Humans have mutations all the time in just _one_ generation. I suppose you could consider downs syndrome to be a beneficial mutation, because in our society, they get taken care of by their parents and don't have to work as hard. (broad generalization+ grain of salt)
In fact, any human with what would be considered a normally debilitating mutation that is waited on hand-and-foot may be considered royalty to an alien observer. ( as we can be considered to e-coli)
So this can mean that a "beneficial" mutation can be considered relative to the mutant and the observer.
Also, from a Darwinian perspective... it's still e-coli, not some new organism. Is this really a proof of anything?
Yah, your chart may be technically accurate, but mine has more punch... I have a good friend that's a PhD brain that does statistical analysis for a living... he could fill in the blanks.
The only issue is though it needs to show how sucky this situation is as well as be accurate...:P
For example, my vision, while corrected to normal levels through the technology of lenses, would have made my chances of reproduction several hundred years ago even lower than they are now.
Can you scientifically prove this statement? It seems to be part of your argument...
How much power does it take to cook the inside of any single part of a single skin cell?
A better question, how much power does it take to mutate a single skin cell's DNA? (the obvious result being cancer)
Or kill a single skin cell?
This is critical to know considering the arguments you, and many others here, are making. Simply put, if this can't be answered because of lack of knowledge or simply the inability to know how to determine the answer, then it's not known how 1W from a cell phone, wifi, or any other low power radiation source affects the body.
I am sure the answer is just some simple biology study, which makes assumed evidence look childish to those that really care to know.
How much power does it take to cook the inside of any single part of a single skin cell?
A better question, how much power does it take to mutate a single skin cell's DNA? (the obvious result being cancer) Or kill a single skin cell.
This is critical to know considering the arguments you, and many others here, are making. Simply put, if this can't be answered because of lack of knowledge or simply the inability to know how to determine this, then it's not known how 1W from a cell phone, wifi, or any other low power radiation source affects the body.
I am sure the answer is just some simple biology study, which makes assumed evidence look childish to those that really care to know.
You keep telling your self that just like Bush did before the attack...
Reality is that there are a minority (very very small minority) of Muslims that want to destroy the US.
The majority just want to be left alone to live as they will.
Ha, ha, ha.
OOOOH!!! the boogie man is REAL!!!
Every single state in our country has people that want to destroy our government. I know bleeding liberals that want to kill me because I eat meat and use paper bags at the grocery store. (no exaggeration) There are terroristic groups in every single society on the planet...
To pick one of these entities out and scare the crap out of the entire nation to get us to hand over our freedoms for exactly zilch in return is what you are peddling along side of the "who ever controls stuff" group.
Why should those who choose to pursue alternative fuel sources automatically get an out on paying for the roads they are going to be driving on with that alternative fuel?
You mean like people with electric cars? Should we tax batteries too?
Again, IANAL, but I took a media law class in college that covered this exact topic. Intent is not the issue, you can stand there and take pictures of anyone's house with them in it. Google obviously knows this...
The zooming part is the issue, you can't zoom into someone's home, no telephoto lenses. What google is doing (on the surface of it) appears completely legal.
In regards to focal length, I am sure the courts have argued there is an acceptable range, otherwise I doubt they would have chosen 55mm as equal to the human eye's view.
Are the photos for the "realestate industry" of random houses, or specific properties?
Identical to what google is doing, a drive down the street taking pictures of everything...
I doubt there are details that specific in any copyright law, but this is about privacy, which is a separate issue. Even if there are no laws that specifically prohibit this, it's forboding.
No, there is case law in regards to photojournalism and copyright, saying that you can photograph anything in public, even someones home and through their windows and their businesses as long as you do it from a public area.
Many other companies have been doing this for realestate industry for years...
Also, copyright law states (IANAL) that you can take pictures of people in their homes from the street. Only no zooming, and with (I think) a 55mm lens at best. Look up the case law. The only think I think that may be challenged in court is if high res photos at 55mm constitutes some kind of new zoom...
I complained that my typo was being hijacked, and that I didn't know if they were replacing any web page they wanted. Yesterday I was getting error messages on a typo, today I get your webpage. I said, How am I supposed to know if you are replacing my website? I mistyped it, and I didn't know that I had, and then I get your website. I thought you had taken over my website!!
I am put on hold for a bit, then I am told this is a technical glitch and that it will be fixed by tomorrow.
It truely is a shame that so many judges seem to lack the technical knowledge required in these cases...
