*grml* should've previewed*grml*
I'll just state the obvious by saying that they're comparing apples and oranges. They should be comparing today's pre-30 people w/ pre-30 people from a generation that didn't rely so heavily on electronics/ gadgets. I'm sure there were studies done on this sort of thing, and it would be a much better comparison. And is it just me or do older people in general pay more attention to birthdays/ special dates (more free time etc.)? Oh, and then there's this part:
Professor Roberston, who oversaw the research to mark the launch of Puzzler Brain Trainer Magazine, said that a series of five simple exercises a day can help to increase memory capacity. So the guy who's doing the experiment/ study is launching a magazine that aims to improve the memorization ability of its readers... Hmmmm.
I'll just state the obvious by saying that they're comparing apples and oranges. They should be comparing today's
Professor Roberston, who oversaw the research to mark the launch of Puzzler Brain Trainer Magazine, said that a series of five simple exercises a day can help to increase memory capacity. So the guy who's doing the experiment/ study is launching a magazine that aims to improve the memorization ability of its readers... Hmmmm.
Yeah, I definitely didn't cover all angles, but some other people went in more detail. Just look at some other posts in this thread titled:
"All cited articles are from the same source"
"Ummm, err...what? Your slant analysis is slanted"
"The Trial Was a Pig Circus, He Never Had a Chance"
It basically boils down to: the article attacks the current bush administration, which doesn't make much sense based on his own presented data (US 7% emission growth, Europe 8%: i.e. US greenhouse emissions rose LESS). Again, it doesn't matter that 1990 is the generally agreed to starting time for emission comparisons, because that's not the point they're trying to make! And of course stuff happened that reduced emissions before 1997, but it wasn't a significant political topic. The Kyoto agreement definitely put the issue on the minds of a lot more people/ politicians. Finally, w/ regards to the 5 greenhouse gases that are being omitted by the administration... I said that they should have included them, so we're on the same page;) But I think most people don't care as much about the other ones, cause they're not as well-known (except for methane probably). That was most definitely a political choice in light of the "carbon-neutral" lingo that is being thrown around atm.
I think the author makes some good points, but to say that his time-frame (1990 - 2004) is the "right one" misses the argument the other scientists want to make. They purposely chose 1997 as a starting point because that's when the countries officially decided to do something about greenhouse gas emissions. Nobody's denying that nothing was done pre-1997, so using that data doesn't offer any real insight. Yeah, they still should've used the other 5 greenhouse gases in their analysis, but w/ all the crazy liberals talking about "carbon neutral"-whatever, CO2 is kind of a big buzz word when it comes to addressing emissions. And using 2000-2004 as a time frame is really short, but they do mention that they're not too hung up on this short-term data:
It's always going to go up and down, and so you can't pick
any one moment in time to gauge your progress. As I said, this is a marathon, it's not a
sprint. We want to see what the overall trend lines look like. Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that the original analysis that the US is doing better than Europe isn't complete BS and that more people should read the article and try to understand both sides of the story instead of spreading more FUD.
Cheers
I think you're mistaking for what market-driven means. If the government imposes tariffs on certain products/ services, then the government is actively changing the market by endorsing certain products (i.e. not letting the market regulate itself). In a true free market capitalism world, the government would stay out of this kinda business and let the consumer decide. If the consumers purchase environmentally-friendly products en masse (which will probably be more expensive), then companies will start catering to those people, and then the market will regulate itself into making more environmentally conscious products.
"Junk DNA" and "millions of genes in humans" are but a few things that have been mentioned in the comments and are complete nonsense. As usual, the article is really light on the specifics and exagerates the actual scientific achievements. Using common tools (BLAST, ClustalW, etc.) it is rather easy to first of all compare genomes from different organisms. No big deal on that part. A lot of people do it all the time with various organisms and discover a lot differences along the way. And it shouldn't be a surprise that if a protein has an additional 45 amino acids, that it would then affect its structure. I'm not saying it isn't interesting or shouldn't be further investigated, but c'mon, this isn't earth shattering. And now all the people here throwing around various biological terms like they're candy... The terms that are relevant for their research are:
- Introns (regions within genes that aren't transcribed into mRNA)
- Exons (regions that are transcribed into mRNA)
- Alternative splicing (different proteins can be made out of the same gene, but different exons were used. Ie an alternative combination of exons was "spliced" together)
- Genes (encodes one or multiple proteins)
- Promoter (place where another protein can bind to and "promote" transcription of the gene)
- Codon (triplet of bases; ex: AUG, TTA, GTC, etc.)
