| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2004/6/9 [Consumer/Camera] UID:30689 Activity:high |
6/9 Photo Enthusiasts. I'm looking for a camera mainly for outdoors
shots. Camping, Hiking, Travel, etc. I'm leaning towards the dSLR's.
What do you think of Canon Eos Rebel (D300), D10, Nikon D70, and
Olympus E-1. I also hear rumors of a cheaper Olympus dSLR in the
late summer. The only consumer compacts I'm considering are the
8 MP's, 8080, Powershot Pro1, etc., that have almost all the features
of a dSLR. Any thoughts on these cameras, or recommendations would
be greatly appreciated.
\_ Wow, check out all these photography geeks. Now I know where all
the net pr0n is coming from.
\_ sounds like you just want a fancy point-n-shoot and have no existing
lens. In that case, look at Pentax, Sigma, and Olympus. They tendto
be cheap, and their camera is pretty good.
to be cheap, and their camera is pretty good.
\_ shoot me an email. and for those who are interested in this
debate... join me. -kngharv
\_ http://csua.com/?q=canon+rebel&sort=d
\_ I recommend the canon 300D. I have one and I use it mostly for
taking photos while traveling. It is light enough (with the
stock 18-55 lens or a 28-105 lens) that it doesn't feel like a
burden to carry while traveling.
The 10D is basically the same camera as the 300D except that it
is much heavier, more expensive and doesn't come with a lens. The
added weight of the 10D was one of the factors that led me to the
300D. (To be fair the 10D's extra weight is in the magnesium body
which probably makes it a more robust camera, but the plastic 300D
seems sufficiently robust for ordinary traveler).
I would avoid the Nikon and the Olympus since they come with CCD
sensors. The images from CCDs are not nearly as clear as those from
the CMOS sensor in the 300D and the 10D. (AFAIK, the way a CCD
sensor works is that each "pixel" captures just one color and
then the other colors are interpolated from the adj. pixels. The
CMOS captures every color at every pixel giving a more accurate
and clearer/less-noisy photo). --ranga
\_ Didn't I hear recently that there was some EOS Rebel hack that
lets you unlock most of the features available on a D30?
\_ I just googled and saw this:
http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebel-tricks.html
I think the dig. rebel is a pretty good deal anyway.
\- if you dont have an investment in nikon gear, i would avoid
nikon, unless you are willing to spend $$$ and prefer nikon
look/feel/interface to canon. again, if you dont have a lens
\_ Is this b/c of $$$ of Nikkor lenses or b/c of Canon quality?
\_ Nikon and Canon has similiar quality. Both are excellent.
Nikon tend to have better wide angle lens, better macro
lens, and better flash technology. Canon tend to have
better auto-focus (EV +1 or better), much better focusing
speed at telephoto, and generally more feature-packed
than nikon for similiar-priced camrea body.
Canon is a better company,though. Nikon's long-term
viability is in question -nikon guy
investment, i think you need to figure out your total budget
for body+lens, rather than treat them separately. i think a
reasonable analogy is amp:body::speaker:lens. you should go to
http://photo.net and narrow it down some [either to 2-3 models or
compare on some narrow question rather than "what is better"].
i note in passing, that weight concerns can be a big deal
if outdoor = hiking with equipment. while the 1.5x multipler
is nice for your zoom shots, it makes panoramaic difficult.
a nice 24prime becomes a 35mm. an 18mm lens or zoom will get
you 28mm view field, but that is a $$, large lens. if outdoor
means "at the family BBQ" than this doesnt apply. --psb
\_ D70 and D300 come packaged w/an 18mm lens. Where do the
diff's betw. a pro-level $2k+ 18mm vs. the DX 18mm lie?
\_ in general, there is no such thing as "pro level" versus
"consumer" level lens. If you got the chance, look at
\- i personally dont use those terms but there is for
sure a difference in build quality as well as specs
between say the nikkor 50 1.8 [$100]and nikkor 50 1.4
[$300], or the nikon 18-35zoom [<$500] and the 17-35
zoom [$1000+] ... i think it is fair to characterize
a 300/2.8 as "pro" lens vs. a 300mm zoom at 5.6.
lens grouping can also affect optical quality, such
as whether a floating element is used. --psb
\_ yes, it is true that slower lens tend to have inferior
build quality than faster one. The cheaper lens is
somewhat optically inferior than the expensive counter-
part is actually generally not true (with exception of
\_ yes, it is true that slower lens tend to have
inferior build quality than faster one. The cheaper
lens is somewhat optically inferior than the
expensive counter-part is actually generally not
true (with exception o f
"consumer zoom"). 50mm f/1.4 definitely has better
build quality than 50mm f/1.8. But in Nikon's case,
50mm f/1.8 is actually a bit sharper than the f/1.4
counter part. For 85mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8, the 85mm f/1.4
has a lot more apature blade thus make brokeh a lot nicer.
counter part. For 85mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8, the
85mm f/1.4 has a lot more apature blade thus make
brokeh a lot nicer.
But aside from that, the optical differences betweenthe two
is insignificant. I have a 70-210mm f/4. And in that case,
Nikon's 80-200mm f/2.8 is optically superior, eventhough
I don't think they DELIBERATELY make the slower lensoptically
inferior. The truth is, bulk of the cost lies upon making a
lens just this bit faster. -kngharv
the two is insignificant. I have a 70-210mm f/4.
