That ratio is taken into account in the calculations presented in DeepSeaNews, see above, so the infeasible volume of water needing to be processed remains. Sorry.

A rather terse teacher in Beaulieu
Had a class which was very unreaulieu;
In a fine fit of pique, he resigned, so to spique:

Dear Headmaster,
I'm leaving.
Yours treaulieu,

Beaulieu

I submit a proof for evolution, by which I mean the fact of and explanation for mutability of species.

We will proceed by observation.

1. Life forms have offspring.
2. When those offspring are the result of sexual reproduction, they vary amongst themselves and from their parents in some respects.
3. More offspring are germinated/spawned/hatched/born than survive to reproductive maturity.
4. Variations exhibited by offspring are in some respects heritable.
5. Some heritable variations will make a certain individual offspring marginally more likely to breed successfully.
6. Heritable variation is passed between generations by means of the deoxyribose nucleic acid molecules known as chromosomes.

The first five observations, which are not reasonably refutable, lead one inevitably to the conclusion commonly known as "the survival of the fittest", though note that it is breeding success rather than actual survival which is enjoyed by the fittest; barren survivors don't come into the calculation.

When observation 6 and our detailed understanding of genetic heritability is added, it becomes perfectly _inevitable_ that a breeding population will change its heritable characteristics (i.e. EVOLVE) to fit its environment.

When populations are divided, observation 2 means that subsequent changes cause the two populations to diverge in their heritable characteristics, particularly if the populations are subjected to different environmental challenges or opportunities.

Sufficient genetic divergence then results in the appearance of different species, by which we mean a population with sufficiently different characteristics that a good taxonomist *says* they're separate species, or perhaps (given point 6) that chromosomal differences make interbred offspring non-viable or infertile. Q.E.D.
~~~~~~~~
I genuinely would like to know in what ways a creationist might argue against the above, if by creationism we mean immutability of all species created by $DEITY. If creationism is reduced only to special pleading for Homo sapiens, as being created in God's image, perhaps, then the debate is somewhat altered.

> many other data sets are expensive to regenerate...
Or maybe impossible to regenerate (for certain values of impossible). I remember reading a classified technical report (dating from the 1940s) related to military life-jacket development, wherein the question arose as to whether a particular design would reliably turn an unconscious person face-up in the water. The experimental design used was to dress some servicemen (sailors, possibly, but I don't recall) in the prototype design, anaesthetise them and drop them in a large body of water, checking for face-down floaters to disprove the null hypothesis. Somehow, I don't think that those data are going to be regenerated any time soon. I hope to God not, anyway.

I took the waypoint info from his tracking map and stuffed it into a spreadsheet. Synthesizing the vertical speed indications, it seems Mr Trappe may have had problems controlling his altitude: the maximum descent rate was over 600 fpm when approaching the New Brunswick coast, during a descent from 19,835 ft to just 968 ft in fifty minutes. Having bobbed back up to over 15,000 ft he again descended over the sea, this time to just 314 ft above sea level, with the VSI reading -220 fpm over the preceding ten minutes. I'm guessing that that looked like waves coming up pretty fast. I suspect that his ballast and helium might have been depleted to the extent that he was glad to put down in Newfoundland rather than ditch in the Atlantic. No doubt we'll be told shortly.

Three scientists took the train northwards from England to attend a multi-disciplinary conference in Edinburgh.

Conversation flagged as the journey continued, until some time after crossing the border into Scotland when the social scientist, used to seeing Friesan herds in the south, pointed out some Highland cattle.
"Oh, look", he said, "the cows are brown in Scotland!"

The physicist put down the newspaper and looked out of the window.
"Yes, so I see, but your remark isn't scientific, you know. You can't know that all the cows are brown. What do you think, Bob?"

Bob the mathematician glanced up over his glasses at the grazing cattle.
"Observation shows that, through this window, at least one side of some bullocks in Scotland appears brown".

Moral: question your assumptions.

As AC points out, I WAS talking in my first reply about whether or not SCOG could be said to own the code, not on the fact of copying or derivation from anywhere.

I'd add another point to your list of So:
-Even if they owned the code and even if some lines of it were infringed and even if Novell's waiver doesn't hold, SCOG went on distributing *the same code* under the GPL for years after they started suing folk (IBM, Novell, Autozone, RedHat...).

I've got a licence for the Linux kernel from Caldera/SCOG already. As SCOG's lawyer said in his summing up for the jury trial in Utah, SCOSource is gone and it can't be resurrected.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100326184700459

Please, if you don't have a grasp of the history, don't post stuff that just confuses the issue. Novell bought the entirety of UNIX from AT&T. Caldera did a deal to acquire the UNIX licensing business from Novell. Caldera changed its name to SCO. The courts have decided that the UNIX copyrights still belong to Novell.

You only missed a verdict if you haven't looked up for seven years! Recently a jury in Utah confirmed what a judge found in a bench trial: Caldera (later SCO Group) did not get, and was not entitled to get, the UNIX copyrights in the 1995 deal they did with Novell. Unless you think that the jury was unreasonable in that finding (and guess what, SCOG and its lawyers do), SCOG does not 'own' UNIX in any useful sense.