This was actually a plot point in Stephen Baxter's
novel, Titan
*** SPOILER BELOW ***
In Titan a Pat Buchanan type clown gets
elected president of the U.S.A. He then has the
military develop a virus that targets Han Chinese.
The Chinese get wind of this and retaliate by
redirecting an asteroid to crash into the Atlantic
Ocean. Apparently the impact not only destroys
the U.S., but ends up wiping out all humanity.
Oops!
The neat thing is that you don't have to.
KDE apps will run fine in a Gnome environment
(and vice versa). As long as you have all
the proper libraries, they coexist quite nicely.
So if you're hooked on Gnome but find a KDE
app you can't live without, you don't have to
abandon Gnome.
It was supposed to be Saturn in the movie (the
novel and script were written in parallel). It was changed to Jupiter because Kubrick wasn't satisfied with the effects for Saturn's rings.
Anyone who has studied carbon dating knows that it's always an estimate and that the estimate is usually modified to fit better with the carbon dating number of other things in the location the object was found.
For example, if they dated a rock to 140mil years, but the plant matter only dated to 100mil years, they would adjust them both so that they are closer. The idea is that since they were both found in a location that is assumed to be old and they both are found together, the carbon dating must be a little off, so it needs to be adjusted since it would make no sense for them to be so far apart. You see how this is circular reasoning.
Anyone who has studied carbon dating would know
that carbon dating can't be used to date
anything older than about 50,000 years. Based
on you example, you obviously have never studied
carbon dating.
It's sad how as Christians we are laughed at for believing in a omnipotent creator who designed and created this world for us, but scientists who subscribe to theories such as the "Big Bang"
How about Christians who subscribe to theories
like the Big Bang? For example, Father Georges
LeMaitre (a Catholic priest who was studying Einsteins theory of genral relativity) was the originator of the big bang theory.
are not, even though they are physically impossible if you apply even rudementary physics to their theories.
Please enlighten us, tell us why the big bang
is physically impossible and how rudimentery
physics invalidates the big bang.
Both creationism and the evolution can not be proved 100%, but I can give you more concrete and physically possible examples to help prove creationism than a scientist could for evolution.
I you can, why don't you?
That is why I believe it. Not because I know 100%, but because the proof that is avaiable points towards creationism and away from evolution.
Please some of these proofs that point towards creationism.
To start off... scientists use circular reasoning (that is a bad thing) to figure out the age of old rocks, animals and plant matter. They use the rocks to determine the age of the plants and animals and use the plants and animals to determine the age of the rocks. No joke here.. the ages they place on things are only estimates.. as they rightly should be given the way they do it.
This is quite frankly wrong.
Please do some actual research (just don't read
creationists tracks) on how things are actually dated. A good place to start, go to:
The Talk Origins Archive
and look for "The Age of the Earth FAQ."
Ensteinian theory, as elegant as it might be is not tested, and I seriously doubdt it could be tested some day.
If by "Ensteinian theory", you're referring to
special relativity (mentioned earlier), then it has in fact been
tested. Relativistic effects, for example, are observed in particle accelerators and can also
measured using atomic clocks in airplanes.
Macroevolution requires that different descendants of one organism become different species (i.e., can't breed). No documented cases of speciation have yet been found.
Actually, using your definition, speciation has been observed.
Check out the links in my previous post,
or go to
The Talk.Origins Archive and do a search on
speciation.
I'm not sure whether you understand the term "theory." Einsteinian relativity is a theory. Maxwellian quantum mechanics is theory. A theory is a hypothesis which has been proposed and scientifically tested. They are considered reliable until disproven.
Maxwellian quantum mechanics: Hmmm, WTF is
that? I studied physics for 6 years and
never heard of such a thing.
While such constructs as the big-bang theory have been calculated and tested and refined, macroevolution
Define macroevolution. How is it different from
microevolution?
as such has not been scientifically proven or even proven to be plausible. As of now, no plausible method for speciation (the separation of one species into two) has been proposed, and not one single instance of it has ever been documented.
Decades of concerted efforts to create new species from fruit flies, for instance, have been completely unable to do so--and this was guided as opposed to the chaotic forces of nature.
If something intervenes in treatment (ie, calculates dosages automatically) it is a medical device, and subject to FDA regulation. Contract or no, the FDA can kick Bill's ass. And, if there is action against Bill, that should be a tolerable defence in a malpractice case. And since Bill has more money than any doc I know....