And in tha t case, Nikon's 80-200mm f/2.8 is
optically superior, eventhough I don't think they
DELIBERATELY make the slower lens optically
inferior. The truth is, bulk of the cost lies
upon m aking a lens just this bit faster. -kngharv
[formatd]
both focal length and maximum apature. larger the
maximum apature, more expensive it is. Just give you an
idea. Nikon has two similiar lenses: 85mm f/1.4 and
85mm f/1.8. note, that f/1.8 is only 2/3 stop slower than
f/1.4. But 85mm f/1.4 cost twice as much, and weights
three times as much as 85mm f/1.8. Does it mean that
85mm f/1.8 is optically inferior? no. all it means
is that it is slower, nothing more.
\- BTW, I cant emphasize enough about the weight. when you
are "travelling" it is a big commitment to carry 5lbs and
+$3k in gear. are you sure the "extra reach" of the SLR
approach is worth it? if you end up taking 5x as many pictures
with a small digital, you'll probably end up with as many
good pix. BTW, the main "feature" of a dSLR is choice of
lens, not can you choose iso level etc. --psb
\_ there are some feature differences too I think. i.e. can
you get the features like high megapixels, wide iso
range, and the various other settings in a much lighter
package?
\_ main selling point of dSLR is the flexibility of interchangable
lens. Sure, there are functional differences, but they are
insignificant for most people... or obscure. Example of
obscure feature: shutter lag. Would you spend extra $500
for faster shutter lag?
\_ main selling point of dSLR is the flexibility of
interchangable lens. Sure, there are functional
differences, but they are insignificant for most
people... or obscure. Example of obscure feature:
shutter lag. Would you spend extra $500 for faster
shutter lag?
\_ that's what I'm saying, it's not $500 extra for a
dig. rebel compared to a reasonable alternative.
sure if someone just wants snapshots then any cheap
camera will do.
\_ That's the _only_ reason I'm considering the 8MP compacts.
Weight. OTOH, with the dSLR packaged lenses, I'd only
need to get a zoom lens to 133mm to get the same zoom range
as the 8MP compacts. I was thinking of pairing the dSLR
up with a sub-compact for when I want to go very light,
and ditch the extra 2-3 lbs' of camera weight. The other
"main feature" of dSLR's I like is the fps and shutter lag.
Both are very problematic w/compact cameras.
\_ Actually most of the dSLR's come with a CMOS sensor instead
of a CCD sensor. The image clarity from a 6 MP CMOS sensor
is better than anything even the 8 MP p&s compact digicams
can achieve. I bought the 300D because of the sensor, not
because I could switch lenses.
\_ Recent Popular Photography and Imaging magazine gave the edge
to the Nikon D70 over the Canon Digital Rebel. It gives it a
bang-for-the-buck edge over the D100.
\-D100 is really sleazy naming ... implying it
is a "digital f100" when it is a digital N80
which is an ok camera but not really a serious
camera like the F90 and higher. btw, i really
really really hate the G lenses ... i like
having aperture control on the lens. --psb
\_ I just hate that the D70 has only ISO 200 minimum. |
| 2004/6/9 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:30690 Activity:high |
6/9 How do you go about watching a more obscure Olympic sport like judo or
archery? Is there some sattelite station that broadcasts everything?
\_ A lot of the more obscure stuff doesn't even get on film. They
might send 1 film crew as punishment... or they might not.
\_ They all get covered by some country though. Korea loves
archery. (They win every year). I assume Japan likes Judo.
(Although I've seen that on American TV too.) I know you
could probably watch the Korean coverege of the archery
contest online. -jrleek
\_ Excellent! That's the kind of info I was looking for. So,
is foreign sports coverage something that I whould be able
to watch on someone's sattelite TV or what? |
| 2004/6/9 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Reference/History/WW2/Japan] UID:30691 Activity:very high |
6/9 Another from http://www.japantoday.com A Japanese human rights activist who was taken captive in Iraq in April filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the government seeking 5 million yen in damages on grounds that his ordeal was caused by Japan's dispatch of troops to the country. \_ Given what happened to those folks on returning to Japan, this might just be a rhetorical lawsuit to slap some sense into his or her fellow Nihonjin. It won't work. -- ulysses \_ can his balls be any smaller? \_ RACIST! \_ 5 million yen = $50k. It's a symbolic gesture. \_ He's an idiot. He was told not to go there in the first place before he went. It's not even a symbolic gesture. It's a stunt. |
| 2004/6/9 [Finance/CC, Reference/Law/Court] UID:30692 Activity:very high |
6/9 http://www.captain-obvious.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=466 The popeye pic about halfway down had me in tears. The site is mostly work safe but it might draw someone's eye so be careful out there. \_ The only things more retarded than the Keith guy are the person egging him on and the people who enjoy reading it. |
| 2004/6/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30693 Activity:high |
6/9 How does one get rm -W to work?
\_ I've been giving money to the Kerry campaign as well as the
DNC and http://moveon.org, but we won't know if it worked until november,
will we?
\_ In the amount of your tax refund?