[prefice]
IANAL, _BUT_, I have been sued for copyright infringment. I have took a media copyright law course in college and have got a worldly education from my lawyer that defended me.
[/prefice]
I am actually just as worried about these lawyers as much as the judges... How are these guys ever going to win any cases with their seemingly blantant lack of understanding of basic copyright law?
Look at question #7 and the answer...
You shouldn't be trying to educate the younger generation about this stuff. The law is unsettled. Even lawyers don't know how it's all going to play out. Plus you seem to have a general misunderstanding about the basic principles of copyright law. When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc. I don't know what gives you this idea.
Copyright is an artificial right provided by law, listening is an act of nature. Reproducing copies of _anything_ we own is entitled under fair use. In fact rappers have been justified by the courts for copying other peoples work (sampling) and even selling and making a profit and that is still legal. Fair use dictates this.
The challenge that the prosecutor had to prove was damages. Period. They tried to accuse fraud and miriad of other ridiculous claims, which my lawyer shot down instantly, but the real case was damages. Since there simply was none, I had a choice. I could fight and win for an indeterminate cost. Or simply settle.
I settled for the same amount I paid my lawyer to perform one motion in court. Totally stupid.
Basic copyright law with case law backing it up says you can copy all kinds of things legally, this response was retarded...
hard boiling eggs directly in the shell has been the preffered method in our office.(works on passive and fan cooled cpus) We did the math, and we save about $4.50 a year in power savings over microwaved hardboiled eggs.
Ok, then I _believe_ that evolution is a faith based religion with a smattering of science to make it appear to be an actual "science". But it's not a science, it's a theory based on faith.
If you can show me the way to test and prove evolution, (I don't even care if they come back with a false answer, even just a simple _test_ would suffice) then I will seriously review my statements for retraction.
Fine, let's accept for a moment that a single-celled organism after a billion years of living, somehow mutated into a 2 celled organism. Then please explain how it became a 3 celled organism.
If it takes billions of years for 1 single celled organism to turn into a 2 celled one, then for every cell addition it would take billions of years. This creates a huge problem.
You only get 4.5 billion years to mess with.
Let's look at ratios. How many mutating and living cells would have to exist to get the possibilities of this kind of mutation? Do you think a handful of single celled organisms in one pool over the whole earth? I doubt it, it would take billions of single celled organisms all over the planet to do this.
The more you think about this, the sillier it get's, _especially_, since you are saying that we have to take the idea that a single celled organism turning to a two celled organism has to be taken on faith.
Please explain how an animal as incredibly complex as a fish, dinosaur or monkey can mutate into totally different animals, and there is some kind of science to prove this, yet we can't prove that a single celled organism turned into a two celled organism?
You may not care about this area of research, but lots of other people do.
I do actually care, I think it's ridiculous that either ID or evolution is taught in schools, as neither has been proved even remotely. The simple fact that so many people argue the merits without being able to prove anything only makes it more ridiculous.
It has nothing to say about the origins of life
You are very wrong, I was taught in grade school, as my children are today, that it does have something to say about the origins of life. Please check out some grade school science books. They still have fraudulent "evolution proving" drawings of fetuses from the 60's in them.
, just about how extant species adapt and change.
I'll make it really, really easy for you to convince me that evolution is true. It's really complex to show a fish turning into an aligator or a monkey to a man, so let's take the MOST simple evolutionary example of all. The first (or any for that matter)single celled organism that turned into a more complex multi celled organism.
If you can explain how this happened, prove that it happened and actually show scientific facts and offer experiements to replicate this fact (remember this _is_ science not faith in scientists beliefs) then I will accept your argument that evolution is true. Simply because I can prove it to myself. (with your help of course)
As for one-celled organisms turning into two-celled (and more)... we already see colony behavior in single celled organisms. Mosses, fungi, coral, etc. And from there, on to specialization, and the rest is history.
I said , "a one celled organism becoming a two celled organism". Behavior is not evolution, mutation or any kind of change, it's simply behavior. Moss, fungi, coral are all the same plants/animals/etc... they aren't something "new". Their basic cell structure is the same and doesn't change from behavior.
There are _no_ examples of any one celled organism mutating/changing/evolving into a multicelled organism...
To even come close to claiming any of the rest of evolution is even remotely possible is absurd if you can't even demonstrate the most simple and basic step this theory assumes.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, any human with what would be considered a normally debilitating mutation that is waited on hand-and-foot may be considered royalty to an alien observer. ( as we can be considered to e-coli)
So this can mean that a "beneficial" mutation can be considered relative to the mutant and the observer.
