bascule

Why do you care about SRAM? I hate to break it to you, but the cache of pretty much any CPU is going to be SRAM. This is a very strange configuration for a computer you wish to permanently own.

The following Democratic Senators are obstructing the passage of a public option, instead supporting a more expensive bill that would provide a lower quality of care: Kent Conrad, North Dakota Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas Bill Nelson, Florida Thomas Carper, Delaware Also, shame on my own Blue Dog Representative: Jared Polis of Colorado's 2nd District. While representing the most liberal district in Colorado and one of the most liberal in the nation, he has steadfastly opposed healthcare reform. I know personal friends of his who have contacted him asking him what he is doing with no reply. The man campaigned on what can only be described as an "ultra-liberal" platform, and has since done anything but. I think it's rather rare for an incumbent to lose his party's primary, but given the buzz around here I think it's possible he'll lose the primary in 2010. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

I don't know what to say about this, except that my gut feeling is the Republican party is so divorced from the political mainstream as to finally start alienating moderate conservatives, and all this can mean is that these are people without a party.

To reiterate, the scientific explanation of the origin of life is: we don't know. Unlike creationists, science doesn't purport to have a definitive explanation when the evidence isn't there to support it. Continuing to ask the question isn't going to change this fact.

dunsapy, The scientific explanation of the origin of life is: we don't know. Unlike creationists, science doesn't purport to have a definitive explanation when the evidence isn't there to support it. There are only hypotheses: proposed explanations which don't contradict the evidence, but do not specifically have evidence to support them.

These might prove a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Other_models One model I find particularly interesting is the idea of autocatalysis: certain molecules are "self-catalyzing", that is to say they are catalysts for the production of themselves. Experiments have also demonstrated that autocatalysts can produce variadic versions of themselves, which provides a mechanism for heredity and a rudimentary form of natural selection. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis#Abiogenesis_hypothesis

We don't know, because the evidence isn't there to answer these questions. In the mean time, you're proposing an explanation: God did it! The evidence does not support this explanation, sorry.

Hi, apparently you missed this: We have no evidence of an "intelligent designer", so to introduce one as an explanation also goes against the evidence.

Perhaps you should try reading some of the other definitions listed on that page. Correct. However... This is what's called a non-sequitur, or more specifically an argument from ignorance Your argument goes a little bit like this: Premise 1. We have never seen life arise from non-living matter Premise 2. ??? Conclusion: GOD DID IT! We have no evidence of an "intelligent designer", so to introduce one as an explanation also goes against the evidence.

If you don't want confusion , call it something else so people know which theory you are talking about. Not sure where you're getting that definition from. When you paste something like that it's helpful to cite a source. As Mr Skeptic noted, the definition you're pasting is now generally referred to as "spontaneous generation" and has nothing to do with abiogenesis in a modern scientific context. Why? Do you have something more substantive than a metaphor? Because one can be studied scientifically whereas the other cannot due to a lack of evidence. To reiterate, you may as well be asking why classical and quantum mechanics don't explain the origin of the universe.

By who? Are you saying it's impossible for life to have arisen from inanimate matter?

I am doing this on purpose. Science has done a remarkably good job of explaining the universe, and I trust its explanations. Likewise, I'm trying to make you realize that there's not a good reason to suspect our ears are anything but sensors for longitudinal waves. There's lots of things that "could be", like unicorns, and leprichauns, and vampires! I don't spend a lot of time thinking about things that "could be" unless I have a legitimate reason to think they exist. There's a hell of a lot more to brain activity than just "electric pulses", but in the end the brain is just a classical physical system made out of matter and energy.

Creationists assume that all "kinds" have a common ancestor which originated at some arbitrary point in time, often 6000 years ago, which represents more or less the midpoint of Sumerian civilization. That said, the definition of "kind" used by creationists is rather elusive as creationists cannot even agree on when life began. That is what the multidisciplinary approaches to studying the evolution of life suggest, yes.