\_ So... rm -W removes movey from your pocket and gives it to
the Democratic party? |
| 2004/6/9 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:30694 Activity:high 50%like:30808 |
6/9 Any of you guys try Firefox 0.9 RC1 yet? Stable enough to use?
\_ Using .8. It's ok. |
| 2004/6/9 [Uncategorized] UID:30695 Activity:nil |
6/9 Reply to: anon-33296546@craigslist.org
Date: 2004-06-09, 8:50AM PDT
I need ESC and DELETE keys for my iBook.
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial
interests |
| 2004/6/9 [Science/Biology] UID:30696 Activity:very high |
6/9 He gets a little crazy at the end, but he's got a point.
Religious Zealots in schools:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38861
\_ Yeah, and what's the deal with gravity anyway? I have no
conclusive evidence that it exists. Back in my day, we didn't
have no fancy "science" to teach us about the world. We had
the Bible, and dagnabit, it was good enough for us!
\_ They're only religious zealots if you consider science a religion,
which some (mostly nonscientists) do. Schools don't teach any
science other than the generally-accepted theory. You have to go
to college if you want to learn about fringe theories. Since
schools have to teach such a broad curriculum, I don't have a
problem with them teaching only the most popular theories.
\_ I only consider science a religion when people treat it as
religion. This point is made in the editorial, but it's
somewhat obsured by his retoric. Most people I know treat
somewhat obscured by his rhetoric. Most people I know treat
evolution as religion, not science. In science it's ok to
know the problems with your theories. Not so with most
evolution advocates. To them it's like the bible, "It's the
TRUTH, it is the WORD. Evolution is FACT!" That makes it a
religion. You don't need craky theories to point out
problems in evolution's case, it's full of them.
\_ I don't know a single person who treats evolution as a fact
or unassailable truth. The strongest defence of it I've seen
is someone saying that it's an accepted theory.
\_ Man, you should get out more.
\_ When your viewpoint IS a religion, it's natural to assume
everyone with an opposing view has religious-like faith
in their viewpoint.
\_ Nah, I think it's just the self-rightousness that
reminds me of religion.
\_ How about this quote from my High School Bio teacher?
"Yeah, it's sceince so we call evolution a theory, but
it's really fact." (Ok, it's paraphrased, it was 7
years ago.)
\_ Theory doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Perhaps you should have listened better or asked more
questions at the time.
\_ You're letting the right-wing anti-intellectuals define the
debate again. Evolution is the most widely accepted scientific
explanation of the facts and, as such, deserves its place as the
theory of choice in educating the youth. The "growing minority
of scientists" who challenge evolution are growing because it
would be impossible for their number to shrink without swiftly
approaching zero. Darrow made it impossible for the fundies to
do away with evolution altogether, so they're trying instead to
insinuate their fictions into the debate through pseudo-
reasonable discourse, but before you know it, they're showing off
pictures of dinosaurs standing with neanderthals and voting to
standardize pi as 3.
\_ I also find it amusing that the religious nuts don't feel the
need to go after the physics and math curriculum(except for
the pi thing.) To me, e^(i*theta)=cos(theta) + i*sin(theta)
is much more indication of a god than anything in biology...
And what about all the time spent on Newton's law of
gravitation which is *known* to be wrong?
\_ Because it's right 99% of the time, and the 1% where it's
wrong is too complicated for high-school kids.
\_ right, and that sounds really reasonable to me, since
i'm a scientist, but that's not the point. predictions
of how biology works based on evolution are also right
>99% of the time, but for some reason the religious nuts
want people to make a big deal out of that in spite of
the fact that all the science taught in school, and even
a lot of the math has some problems if you really
look deeply at the Truth of the matter. It shows a
basic failure to understand how science works. The job
of a science teacher is not to teach truth in some
absolute sense, it's to teach what works, which includes
both evolution and newtonian gravitation.
\_ You all realize the Pi thing is a myth, right?
\_ sounds reasonable except the "predictions of
how biology works based on evolution are also
right > 99% of the time" part. evolution nuts
want people to believe evolution is like set
in stone. it's not.
\_ Could you describe what you mean by 99% of
experiments, and maybe a few example links?
\_ You all realize the story about religious nuts
legislating Pi to 3 is an urban ledgend, right?
http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm
Snopes doesn't meantion that the value they wanted
to legislate was 16/5 or 3.2. This was in 1897.
The bill was not religiously modivated, as I recall,
it had something to do with standardizing
mesurements. Not that this makes it ok, but it does
make you stupid.
\_ I could see some value in a commerce-based standard
for Pi. If some commodity is commonly sold by the
barrel, and you want to translate that into some other
volume, there might be value in a law saying "You can
use Pi=3.2 in your conversion and the other guy can't
sue you for cheating him."
\_ no way. the same could be said then for 1/3, 2/3,
etc., but it's not relevant. The uncertanty will
always be limited by the rest of the problem, and
the number of digits of pi used will depend on
the precision to which the diameter is known and
the precision to which you need to know the
circumference. This will never be more than, say
10 digits or so at the *absolute* maximum, and
since we know millions of digits, its just not
relevant.
\_ Sorry, looks like I was wrong about the reason
being standarization, it had something to do
with a math crank. link:
http://www.daft.com/~rab/liberty/Miscellaneous/Pi-bill-Indiana
\_ Catch this part?:
Fortunately, Indiana has, or had, a bicameral legislature. The bill
came up for first reading in the Senate on Thursday, February 11.