Also, from a Darwinian perspective... it's still e-coli, not some new organism. Is this really a proof of anything?
You were way off... [/snide Lloyd Christmas voice]
Yah, your chart may be technically accurate, but mine has more punch... I have a good friend that's a PhD brain that does statistical analysis for a living... he could fill in the blanks. The only issue is though it needs to show how sucky this situation is as well as be accurate... :P
You've no idea how incredible that looks in graph...
You've now have an idea how incredible that looks in graph...
It would only feel right if I could type my messages in with my number keypad...
How do you determine what a "change" is to include it as an element of rate?
Is there an objective list? Do you vote on it?
It seems that the possibility to determine rate of change over 10,000 years from 270 samples, is a bit far fetched, guess I am a troll.
For example, my vision, while corrected to normal levels through the technology of lenses, would have made my chances of reproduction several hundred years ago even lower than they are now.
Can you scientifically prove this statement? It seems to be part of your argument...
You are wrong SIR! These people are EVIL!!! CENSOR THIS IMMEDIATELY!!!
There is NO WAY that we can tolerate a dissenting minority!! The madness must be stopped!
We all know for a fact, it's 100% true that all vaccines are good for you! STOP THE LIES!!! The stupid people will believe them all!!
How much power does it take to cook the inside of any single part of a single skin cell?
A better question, how much power does it take to mutate a single skin cell's DNA? (the obvious result being cancer)
Or kill a single skin cell?
This is critical to know considering the arguments you, and many others here, are making. Simply put, if this can't be answered because of lack of knowledge or simply the inability to know how to determine the answer, then it's not known how 1W from a cell phone, wifi, or any other low power radiation source affects the body.
I am sure the answer is just some simple biology study, which makes assumed evidence look childish to those that really care to know.
How much power does it take to cook the inside of any single part of a single skin cell? A better question, how much power does it take to mutate a single skin cell's DNA? (the obvious result being cancer) Or kill a single skin cell. This is critical to know considering the arguments you, and many others here, are making. Simply put, if this can't be answered because of lack of knowledge or simply the inability to know how to determine this, then it's not known how 1W from a cell phone, wifi, or any other low power radiation source affects the body. I am sure the answer is just some simple biology study, which makes assumed evidence look childish to those that really care to know.
You keep telling your self that just like Bush did before the attack... Reality is that there are a minority (very very small minority) of Muslims that want to destroy the US. The majority just want to be left alone to live as they will.
Ha, ha, ha.
OOOOH!!! the boogie man is REAL!!!
Every single state in our country has people that want to destroy our government. I know bleeding liberals that want to kill me because I eat meat and use paper bags at the grocery store. (no exaggeration) There are terroristic groups in every single society on the planet...
To pick one of these entities out and scare the crap out of the entire nation to get us to hand over our freedoms for exactly zilch in return is what you are peddling along side of the "who ever controls stuff" group.
-bub
You mean like people with electric cars? Should we tax batteries too?
I beleive the issue here is "intent".
Again, IANAL, but I took a media law class in college that covered this exact topic. Intent is not the issue, you can stand there and take pictures of anyone's house with them in it. Google obviously knows this...
The zooming part is the issue, you can't zoom into someone's home, no telephoto lenses. What google is doing (on the surface of it) appears completely legal.
In regards to focal length, I am sure the courts have argued there is an acceptable range, otherwise I doubt they would have chosen 55mm as equal to the human eye's view.
Are the photos for the "realestate industry" of random houses, or specific properties?
Identical to what google is doing, a drive down the street taking pictures of everything...
I doubt there are details that specific in any copyright law, but this is about privacy, which is a separate issue. Even if there are no laws that specifically prohibit this, it's forboding.
No, there is case law in regards to photojournalism and copyright, saying that you can photograph anything in public, even someones home and through their windows and their businesses as long as you do it from a public area.
Many other companies have been doing this for realestate industry for years...
Also, copyright law states (IANAL) that you can take pictures of people in their homes from the street. Only no zooming, and with (I think) a 55mm lens at best. Look up the case law. The only think I think that may be challenged in court is if high res photos at 55mm constitutes some kind of new zoom...
I complained that my typo was being hijacked, and that I didn't know if they were replacing any web page they wanted. Yesterday I was getting error messages on a typo, today I get your webpage. I said, How am I supposed to know if you are replacing my website? I mistyped it, and I didn't know that I had, and then I get your website. I thought you had taken over my website!!
