I am against IVF en masse. Germany has it right: they pair one egg with one sperm, and they have a grand total of 72 frozen embryos. The US has 400,000 some. I guess Germany got burned at one time with human life abuse and learned from it.
Am am NOT anti-stem cell, just anti-embryonic stem cell. Adult stem cell research has provided over 72-73 (depending on who's numbers you use) treatments in use right now, with far less funding than embryonic research.
If for nothing else than pragmatism, money should be channeled towards adult rather than embryonic research. But now I've come full circle; we're back to the political agenda issue.
So this assumes they have the same level of wages? Because as far as I can tell, this is not usually the case. I don't care what level of wages they have. The government can't save you. We need a public education campaign. It doesn't matter how sincere and compassionate a politician sounds, she has to get the money from somewhere. And that somewhere will either be your pocket or a printing press.
What happened to American independence? A few generations ago, people would rather live on beans and potatoes than accept money from the government. John Maynard Keynes and FDR have ruined the federal government. It happened to Rome, and it will happen to us. When people believe there is such thing as a free government lunch, we are ruined.
What's "evolutionary medicine"? Is it anything like embryonic stem cell research, which kills little "tissue blobs" by the thousands, but hasn't produced a single treatment in use today?
I realize this is offtopic, but nobody in their right mind should call PETA. It was revealed recently in court testimony that despite raising over $30 million in 2006 (and spending most of it), they found homes for a grand total of 12 pets. The rest (over 97%) were killed.
Why are consoles the only thing that count? I don't even have a console, but I dropped $40 for CNC3. Red Alert 3 is supposed to be coming out this year, and it looks awesome. Won't that generate a lot of sales? Are PC games really such a minority?
I disagree. I don't think that the Linux community can count on any given company treating us as anything other than hostile. Ah, but that's the beauty of the GPL. We don't have to count on anyone. We can invite everyone to the party, and as long as it's GPL, they can do pretty much anything. The only tricks they can pull with GPL code are patents and trademarks (IANAL, so correct me if I'm wrong).
Flash drives are very nice, but I want bigger SD cards (or something similar). That way I can buy a pocketful of cheap storage cards for something like the Eee. USB flash drives stick out too far. (Although the type without any housing on the plug somewhat cure that.)
Is there some limiting problem for SD cards that prevents them from being 20GB or so?
It's also missing the Nokia N800. It certainly seems to fit the bill: a small computer, running Linux, WiFi, a tiny 256MB of internal flash, etc. And it's less than $250. It even uses a 800x480 touch screen (no keyboard), so I would rank it pretty highly against the Eee.
I added 'linksys' and a few other common SSIDs and it gets my email while I'm walking down the street, or on a bus:) You can quickly get a lot more than email doing that.
That is too extreme. We can't even execute people who cut up 6-year-olds and put them in freezers.
However, if executives were required to spend time IN JAIL, that might be pretty effective. Charging Mr. $$$$$$$$$ a few $$ isn't going to hurt him much. He needs to actually sit in a cell and have his photo taken for the newspaper.
Hmm, I just recently ran (someone else hosted; I got to fix the network) a small LAN party. We used a mix of XP, Vista and Kubuntu, and it worked fine with games like Urban Terror (great FPS, btw). Linux actually got better FPS's and was a lot more stable than Windows (esp Vista - what a nightmare).
But truth be told, I'd rather play RTS than FPS. Warzone2100 is the only half-decent native RTS I've found for Linux, but it doesn't even have a LAN mode. I paid $40 for CNC3, and I'd pay even more for a Linux version. But for some reason, they don't port it. Why? I mean, it couldn't be THAT hard. It will run in WINE with shaders on low, although no one wants to do that.
Oh yeah, I forgot. That required a crack. Linux doesn't have nasty DRM "solutions".
Which brings up a good point. Voice is FAR easier to eavesdrop on than keyboards. It's also just plain obnoxious. Imagine a plane full of people speaking yelling at their computers over the people talking on cell phones. Keyboard input is confined to your personal space; voice gobbles up a whole room.