Apparently deciding to have some fun, they referred it to the Committee
on Temperance. The Committee reported back on Friday, February 12,
approving the bill, which then had its second reading.
\_ Pi is 22/7ths, just as Jesus intended.
\_ If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for
me.
\_ If God had meant man to fly, he wouldn't have invented
trains. |
| 2004/6/9 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:30697 Activity:insanely high |
6/9 Why is a piece of Laci's hair on the fishing boat evidence of anything?
If Scott owns the boat, isn't it normal that Laci would've boarded the
boat several times either at home or on water?
\_ If neither his nor her family knew about the boat, that suggests
Lacy didn't know about it either. Since it's such a small dinghy
it's pretty unlikely she would have wanted to go out sailing on it
unless she likes going fishing.
\_ Another point is that I'm sure some of her hair was on his clothing
and could have fallen off in the boat. I find my girlfriend's hairs
at my work now and then.
\_ Yeah, but how likely would a loose hair stay on a boat
after spending the day out on a windy bay?
\_ If it falls under the seat or gets wet... maybe.
\_ shit, how do pieces of 2lb test line stay on a boat for
so long?
\_ Would you *really* send a man to lifelong imprisonment or
possible death because you're certain beyond a reasonable
doubt that any of his wife's hair found on his boat would
have to have been there only because he killed her and
used the boat to dump her and the hair stayed there afterwards
for investigators to find, but if she had been in the boat
for innocent reasons or her hair simply fell off his clothing
then it was certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the wind
would have blown it off? You're saying that the hair of
dead people is somehow immune to being windblown in a way that
the hair of those alive is not immune to being windblown. I
hope I'm never in front of a jury with people like you on it.
\_ remember that particular logic train next time *you* get
jury duty. |
| 2004/6/9 [Uncategorized] UID:30698 Activity:nil |
6/9 Learn to indent kngharv, you fucking dweeb. |
| 2004/6/9 [Science/Biology] UID:30699 Activity:high |
6/9 To those people who don't believe that "evolution is set in stone,"
what exactly is it that you don't "believe"? Evolution through natural
selection is a process, much like how a quicksort would work. What
arguments would you have against evolution? I find it puzzling that
people would accept that a quicksort would work without question but
question naturally selective [formatd. learn 80 columns]
\_ I personally find 'macro-evolution' if not necessarily 'wrong,'
then extremely counterintuitive. My main problem is the origin
of bacterial life, which, as people below noted, is not evolution's
department per se. -- ilyas
\_ quicksort-- seeing is believing. You can observe quicksort and
see that the algorithm works by trial and error, and by induction,
proof, etc. Evolution-- can't observe it. You can make convincing
arguments based on solid facts and theory, and you can prove
it via small examples (British butterfly evolve to match the
color of the pollution) but you can't prove the entire history
of evolution, and you certainly can't prove it by via induction
or any other method.
\_ I believe you can evolve to using 80 character columns.
genetic algorithms. -williamc
\_ Your rationale is terribly flawed. One can say the same thing
about physics. Just because we have done a lot of experiments
proving that there is a gravitational constant doesn't mean
that G is the same everywhere if we were to follow that line
of thinking. The same can be said for quicksort, you have a
certain "faith" in your inductive process that it works. If
you posit that your inductive method for mathematically proving
quicksort works is valid you have to give the same credence
to something like a genetic algorithm, which has been also
mathematically proven. If that's the case then you
will have to agree that inductively we can apply
such an algorithm to biology. If biology were to follow
a quicksort algorithm vs. that of a genetic algorithm
then you would have to come to the conclusion evolution
occurs through quicksort. There is ample evidence that
biology follows a genetic algorithm, and you can actually
observe evolution at work on a small scale on a daily basis.
In fact, we use it everyday in recombinant DNA and in dog
breeding. There is also unequivocal evidence that all
life forms of significance pass their genes to subsequent
generation. In other words, the only way you can "doubt" that
evolution occurs through the process of genetic algorithms is if
you A) Reject inheritable traits B) reject the concept that things
change over time (in other words evolution) C) Reject the cellular
you A) Reject inheritable traits B) reject the concept that things
change over time (in other words evolution) C) Reject the cellular
basis for life D) Reject genetic algorithms as a valid algorithm.
In addition if you follow the conventional wisdom of
"seeing is believing" then I suppose you believe in magic,
little green men from mars, and that hobbits really do exist on
Middle Earth. -williamc
\_ I think that science and belief are simply independent.
Most of the scientists I know (including me, probably) have
at least one kooky belief within the realm of the unproven
and non-disproven. How is believing in hobbits going to
stop me from advancing science by, say, trying to measure
k_B better?
\_ It's not, until you start demanding that we teach hobbits
to 6th graders, to the exclusion of real science.
\_ I suppose that someone could decide that evolution happens
but reject the idea that a new species can occur, i.e. lose
the ability to interbreed... but this is a stupid notion
because there is evidence and observation of this too.
\_ The arguments I've heard is that there are two things:
micro-evolution and macro-evolution. micro-evolution is
accepted by all scientists but not macro-evolution. There
is also the question of why we aren't seeing a continuous
spectrum of living things as opposed to say lion and leopard,
evolution is supposed to happen through these accumulated
tiny genetic changes, but why does it often result in these
very distinctive species? I read some answer somewhere
but it wasn't very convincing at all.
