloon with the universe, and it's simple enough to see how while a body can't have speed faster than light, it can still be moved faster than light relative to another body by virtue of the space between them expanding constantly.
Any galaxy with a redshift of around 1.4 is moving away from us faster than the speed of light (the redshift is caused itself by the expansion of space between the time the light was emitted to when it hits us) since the velocity that any galaxy is moving away from the earth is proportional to its distance from us.
Wow! So I can have not-quite-the-same (since I can't for instance play my vast collection of xvid encoded TV shows) media experience on a $500 device as I could a $300 device if I buy some apps, adapters, and cables? And I can't do many of the other things a netbook can do?
Not only that, but evolution is often the gold standard to which other theories are compared. It's The theory. We have no clue what the hell gravity is, or what matter at it's most fundamental levels is made of, or why light goes only so fast, but we know that life evolves.
You've missed the point entirely. There weren't any modern species of the superorder Selachimorpha (AKA Sharks)100 million years ago. Ancestors that were similar, sure. Not actual sharks that you'd find in your backyard though (assuming you live on the ocean). I asked for bunny rabbits, not the precursers of bunny rabbits that looked similar by virtue of being the percursers of bunny rabbits.
Nobody debates that there exist some species that have remained relatively constant (in a superficial sense) for long periods of time (relative to other species). They still continued to evolve. Maybe their outer form didn't change much, but their genome did. They're separate species. A 486 and an i7 are both of the order x86 CPU, but their genome is way different, though they look similar. Just because an evolution isn't quite as dramatic in one species as opposed to another doesn't disprove that it exists, it just proves that it's affected by variables.
Nowhere does the theory of evolution state that species must evolve morphologically. In a stable environment, in fact, natural selection would require an organism to remain largely unchanged. Many environments, such as the ocean, haven't changed much in the last few hundred million years.
And, besides that, fossils can only tell us about morphological changes in the first place. What about immune systems or soft tissue? Remember that we can only see a small piece of the puzzle, and even that tiny piece is more than compelling in favour of evolution.
Sure, I'd love to see you show me a modern species (as in, not a family, order, or genus).
Your post shows your flawed view of taxonomy. Just because, for example, coelacanths, or sharks, are known in popular culture to "have been around" for millions of years, that doesn't mean they've been the same scientifically.
Yes, sharks have looked like sharks (by which, by popular parlance, means their silhouette hasn't changed much) for a couple hundred million years, but that's because that's body type that fits their niche; there have still been hundreds of species of sharks, all significantly different, progressively building on each other, and you will find no modern species at the same period as an ancient, extinct one. So, go ahead, show me a Galeocerdo cuvier or other modern species dated at the same time as a trilobite.
Your argument is akin to saying that computers haven't evolved, because they still look pretty much the same superficially and still do the same job. If you look at a 486 and an i7 with no technical knowledge, they look the exact same. They fill the same niche, using many of the same tools. But, if you look in a landfill, you'll see all the 486's a couple feet down, and only a couple i7's on the top, and you'll probably realize that the 486 came first. Actually examining them would confirm it.
If evolution is false, and, say, all animal life emerged at a single, simultaneous point, there should be plenty of examples of species from different time periods juxtaposed together. There would be bunnies with trilobites. Remember, also, that we're dealing with very long timescales here. Saying sharks and insects have looked sort of the same (i.e. the orders have existed for a couple hundred million years) isn't really an argument, it's just sort of dumb. We know that fish have looked like fish and bugs looked like bugs for a while now.
Dinosaurs evolving their way out of mass extinction? What are you talking about? Who believes that? Sounds like a strawman to me.
Evolution had a lack of data? What about things like Darwin's finches, or the moths? A fossil record clearly documenting morphological changes over time? Of course evolution is falsifiable; show me a bunny rabbit fossil, or any other modern animal, buried in the same layer as a t-rex fossil, and you've just disproved evolution.
Just because you can't come up with methods, doesn't mean there aren't any.
Maybe I am stressed, I had a bad burrito and I'm terrified that the next fart won't be silent or dry.
Clenching your sphincter at the right times will fool a lie detector. It raises your blood pressure, pulse, core temperature, and your conductivity while you sweat under the stress.
Spies and intelligent criminals laugh at lie detection. It's trivial to control your body when you know how it works.
