search results matching tag: expansion

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (215)     Sift Talk (15)     Blogs (10)     Comments (687)   

What is NOT Random?

shinyblurry says...

These sorts of arguments heavily weigh on definitions. What do you mean when you say life? Natural selection may not explain the presence of the first 'blueprint molecule' (which would probably be much simpler than anything we'd recognise now as DNA) but it can and does explain the massive expansion of data contained within that molecule.

A good definition is that something is alive when it is embedded with genetic information, and you can only apply the idea of natural selection to living systems. Non-living systems follow the laws of physics, not natural selection.

Similarly, what do you mean when you say 'information'? Clearly you aren't using the word in the way most people do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

I think that definition covers the sense in which I am using it. The information in DNA is stored as a genetic code with language, grammatical syntax, meaning, vocabulary, error correction and many other features.

Barbar said:

These sorts of arguments heavily weigh on definitions. What do you mean when you say life? Natural selection may not explain the presence of the first 'blueprint molecule' (which would probably be much simpler than anything we'd recognise now as DNA) but it can and does explain the massive expansion of data contained within that molecule.

Similarly, what do you mean when you say 'information'? Clearly you aren't using the word in the way most people do.

What is NOT Random?

Barbar says...

These sorts of arguments heavily weigh on definitions. What do you mean when you say life? Natural selection may not explain the presence of the first 'blueprint molecule' (which would probably be much simpler than anything we'd recognise now as DNA) but it can and does explain the massive expansion of data contained within that molecule.

Similarly, what do you mean when you say 'information'? Clearly you aren't using the word in the way most people do.

shinyblurry said:

There is no theory which can explain how natural selection gets you from non-life to life, to a cell with genetic information. Natural selection is therefore not adequate to explain the information in DNA. What we have observed is that information only comes from minds; therefore the inference to the best explanation is that which points to a mind, and therefore a designer.

Duke Engineering's new four stroke "axial" engine

newtboy says...

A rotary (Wankel) engine has a triangular device that acts as the piston, which rotates in a chamber close to a figure 8 shape. Each side of the triangle acts as it's own piston as it rotates, first intake through a port (no valve) then compression, detonation, expansion, and finally exhaust through another port (still no valve).
Radial engines (what I think you meant) are relatively normal piston driven engines where the pistons are arranged in a circle around the crank at a 90 deg angle from the cranks rotation. These are usually used in prop driven airplanes.
This motor arranges the pistons in the same orientation as the cranks rotation...a 90 deg difference from radial engines. This makes it far more compact, but also puts the pistons in a single, rotating, revolver like arrangement of cylinders. It's a bit of a combination of rotary and radial engine features.

artician said:

How is this different, or more efficient, than a Rotary Engine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

(Videosift should add support for HTML links... wait, what?) @dagg

eric3579 (Member Profile)

Steam Summer Sale 2014 Lord of the Rings style

SDGundamX says...

LOL, thanks for letting me know the sale is on. Need to pick up the "Dragonborn" expansion. It hasn't gone on sale over 50% so fingers crossed we get to 66% this time round.

Being Completely F**king Wrong About Iraq

bcglorf says...

I don't think you actually read up on the Al Anfal campaign if you wave it away as just Saddam gassing his own people. That was the least of the horrors he inflicted on the Kurds. If you don't care I can't make you, but I'll not idly ignore your ignorant claims it was less than what it was. ISIS hasn't even come close to it yet, and they'd need an incredible increase in their abilities and support to even try.

If you want to champion Saddam as the lesser evil, at least bother to study what he did more closely first. I'd also ask your opinion on Abu Ghraib and Fallujah.

As for American policy, I repeat my complete lack of concern for it when forming my opinion of what is good or better. I don't care whether America is some white knight or not, I care that Saddam gone is better than Saddam in power. My assessment of that doesn't depend on why America claims to have done it, nor on America's post actions or dealings with Saddam. Saddam gone leaves Shia and Kurdish Iraqis no longer leaving under fear of genocide(better than 60% of all Iraqis there). It leaves Saddams neighbouring countries no longer fearing another war of expansion and aggression from him.