\_ It looks like you're looking for an explanation of
"speciation". I think the accepted argument is that if
you start with a homogenous population, and provide 2
different ecological niches (either habitats, food sources
or lifestyles). Members of the homogenous population will
go into one niche or the other. Animals in niche 1 will
tend to interbreed with others in niche 1 and will have
fewer chances to breed with those in niche 2. If an
adaptation favorable to those in niche 1 occurs, it will
spread throughout animals in niche 1 due to "survival of
the fittest". That adaptation will not have much chance to
spread to niche 2 because of limited interbreeding, and the
adaptation might be unfavorable to those living in niche 2.
As animals in the different niches accumulate more
different changes, they become less likely (or able) to
interbreed, and so the rate of differentiation accelerates.
\_ A similar problem appears in the fossil record.
Basically, you don't see slow changes though history,
you see large sudden changes. For example, For
millions of years you have fossils of the same kinds
of fish. Then, all of a sudden, all those fish are
gone, and it's a completely new set of fish in the
record.
\_ You can selectively breed a hairless chihuahua from a
wolf in under 10,000 years.
\_ I heard that's more because of some unique
characteristic of dogs than anything else.
all cats look more or less the same for example.
\_ Do tell...
\_ don't remember. heard from a friend.
something to do with the unique way dogs grow
such that one can arrest their growth, thus
making dogs like chihuahua, which essentially
never grew up.
\_ The fossil record has a relatively coarse time
resolution. If there was some event to cause a major
change in climate/habitat/food sources, it might cause
everything to evolve to adapt or die out within only
a few hundreds or thousands of generations, but for
most animals, that would mean completely new species
appear in only 10-100 thousand years. The fossil record
would completele miss that change unless it was fairly
recent. After all, maybe only 1 in a million animals
get fossilized.
\_ All correct, but in order to adapt, you either
need a whole lot of mutation, or the genes have
to already exist. (As in the London moth case.)
This evolution seems to be happening on a much
larger scale, and faster than predicted.
\_ In just a few decades a Soviet scientist trying to
breed less viscous minks created a breed that has
floppy ears, spotted coats and 'barks'; 3 things
never seen in wild minks. Where did these new
genes come from? It turned out they were all side
effects of having the adrenaline system become
underactive. Turning one gene off produced a wide
range of seemingly unrelated effects.
\_ The whole debate about any scientific theory being "set in stone"
or a matter of belief is a reflection of both sides' lack of
understanding of science or of what the point of science education
is. The loudest people on both sides of this issue are generally
not scientists...besides, given that only about a week of a
typical yearlong course on biology is devoted to evolution,
and that it's not really important to major political issues
or technology, it's unclear to me why people care so much.
\_ natural selection has huge consequences for technology as well
as implications for politics. http://www.nonzero.org evolution
is a powerful model.
\_ Why bother to find out? It's already set in stone. Whether you
understand it or not is predetermined. You either do, or you don't.
\_ how about asking this question to the undergrads at Texas,
Tennessee, and South Carolina? Soda is not exactly the right
place to ask this question. Also, learn to obey 80 columns!!!
\_ Learn to not be so annally retentive.
\_ I think that creationists (some anyway) accept natural
selection. They can understand how one species can acquire
traits that eventually turn it into another. The issue is
whether an amoeba can turn into an elephant. That process is
not clear at all. Worse still, how can a soup of primordial
chemicals turn into the amoeba to begin with?
\_ Creationists don't even bother to learn what they're arguing
against. Is it easier to start from fish? How about fish to
elephants? Evolution (genetic processes) isn't incompatible
with an idea of a more limited creation.
\_ I view it as not more limited, but more elegant.
\_ Evolution doesn't explain how primordial chemicals turn into
amoeba nor does it say that it's not possible for God to
have created the first amoebas from which everything else
evolved. Why can't people just accept that the Bible or
any religion for that matter are all human constructs?
--jeffwong
\_ You are both describing "scientific creationism" which
sounds reasonable but which is rejected by science simply
because science often despises religion. Evolution is a
gospel to some.
\_ Science seeks to explain phenomena through verifiable
facts. Since a true "act of God" is not a testable
hypothesis, it is almost by definition outside of science.
For a field of science to include as a premise an act of
God is essentially to hang the whole logical construct on
an unverifiable assumption. It would be like a theorem
in math saying "1+1=2, except when God changes it."
\_ It is more philosophy than science, but rather than
allowing for the possibility that evolution did not
create all life as we know it it is taken as fact.
1+1=2 for given assumptions. Evolution is just a
theory.
\_ I asked God. He proved to me scientifically that he
created both the amoeba and the elephant. Adam named
them, though. God wasn't much on naming things after
the first few days.
\_ Two kinds of scientific creationism: 1) God created all
of this through the engine of natural selection; works
because the acceptance of God as creator does not impede
accepting the most rational explanation, but simply adds
a layer of faith the to mix. 2) God created all of this
as described in the Bible, subject to a few tricks of
physics but without resorting to evolution; doesn't work
because it requires the substitiution of faith for good
old scientific reasoning. The latter tends to get scoffed
at by scientists; the former tends to be incomprehensible
to atheist scientists but doesn't elucidate the same sense
of scorn. |
| 2004/6/9 [Recreation/Activities] UID:30700 Activity:nil |
6/9 There are no REI's where I live. What are some stores that sell similar
products? Thanks.