I had a birthday present sent to me twice via UPS (Premium even!). The first time, they delivered it to the wrong house and someone signed for it. I complained but they basically said "You signed for it. Tough luck." Second time? Same thing. After the shipper and I specifically told them to double-check the address and the signature.
Hell, that's even worse than my xmas present, which was through USPS/CPS. That one got stuck in customs for 4 months, then shipped back with no explanation.
At least it's not as bad as when I had a (very sentimental) ring sent to me via USPS and somebody pried off the gemstone and stole the chain.
Thing is, the employees are all minimally paid and unaccountable. UPS, FedEx, Purolator, or gov't. They don't give a shit how many Christmasses or birthdays they fuck up.
Actually, yes, thereare a lot of people that find any depiction of nudity erotic and/or inappropriate. They might not be a huge percentage, but they often have the loudest voices.
And, yes, there are tons of people who complain when Michaelangelo's David tours America. The Simpson's even parodied that one in the 90's.
My eyesight is perfect, 20/20, perfect binocular vision. Yet I can't fully enjoy a 3D movie (or looking through binoculars) because my eyes are just too goddamn close together to see through the glasses properly. Why can't there be 3D goggles, or at least frameless glasses.
Now, while the video was shocking and gruesome to me, there's a few things with your comment that don't really jive with the real world.
Instead of verifying that there was an RPG, they immediately decided it was.
Taking the time to "verify" can mean the difference between being shot down or not. If it looks like an RPG, in a war zone, with fighting a few miles away, it's probably an RPG. This time, however, it wasn't.
The van that rocked up to take away the bodies could have been a makeshift ambulance - there was no signs of its occupants being armed - but they just immediately assumed it was hostile, and shot.
It could have been a makeshift ambulance, it could have been a clown car, but in a war zone, a van that stops by (presumed) enemy combatants and starts sifting through the bodies are probably reinforcements, even a suicide bomber car. There were troops inbound, and the pilots were correct under the ROE. What the pilot said may be harsh, but it's true. You shouldn't bring your kids to a battle. Civilians who put themselves in the line of fire deserve sympathy, but not at the expense of the soldiers who mistakenly fired on them because they were in a combat situation.
They were urging the wounded Iraqi to pick up a weapon so they could kill him.
But they didn't kill him. They were following the Rules of Engagement. And who knows what they were thinking; they may have wanted to put him out of his misery.
And I doubt the fog of war really applies here since they weren't being fired on, so they could've taken their time to make good judgements.
They thought the enemy had an RPG, which can and does take down helicopters. There were also troops in the area. It's the helis' job to provide fire support, and that means clearing out what they can so that the troops are better able to secure the area afterwards.
Slashdot Mirror
Speak for yourself.
If I'd been born in the USA, right now I'd be in bed. I would have been in bed yesterday too, unable to open my eyes, having some trouble breathing, unable to sleep because of the constant drip of my nose into my throat.
I wouldn't qualify for any insurance covered treatment in the USA because my allergies are a pre-existing condition, dontcha know. I'd maybe get some cough medicine, which would do nothing more but get me a little high and keep me in bed longer.
As it turns out, I was born in Canada. When my allergies suddenly struck me at age 6, I was put on a strict immunotherapy regimen and stayed on it for 7 years.
How much did this cost me? $0.
How much would it have cost in the USA? More than I want to think about.
The one thing most people complain about is wait times. They think that their broken finger deserves faster attention than someone who was impaled on a spike. I'll gladly wait, rather than have a system where the amount of money you have dictates the quality, speed, or presence of care.
If your sample size is huge, then it's not statistics.
It's counting.
That just brings the question "who's inflating the ballooon ?"
Does it? That's like saying a childs growth begs the question of who's adding cells. A more pertinent view would be, "What internal process does the universe use to generate this space?" ;)"
To which any scientist will simply say, "We don't know... yet. But we're working on it
And it would STILL violate relativity theory, for as the ants would measure eachother's speed, their measurements could exceed c, something we're presumably not seeing.
There's nothing about it that violates relativity! The idea that nothing can move faster than C is a law of this universe, but it applies only to things contained within this universe, not necessarily the universe itself. Empty space contains no discernible information. If the universe was completely limited to moving no faster than C, we wouldn't observe comsic background radiation; the universe would have expanded behind it, so that we would not be able to observe the entire universe (including what we're made of!) from a point so far away from its origin.
