These are quartzite. The three types of stone that can be cleaved to make tools are quartzite, obsidian and flint. Quartzite is the worst of the three because it doesn't cleave well. If these hominids were "going to sea" you would think they could trade up for flint or obsidian. I'd guess that stone-age teenagers used the area for beach barbeques (the stoned-age). A few thousand tools simply mean a well used party spot. Turning a few old tools into a theory that humans were sea travelers a hundred thousand years before previously thought is a stretch.

Seriously, PAE? Come on now...

Even with PAE, then yes, you get the privilege of having your 32-bit OS running on 64-bit hardware access more than 4GB of RAM, but why? Haven't gotten a working crack of Win7?

At this point in the game, those that still run 32-bit OS's on hardware from 2 standard lifecycles ago just need to give it up and stop. 64-bit is where it is at.

iTunes music has been DRM free for years now.

Does anyone know if the app will be available at the App Store? I saw it on an iPhone that belonged to one of the cofounders from Ansca Mobile at the 20th anniversary party. Looked hot! Jennifer

"In the long run, guess what you have more... repeat ad infinitum."

There're two unstated, let's say, imprecisions on your statement.

1) Where you say "molecules that replicate themselves" you should say "molecules that *imperfectly* replicate themselves"
2) Forget about "more complex". They don't need to be more complex, they just need to rise higher affinity to their environment (i.e.: "steal" other molecules more effectively).

The word "evolve" existed long before biological evolution was ever contemplated. It is, in fact, a synonym of "develop", and simply means "to achieve over time".

The universe, the solar system, cars, computers, and all the various business schemes we know and love today all evolved over the history of the universe.

Apply it to biology, and you have biological advancements that are achieved over time. That evolution has become associated with biology is a new evolution of language.

Hotel California was the last time I ever looked at interpretation from an artist of their lyrics. It really does ruin the song in a sense, because I always thought it meant something different.

In reality it doesn't matter what the artist meant when they wrote the lyrics, it just matters what the lyrics mean to you, but still... hearing what they intended when they wrote the song takes some of the meaning away from the lyrics.

Thing about a black hole causing a disruption in the wormhole is that you're almost merging two of the same types of phenomenon. A Stargate warps space-time in order to bridge the gap between them. A black hole also significantly distorts space-time in the area around it. It is conceivable that when these two distortions interact that the wormhole itself is affected by the result. However, this does not need to break the idea that a resistive barrier is present to stop particles that are not under a constant motive force from bridging the barrier.

You're thinking misses a problem here. A tube between the ends would not open up a window, as you're thinking it would. Instead, the tube would be cut in half with the event horizon occupying the middle of it as well as surrounding it. Additionally, it's been described in a few episodes (One in the Atlantis series is one I can recall easily) that there is a safety mechanism to transfer items 'in whole'. If you're not fully within the event horizon, it will not transfer you to the remote gate. A tube used as you describe will not have gone completely within the event horizon, and would not be showing out the other side. Even in the Stargate SG-1 series when O'Neil was after some tech thieves, when he was 'holding the gate open' by keeping his arm within the remote side, it did not remain on the originating side of the wormhole. It is a nice thought, but precedent has been established that this would not work.

I never tried fucking a styrofoam sheep while doing underwater welding either.

You obviously need to get a life!

Between my experiences with Extron/AMX and Crestron at work, I can tell you that Crestron will *never* have any gear in my home -- ever.

To tell a guy that just spent thousands on automation gear that he can't have the software because he's "just an end user" is crazy. I bought the hardware. I'm not leasing it. There was no "license" for how I can use the hardware. It's *MINE*. If you're not going to let me have the software to program it, you're also not going to get any cash from me.

Oh Noes!!!111!!! You mean they signed a TREATY?!?!?

Well Golly. I guess nobody has ever signed a treaty and then gone and done the exact opposite thing before.

I put no stock in treaties. Treaties are something nations sign to give lip-service to a problem and then they make their work secret.

It's easier to have one system for everyone than to special-case a one-time-password system for my username.

I guess you've never heard of SSL-protected POP3/IMAP? Or even HTTPS for webmail?

Tokens work fine for large companies, but not for small one-man website hosting gigs that are losing money as is; OTPs also incur a rather large support overhead, which is something I'm trying to avoid.

Besides which, there's no reason to go overboard. Strong passwords are "good enough" in my particular case. Not everyone needs the added security given by OTPs, tokens, login keys, and so on.

In another replay I posted,

so I'd like to know, How would you support yourself indefinitely?

Versions X and Y of a DLL will be flat-out incompatible if that DLL is written in C++ and the author has changed the number of attributes in an interface class ....

Why would any developer do that? Why not create a new class with the added bits, and make the old class use the new one, passing in default values for the additions. That is backwards compatibility.

And the fact that Microsoft is so good at preserving application backward compatibility

Not for 3rd-party application code (which is nothing to do with them), but for the Windows OS code used by applications. And, from what I've heard, a lot of the "difficulties" here have been because Microsoft has lots of undocumented calls (so that MS products can do things that others "can't") which then non-MS applications start to use in other ways. If MS did have a fully-documented OS interface there might be fewer "poor practices". So it's self-inflicted, I fear.