\_ EMS
\_ yellow pages? where is this by the way. REI is a gigantic chain and
some of their stores aren't called REI.
\_ LA -op
\_ REI is about a hundred yards from where I'm sitting right
now. Rosecrans and Aviation in Manhattan Beach.
\_ This guy is a retard who didn't even look at
REI's web site for locations. |
| 2004/6/9 [Uncategorized] UID:30701 Activity:moderate |
6/9 ARGGGG who deleted my Helen Kane post. I'm not happy about that.
\_ Is Helen Kane a hot chick? |
| 2004/6/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:30702 Activity:insanely high |
6/9 Orson Scott Card talks about Media Bias (and admits his own)
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-05-30-1.html
\_ The only so-called 'media bias' is the fascist right wing owned
nutters who have stolen our first amendment rights and are in
cahoots with bushco to destroy the rest of our rights. Well, except
for the second amendment which is the only right you never really
had. That right is the only one reserved for States, not
individuals.
\_ Is there a right to wear a tinfoil hat?
\_ Not enumerated in the Constitution but generally speaking,
you have the right to wear a tinfoil hat so long as you are
not causing needless harm to someone else which seems
difficult to do by merely wearing a tinfoil hat. So, yes.
\_ But if you craft your tinfoil hat to focus the sun's rays
so as to be a weapon, that's not permitted, unless it's
covered by the second amendment.
\_ The Second Amendment doesn't actually cover anything.
It's the only "Right" in the Bill of Rights that
provides no rights. So no worries! Wear your laser
hat without fear of violating the SA!
\_ Your tinfoil hat violates my first amendment right
to freely practice my religion of worshiping your
giant bald skull.
\_ It's still bald. It just has a tinfoil hat on
it, the second amendment still provides no rights
and your first amendment rights are in full effect
so we're doing ok.
\_ The founders thought to grant rights to 'states'?
\_ No, they thought to grant specific powers to the Fed, the
rest of the powers to the states and all of that is over-
ridden by the bill of rights which is for the people, except
for the second amendment which doesn't grant any rights to
anyone at all.
\_ Come on. Even George Will and William Safire understand that Fox
News is a right-wing propaganda machine. You hear all the time
about researchers being fired from Fox for not toeing the Murdoch
line. You don't hear about this crap at the so-called liberal
media outlets. Given the supposed saturation of the market by the
liberal media, you'd think someone would step forward.
\_ Personally, I'm not as enamored with Fox News as he is, but
can you argue that that articles he details are not
examples of media bias?
\_ they are *individual* examples of biased *articles*. He makes
no attempt to generalize them to "the media", other than to
say things like "on Fox News, and only on Fox News, we get
television reportage that gives us at least two sides of
every important issue." This statement alone is reason to
discount the entire article. -tom
\_ Can you disprove his statement? I doubt it. Unlike you,
I watch Fox, CNN, and a few other 3 letter news stations
so I have a basic upon which to comment. Unlike you. Fox
does a fair amount of rah-rah USA! but it gives the bad as
well. Watching the other stations you'd think this was
Stalinist Russia and the end of the world was near.
\_ Did you read the end of the article?
\_ you mean where he follows up that statement with one
about how fanatics are convinced they're in sole
possession of virtue and truth? Yes, I thought it was
quite amusing. -tom
\_ could someone remind me why anyone cares about what I
have to say about anything? -tom
\_ CFR (Call For References) on this. Where have George Will and
William Safire stated that Fox News is a "right-wing propaganda
machine"? -emarkp
\_ could someone remind me why anyone cares about what Orson Scott Card
\_ You won't get a reference because they never said any such
thing.
\_ could someone remind me why anyone cares about what Holbub
has to say about anything? -tom
\_ I think he says interesting things. I don't always agree,
but he's usually interesting and he expresses himself well.
Also, his articles usually result in more interesting things
on the motd, so I post them.
\_ and you blow away edits while doing that. good job. -tom
\_ Wasn't me, dummy. I use motdedit. A bunch of posts
were erased, and I replaced mine, because I keep what
I post around in case someone erases it. You get a
twink point.
\_ Anyone who counts tweak points needs to grow up.
\_ Fox News prime time: ~ 1.3 million
CNN prime time: ~ 0.9 million
broadcast news prime ime: 30 million
Extremely well documented (liberal) media bias on guns:
http://www.johnlott.org
He was on cspan a week ago but unfortunately segment not available
online.
\_ bias against guns isn't liberal, it's intelligent.
\_ that's biased! Besides, guns aren't the problem, they're
perfectly safe until people get involved. We should be
banning people, not guns!
\_ Ban evil! -- ilyas
\_ John Lott has been caught making up data on many occasions.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott |
| 2004/6/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30703 Activity:very high |
6/9 Bush Administration memos:
"What can we get away with that might not technically be torture?"
"Who can we define as not protected against torture?"
"Can we argue the president has the authority to authorize torture?"
Bush Administration testimony:
"We never authorized torture."