Most Bible Thumpers have it totally wrong. IF they actually read the bible, they would have found that the earth was NOT actually created in 6 or 7 days. YES YES That is the GENESIS account, BUT, the original hebrew/aramaic translations describe a day as a period or era (really undetermined period of time) Psalms describes that a day with God is as a thousand years (let you look it up for yourself). this does not mean day with God IS a thousand years. It really just means a day is a long long time. hence AS a thousand years and not IS a thousand years. SO it is plausible he created the universe AND still have the big bang theory still be in harmony. Except that Scientists don't want to accept that and Zealot, fundamentalist religionsists do not want to acknoledge this. Er, I'm afraid you're comparing apples to oranges. Psalms is poetry; Genesis isn't. I don't think that's a good comparison.
Also, if there was death (ie. evolution) before sin, that messes up the entire foundation of the gospel. I really don't think you can mix the Bible with billions of years.
Coming up next year: the universe is 16 billions years old!
The current crop of Republicans are just go-slow Democrats. They are all socialist in the end. The only exception I know of is Ron Paul. We simply must elect him.
(I'm wasting some mod points I used on this article, but I think it's important enough.)
There's a simple, unambiguous test anyone can apply to objectively determine whether a theory is scientific. That is: is the theory falsifiable? Does the theory make predictions that could potentially be proven wrong by evidence? Intelligent Design fails this test. Is evolution falsifiable? Here's how I understand evolution:
Evolution is based on the idea that billions of years ago there was nothing, then it exploded into the universe. It then proceeded to condense into stars and planets, some of which managed to end up spinning the wrong way. Earth somehow got a huge moon without messing up its orbit, and then chemicals washed from rocks managed to spring into bacteria that could reproduce. These got more and more complex over time, and thousands of dead animals got fossilized (except for the transition forms, which apparently aren't allowed to fossilize).
As this went on, we gradually got our modern group of organisms, including humans. Humans became aware of their origins and made a lot of shiny charts of fossils scattered around rock strata, except for those pesky transitions fossils that didn't want to be included. Am I right so far?
Look, it doesn't matter how much you theorize, how many shiny charts you make, or how many people you get to mod me down on Slashdot. If the transition fossils are missing, then they didn't exist. This means one of two things:
1. Evolution needs scrapped. 2. We get to believe in punctuated equilibrium, where not only did those random helpful mutations occur, but they all happened at the same time!
Personally, I think the whole things is bunk. Until you show me some half-this, half-that fossils (that natural selection has weeded out properly by now - they aren't alive today), I think evolution is near the bottom of the credibility list. But people want to believe it so badly that they still excuse the total lack of fossil evidence for evolution. Now that's not falsifiable.
Slashdot Mirror
Then stick a plant in front of it. You might have a use a tad of foil to get the remote signal back there, but it works pretty well.
I am against IVF en masse. Germany has it right: they pair one egg with one sperm, and they have a grand total of 72 frozen embryos. The US has 400,000 some. I guess Germany got burned at one time with human life abuse and learned from it.
Am am NOT anti-stem cell, just anti-embryonic stem cell. Adult stem cell research has provided over 72-73 (depending on who's numbers you use) treatments in use right now, with far less funding than embryonic research.
If for nothing else than pragmatism, money should be channeled towards adult rather than embryonic research. But now I've come full circle; we're back to the political agenda issue.
What happened to American independence? A few generations ago, people would rather live on beans and potatoes than accept money from the government. John Maynard Keynes and FDR have ruined the federal government. It happened to Rome, and it will happen to us. When people believe there is such thing as a free government lunch, we are ruined.
What's "evolutionary medicine"? Is it anything like embryonic stem cell research, which kills little "tissue blobs" by the thousands, but hasn't produced a single treatment in use today?
Galileo != Copernicus. I know they looked a lot alike, but trust me, they were different people.
This may be awesome, but government healthcare sure isn't. Can you imagine? There is a 10 month waiting list for maternity wards.
(Good essay on the subject http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=01)
I realize this is offtopic, but nobody in their right mind should call PETA. It was revealed recently in court testimony that despite raising over $30 million in 2006 (and spending most of it), they found homes for a grand total of 12 pets. The rest (over 97%) were killed.
I'd rather not have standardized anything that smells like Microsoft.