And your on the right track with Hitler and Pol Pot when classing Saddam. Read about all he's done and you'll find they'd be right at home with him.

newtboy said:

From what I've seen so far, the current 'insurgents' (ISIS) are even more hard line, and more ruthless than Saddam was. They have not yet had time or power to commit the genocide he did while we supported him, give them time. They certainly seem to be working hard on it from my viewpoint.
I knew full well about him gassing his own people, I did reference it in my post. I'm making the assumption that, if they gain the power they're seeking, ISIS will be worse, I make this assumption because they already have shown their colors with the limited power they have, I would expect worse if they gain real power.
My point about the US supporting Saddam does not mean I don't see the evil of his acts, it means I don't see how we, as a nation, can really complain about them now when we gave him the arms and put him in power, and kept him there after he committed atrocities, nor can we use them as 'reasons' to remove him from power...since we supported him at the time.

Should I assume you do not agree with the sentence...Saddam was not at bad as.... Hitler...Pol Pot...etc. Perhaps you should go read about WW2 before attacking the viewpoint that Saddam was not the worst possible leader...I suggest there have been worse than him.

Titcoins by Pornhub

CaptainObvious says...

This will lead to a massive expansion of the money supply, causing extreme cycles of inflation, followed by deflation and chafe. It will also result in an upside down class-based economy where the DDD holders will overshadow the AAA holders..

On a personal note, my wife is going to make us Bank!

... but we practice a closed economy at home. So I guess SHE is going to make bank and I will make broke.

Colonel Sanders Explains Our Dire Overpopulation Problem

gorillaman says...

@Sniper007

Colonisation of other planets, if it happens, will not ease overpopulation on Earth. Assuming it's actually done with humans rather than, say bacteria which are so much easier to transport; it must involve small seed populations of colonists, not firing billions of people off into space. Where do you imagine the energy required would come from? As it stands in 2014 we can barely move a handful of people into low earth orbit, a few hundred kilometres away.

Think about the logistics of transporting and housing all these billions of colonists in a hostile environment. Making the environment itself habitable is an even greater challenge; we can't even seem to fix the one we have on Earth, the one we spent billions of years evolving to suit.

The expansion of the universe, meanwhile, is always giving us less material to work with and perpetually moving it further away.

@SDGundamX

Relying on technology to solve overpopulation is like refusing to stop smoking because by the time you get cancer science will have found a cure.

Scientific advancement is not a given. It doesn't progress at a guaranteed rate and it isn't a genie that will automatically offer a salve to every need. Or, to coin a cliche, "Where's my jetpack?"

Luckily however, in the instant case scientists have offered an easy solution to overpopulation: Stop having so many children.

@RedSky

Poverty reduction without population reduction - reduction, not stabilisation - is catastrophic. The current global population of ~7.2 billion is only survivable, never mind sustainable, because most of those billions are impoverished peasants who barely consume any resources at all. Elevating the poor to a rich, westernesque lifestyle multiplies the effects of overpopulation tremendously, even if it slightly slows population growth in absolute terms.

Rosling doesn't seem to understand the actual problem, and his predictions are at any rate, horrifyingly optimistic.

We need to be shooting for a global population in the range of 100 million - 1 billion. Any substantially higher number than that is an apocalypse waiting to happen.

BF4 megaldon easter egg!

Why I Don't Have A Smartphone - Tales Of Mere Existence

How Wolves Changed Yellowstone National Park

raverman says...

Maybe? Maybe that's why we're so fascinated with story lines of vigilantes and non-plussed when a hero kills anyone we can feel comfortable classing as "bad". Dexter, Breaking bad, etc.

Unchecked expansion of any creature is harmful.