In support of my general position eh? Perhaps we need to go back and review the statement where I cited the Tegmark paper: I was citing the Tegmark paper specifically to refute the Orch-OR hypothesis. I brought the Orch-OR hypothesis up in the first place because it is the only attempt I know of to advance a scientific hypothesis of a quantum mechanical component to cognitive function. It's not possible to scientifically argue against other ideas about quantum consciousness, because these ideas aren't scientific to begin with. I later cited the Tegmark paper in response to the blog's assertion that because quantum mechanical behavior was found in photosynthetic processes in bacteria, this means we should be "open for the possibility of quantum coherence and entanglement in the brain." Tegmark's paper is far more specific to the question at hand than a paper on a completely different kingdom of life. Were someone to demonstrate quantum mechanical behavior in neurons, glia, etc, then yes, I would need to revise my position. However, in this case the position I take is based on the evidence. There is no evidence of quantum mechanical processes in the brain, and we are able to model the behavior of brain tissues without the need to introduce a quantum mechanical explanation. The blog you linked makes the specific assertion that we should be "open for the possibility of quantum coherence and entanglement in the brain," citing papers that have absolutely nothing to do with brain tissues. The Tegmark paper does. The blog you linked is taking a "narrow position" about quantum mechanical behaviors in brain tissues, and it is wrong.

Needs more Unlambda: ```s``sii`ki ``s``s`ks ``s``s`ks``s`k`s`kr ``s`k`si``s`k`s`k `d````````````.H.e.l.l.o.,. .w.o.r.l.d.! k k `k``s``s`ksk`k.*

Yes, they do! As Jon Stewart noted, they have a Democratic Super Majority. I think many of us are wondering the same thing. My suspicions, as noted in this thread, are that the insurance companies are successfully manipulating the Democrats. The public option died not over worries about Republicans (it's assumed they'll filibuster regardless of what bill the Democrats try to pass). They're worried they can't get all the Democrats to agree to a public option. For that reason, they're trying to push through a more expensive bill without a public option.

You should check out the Joe Scarborough article I linked on Republicans cheering for Chicago losing out on the Olympics

There's only one good thing that's ever come out of primal therapy, and that's the song Shout by Tears for Fears: 0bqgy1mebh8

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-scarborough/thank-you-mr-president_b_308022.html I'm not typically one to say anything positive about Joe Scarborough. I really do have to wonder if he murdered his intern. And he's not the type of person you ordinarily see in the Huffington Post. All that said, he wrote a rather interesting and provocative article for the Post, lauding Obama for trying to bring the Olympics to Chicago and doting on what political polarization has done to America. Specifically, he notes concern over the Republican response to Obama trying to bring the Olympics to his hometown of Chicago. Republicans in Arlington, Virginia applauded Chicago being ousted as a potential site for the 2016 Olympics. Overall, Scarborough's article is a painful lament of polarization in our country. He notes Tom Brokaw citing the "level of partisanship is even more intense today than during the depths of the Watergate crisis". It's a sad state of affairs.

Alcor is a cryogenics organization, notably responsible for the idea of "freezing heads", hoping future generations will able to revive them with advanced technology. The core idea is a noble pursuit, in my mind. However, it would seem that the execution has failed horribly: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/10/02/2009-10-02_book_reveals_chilling_details_of_how_cryonic_lab_thumped_remains_of_baseball_imm.html Not only were their facilities poorly maintained, but they apparently committed some gravely disrespectful acts with the remains, and ones which would certainly harm the viability of revival. But far worse, it seems they performed all sorts of unthinkable and horrific experiments on dogs. This is rather disturbing news to me.

This is equivalent to claiming that because physicists don't know how the universe began, physics is a total myth. Would you agree with that statement?

Omai. I missed the Necromancy.

The original goal of AJAX was to allow you to make HTTP requests in JavaScript. The term is now horribly colluded with a slew of other technologies which allow you to dynamically interact with servers and modify contents of web pages without reloading the page. Modifying the page dynamically is actually a technology called DHTML, but nobody seems to care about that anymore. The term stands for "Asynchronous JavaScript And XML" iirc...

My suspicion is that the insurance companies are behind this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/01/lobbyists-millions-obama-healthcare-reform ...paying 6 lobbyists for every member of Congress. Oi. I cannot help but suspect that the recent defeat of the public option has something to do with this.