\_ Doesn't it make sense that someone might want to know where the
line is and what does and does not constitute torture and against
who? You'd be happier if no one asked and they just went ahead with
no central policy for this stuff? Then you'd bitch that no one
thought about it or set a policy and how evil the admin is for not
even considering setting any guidelines.
\_ I think he says interesting things. I don't always agree,
but he's usually interesting and he expresses himself well.
Also, his articles usually result in more interesting things
on the motd, so I post them.
\_ If they didn't intend to commit torture, or something close to
it, why would they have reasearched legal justification of
torture? Idle academic curiosity?
\_ Perhaps they wanted to get as close as possible but not over
the line?
\_ If that's the case, shouldn't the party line be:
"We never authorized this much torture."
\_ The New Improved Republican Party with 20% less torture!
\_ I guess the only reason you want to read about copyright
law is if you want to steal software/movies/music right?
\_ No, I'd be happier if the Administration would grow up and pass
on the memos to Congress, and I'd be tickled pink to see Biden
on the memos to Congress, and I'd be tickled pink to see BinLaden
rip Ashcroft's head off in the US Capitol Rotunda Thunderdome.
Barring that, I'd settle for Ashcroft in jail for contempt.
\_ Man, bringing the "bust a deal, spin the wheel" credo
to Washington would kick ass.
\_ Lies. Response deleted |
| 2004/6/9 [Computer/SW/WWW/Server] UID:30704 Activity:high |
6/9 Apache (2) question: I assume there is a quick easy way for me to put
something in httpd.conf that will take all requests to
http://www.mydomain.com and redirect them to
http://www.mydomain.com/dir what is the best way to do this? tnx.
\_ Look up redirect rules or just make /dir the document root.
\_ so mod_rewrite, hun? |
| 2004/6/9-10 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:30705 Activity:very high |
6/9 Hey, what happened to the sodomize kngharv posts?
\_ Perhaps somebody has already renedered the suggestion moot?
\_ Better question: What's up with all the sodomize posts?
-jrleek
\_ Some annoying people just scream sodomy.
\_ and mind you that in your world, sodomy is still illegal.
\_ kngharv got scared and learned to indent, so the message was
not needed anymore.
\_ no. i got sick of looking at kngharv's messed up posts
and indented them for him.
\_ thank you indentd guy. I think there should be some form
of punishment for 80 column violators, paragraph
interruptors, and other haines things people do to motd,
otherwise, these violators will keep on doing what they're
good at doing... fucking up the motd. I propose we
squish these violators for a week to teach them a lesson. |
| 2004/6/9-10 [Computer/Theory] UID:30706 Activity:insanely high |
6/9 A claimed proof of the Riemann Hypothesis is now a top story on /.
-- ilyas
\_ This isn't really news. De Branges has been claiming this for a
long time. He's not a kook, but most of the experts don't seem
to believe him. (In particular, note that the paper referred to
in this recent press release is actually dated March 2003.)
my name is lewis.
\_ awww. Well, it would be neat if RH were true. -- ilyas
\- It is true. We just have not proven it.
\- It is true. We just have not proven it. --psb
\_ Yeah, I agree with Feynman's intuition in these things.
It would be too ugly for RH to be false. -- ilyas
\- an interesitng contrast is the continuum hypothesis.
i remember being in a room with large math brains and
all of a sudden they started saying things like "i think
the continuum hypothesis is true" "i dont think it is
true!". although on another occasion the largest brain
of all in this area i believe came down on "i think
there is some weird set that can be constructed that
would show it to be false". --psb
\_ CH is independent of ZFC. We finished proving this
just today in class. The problem with discussing
the truth or falsity of CH or any other statement
involving infinite quantities is that you ultimately
have to make the case that our world is a model of
ZFC. That claim seems very dubious to me -- I am
not even sure our world contains aleph_0. For me,
the truth or falsity of such statements can only be
established w.r.t. some model. -- ilyas
\- well the famous indep proof gives people a little
bit of an out not avail in the case of RH, where
so many papers have to issue the "assumes RH is
true" disclaimer. this is not really my area and
i neither know much about it nor have good
intuition ... i was never lost as fast in a
math talk as one by a german fellow on model
theory. however the chiatin's omega stuff
sound kind of conceptually interesting. worth a
look if you are not familiar with it. back to
CH/ZFC: some time back P COHEN made the comment
"i am an analyst ... but i did some good work
in set theory" in 10 Evans. "you had to be there".
i could not follow WOODIN's work in this area.
--psb
\_ I think Omega exists like Pi exists. We have
slightly better algorithms for approximating
Pi, of course. I think I ll need another
year to follow Cohen's forcing stuff. -- ilyas
\_ I saw a talk by Woodin on this topic
a couple of years ago. He thinks the CH is
false. If I remember correctly, his argument
is that there are structures that can be
built up in ZFC + Projective Determinacy that
have nice properties and the potential to
yield very interesting new fields of
mathematics. One can build similar structures
in a different level, but to do so requires
that the CH is false.
\_ That's not an argument for the falsity of
CH, that's an argument that the falsity
of CH is useful to assume to get interesting
math done. -- ilyas
\_ And when talking about questions that
are independent of the standard axioms
what exactly is the difference?