Why are consoles the only thing that count? I don't even have a console, but I dropped $40 for CNC3. Red Alert 3 is supposed to be coming out this year, and it looks awesome. Won't that generate a lot of sales? Are PC games really such a minority?
They need to allow energy weapons. That would be really interesting. Perhaps they could only use them after a certain amount of time has passed.
Flash drives are very nice, but I want bigger SD cards (or something similar). That way I can buy a pocketful of cheap storage cards for something like the Eee. USB flash drives stick out too far. (Although the type without any housing on the plug somewhat cure that.)
Is there some limiting problem for SD cards that prevents them from being 20GB or so?
I was talking more about malware. Making innocent-looking access points is a popular technique for crackers, sniffers, virus-spreaders, what have you.
It's also missing the Nokia N800. It certainly seems to fit the bill: a small computer, running Linux, WiFi, a tiny 256MB of internal flash, etc. And it's less than $250. It even uses a 800x480 touch screen (no keyboard), so I would rank it pretty highly against the Eee.
That is too extreme. We can't even execute people who cut up 6-year-olds and put them in freezers.
However, if executives were required to spend time IN JAIL, that might be pretty effective. Charging Mr. $$$$$$$$$ a few $$ isn't going to hurt him much. He needs to actually sit in a cell and have his photo taken for the newspaper.
Hmm, I just recently ran (someone else hosted; I got to fix the network) a small LAN party. We used a mix of XP, Vista and Kubuntu, and it worked fine with games like Urban Terror (great FPS, btw). Linux actually got better FPS's and was a lot more stable than Windows (esp Vista - what a nightmare).
But truth be told, I'd rather play RTS than FPS. Warzone2100 is the only half-decent native RTS I've found for Linux, but it doesn't even have a LAN mode. I paid $40 for CNC3, and I'd pay even more for a Linux version. But for some reason, they don't port it. Why? I mean, it couldn't be THAT hard. It will run in WINE with shaders on low, although no one wants to do that.
Oh yeah, I forgot. That required a crack. Linux doesn't have nasty DRM "solutions".
Which brings up a good point. Voice is FAR easier to eavesdrop on than keyboards. It's also just plain obnoxious. Imagine a plane full of people speaking yelling at their computers over the people talking on cell phones. Keyboard input is confined to your personal space; voice gobbles up a whole room.
Correct. The cure is to have people who can fight back. Teachers with guns, anyone? Also, look up 'empty holster protest'.
GMail, Picasa, Google Earth and Sketchup all work. Yeah, they've got a lot of garbage apps, but there are a few gems.
Also, if there was death (ie. evolution) before sin, that messes up the entire foundation of the gospel. I really don't think you can mix the Bible with billions of years.
Coming up next year: the universe is 16 billions years old!
Mod parent UP!
No no no. We'll just have to make designs open-source!
The current crop of Republicans are just go-slow Democrats. They are all socialist in the end. The only exception I know of is Ron Paul. We simply must elect him.
(I'm wasting some mod points I used on this article, but I think it's important enough.)
Evolution is based on the idea that billions of years ago there was nothing, then it exploded into the universe. It then proceeded to condense into stars and planets, some of which managed to end up spinning the wrong way. Earth somehow got a huge moon without messing up its orbit, and then chemicals washed from rocks managed to spring into bacteria that could reproduce. These got more and more complex over time, and thousands of dead animals got fossilized (except for the transition forms, which apparently aren't allowed to fossilize).
As this went on, we gradually got our modern group of organisms, including humans. Humans became aware of their origins and made a lot of shiny charts of fossils scattered around rock strata, except for those pesky transitions fossils that didn't want to be included. Am I right so far?
Look, it doesn't matter how much you theorize, how many shiny charts you make, or how many people you get to mod me down on Slashdot. If the transition fossils are missing, then they didn't exist. This means one of two things:
Personally, I think the whole things is bunk. Until you show me some half-this, half-that fossils (that natural selection has weeded out properly by now - they aren't alive today), I think evolution is near the bottom of the credibility list. But people want to believe it so badly that they still excuse the total lack of fossil evidence for evolution. Now that's not falsifiable.