- mRNA (string of basepairs from which codons are read and translated into amino acids --> protein)
- Non-coding region (yeah, guess what that means)
It's a pretty brief overview, but please google or wikipedia a few minutes about this topic before posting. Wikipedia-ing the terms i've mentioned should give a solid understanding of what's important to understand for this article.
Don't kid yourself, while Microsoft doesn't have much buzz going for its products at this moment, it still makes gobs of money. (Microsofts Annual Report) While you might not approve of how they're doing business, they're still faring very well and won't run out of cash anytime soon.
Given Yahoo!'s reluctance in the past to enter a deal w/ Microsoft, I also wouldn't be too worried that Microsoft will significantly change the way Yahoo! operates. Of course all of this is pure speculation, but I would presume that as with most major mergers, Yahoo! would remain an independent entity. The last thing they want to do is combine both services and potentially alienate existing customers. They wouldn't focus on bridging existing services, but rather enable future products to work together better.
It's clear that Microsoft is falling behind in the internet race, and I would welcome a merger between Yahoo! and Microsoft if not only to offer some better competition for Google.
The article is light on any real scientific information, so for the few people that are interested in what Pha-4 is about, checkout the following link:
It's not that they're necessarily bad, but that they pack in dozens of features that you don't necessarily need (potentially bloating the size of your page download by tens to hundreds of K) or even want.
I can't speak for all frameworks, but Dojo allows you to build your own custom dojo.js with whatever features you'll need. So it's really not a big problem if you don't want to have all their UI widgets, but like their event system. I wouldn't be surprised if most professional frameworks allow the developer to customize the features of the framework. Here's the link to a tool that builds the custom dojo.js for you:
First of all, you can't expect it to display every website nicely. If you plan on viewing it more often on your cell phone, you should consider designing it for that platform. I think keeping it simple is the best way to go if you want to have it look nice on any mobile device. My San Diego Traffic website looks just fine, but then again there's very litte to fuck up.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the link to the official website of BugLabs.
I'll just state the obvious by saying that they're comparing apples and oranges. They should be comparing today's pre-30 people w/ pre-30 people from a generation that didn't rely so heavily on electronics/ gadgets. I'm sure there were studies done on this sort of thing, and it would be a much better comparison. And is it just me or do older people in general pay more attention to birthdays/ special dates (more free time etc.)? Oh, and then there's this part: Professor Roberston, who oversaw the research to mark the launch of Puzzler Brain Trainer Magazine, said that a series of five simple exercises a day can help to increase memory capacity. So the guy who's doing the experiment/ study is launching a magazine that aims to improve the memorization ability of its readers... Hmmmm.
I'll just state the obvious by saying that they're comparing apples and oranges. They should be comparing today's Professor Roberston, who oversaw the research to mark the launch of Puzzler Brain Trainer Magazine, said that a series of five simple exercises a day can help to increase memory capacity. So the guy who's doing the experiment/ study is launching a magazine that aims to improve the memorization ability of its readers... Hmmmm.