If the ants were to try and measure each other's speed... they wouldn't see anything! If their distance is so great (about 4200 parsecs) that the continual expansion of space exceeds the capability of light to travel that distance, the light will simply never reach them. Before that distance, they'd observe an increasing shift to red as light travels through the expanding space; the distance is so great, that the very small amount of expansion is compounded enough to stretch out the light, which is what causes the shift.
Now...I might not have explained in the clearest way (it's been a while since I studied this sort of thing, and IANAP), but this sort of thing confuses even the hardcore cosmologists if they think about it too hard without some coffee first.
Imagine two fleas running away from each other on a balloon as you blow it up. They're running at a fixed speed, and you're increasing the distance between them. Over a distance, their motion relative to each other will far exceed their possible maximum speed, because the distance between them is expanding while they run. Replace the fleas with galaxies and the balloon with the universe, and it's simple enough to see how while a body can't have speed faster than light, it can still be moved faster than light relative to another body by virtue of the space between them expanding constantly.
Any galaxy with a redshift of around 1.4 is moving away from us faster than the speed of light (the redshift is caused itself by the expansion of space between the time the light was emitted to when it hits us) since the velocity that any galaxy is moving away from the earth is proportional to its distance from us.
Transcode over 150 GB just because one device doesn't support a standard?
Or...use a device that does.
Wow! So I can have not-quite-the-same (since I can't for instance play my vast collection of xvid encoded TV shows) media experience on a $500 device as I could a $300 device if I buy some apps, adapters, and cables? And I can't do many of the other things a netbook can do?
Sign me up!
Not only that, but evolution is often the gold standard to which other theories are compared. It's The theory. We have no clue what the hell gravity is, or what matter at it's most fundamental levels is made of, or why light goes only so fast, but we know that life evolves.
You've missed the point entirely. There weren't any modern species of the superorder Selachimorpha (AKA Sharks)100 million years ago. Ancestors that were similar, sure. Not actual sharks that you'd find in your backyard though (assuming you live on the ocean). I asked for bunny rabbits, not the precursers of bunny rabbits that looked similar by virtue of being the percursers of bunny rabbits.
Nobody debates that there exist some species that have remained relatively constant (in a superficial sense) for long periods of time (relative to other species). They still continued to evolve. Maybe their outer form didn't change much, but their genome did. They're separate species. A 486 and an i7 are both of the order x86 CPU, but their genome is way different, though they look similar. Just because an evolution isn't quite as dramatic in one species as opposed to another doesn't disprove that it exists, it just proves that it's affected by variables.
Nowhere does the theory of evolution state that species must evolve morphologically. In a stable environment, in fact, natural selection would require an organism to remain largely unchanged. Many environments, such as the ocean, haven't changed much in the last few hundred million years.
And, besides that, fossils can only tell us about morphological changes in the first place. What about immune systems or soft tissue? Remember that we can only see a small piece of the puzzle, and even that tiny piece is more than compelling in favour of evolution.
Sure, I'd love to see you show me a modern species (as in, not a family, order, or genus).
Your post shows your flawed view of taxonomy. Just because, for example, coelacanths, or sharks, are known in popular culture to "have been around" for millions of years, that doesn't mean they've been the same scientifically.
Yes, sharks have looked like sharks (by which, by popular parlance, means their silhouette hasn't changed much) for a couple hundred million years, but that's because that's body type that fits their niche; there have still been hundreds of species of sharks, all significantly different, progressively building on each other, and you will find no modern species at the same period as an ancient, extinct one. So, go ahead, show me a Galeocerdo cuvier or other modern species dated at the same time as a trilobite.
Your argument is akin to saying that computers haven't evolved, because they still look pretty much the same superficially and still do the same job. If you look at a 486 and an i7 with no technical knowledge, they look the exact same. They fill the same niche, using many of the same tools. But, if you look in a landfill, you'll see all the 486's a couple feet down, and only a couple i7's on the top, and you'll probably realize that the 486 came first. Actually examining them would confirm it.
If evolution is false, and, say, all animal life emerged at a single, simultaneous point, there should be plenty of examples of species from different time periods juxtaposed together. There would be bunnies with trilobites. Remember, also, that we're dealing with very long timescales here. Saying sharks and insects have looked sort of the same (i.e. the orders have existed for a couple hundred million years) isn't really an argument, it's just sort of dumb. We know that fish have looked like fish and bugs looked like bugs for a while now.