I am put on hold for a bit, then I am told this is a technical glitch and that it will be fixed by tomorrow.
-bub
The link to the no-windows machine GOES to the windows machine...
x ?c=us&cs=19&kc=6V440&l=en&oc=DDCWAN3&s=dhs
The other link goes no-where now...
odd...
Supposed to show the non-windows.... but doesn't...
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.asp
In fact, a search for E520n shows no results from Dell at all...
[prefice]
IANAL, _BUT_, I have been sued for copyright infringment. I have took a media copyright law course in college and have got a worldly education from my lawyer that defended me.
[/prefice]
I am actually just as worried about these lawyers as much as the judges... How are these guys ever going to win any cases with their seemingly blantant lack of understanding of basic copyright law?
Look at question #7 and the answer...
Copyright is an artificial right provided by law, listening is an act of nature. Reproducing copies of _anything_ we own is entitled under fair use. In fact rappers have been justified by the courts for copying other peoples work (sampling) and even selling and making a profit and that is still legal. Fair use dictates this.
The challenge that the prosecutor had to prove was damages. Period. They tried to accuse fraud and miriad of other ridiculous claims, which my lawyer shot down instantly, but the real case was damages. Since there simply was none, I had a choice. I could fight and win for an indeterminate cost. Or simply settle.
I settled for the same amount I paid my lawyer to perform one motion in court. Totally stupid.
Basic copyright law with case law backing it up says you can copy all kinds of things legally, this response was retarded...
hard boiling eggs directly in the shell has been the preffered method in our office.(works on passive and fan cooled cpus) We did the math, and we save about $4.50 a year in power savings over microwaved hardboiled eggs.
Ok, then I _believe_ that evolution is a faith based religion with a smattering of science to make it appear to be an actual "science". But it's not a science, it's a theory based on faith.
If you can show me the way to test and prove evolution, (I don't even care if they come back with a false answer, even just a simple _test_ would suffice) then I will seriously review my statements for retraction.
bub
If it takes billions of years for 1 single celled organism to turn into a 2 celled one, then for every cell addition it would take billions of years. This creates a huge problem.
You only get 4.5 billion years to mess with.
Let's look at ratios. How many mutating and living cells would have to exist to get the possibilities of this kind of mutation? Do you think a handful of single celled organisms in one pool over the whole earth? I doubt it, it would take billions of single celled organisms all over the planet to do this.
The more you think about this, the sillier it get's, _especially_, since you are saying that we have to take the idea that a single celled organism turning to a two celled organism has to be taken on faith.
Please explain how an animal as incredibly complex as a fish, dinosaur or monkey can mutate into totally different animals, and there is some kind of science to prove this, yet we can't prove that a single celled organism turned into a two celled organism?
-Bub
hehe, thank you for that bit. I've heard the term a number of times, forgot to ever look it up. :)
-bub
I do actually care, I think it's ridiculous that either ID or evolution is taught in schools, as neither has been proved even remotely. The simple fact that so many people argue the merits without being able to prove anything only makes it more ridiculous.
You are very wrong, I was taught in grade school, as my children are today, that it does have something to say about the origins of life. Please check out some grade school science books. They still have fraudulent "evolution proving" drawings of fetuses from the 60's in them.
I'll make it really, really easy for you to convince me that evolution is true. It's really complex to show a fish turning into an aligator or a monkey to a man, so let's take the MOST simple evolutionary example of all. The first (or any for that matter)single celled organism that turned into a more complex multi celled organism.
If you can explain how this happened, prove that it happened and actually show scientific facts and offer experiements to replicate this fact (remember this _is_ science not faith in scientists beliefs) then I will accept your argument that evolution is true. Simply because I can prove it to myself. (with your help of course)
-Bub
I said , "a one celled organism becoming a two celled organism". Behavior is not evolution, mutation or any kind of change, it's simply behavior. Moss, fungi, coral are all the same plants/animals/etc... they aren't something "new". Their basic cell structure is the same and doesn't change from behavior.
There are _no_ examples of any one celled organism mutating/changing/evolving into a multicelled organism...
To even come close to claiming any of the rest of evolution is even remotely possible is absurd if you can't even demonstrate the most simple and basic step this theory assumes.
-Bub
???.... you lost me flotsam. Can you can you reiterate, recapitulate, ingeminate or simply use english?
Much appreciated, bloke, mate or whatever you guys affectionately call perfect strangers. Cheerio!
-Bub