Firefox 2.0.0.4 for Windows Results:
From the 43 selectors 26 have passed, 10 are buggy and 7 are unsupported (Passed 357 out of 578 tests)
Internet Explorer 7.0.5730.11:
Any other tests to report?From the 43 selectors 13 have passed, 4 are buggy and 26 are unsupported (Passed 330 out of 578 tests)
- "All cited articles are from the same source"
- "Ummm, err...what? Your slant analysis is slanted"
- "The Trial Was a Pig Circus, He Never Had a Chance"
It basically boils down to: the article attacks the current bush administration, which doesn't make much sense based on his own presented data (US 7% emission growth, Europe 8%: i.e. US greenhouse emissions rose LESS). Again, it doesn't matter that 1990 is the generally agreed to starting time for emission comparisons, because that's not the point they're trying to make! And of course stuff happened that reduced emissions before 1997, but it wasn't a significant political topic. The Kyoto agreement definitely put the issue on the minds of a lot more people/ politicians. Finally, w/ regards to the 5 greenhouse gases that are being omitted by the administration... I said that they should have included them, so we're on the same pageCheers
I think you're mistaking for what market-driven means. If the government imposes tariffs on certain products/ services, then the government is actively changing the market by endorsing certain products (i.e. not letting the market regulate itself). In a true free market capitalism world, the government would stay out of this kinda business and let the consumer decide. If the consumers purchase environmentally-friendly products en masse (which will probably be more expensive), then companies will start catering to those people, and then the market will regulate itself into making more environmentally conscious products.
"Junk DNA" and "millions of genes in humans" are but a few things that have been mentioned in the comments and are complete nonsense. As usual, the article is really light on the specifics and exagerates the actual scientific achievements. Using common tools (BLAST, ClustalW, etc.) it is rather easy to first of all compare genomes from different organisms. No big deal on that part. A lot of people do it all the time with various organisms and discover a lot differences along the way. And it shouldn't be a surprise that if a protein has an additional 45 amino acids, that it would then affect its structure. I'm not saying it isn't interesting or shouldn't be further investigated, but c'mon, this isn't earth shattering. And now all the people here throwing around various biological terms like they're candy... The terms that are relevant for their research are:
- Introns (regions within genes that aren't transcribed into mRNA)
- Exons (regions that are transcribed into mRNA)
- Alternative splicing (different proteins can be made out of the same gene, but different exons were used. Ie an alternative combination of exons was "spliced" together)
- Genes (encodes one or multiple proteins)
- Promoter (place where another protein can bind to and "promote" transcription of the gene)
- Codon (triplet of bases; ex: AUG, TTA, GTC, etc.)
- mRNA (string of basepairs from which codons are read and translated into amino acids --> protein)
- Non-coding region (yeah, guess what that means)
It's a pretty brief overview, but please google or wikipedia a few minutes about this topic before posting. Wikipedia-ing the terms i've mentioned should give a solid understanding of what's important to understand for this article.
Here's the link to the official NUIG: DERI (omgwtfbbq) website in Ireland:
DERI
Don't kid yourself, while Microsoft doesn't have much buzz going for its products at this moment, it still makes gobs of money. (Microsofts Annual Report) While you might not approve of how they're doing business, they're still faring very well and won't run out of cash anytime soon.
Given Yahoo!'s reluctance in the past to enter a deal w/ Microsoft, I also wouldn't be too worried that Microsoft will significantly change the way Yahoo! operates. Of course all of this is pure speculation, but I would presume that as with most major mergers, Yahoo! would remain an independent entity. The last thing they want to do is combine both services and potentially alienate existing customers. They wouldn't focus on bridging existing services, but rather enable future products to work together better.
It's clear that Microsoft is falling behind in the internet race, and I would welcome a merger between Yahoo! and Microsoft if not only to offer some better competition for Google.
Here's the link to the official RFID Guardian website:
http://www.rfidguardian.org/
The article is light on any real scientific information, so for the few people that are interested in what Pha-4 is about, checkout the following link:
pha-4 Gene Information
I can't speak for all frameworks, but Dojo allows you to build your own custom dojo.js with whatever features you'll need. So it's really not a big problem if you don't want to have all their UI widgets, but like their event system. I wouldn't be surprised if most professional frameworks allow the developer to customize the features of the framework. Here's the link to a tool that builds the custom dojo.js for you:
http://build.dojotoolkit.org/0.4.2/web/buildscrip
First of all, you can't expect it to display every website nicely. If you plan on viewing it more often on your cell phone, you should consider designing it for that platform. I think keeping it simple is the best way to go if you want to have it look nice on any mobile device. My San Diego Traffic website looks just fine, but then again there's very litte to fuck up.
Here's the direct link to the cost analysis report: TCO Report