Dinosaurs evolving their way out of mass extinction? What are you talking about? Who believes that? Sounds like a strawman to me.
Evolution had a lack of data? What about things like Darwin's finches, or the moths? A fossil record clearly documenting morphological changes over time? Of course evolution is falsifiable; show me a bunny rabbit fossil, or any other modern animal, buried in the same layer as a t-rex fossil, and you've just disproved evolution.
Just because you can't come up with methods, doesn't mean there aren't any.
[citation needed]
The data is available. Read Nature or other journals.
So, what you're saying, is that Chrome loads pages full of crap that slows FF to a crawl just as fast as FF loads a completely stripped down page.
Right.
Maybe I am stressed, I had a bad burrito and I'm terrified that the next fart won't be silent or dry.
Clenching your sphincter at the right times will fool a lie detector. It raises your blood pressure, pulse, core temperature, and your conductivity while you sweat under the stress.
Spies and intelligent criminals laugh at lie detection. It's trivial to control your body when you know how it works.
Except UPS and FedEx arguable suck just as much.
I had a birthday present sent to me twice via UPS (Premium even!). The first time, they delivered it to the wrong house and someone signed for it. I complained but they basically said "You signed for it. Tough luck." Second time? Same thing. After the shipper and I specifically told them to double-check the address and the signature.
Hell, that's even worse than my xmas present, which was through USPS/CPS. That one got stuck in customs for 4 months, then shipped back with no explanation.
At least it's not as bad as when I had a (very sentimental) ring sent to me via USPS and somebody pried off the gemstone and stole the chain.
Thing is, the employees are all minimally paid and unaccountable. UPS, FedEx, Purolator, or gov't. They don't give a shit how many Christmasses or birthdays they fuck up.
Well, that's good news. At least the Enterprise can continue her mission.
Actually, yes, there are a lot of people that find any depiction of nudity erotic and/or inappropriate. They might not be a huge percentage, but they often have the loudest voices.
And, yes, there are tons of people who complain when Michaelangelo's David tours America. The Simpson's even parodied that one in the 90's.
I'd have to call bullshit on that. The fire in Far Cry stops after a certain radius/consumption/time to prevent just such a scenario.
If people stop buying their PC games en masse, they'll simply stop porting them.
We're fucked either way.
This is actually a "story"?
It's literally some anonymous guy on the internet saying something.
Far Cry used the same engine [as Crysis]
No it didn't. Crysis was Cryengine 2.
My eyesight is perfect, 20/20, perfect binocular vision. Yet I can't fully enjoy a 3D movie (or looking through binoculars) because my eyes are just too goddamn close together to see through the glasses properly. Why can't there be 3D goggles, or at least frameless glasses.
Instead of verifying that there was an RPG, they immediately decided it was.
Taking the time to "verify" can mean the difference between being shot down or not. If it looks like an RPG, in a war zone, with fighting a few miles away, it's probably an RPG. This time, however, it wasn't.
The van that rocked up to take away the bodies could have been a makeshift ambulance - there was no signs of its occupants being armed - but they just immediately assumed it was hostile, and shot.
It could have been a makeshift ambulance, it could have been a clown car, but in a war zone, a van that stops by (presumed) enemy combatants and starts sifting through the bodies are probably reinforcements, even a suicide bomber car. There were troops inbound, and the pilots were correct under the ROE. What the pilot said may be harsh, but it's true. You shouldn't bring your kids to a battle. Civilians who put themselves in the line of fire deserve sympathy, but not at the expense of the soldiers who mistakenly fired on them because they were in a combat situation.
They were urging the wounded Iraqi to pick up a weapon so they could kill him.
But they didn't kill him. They were following the Rules of Engagement. And who knows what they were thinking; they may have wanted to put him out of his misery.
And I doubt the fog of war really applies here since they weren't being fired on, so they could've taken their time to make good judgements.
They thought the enemy had an RPG, which can and does take down helicopters. There were also troops in the area. It's the helis' job to provide fire support, and that means clearing out what they can so that the troops are better able to secure the area afterwards.
No, but at least they can let them out. Corpses stay in the ground.
Or maybe they don't want to spend extra money and hassle on water cooling.
Or sacrifice performance for cooler parts.
I don't get viruses because I don't do stupid shit.
QFT
Unfortunately, the media loves to paint "viruses" and "hackers" as magical threats that crawl through your internet piping and clog up your "CPU".