\_ 'False' without qualification means
'false in the real world.' -- ilyas
\_ He's still been trying to convince people of this. The proof
is pretty painful, and you can't really claim this without
getting other people (a lot of other people) to look at the proof.
It still might be true, I haven't looked at the proof (and probably
couldn't understand it if I did) -chialea
\_ Does your motd entry actually say anything?
\_ Does she ever? |
| 2004/6/9-10 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:30707 Activity:high |
6/9 Microsoft Security Summit at Moscone Center on June 22. Has anyone
here actually been to one of these? Are they worth going to?
http://csua.org/u/7o6
\_ Pretty much they say, "We're secure, just patch and reboot a lot,
those smelly hippies wore the same sock yesterday so who wants to
use their icky software?" |
| 2004/6/9-10 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:30708 Activity:kinda low |
6/9 pgp/gpg: I'm trying to verify the authenticity of an iso file.
I've read the gpg man page and HOWTO, and I still don't understand
what is the right way to do this. Shouldn't it take 2 commands?
Here are the three filenames: DC0FCB63.asc
dban-1.0.3_i386.iso dban-1.0.3_i386.iso.asc
What's the correct incantation?
\_ wow it's sad that this software is so arcane to use.
\_ Is this correct? -op
gpg --import DC0FCB63.asc
gpg --verify dban-1.0.3_i386.iso.asc |
| 2004/6/9-10 [Computer/Domains] UID:30709 Activity:kinda low |
6/9 Bind question: Back in the day if i set my DNS server to be the
"master" it didn't go looking to internic to tell it whether it was
authoritative or not, now though it seems it does. How can i tell
it "hey, you are authoritative, stop looking elsewhere for than
answer. ok thanks, |
| 2004/6/9-10 [Uncategorized] UID:30710 Activity:very high |
6/9 Anybody use "Darik's Boot and Nuke"? http://dban.sourceforge.net \_ Yes. What about it? --jameslin \_ what do you have to hide? \_ More importantly, who are you trying to hide it from? \_ Yeah, screw you hippies! \_ credit card numbers? passwords? tax returns? --jameslin \_ Any problems? Does it work as advertised? |
| 2004/6/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30711 Activity:high |
6/9 Reagan's death to help Bush's election, yay! Republicans rules!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/09/inside.edge/index.html
\_ Maybe they planned it? He really died a while ago, and they
just released it now when Bush needed a boost? (Watch out for
the sudden capture of Bin Laden next month...)
\_ I hope this is a joke but it's hard to tell on the motd these
days. Anyway, donning my tinfoil cap for a moment, if they were
going to 'release the body' for political reasons, late October
would be a better time or during some serious PR crisis. |
| 2004/6/9-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:30712 Activity:high |
6/9 Here is something I don't understand. In USA, people kept bitching
about China's Tiananmen Square. The most illustrated photo was the
guy who stands at front of tanks. Just past month, Israeli tank
actualy *FIRED* the artilary shell at demonstrators, yet I don't heard
anything about people bitching about it. Why?
\_ you mean the terrorist hiding behind those kids?
\_ hello ilyas. Logic doesn't work in the real world.
\_ what makes you think this is ilyas?
\_ wow, you really don't know ilyas. i've never heard him say
_anything_ anti-israel.
\_ Hi. It's not that I think Israel can do no wrong, it's that
people don't appreciate the strain Israeli society is under.
Imagine gigantic Oklahoma-city style bombs going off in the US
every week due to Mexicans who want California back. That
would be a comparable situation. (This probably doesn't
need to be stated, but I am not op. Duh.) -- ilyas
\_ Well, Israel doesn't have Oklahoma-city style bombs going
off every week. Most of them are small scale. They also
have been and are still actively in the process of land
settlement/population transfer activities and military
occupation. Your analogy thus falls rather short IMO.
\_ Israel is much smaller than the US. Israel is tiny.
Larger countries can absorb more shock. I think you
may be rejecting the analogy because it makes it seem
like Israel is in terrible duress, and has been for
many years. Sadly, I think that's precisely the case.
As far as the military occupation is concerned -- you are
right. You have to understand though, that Israel is
_still_ at war with some of its neighbors (Syria).
Almost any pullout move on their part results in
their enemies growing bolder (remember the aftermath
of the Lebanon pullout). The situation there is so
messy, I don't really know what I would do in their
shoes. The IDF operates under the assumption the
palestinians and surrounding arab states work towards
destruction of Israel. I don't blame the IDF for
thinking this. -- ilyas
\_ Thinking? It's the stated, in writing, Palestinian
policy to destroy Israel as their ultimate goal. Not
having their own contiguous nation, not having peace,
not a bogus right of return. Destruction of Israel
is their goal. They not only don't try to hide it,
they trumpet the fact at every opportunity. Western
pro-Palestinian media simply ignores it and fails to
report the giant pink elephant standing in the middle
of the Middle East cocktail party.
\_ there was a discussion a few days ago. See the motd archives.
\_ The tank fired at a house, it detonated early on a pole in the
way, the shrapnel killed a bunch of people (kids too). The
Tiananmen Square people didn't have suicide bombers, all of their
supporters are unarmed, and never killed any pro-government people.
\_ And today the Europeans will suck their own cocks to get in bed
with China but all hope Israel dies and goes away so they can
get back to business as usual. |
| 3/15 |