We're stuck. We're uniquely social and empathetic (and selfish). We can't just kill off the baddies (but we fantasize about it). We can't prevent our population expanding (without ruthless mass contraceptives / eugenics). And we're part of a growth based system - like China: without enough young people to support the old, our economic system starts creak.

poolcleaner said:

Does that mean that there is an acceptable rate of harmful sociopathic behavior within human systems? So introduce large groups of calculating murderers into populations where the growth of humanity endangers the ecosystem?

Obama scolds O'Reilly. Good for him.

enoch says...

@lantern53
ill agree with the sentiment of your comment if not the wrongful use of certain words.

bush was a big business president.
perma tax breaks anyone?
to use the term "progressive" in describing bush is being inaccurate at best and dishonest at worst.

the bush admin pushed through some of the most extreme expansions of executive powers (thanks addington and woo).they are guilty of war crimes.they are guilty of spying on american citizens.they are guilty of perpetrating an illegal war based on total fabrication.
and all of it.every last bit...retroactive immunity.

now here comes obama.
and while his rhetoric is beautiful and poetic,having a strong populist flavor,the facts remain that not only did the obama admin CONTINUE the bush executive powers,his admin EXPANDED them!

/waves to the NSA

so i do not know where you get this "fundamentally changing" this country when it has been business as usual.
unless you are speaking of oabamacare and i would point out that obamacare is a health care provider bail out.

bush bails out the banks.
obama bails out big pharma and health insurance industry.

and we get to pick up the tab.

the rhetoric may have a progressive tilt but the reality is business as usual.socialism for the rich,capitalism for the poor.

and it bothers me that some people i know who were ultra critical of the bush admin are relatively silent in regards to obama.

Elder Scrolls online: the arrival trailer

TheFreak says...

It's too early for any news if a single player TES game is in development but the MMO is a massive undertaking with rumors of a massive budget. Zenimax Online, the company developing the game, isn't seperate from Bethesda/Zenimax, it's just a legal entity for the development team. So just how much can the publishing side of the house afford to commit to other proects while the MMO is in production? We already know the production of expansions for Skyrim was prematurely halted right before it was announced that ESO would be the next Elder Scrolls release.

00Scud00 said:

I thought I heard that the MMORPG is being handled by a different studio and should have no effect the next single player Elder Scrolls game.

Bernie Sanders tears into Walmart for corporate welfare

radx says...

If there was no welfare of any sort, people would still have to apply at Walmart. People with stomachs to be filled far outnumber jobs that generate an income. And while the population is increasing, the number of jobs -- in the long run -- is actually decreasing.

It was always clear that automation would greatly reduce the number of jobs in manufacturing and agriculture, first and foremost. Given that the latest burst in technology is represented by Google, Apple, FB and Amazon, I'd say the hope of generating jobs through new areas of technology fell flat on its arse -- those four giants are worth a combined $1T, yet employ only 150k, or half as many as GE.

tl;dr

#people >> #jobs, exacerbated by robots/automation and politically suppressed aggregate demand

--------------------------

As for minimum wage being entry level wage: that's the idea, but given the age structure of fast food workers and the number of them who worked the job for years and years, it is merely theoretical in nature. Many people are stuck in it, others are floating in and out of employment at minimum wage level. Asking for a higher wage becomes a futile exercise as long as there's an army of willing replacements on the market. Some corporations try to minimize turn-over by paying above-average wages (Costco, Aldi), but the vast majority engage in a race to the bottom.

If you ask me, all of us deserve food in our stomachs, a roof over our heads. And health insure, while we're at it. The establishment over here used to call it the "revolution tax", because it allows people to retain some level of dignity and prevents them from chopping everyone's heads off with a guillotine. I prefer a considerably more expansive definition of human dignity, but I'm just one of those dirty socialists, so...

bobknight33 said:

I say that if there was no welfare ( well not as much as there is today) then corporations like Walmart would have to pay more. Otherwise people would not even apply.

For every dollar the government hands out in welfare, the corporations have to give a dollar more to make working for them worthwhile.

Minimum wage is not to be a living wage but an entry level wage where one can better oneself and then one would have standing to ask for a higher wage.

Street Performer Rips 'n Shreds



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon