"Such arguments [show] a complete disregard for context, which stresses that the missing sexual element in man is woman. A more accurate rendering of the Hebrew than NIV's 'helper suitable for him' is 'a helper as his counterpart (ezer kenegdo).' The Hebrew term kĕnegdô consists of kĕ meaning as, like; suffix ô meaning his; and neged connoting both corresponding to (., similarity as humans) and opposite (. difference as regards a distinct sex extracted from him). The text does not present the sex of the 'counterpart' or 'complement' as optional. Four times in three verses (2:21-23) the narrator emphasizes that something is 'taken from' the adam or undifferentiated human and formed into a woman ('side' may be a better translation than 'rib' of Hebrew tsela' since it means this in its 36 other uses in the Hebrew Bible). The principle of two sexes becoming one flesh is thus grounded in the picture of two sexes emerging from one flesh (2:24). What is required in the story line of Gen 2:21-24 is not merely a joining or merger of two persons but a rejoining of the two sexes into one.
WSN nodes resource constrained. In order to keep the size and the cost of the nodes down, the nodes have limited processing power, memory and radio range. However, the resource constraint which has the most significant impact on many WSNs is the constraint on energy. WSN nodes are battery operated. Many wireless sensor networks are deployed in locations where battery replacement is not feasible. A node has to be discarded when the battery depletes. Energy scavenging may alleviate this problem in some sensor networks. Most WSN protocols are very conscious of the limited supply of energy, and try to conserve energy.
You see this is what really bothers me about these kinds of discussions. People end up adopting the same non-critical approach as the fundamentalist Christians do, if you agree with our side you are good and if you don’t agree you are bad. The arguments by people such as Acharya are pseudoscience, starting with the conclusion and looking or in her case even making up facts and arguments to support the pre-existing conclusion. I mean look at some of those quotes from Ehrman, I don’t see how anyone can take her seriously, I actually think she’s in the same category as M. Night Shimelmiml so bad it’s unintentionally funny, the “cock-rock” story is a good example.