In that case, the liability would be with the manfacturer of the device - So Bill's of the hook, unless Microsoft gets into the medical equipment business (a scary thought).
Now, on the other hand, if there is Micro$oft Dr. Bob or something, and it crashes all the time and such, then Micro$oft can be held responsible, and both the hospital and patients can sue them for making crappy software. Even though this product would be less reliable, it is better from a legal standpoint as they could shift the blame to someone else rather than the hospital.
One problem with this - Microsoft's license states that they can in no way be liable for any damage that may occur when using their software.
Has Microsoft ever been sued for producing faulty software?
It's official; they have finally combined the world's two greatest playthings: Legos and Linux
Figure out a way to get sex and beer into
the mix, then you'll really have something!
While I don't have anything against RPN in priciple, I never could quite get used to it... (then again, I've never actually owned an HP calc, this was just from trying friends' calcs)
Once you learn it, RPM beats algebraic notation
hands down. It is especially nifty for programmable
calculators.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a series based on Cpt. Sulu as has been talked about would be the way to go.
Braga and Berman rejected that idea because it had the potential to be good.
Please just let this be better than Voyager... please God please
At least it can't be any worse. Or can it?
The lack of possibility to fund good/hi class content providing has made the internet filled with almost 100% crap.
Closer to 90% crap - then again everything is 90% crap (the internet is not an exception to Sturgeon's Law).
This was actually a plot point in Stephen Baxter's novel, Titan
*** SPOILER BELOW ***
In Titan a Pat Buchanan type clown gets elected president of the U.S.A. He then has the military develop a virus that targets Han Chinese. The Chinese get wind of this and retaliate by redirecting an asteroid to crash into the Atlantic Ocean. Apparently the impact not only destroys the U.S., but ends up wiping out all humanity. Oops!
Why the heck should I choose KDE?
The neat thing is that you don't have to. KDE apps will run fine in a Gnome environment (and vice versa). As long as you have all the proper libraries, they coexist quite nicely. So if you're hooked on Gnome but find a KDE app you can't live without, you don't have to abandon Gnome.
in the novel, it was Saturn, not Jupiter.
It was supposed to be Saturn in the movie (the novel and script were written in parallel). It was changed to Jupiter because Kubrick wasn't satisfied with the effects for Saturn's rings.
Interestingly, the score was almost an afterthought. Kubrick apparently hired someone to score the film.
Alex North. A few years ago, Jerry Goldsmith releases a CD with Alex North's music.
You can't get something from nothing. Case closed. Prove it
Doesn't Pluto and it's moon Charon orbit around each other? I'm pretty certain they do.
So? The earth and its moon orbit around each other.Anyone who has studied carbon dating knows that it's always an estimate and that the estimate is usually modified to fit better with the carbon dating number of other things in the location the object was found.
For example, if they dated a rock to 140mil years, but the plant matter only dated to 100mil years, they would adjust them both so that they are closer. The idea is that since they were both found in a location that is assumed to be old and they both are found together, the carbon dating must be a little off, so it needs to be adjusted since it would make no sense for them to be so far apart. You see how this is circular reasoning.
Anyone who has studied carbon dating would know that carbon dating can't be used to date anything older than about 50,000 years. Based on you example, you obviously have never studied carbon dating.
but we have never seen one species evolve into a sexually incompatible one.
Yes, we have - check out this link and this one .It's sad how as Christians we are laughed at for believing in a omnipotent creator who designed and created this world for us, but scientists who subscribe to theories such as the "Big Bang"
How about Christians who subscribe to theories like the Big Bang? For example, Father Georges LeMaitre (a Catholic priest who was studying Einsteins theory of genral relativity) was the originator of the big bang theory.
are not, even though they are physically impossible if you apply even rudementary physics to their theories.
Please enlighten us, tell us why the big bang is physically impossible and how rudimentery physics invalidates the big bang.
Both creationism and the evolution can not be proved 100%, but I can give you more concrete and physically possible examples to help prove creationism than a scientist could for evolution.
I you can, why don't you?
That is why I believe it. Not because I know 100%, but because the proof that is avaiable points towards creationism and away from evolution.
Please some of these proofs that point towards creationism.
To start off... scientists use circular reasoning (that is a bad thing) to figure out the age of old rocks, animals and plant matter. They use the rocks to determine the age of the plants and animals and use the plants and animals to determine the age of the rocks. No joke here.. the ages they place on things are only estimates.. as they rightly should be given the way they do it.
This is quite frankly wrong. Please do some actual research (just don't read creationists tracks) on how things are actually dated. A good place to start, go to:
The Talk Origins Archive
and look for "The Age of the Earth FAQ."
Ensteinian theory, as elegant as it might be is not tested, and I seriously doubdt it could be tested some day.
If by "Ensteinian theory", you're referring to special relativity (mentioned earlier), then it has in fact been tested. Relativistic effects, for example, are observed in particle accelerators and can also measured using atomic clocks in airplanes.
Macroevolution requires that different descendants of one organism become different species (i.e., can't breed). No documented cases of speciation have yet been found.
Actually, using your definition, speciation has been observed. Check out the links in my previous post, or go to The Talk.Origins Archive and do a search on speciation.
I'm not sure whether you understand the term "theory." Einsteinian relativity is a theory. Maxwellian quantum mechanics is theory. A theory is a hypothesis which has been proposed and scientifically tested. They are considered reliable until disproven.
Maxwellian quantum mechanics: Hmmm, WTF is that? I studied physics for 6 years and never heard of such a thing.
While such constructs as the big-bang theory have been calculated and tested and refined, macroevolution
Define macroevolution. How is it different from microevolution?
as such has not been scientifically proven or even proven to be plausible. As of now, no plausible method for speciation (the separation of one species into two) has been proposed, and not one single instance of it has ever been documented.
Ummm, check out:
Observed Instances of Speciation
and
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Decades of concerted efforts to create new species from fruit flies, for instance, have been completely unable to do so--and this was guided as opposed to the chaotic forces of nature.
See the links above
Microsoft didn't get to be as successful as it did by creating obfuscated code you know.
Based on what I've seen of Microsoft Code, I have to disagree.
when Kubrick was close to death he asked Spielberg to finish the film.
Since Kubrick's death was quite unexpected, I question that there was any such request.
If something intervenes in treatment (ie, calculates dosages automatically) it is a medical device, and subject to FDA regulation. Contract or no, the FDA can kick Bill's ass. And, if there is action against Bill, that should be a tolerable defence in a malpractice case. And since Bill has more money than any doc I know....
In that case, the liability would be with the manfacturer of the device - So Bill's of the hook, unless Microsoft gets into the medical equipment business (a scary thought).
Now, on the other hand, if there is Micro$oft Dr. Bob or something, and it crashes all the time and such, then Micro$oft can be held responsible, and both the hospital and patients can sue them for making crappy software. Even though this product would be less reliable, it is better from a legal standpoint as they could shift the blame to someone else rather than the hospital.
One problem with this - Microsoft's license states that they can in no way be liable for any damage that may occur when using their software.
Has Microsoft ever been sued for producing faulty software?
What hazardous material are we talking about?
Maybe he's thinking Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG's). I'm not sure if Mir has any RTG's.
If I remembers correctly, a Lunar Module's RTG survived re-entry and is now at the bottom of the Pacific.
Apart from the disruption caused by a large weight dropping into water
My guess is that it will be a bunch relatively small "weights" dropping into the water
the fact that inevitably, the structure of Mir will begin to decay, especially at the pressures encountered at the bottom of the ocean.
I bet their won't be any part of Mir intact enough for pressure to be an issue
The end result - radioactive contamination will poison the ocean.
Any potential radioactive contamination will be far less then the contamination from all the nuclear tests that were conducted in the Pacific.
If they have to get rid of Mir by dropping it into the ocean, then they should damn well get rid of the hazardous material it contains first.
Anybody have any idea of how much "hazardous material" is on Mir? I would guess it is pretty small compred to other sources of pollution.
I say that a Presidential Nominee cannot be President until at least 50% of eligible voters actually vote.
The constitution says otherwise.
It's official; they have finally combined the world's two greatest playthings: Legos and Linux Figure out a way to get sex and beer into the mix, then you'll really have something!
Once you learn it, RPM beats algebraic notation hands down. It is especially nifty for programmable calculators.
Try 83, though still not a spring chicken.